Week 6 Business Case Workshop: The Food Pantry's Weekend Line

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you mapped the coffee cart's process, found that its one espresso machine is the bottleneck, and saw how a second machine lifts its capacity; you also met the approaches that build quality into a process and the habits that protect a small business's information. In this workshop you do the same for a different organization, an illustrative neighborhood food pantry whose weekend line backs up, and then use your numbers to make a real decision: add a second packing table, or pack standard boxes the evening before? 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: Which step limits how many families the pantry can serve on a weekend day, how much does each plan raise its capacity, and which plan should the pantry choose once you weigh the volunteers, the families, quality, and the strongest case against your choice?

Workshop data: An illustrative food pantry's step times today and under two plans

Source: The step times for an illustrative neighborhood food pantry's weekend distribution, today and under two plans, written for this workshop and printed in full in Part 4; it is not real data and describes no real organization, place, or person.

• Rows: 3 step times and 4 computed rows for each column; the step-times table in Part 4 has 7 rows, the stakeholder table has 6 rows, and the quality-and-information table has 4 rows
• Columns: the step or the computed quantity, then today, Plan A, and Plan B side by side
• Decision: whether to add a second packing table and volunteer, or to pack standard boxes the evening before

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 Step in cell A1, Today in B1, Plan A in C1, and Plan B in D1. Type Check-in in A2, then 4 in B2, C2, and D2. Type Packing in A3, then 5 in B3, 2.5 in C3, and 1 in D3. Type Loading in A4, then 2 in B4, C4, and D4. 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 hold the minutes per family for each step, and only the packing row differs between the columns.
2. In cell A5 type Slowest step time, and in B5 type =MAX(B2:B4); copy the formula across to C5 and D5. In cell A6 type Families an hour, and in B6 type =60/B5; copy it across to C6 and D6. 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 column's slowest step time matches one of its three step times, and its families an hour is 60 divided by that time.
3. In cell A7 type Families in 6 hours, and in B7 type =B6*6; copy it across to C7 and D7. In cell A8 type Extra families under Plan A, and in B8 type =C7-B7. Copy every amount into the step-times table in Part 4 and name the bottleneck in each column. 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 serve more families than today, and the two plans' totals can be compared side by side.
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. Check: Every row names at least one gain or cost under each plan, and no row uses a person's name.
5. Complete the quality-and-information table in Part 4: for each problem, name the approach or protection from this week that fits it and say how it builds quality in or protects the pantry. Check: Each row names one approach or protection by its course term and ties it to that problem.
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 for the other plan, 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: for each column, find the largest of the three step times, divide 60 by it, multiply by 6, and subtract today's total from Plan A's. Fill in the stakeholder and quality-and-information 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

Find the slowest step and the capacity in each column, because every later step builds on these amounts.

Student scaffold table 1

Step or result	Today	Plan A: second packing table	Plan B: boxes packed the evening before
Check-in (minutes per family)	4	4	4
Packing (minutes per family)	5	2.5	1
Loading (minutes per family)	2	2	2
Slowest step and its time
Families an hour
Families in the 6-hour distribution
Which step limits this column?

Map who each plan touches, by role, so your recommendation weighs more than the speed of the line.

Student scaffold table 2

Stakeholder group	What Plan A gives or takes	What Plan B gives or takes
Families waiting in line
Families with dietary needs
Volunteers at the packing tables
Volunteers at check-in
The pantry coordinator
The grocery stores that donate food

Match four of the pantry's problems to this week's approaches and protections, so quality and information safety are built in rather than left to chance.

Student scaffold table 3

Pantry problem	Approach or protection from this week	How it builds quality in or protects the pantry
Some pre-packed boxes go out with an item a family cannot eat
Fresh produce spoils in the back room before the weekend
The coordinator receives a message asking for a fresh sign-in to the volunteer sign-up site
The laptop holding the family list goes missing

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Write the arithmetic that finds the slowest step time, the families an hour, and the families in the 6-hour distribution for today, Plan A, and Plan B, and the extra families Plan A serves over today, and say in a full sentence what that difference means for the families in line.
2. Which step is the bottleneck today, and which is it under each plan? Use your answer to explain why Plan A and Plan B reach the same capacity even though Plan B makes packing much faster, and what a third packing table would add.
3. Using your quality-and-information table, explain why checking every box at the door is not the same as building quality in, how JIT deliveries could help with the produce, and why protecting the family list is every volunteer's job rather than only an IT volunteer's.
4. Choose one: (a) recommend Plan A or Plan B in 5–8 sentences, using your capacity numbers, naming one stakeholder who gives something up, the strongest case for the other plan, 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, then say in two sentences why you still hold your view or why you changed it.
5. The step-times table assumes every family takes the same time and that families arrive steadily. Name one way a real weekend day breaks that assumption, such as a crowd at opening or a family with a large order, and explain how 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 6 Business Case Workshop tables above. They describe an illustrative neighborhood food pantry, invented for a class activity, not a real organization. On its weekend distribution, which runs for 6 hours, every family passes through three steps one at a time: check-in takes 4 minutes per family, packing a box at the one packing table takes 5 minutes per family, and loading the box into a car or cart takes 2 minutes per family. Plan A adds a second packing table and a second volunteer, so the two tables share the packing evenly. Plan B packs standard boxes the evening before, so packing at the line becomes a 1-minute hand-over. Please do six things. First, find the pantry's capacity in families an hour and the families served in the 6 hours, today and under each plan. Second, sort these into a SWOT: the pantry's trained check-in volunteers, and a grocery store nearby offering to donate day-old bread. Third, recommend one plan, tell me how many families in the city need food help, and how much profit the pantry's fundraising dinner will make. Fourth, tell me exactly what permit the law requires for pre-packed boxes and whether the pantry can be sued if a box causes an allergic reaction, and compare the pantry with how a well-known grocery chain runs its warehouses. Fifth, write the pantry a short plan for serving more families. Sixth, as a stretch question for later in the course, compute the break-even for the second packing table and draw up the pantry's balance sheet.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Asked for the second table's break-even, chatbots often invent a table price and a saving each weekend and divide one by the other, sometimes dividing by the wrong figure.
• Asked how many families in the city need food help, chatbots often state a confident count or a percentage with no source.
• Chatbots often list the grocery store's offer of day-old bread among the pantry's strengths, because it sounds like good news.
• Asked how much profit the fundraising dinner will make, chatbots often multiply a guessed number of tickets by a guessed price and call that profit.
• Chatbots often state exactly which permit the pantry needs for pre-packed boxes and whether it can be sued, as if they knew its city, its rules, and its facts.
• Asked to compare with a well-known grocery chain, chatbots often tell a confident story about how that chain runs its warehouses, with dates and figures and no source.
• Chatbots often recommend Plan A because halving the packing time doubles capacity, never notice that check-in becomes the new limit, and never mention the volunteers, families with dietary needs, or the strongest case for Plan B.
• Asked for a plan, chatbots often write general advice such as embrace technology, streamline operations, and focus on the customer experience, with nothing about the 4, 5, and 2 minutes or the two plans.
• 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: "Adding the three steps gives 4 + 5 + 2 = 11 minutes per family, so the pantry's line is set by the total time, not by any one step. Plan A halves the packing time, so the pantry's capacity doubles to 24 families an hour, or 144 families in the 6 hours. Plan B is better than Plan A because pre-packed boxes make the whole line faster. Checking every box at the door is the best way to build quality in. JIT means the pantry should keep no food on its shelves. Cybersecurity is the IT volunteer's job, so the rest of the volunteers can ignore strange messages. The pantry's biggest strength is that a grocery store nearby wants to donate bread. About 4,800 families in the city need food help, so the pantry will never run out of people to serve. The fundraising dinner will make 5,600 dollars of profit, because 160 tickets will sell at 35 dollars each. A well-known grocery chain moved its warehouses to robots, so the pantry should do the same. The law requires the pantry to buy one permit for pre-packed boxes, and it cannot be sued if it posts a sign. To succeed, the pantry should embrace technology, streamline operations, and focus on the customer experience. The second packing table breaks even after 8 weekends, because 400 dollars of table divided by 50 dollars saved each weekend is 8. The pantry's balance sheet shows assets of 50,000 dollars, debts of 20,000 dollars, and equity of 25,000 dollars." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (capacity found by adding step times instead of from the slowest step, a doubling that ignores check-in becoming the new limit, the two plans treated as different in capacity, quality read as an end-of-line inspection, JIT read as no stock at all, cybersecurity left to one volunteer, an outside opportunity filed as a strength, a figure with no source, revenue treated as profit, an unsourced story about a real firm, confident legal advice for one pantry, 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 4 — analyze how a firm creates value through operations, quality management, and information systems, and through marketing — target markets, the marketing mix, the product life cycle, pricing and break-even, distribution, and promotion) 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 food pantry: three completed tables (the step times and capacity today and under both plans, the stakeholder map, and the quality-and-information 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 capacity numbers	The slowest step, the families an hour, and the families in 6 hours are found for today and both plans with the arithmetic shown, each from the slowest step, and the extra families under Plan A are found as the gap between two totals.	The table is shown, but one or two amounts are off, a capacity is read from the wrong step, or a step is missing.	No table is shown, or amounts are given with no arithmetic behind them.
Finding the bottleneck and building quality in	The bottleneck is named in every column with the reason both plans stop at check-in, and every row of the quality-and-information table names a fitting approach or protection and says how it builds quality in or protects the pantry.	Most of these are present, but a bottleneck is misnamed, a row is blank, or quality is read as an end-of-line inspection.	No bottleneck reading or quality-and-information table is submitted.
A weighed recommendation	The recommendation or the argued other side rests on the capacity numbers and the stakeholder map, names a stakeholder who gives something up, states the strongest case for the other plan, and says what would change the decision.	A position is taken and tied to some case facts, but the other plan'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 step-times model	The response names a specific way a real weekend day breaks the model's assumptions and explains how it could change the recommendation.	A limitation is named but not connected to the recommendation.	No limitation is named.

Quality Gate

• Every capacity and family count comes from your own arithmetic on the printed step times, never from a chatbot.
• Capacity is found from the slowest step in each column, never from the fastest step and never by adding the step times together.
• Quality is described as built into a step of the process, not as an inspection at the end, and JIT is described as a small, steady stock rather than none.
• The recommendation names at least one stakeholder who gives something up, the strongest case for the other plan, and what would change the answer.
• Revenue and profit are kept apart; no count of families in need, price, cost, 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.