The pivotal decision between adopting Starville Robotics’ robot-only assembly line or maintaining the

current human-centric approach at Carlson Cameras demands a careful examination. Starville touts cost
reduction, increased productivity, and improved quality, while Amy Chandler raises concerns about
potential drawbacks. Let’s delve into the facts to determine the more compelling path forward.

Starville Robotics claims that robots can do the job better and at a lower cost. This assertion aligns with
trends in various industries where automation has led to efficiency gains. The rising cost of human labor
at Carlson Cameras is a pertinent issue, and Starville’s proposal offers a pragmatic solution. The precision
required for high-quality products, according to Starville, is achievable only through automation. This
aligns with broader industry experiences where human operators struggle to match the precision of
machines.

Moreover, Starville provides concrete numbers to substantiate their proposal. They project a 30%
increase in productivity within a year and a complete return on investment in seven years. These
numerical projections ground the proposal in tangible outcomes. In contrast, Amy Chandler’s emphasis
on the skills of Carlson Cameras’ employees, while valuable, lacks the quantifiable metrics that support
Starville’s evidence-based approach.

Amy Chandler expresses concerns about potential downsides, particularly precision and the evolving
nature of robotics. However, the evidentiary support for these concerns is limited. Starville addresses
precision issues through technological advancements, and while Chandler raises the specter of
technology becoming outdated, Starville’s projections suggest a reasonable timeframe for return on
investment. Furthermore, Chandler’s worry about potential job losses lacks concrete evidence, as
Starville argues that automation would reduce labor costs without addressing potential backlash.

In conclusion, the evidence-based analysis favors the adoption of Starville Robotics’ automated assembly
line. The rising labor costs and the precision required for high-quality products make a strong case for
automation. Starville provides tangible projections, demonstrating the financial benefits and return on
investment. While Amy Chandler’s concerns are acknowledged, the lack of concrete evidence weakens
her argument against the adoption of automation. Therefore, Carlson Cameras stands to gain more
substantiated advantages by embracing automation in its manufacturing processes. The evidence
supports Starville’s proposal as the more reliable and promising solution for Carlson Cameras’ future
success in the competitive digital camera market.