One should also keep in mind the fact that in many cases, equipment is shared by more than one business, and while multiple business use of equipment might lead to more readily-justified upgrading, that will have little to do with how the commercial end of the business is managed. Mining chemicals vs Water-treating comes to mind.
Sounds great if I were writing up something for an MBA academy or putting out the corporate fluff. Unless things have changed recently, in reality, multi-product, multi-business vessels had to be justified on one product/business and could not consider any other uses. If the equipment, new or upgrade, was for product A in Business A, then Business B,C,D,... wanted nothing to do with the upgrade until after it was complete. Went through that scenario several times. Instead of spending just a bit more and getting the flexibility needed to decrease manufacturing costs for several products, the project succeeded or failed on one product or product line, even if the overall result was to lose cost benefits for several products. Multi-business plants were divided into fiefdoms in which overall corporate (or even business profitability) were not considered, just the particular fiefdom. Cooperation was only either forced or limited to specific products. It was very much like a department store with each counter deciding its actions with no accountability to overall store profits. Loads of counter-minders and no one watching the store. Heck, budget a product best made at Mobile or Kalamazoo on the other and either incur the additional cash shipping cost or then order it from the plant you didn't budget it on, then cry about the added cost, was the common modus operandi. If that continues to be the prevalent attitude, its easy to see how the company went from "we lead" to "me too" to "we're out" in the water treating business.