Week 5 Business Case Workshop: The Furniture Workshop's Two Automation Plans

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you counted what automating one line does to the appliance-parts plant, met the pyramid of corporate social responsibility and the triple bottom line, and set out the shareholder and stakeholder positions on what a corporation is for. In this workshop you do the same for a different business, an illustrative furniture workshop with two ways to automate its sanding line, and then use your numbers to make a real decision: install the machines now and retrain fewer workers, or phase them in more slowly and retrain more? 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: How many positions does each automation plan remove, what does each plan give and take away from the owners, the workers, and the town, and which plan should the workshop choose once you weigh both positions on a corporation's purpose and the strongest case against your choice?

Workshop data: An illustrative furniture workshop's staff counts under two automation plans

Source: The staff counts for two automation plans at an illustrative furniture workshop, 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 starting counts and 2 computed counts for each plan; the counts table in Part 4 has 8 rows, the stakeholder table has 6 rows, and the responsibility table has 4 rows
• Columns: the count and its value for Plan A and for Plan B side by side
• Decision: whether to automate the sanding line now and retrain 8 workers, or phase it in more slowly and retrain 17

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 Count in cell A1, Plan A in cell B1, and Plan B in cell C1. Type Employees before in A2, then 68 in B2 and 68 in C2. Type Positions eliminated in A3, then 21 in B3 and 21 in C3. Type Workers retrained in A4, then 8 in B4 and 17 in 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 to 4 each hold one starting count for both plans, and only the retrained row differs between the plans.
2. In cell A5 type Net change in positions, and in B5 type =B3-B4 and in C5 type =C3-C4. Copy both amounts into the counts 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: Both net changes are smaller than the 21 positions eliminated, and Plan B's is the smaller of the two.
3. In cell A6 type Employees after, and in B6 type =B2-B5 and in C6 type =C2-C5. In cell A7 type Positions kept by Plan B, and in B7 type =B5-C5. Copy every amount into the counts 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: Both plans leave fewer than 68 employees, and the positions kept by Plan B equal the gap between the two plans' employees after.
4. Complete the stakeholder table in Part 4: for each group, named by role, say what Plan A and Plan B would give it or take from 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: Every row names at least one gain or loss under each plan, and no row uses a person's name.
5. Complete the responsibility table in Part 4: place each of the four workshop actions at one level of the pyramid of corporate social responsibility and give a one-line reason. 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 action sits at exactly one level, and the four levels run from economic at the base to philanthropic at the top.
6. Write your recommendation, 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 who gives something up, the strongest case from the other position, 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: subtract the workers retrained from the positions eliminated for each plan, subtract each net change from the 68 employees, and subtract Plan B's net change from Plan A's. Fill in the stakeholder and responsibility 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

Count what each plan does to the workshop's positions, because every later step builds on these amounts.

Student scaffold table 1

Count	Plan A: automate now	Plan B: phase in slowly
Employees before automation	68	68
Positions eliminated	21	21
Workers retrained	8	17
Net change in positions
Employees after automation
Positions Plan B keeps that Plan A does not
Which count is a fact both positions accept?
Which question do the counts leave open?

Map who each plan touches, by role, so your recommendation weighs more than the owners' costs.

Student scaffold table 2

Stakeholder group	What Plan A gives or takes	What Plan B gives or takes
Owners (stockholders)
Workers whose positions end
Workers retrained to run the machines
Customers who buy the furniture
The wood supplier
The town

Sort four of the workshop's actions by level, so you can see that responsibility is more than giving to charity.

Student scaffold table 3

Workshop action	Level of the pyramid	Reason
Pricing its furniture to cover its costs so it stays open
Following the workplace safety rules for the new machines
Telling workers about the plan early, though no rule in this case requires it
Donating offcut wood to a school's woodshop class

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Write the arithmetic that finds the net change in positions and the employees after automation under each plan, and the positions Plan B keeps that Plan A does not, and say in a full sentence what the difference means for the workers.
2. Which count is the same in both plans, and which one differs? Use your answer to explain why the 21 positions eliminated is not the same as the net change in positions.
3. Using your responsibility table, explain why the pyramid puts economic responsibility at the base and philanthropic responsibility at the top, and place one effect of Plan B on each line of the triple bottom line: profit, people, and planet.
4. Choose one: (a) recommend Plan A or Plan B in 5–8 sentences, arguing from the shareholder position or the stakeholder position, naming one stakeholder who gives something up, the strongest case from the other position, and the fact that would change your mind; or (b) argue the plan you would least choose as strongly as you can in 5–8 sentences from the position you find weaker, then say in two sentences why you still hold your view or why you changed it.
5. The counts table shows positions and employees only. Name one thing it leaves out, such as what the machines cost, how long Plan B takes, or what happens to the workers who leave, 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 5 Business Case Workshop tables above. They describe an illustrative furniture workshop, invented for a class activity, not a real business. The workshop has 68 employees and is weighing two ways to automate its sanding line. Plan A: install the machines now, eliminating 21 positions and retraining 8 of those workers to run them. Plan B: phase the machines in more slowly, eliminating the same 21 positions but retraining 17 of those workers. Please do six things. First, find the net change in positions and the number of employees after automating under each plan. Second, sort these into a SWOT: the workshop's skilled finishers, and hotels in the region asking for more custom furniture. Third, recommend one plan, tell me how big the region's market for custom furniture is, and how much profit the workshop will make next year after automating. Fourth, tell me exactly what notice the law requires this workshop to give its workers and whether it can be sued, and compare its choice with how a well-known furniture company automated its factories. Fifth, write the workshop a short plan for staying competitive. Sixth, as a stretch question for later in the course, compute the machines' break-even and draw up the workshop's balance sheet after it buys them.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Asked for the machines' break-even, chatbots often invent a machine price and a monthly saving and divide one by the other, sometimes dividing by the wrong figure.
• Asked how big the region's market for custom furniture is, chatbots often state a confident dollar figure or a growth percentage with no source.
• Chatbots often list hotels asking for more custom furniture among the workshop's strengths, because it sounds like good news.
• Asked how much profit the workshop will make next year, chatbots often multiply a guessed number of tables by a guessed price and call that profit.
• Chatbots often state exactly how many days of notice the law requires this workshop to give and whether it can be sued, as if they knew its state, size, and contracts.
• Asked to compare with a well-known furniture company, chatbots often tell a confident story about when and how that company automated, with dates and job counts and no source.
• Chatbots often recommend Plan A because it saves the most money, and never mention the line workers who leave, the town, or the strongest case for Plan B.
• Asked for a plan, chatbots often write general advice such as invest in technology, build the brand, and focus on customer service, with nothing about the 21 positions or the two retraining choices.
• Asked for a balance sheet, chatbots often invent asset and debt figures whose two sides do not add up to the same total.

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 workshop loses 21 positions, because the machines end 21 jobs, so after automating it has 47 employees. Under Plan B it also loses 21 positions, so the two plans are the same for workers. Automating is legal, so it is ethical, and the owners owe the workers nothing more. Under the shareholder position the owners can do anything that raises profit. The workshop's biggest strength is that hotels in the region want more custom furniture. The region's market for custom furniture is worth about 3,700,000 dollars a year, so there is plenty of room. The workshop will make 410,000 dollars of profit next year, because it will sell 1,000 tables at 410 dollars each. A famous furniture company cut half its factory jobs when it automated, so this workshop should do the same. The law requires exactly 45 days' notice, and the workshop cannot be sued if it gives it. Plan A is always better, because efficiency always wins. To succeed, the workshop should invest in technology, build its brand, and focus on customer service. The machines break even after 14 months, because 140,000 dollars of machines divided by 10,000 dollars of monthly savings is 14. Its balance sheet after buying them shows assets of 900,000 dollars, debts of 300,000 dollars, and owners' equity of 500,000 dollars." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (the retrained workers left out of the net change, the two plans treated as the same, legal treated as ethical, the shareholder position stated without its two limits, an outside opportunity filed as a strength, a market figure with no source, revenue treated as profit, an unsourced story about a real firm, confident legal advice for one workshop, 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 neither can come from this case. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 3 — evaluate business conduct with ethical reasoning and the corporate-social-responsibility frameworks, presenting the shareholder and stakeholder positions with their reasons and without a verdict, and distinguishing what is ethical from what is legal) 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 three 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 furniture workshop: three completed tables (the counts for both automation plans, the stakeholder map, and the responsibility table), 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 automation counts	The net change and employees after are found for both plans with the arithmetic shown, the retrained workers are subtracted from the positions eliminated, and the positions Plan B keeps are found as the gap between the two net changes.	The table is shown, but one or two amounts are off, the retrained workers are left out, or a step is missing.	No table is shown, or amounts are given with no arithmetic behind them.
Mapping stakeholders and responsibilities	Every stakeholder row names a gain or loss under each plan, by role, all four actions sit at the right level of the pyramid with a reason, and one effect of Plan B is placed on each of the three bottom lines.	Most of these are present, but some stakeholder rows are blank, an action is misplaced, or responsibility is read as charity only.	No stakeholder map, responsibility sorting, or bottom-line reading is submitted.
A weighed recommendation	The recommendation or the argued other side rests on the counts and the stakeholder map, argues from one position while stating the strongest case from the other, keeps the shareholder position's two limits, names a stakeholder who gives something up, and says what would change the decision.	A position is taken and tied to some case facts, but the other position's 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 counts	The response names a specific thing the counts table leaves 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 net change and employee count comes from your own arithmetic on the printed counts, never from a chatbot.
• The workers retrained are subtracted from the positions eliminated before anything is taken from the 68 employees, under both plans.
• The shareholder position is stated with its two limits, the law and ethical custom, and legal is never treated as the same as ethical.
• The recommendation names at least one stakeholder who gives something up, the strongest case from the other position, and what would change the answer, with no verdict claimed for the course.
• Revenue and profit are kept apart; no profit, wage, 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.