Week 3 Business Case Workshop: The Grooming Van and the Cash Cushion

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you built the coffee cart's start-up list and funding plan, checked that its sources match its needs, computed its loan's first-year interest, and read its industry with the five forces. In this workshop you do the same for a different venture, an illustrative mobile pet-grooming van that drives to customers' homes, and then use your numbers to make a real decision: should the owner open with a full cash cushion and a bigger loan, or a smaller cushion and a smaller loan? Finally, you check a chatbot's analysis of the same case and correct it by hand.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: What does the grooming van need before it opens, where does that money come from under each plan, what does each plan's loan cost in its first year, and which plan should the owner choose once you weigh who is helped, who gives something up, and the strongest case against your choice?

Workshop data: An illustrative mobile pet-grooming van's start-up list and funding plan

Source: A start-up list, a funding plan, and five industry facts for an illustrative mobile pet-grooming van, written for this workshop and printed in full in Part 4; it is not real data and describes no real business, place, or person.

• Rows: 3 start-up lines under two plans and 2 funding lines; the start-up table in Part 4 has 4 rows and the funding table has 5 rows
• Columns: the line, its amount under Plan A, and its amount under Plan B, in dollars
• Decision: whether to open with the full cash cushion (Plan A) or a smaller one (Plan B)

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them

Ways of working

• analyze-the-case
• run-the-numbers
• recommend-and-defend

Procedure

1. Open a blank sheet in a free spreadsheet. Type Line in cell A1, Plan A in cell B1, and Plan B in cell C1. Type the three start-up lines from Part 4 in cells A2 through A4 and their amounts under each plan in B2 through C4. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: Rows 2 through 4 each hold one start-up line with its amount under both plans, and only the cash cushion differs between the plans.
2. In cell B5 type =SUM(B2:B4) and in cell C5 type =SUM(C2:C4). Copy both totals into the start-up table in Part 4. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: Each plan has one start-up needs total, and Plan A's total is larger because its cushion is larger.
3. Type the owner's savings in cells B7 and C7. In cell B8 type =B5-B7 and in cell C8 type =C5-C7 for each plan's loan. In cell B9 type =B7+B8 and fill it right to C9 for the total sources, and in cell B10 type =B8*0.10 and fill it right to C10 for the first year's interest. Copy every amount into the funding table in Part 4. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: Each plan's total sources equal its start-up needs, so the check row shows zero, and Plan A's loan and interest are both larger than Plan B's.
4. Fill in the five forces table in Part 4: match each of the five industry facts to its force, then say how strongly it presses on the van and why. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: All five rows are filled, each fact sits in exactly one force, and only one row is about rivals already competing.
5. Complete the stakeholder table in Part 4 for the cushion decision: for each group, say how Plan A and Plan B would help or hurt it. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: All five rows are filled, and at least one group gives something up under each plan.
6. Write your recommendation on Plan A or Plan B, then paste the Part 6 prompt into one approved chatbot (or use the equivalent route), compare its answer with your tables, and write the critique report. Tool: A free spreadsheet (Google Sheets, or any free spreadsheet) for every computation; the SBA's free planning pages and SCORE's free templates for the plan; the SEC's EDGAR full-text search and investor.gov for what a real filing and a real security are; Census, BEA, and BLS data tables for real figures; and one approved chatbot used as a pair consultant whose numbers the student recomputes before trusting them. Check: You have a recommendation that names a stakeholder, the counter-case, and what would change your mind, plus a critique that quotes and corrects specific sentences.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if a spreadsheet will not open or a formula will not run.

Work every step by hand from the tables printed in Part 4: add each plan's three start-up lines on paper, subtract the owner's savings to find each loan, add the savings and the loan to check the sources, and multiply each loan by 0.10 for the interest. Fill in the five forces and stakeholder tables, complete every analysis question and the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

List what the van needs before it opens under each plan, because every later step builds on these totals.

Student scaffold table 1

Start-up line	Plan A, full cushion (dollars)	Plan B, smaller cushion (dollars)
Van and grooming equipment	26,000	26,000
Opening supplies (shampoo, towels, clippers)	1,500	1,500
Cash cushion	6,500	3,500
Total start-up needs

Show where the money comes from under each plan and check that the sources match the needs before you trust the interest.

Student scaffold table 2

Funding line	Plan A (dollars)	Plan B (dollars)
Owner's savings	17,000	17,000
Equipment loan (needs minus savings)
Total sources
Check: needs minus sources
First year's interest at 10 percent a year

Sort the five industry facts into the five forces so the plan's market analysis rests on the case, not on general advice.

Student scaffold table 3

Force	Which industry fact shows it	How strongly it presses on the van, and why
Threat of new entrants
Bargaining power of customers
Bargaining power of suppliers
Threat of substitute products or services
Rivalry among existing competitors

Map who the cushion decision touches, so your recommendation weighs more than the owner's interest bill.

Student scaffold table 4

Stakeholder group	How Plan A could help or hurt this group	How Plan B could help or hurt this group
Owner
Lender
Customers who book in advance
A groomer the owner may hire later
Suppliers

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Write the arithmetic that finds each plan's start-up needs, loan, and first year's interest, show that each plan's sources equal its needs, and say in a full sentence what the difference in interest between the plans means for the owner.
2. Which line of the start-up list differs between the two plans, and which lines stay the same? Use your answer to explain why the loan and the interest change while the owner's savings do not.
3. Using your five forces table, explain which two forces press hardest on the van and why, and say whether pet owners who compare prices online would be a strength, a weakness, an opportunity, or a threat in the van's SWOT.
4. Choose one: (a) write your recommendation on Plan A or Plan B in 5–8 sentences, naming one stakeholder who gives something up, the strongest case against your choice, and the fact that would change your mind; or (b) argue the plan you did not choose as strongly as you can in 5–8 sentences, then say in two sentences why you still hold your view or why you changed it.
5. The start-up list and funding plan show what the van needs on opening day. Name one thing they leave out, such as how many grooms a week the van will book or what the owner will charge, and explain how adding it could change your recommendation.

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my completed Week 3 Business Case Workshop tables above. They describe an illustrative mobile pet-grooming van invented for a class activity, not a real business. Its start-up list is a van and grooming equipment of 26,000 dollars, opening supplies of 1,500 dollars, and a cash cushion of 6,500 dollars under Plan A or 3,500 dollars under Plan B. The owner puts in 17,000 dollars of savings and borrows the rest with an equipment loan at 10 percent a year. Please do six things. First, find the start-up needs, the loan, and the first year's interest under each plan. Second, list the van's strengths and its opportunities. Third, name the five forces in the van's industry: two grooming salons in town, a new mobile groomer who could start with a used van, pet owners who compare prices online, one nearby company that fits out grooming vans, and self-service dog-wash stations at pet stores. Fourth, recommend Plan A or Plan B, say who is helped and who is hurt, tell me how big the city's pet-grooming market is, and how much profit the van will make in its first month. Fifth, tell me which legal form and permits this owner needs and whether the van can be written off on this year's taxes, and compare the van with the early history of a well-known pet-store chain. Sixth, as a stretch question for later in the course, compute the van's break-even and draw up its opening balance sheet.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Asked for a break-even, chatbots often invent a groom price and a cost total and divide one by the other, sometimes dividing costs by the price instead of by the amount each groom contributes.
• Asked for the size of the city's pet-grooming market, chatbots often state a confident dollar figure or a growth percentage with no source.
• Chatbots often list pet owners who compare prices online, or a growing number of pet owners, among the van's strengths, because they sound like good news.
• Asked how much profit the van will make in its first month, chatbots often multiply a guessed number of grooms by a guessed price and call that profit.
• Chatbots often tell the owner exactly which legal form to choose, which permits to file, and that the whole van can be written off this year, as if they knew this owner's city and situation.
• Asked to compare with a well-known pet-store chain, chatbots often tell a confident origin story or quote the chain's sales with no filing behind it.
• Chatbots often say to cut the cushion because less borrowing is always better, without weighing the owner's savings at risk, customers who book in advance, or the lender.
• Chatbots often fill the recommendation with general advice such as build a strong brand, use social media, and focus on customer service, none of which comes from the start-up list or the five forces.
• Asked for an opening balance sheet, chatbots often list the van and supplies as assets but let the loan plus the owner's savings come to a different total, so the two sides do not match.

Write 3–5 sentences naming one thing the chatbot got right and at least two places it went wrong or overreached, quoting its words and correcting each with evidence from your own tables or this week's chapter.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "Under Plan A the van's start-up needs are 32,500 dollars, because the van and equipment cost 26,000 dollars and the cushion is 6,500 dollars. The loan costs 3,400 dollars of interest in the first year, which is 10 percent of the 34,000-dollar total. The van's biggest strength is that pet owners compare prices online, so they will find it easily. Self-service dog-wash stations are one more rival groomer. The city's pet-grooming market is worth about 6,200,000 dollars a year, so there is plenty of room. The van will make 9,360 dollars of profit in its first month, because 360 grooms at 26 dollars each is 9,360 dollars. A famous national pet-store chain started from a single van, so this van can follow the same path. The owner should form an LLC this week and can write off the whole van on this year's taxes. Plan B is better, because borrowing less is always smarter. To succeed, the owner should build a strong brand, use social media, and focus on customer service. The van breaks even after 1,150 grooms, because its 29,900 dollars of costs divided by a 26-dollar groom is 1,150. Its opening balance sheet shows assets of 34,000 dollars, a loan of 17,000 dollars, and the owner's money of 15,500 dollars." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (a line left off the start-up list, interest charged on the whole total instead of the loan, an outside opportunity filed as a strength, a substitute called a rival, a market figure with no source, revenue treated as profit, an unsourced story about a real firm, confident legal or tax advice for one owner, a one-sided recommendation, boilerplate that ignores the case, an invented break-even, or a balance sheet that does not balance), cite the evidence from your tables or the chapter, and write a corrected sentence beneath it; for the break-even and the balance sheet, say which later week of the course takes them up and that no break-even can come from this case. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 1 and Objective 2) as the chatbot critique, takes comparable effort (about 30 minutes and 200–300 words), is scored by the same scoring criteria for the same credit, and its own submission artifact is the marked-up flawed analysis, posted in place of the chatbot share link and report.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• All four completed scaffold tables
• Written answers to all five analysis questions, including your recommendation
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Business Case Workshop report on an illustrative mobile pet-grooming van: four completed tables (the start-up list under two plans, the funding plan with its check and interest, the five forces, and the stakeholder map for the cushion decision), written answers to five analysis questions including a weighed recommendation, and a critique of a chatbot's analysis of the same case, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text. Choose a written, recorded, or visual form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Running the start-up numbers	Both plans' start-up needs, loans, and first-year interest are found with the arithmetic shown, interest is charged on the loan, and the check row shows each plan's sources equal its needs.	The tables are shown, but one or two amounts are off, a line is left off a total, or the check row is incomplete.	No tables are shown, or amounts are given with no arithmetic behind them.
Reading the industry with the five forces	Each of the five industry facts is placed in one force with a reason, the strongest pressures are explained, the online price-comparing is filed as outside the van in its SWOT, and all five stakeholder rows are filled.	Most of these are present, but a fact is placed in the wrong force, a substitute is called a rival, or some stakeholder rows are blank.	No five forces placement, SWOT reading, or stakeholder map is submitted.
A weighed recommendation	The recommendation or the argued other side rests on the two plans' numbers, names at least one stakeholder who gives something up, states the strongest counter-case fairly, keeps revenue apart from profit, and says what would change the decision.	A position is taken and tied to some numbers, but the counter-case, the stakeholder who gives something up, or what would change the decision is missing.	No recommendation is given, or it repeats general advice with no case facts.
Critiquing the AI analysis or the printed flawed analysis	The chatbot's analysis, or on the equivalent route the printed flawed analysis, is quoted and at least two errors are corrected with evidence from the tables or the chapter, including any invented figure flagged as outside this case.	The critique names errors but corrects only one, or corrects without evidence, on either route.	No critique is submitted on either route, or the AI output or flawed analysis is accepted without checking.
Naming the limitation of the plan	The response names a specific thing the start-up list and funding plan leave out and explains how adding it could change the recommendation.	A limitation is named but not connected to the recommendation.	No limitation is named.

Quality Gate

• Every total, loan, and interest amount comes from your own arithmetic on the printed start-up list, never from a chatbot.
• Each plan's sources equal its needs, and interest is charged on the loan, not on the whole start-up total.
• Each industry fact sits in exactly one force, and no answer treats the five forces as five competitors.
• The recommendation names at least one stakeholder who gives something up, the strongest counter-case, and what would change the answer.
• Revenue and profit are kept apart; no profit, price, market size, or dollar figure beyond the printed case is invented anywhere in the submission.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors with evidence from your tables or the chapter.