Creativity and Systems

Dfn of creativity: creativity is one’s ability to come up with original ideas

Where does creativity happen: 

  1. Having aha moments, can’t force it to happen
  2. Asking yourself questions
  3. Changing your environment to draw on unrelated 
  4. Immersing yourself in challenge
  5. Chain of events

What is flight to a bird?

  1. Survival 
  2. Needs to be taught

PART 1:  8 things, define and example for each

  1. Interdependence →  how factors(ideas, goals, people, projects) in a relating system all impact each other; pyramid from the bottom up
    1. Ex. 1: a lot of the projects take advantage of the interdependence between people and the “hierarchy” that exists between people
      1. Malnutrition tried to partner with community leaders such as the reverend david because of many people’s interdependence on him and the church
  2. Holism → a system that is viewed as it own entity; as a sum of its parts; looking at the pyramid from the top down/seeing the big picture 
    1. Ex. 1: Recycling facility — the public would just see it as something that takes in waste and produces product, forgets that the facility has many parts (machines, workers, managers, etc)
  3. Multifinality → Multiple unique outcomes resulting from a single initial product/system (win-win situation for all)
    1. Ex. 1: all teams: fieldwork
  4. Equifinality → understanding that a goal can be achieved in a variety of ways/ paths
    1. Ex. 1:  PlasTech Ventures and Cloop used to be part of the same team with the same goals, now they are both trying to reach the same goal but through different approaches.
    2. Safemotherhod and Ukweli — both want to end maternal mortality
  5. Differentiation → each part of a system has its own specific function
    1. Ex. 1: Malnutrition team breaking up and assigning roles after week 1 in SL 
      1. Working on specific parts like Manufacturing, Research, Supply Chain, etc. that interact to run the larger system
  6. Regulation → assessing the system to make sure that it is achieving goals to take corrective action and hold everyone accountable
    1. Ex. 1:  NewTrition checking in with Translators to make sure our interviewing questions are being conveyed and received correctly.
    2. Weekly team meetings — keep us all on track
  7. Abstraction → looking at broad ideas instead of focusing on specific details (zooming out or zooming in)
    1. Ex. 1: Safe Motherhood: trying to inspire grassroot action to work to raise awareness for broader issues through specific mini-stories
  8. Leverage Points → understanding that there are small things that can be done to create a large effect; places in a complex system where a small shift can create big changes 
    1. Ex. 1: Recycling Facilities: Gaining a relationship with Vincente Co to open up our network and knowledge
    2. KJ was the leverage point for the malnutrition team to be able to use the bakery
    3. Implementing a fine to give birth at home to encourage people to go to the clinic which saves a lot of people’s lives

PART 2:  Solution to hyacinth removal.

  • Follow oil fracking ideas → pay local, waterside people of the community a small stipend for access to their areas
  • Other community members can be hired to collect and process the hyacinth, income generating solution for the community
  • Previous workers of hers now in charge of transportation/distribution for her.

Some Applicable Emergent parts:

  1. Interdependence/Holism/Differentiation:  Each process now depends on the process before it, and the more successful each step is the more the greater system thrives
  2. Regulation:  Paid on commission, so how much hyacinth they bring in instead of a salary day to day, forming accountability
  3. Leverage Points:  Advertise how workers are helping community and fishermen to create more sales
  4. Accountability: not paying everyone because that would be impossible
  5. Multifinality:  Community is reaching its goals and so is the entrepreneur 

Blog 7: Partnerships


  1. World Hope
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. Use of vehicles
      2. Transportation
      3. Connections to use on the ground resources
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. Transportation
      2. Connections to use on the ground resources
      3. Helped them serve the SL community
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
      1. Yes, they provided us with invaluable knowledge but we compensated them for transportation costs, employees, etc
    4.  What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. More collaboration with SLeans in the project specifically
  2. Translators
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. They translated for the project
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. We paid them in exchange for a service
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
      1. Yes, we compensated them and they translated for us
      2. We tended to set hours and plan most of the logistics
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. Utilizing their unique insights can
      2. Balance power a little more


  1. Statistics SL
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. They are helping us with implementing a survey
      2. Giving us data sets from previously administered surveys
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. We are providing knowledge and information that could potentially benefit SL
      2. If successful it will benefit both of us reputations
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
      1. Yes, we both benefit from what we each bring to the table
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. Collaborating on the survey that they create using the information we gained from our surveys
  2. Ministry of Health
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. Exchange of information including data sets and connections
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. Exchange of information including data sets and connections
      2. Information about EVD that could help public health in SL
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
      1. We haven’t come to an agreement about how we will collaborate but ultimately both of us will benefit from the results of our research
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
  3. Vaffoley
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. He proofread our survey and helped with questions
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. He proofread our survey and helped with questions
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
      1. He didn’t really gain anything specific but likely cares about his home country and has a stake in benefitting it
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. He could potentially collaborate with us in the future and we could give him credit/acknowledgment
  4. Psychology Professor (Advisor)
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. She provides her advice on designing our survey
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. She gave advice on what made sense from a questionnaire point of view.
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
      1. Nope, she got nothing in return
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. We could provide her with some Authorship
  5. Dr. Buecta & Dr. Bocchini (Lehigh University) Key advisors
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. They agree to act as advisors and help with gathering research while we put their names on our research and gave them credit.
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. They provided advice and consoling on to initially conduct research
      2. The provided access to tool and knowledge we wouldn’t be able
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
      1. Yes they received credit for the work we did, while we got resources as well as knowledge in exchange
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. Honestly, I don’t think we can.
  6. Google Earth Engine (Micro Partnership)
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. Google provided us with data, in exchange for processing power and   on the Platform
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. They help us gather data, in large quantities quickly and effectively
      2. Kept upkeep and wrote code that they could use to gather data.
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
      1. Yes, we both received value for our actions, but I think we got the better end because we put up zero money.
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. If we could find a way to get a service license, then we could provide them with money in exchange for more access.
  7. NIH
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. We are contracted to do the mission of our project in exchange for money and resources.
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. They provide money and their reputation, which allowed us to cut through red tape
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
      1. I mean we receive money in exchange for producing research so I believe we have a symbiotic relationship
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. If we could have more contact between us and be allowed to access more of their human capital could help us, and the interaction might help with stimulating new concepts
  8. Fulcrum (Micro Partner)
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. We paid them to store our data in exchange for money.
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. They provided an easy to use platform that allowed us to collect data and upload it remotely. It also allowed us to geo-locate easily and store location.
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
      1. They received money in exchange for allowing us to use their service.
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. I think we can, they also aren’t that important


Who’s in the Coalition: Ebola Busters

  1. Core Stakeholders
    1. African Union
    2. Aid Organization
    3. World Hope International
    4. Ministry of Health
    5. Statistic SL
    6. Medical suppliers
  2. Opinion Leaders
    1. MSF
    2. NIH
    3. WHO
    4. CDC
    5. Ministry of Health
  3. Policy Makers
    1. Ministry of Health
    2. CDC
    3. WHO
    4. NIH
    5. Massanga Hospital
  4. Resource Partners
    1. Other researchers in the field- knowledge
    2. Dr. Bocchini & Dr. Buecta
    3. Lehigh University
    4. World Hope International
  5. Signaling Partners
    1. Ministry of Health
    2. MSF (Doctors without borders)
    3. NIH
    4. WHI
  6. First responders & where the money comes from
    1. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

The original goal would be to start with the local government in Sierra Leone as well as the partners they have in-country (aka WHI). Then after we have created a partnership with the key players in Sierra Leone, the next goal would be to leverage those partners to jump onto bigger players like the key player across West Africa, like MSF and the rest of the region’s governments. After we got them on board we would target East Africa in the same sense as we did start in a country and then moving on the greater region’s government once you have traction. After this, we would target the major funders and players of medicine in the world (aka WHO, NIH, CDC), by leveraging the governments and partnership we had grown on the ground in Africa.

Week 6 Blog

Team Name: Socioeconomics of Ebola                   Date: ___10/6/19______________
Goals ·      What are the personal goals (small g) of each member on this team? (Team Member #1,#2, #3, etc) Make sure they connect to the DREAM on the Individual Profile.

1.     Anna- To gain experience in academia, to move the project forward and publish deliverables

2.     Lindsay- To learn a lot and to potentially get published

3.     Nate- To add to his experience, network, and collaborate in interdisciplinary work

·      What is the Project GOAL (big G) we’re all committed to achieve together?

–       Our goal is to utilize the data we collected on the ground to create a model to accurately predict, in real time and space, the probability that a human will partake in a risky behavior at the same time that a bat with a high likelihood of having Ebola is in the same area.

·       Is our Project Goal scaled to our resources (dreams, materials, skills, differences, etc.) and constraints (assignment, time, skills, etc.)

–       Our goal is scaled to our ability to obtain materials including accurate census and demographic data to use to upkeep the real-time model.

·      What are the metrics for success for what we’re producing?

–       An accurate model

–       Published papers: a case study, best practices of surveying, and a theoretical model

Roles ·      Who is responsible for which deliverables?

–       Nate and Anna are responsible for the case study and best practices

–       Lindsay is primarily responsible for the model

·      Which deliverables that require collaboration, subgroups & individual work? Who does each person depend upon to succeed?

–       The model requires all of us to contribute valuable knowledge and collaborate in order for it to be accurate and precise

·      Do we need a project manager to coordinate?

–       No, we successfully come to consensuses about logistical coordination and project work and can sort out any issues independently

·      What are the deliverables each person is accountable to produce?

–       Nate and Anna are responsible for the case study and best practices and will collaborate on the writing

–       Lindsay is primarily responsible for the model but will be helped by Anna and Nate as well

Procedures ·      Decision MakingWhat process shall we use: consensus, majority rules, deference to expert, default to the loudest, or?

–       We use the consensus process the majority of the time in order to collaborate the most effectively

–       If we disagree, we tend to each make our point until we can make an agreement, or we defer to an expert or to one of our advisors

·      Effective MeetingsFocus on key, timely decisions together vs. status/update (offline);

–       We switched to having smaller meetings with only the students on our team once per week in addition to the meeting with our advisors

–       This allows us to make progress and sort smaller questions/issues amongst ourselves without needing to involve our professors

·      Meeting roles: scribe, facilitator, time keeper

–       We all individually take notes and Prof. Bocchini keeps the overall meeting notes/assignments

·      Communication – FTF: frequency, time, location; type of technology: (Googledocs, Hangout, etc.); expectations for responsiveness; ‘best time to work’ (AM, PM, weekends?)

–       Communicate several times per week via slack and imessage to delegate tasks, recap, and organize plans for the week

–       Weekly Monday meeting: 4pm, Upper/lower campus, undergrads and grad student

–       Weekly Wednesday meetings: 6pm, Iaccoca, Professors, undergrads, and grad student

Relationships ·      Team Diversity – What is the diversity on our team? Disciplines to tap for solutions;  individual earning styles for the stages of invention;  overall team learning style strengths and places to supplement;  cultural backgrounds , work experience,  dreams to leverage for scope & impact of goals, new roles, better procedures;  languages for more diverse customer set, bigger market;

–       Anna: Materials Science, peace-keeping, goal-oriented, passionate

–       Nate: Industrial Systems, engaged in the project, passionate, reliable

–       Lindsay: IBE, focused, driven, outspoken, confident

·      Listening – Notice my binary thinking, auto-rankism, and go beyond it.

–       Generally are very successful at listening actively to eachother

·      Team Name–What’s a team name that captures who we are and what we’re going to do?

–       Assessing the Socioeconomic Factors Underlying Ebola Infection


Week 5 Case Study: Ethical Decision Making and Grassroots Diplomacy – Neem

Part 1: Ethical Decision Making

  • Neem is a tree indigenous to India that is sacred
  • Medical purposes, food production, toiletries, fuel, and pesticides
  • Neem industry in India employs about 100k people
  • Pesticides are used widely across India
  • Chetan operates a small business of neem tree products including: pesticides, skin creams, contraceptives, lamp oil.
  • He employs 60 people
  • Tom Johnson’s company (OOPS) invested $5M to develop neem based pesticides and conduct safety and performance tests over the last decade after he realized its commercial applications from a visit to India
  • OOPS has a worldwide patent to sell pesticides based off neem
  • OOPS wants to sell their product in India
  • OOPS is demanding a royalty from Chetan’s business and other small industries that make neem-based insecticides

The ethical dilemma is if OOPS is willing to profit off of royalties of a small business they will likely outcompete because of lower prices anyway.


  • Chetan
    • Wants family business to continue without royalties and to continue employing his workers
  • OOPS
    • Wants to maximize profits and are willing to uphold their patent royalties in India
  • Tom Johnson
    • Would like to make a profit and to be successful in his business
  • Chetan’s Family
    • Desire for the business’ legacy to continue
  • Chetan’s employees
    • Want a stable job to bring in an income for their families
  • OOPS investors
    • Want the company to act ethically but more importantly ensure they generate as large a profit as possible
  • Other small Indian ventures that will have to pay royalties
    • They have the same motivations as Chetan essentially, to continue generating a profit while employing their workers
  • Indian People
    • Would like the price of neem based products to be as cheap as possible
    • Would potentially prefer a local brand, but likely not at a higher price


There is no clear-cut solution in this case as a patent is a legal document and Chetan will need to pay royalties, it just may not be ethical.

Situation 1: The patent is binding and OOPS has no obligation not enforce the patent, so they do not. Their products enter the market and edge out neem businesses out while lowering the price of neem products overall

  1. Pros:
    • Prices for neem based products lower
    • OOPS’ profit increases
  2. Cons:
    • Small businesses are shut down
    • Many of their employees are left unemployed

Ethical Principle: Consequence Based- OOPS is only concerned with profiting and enforce their intellectual property rights to the patent and sell to the Indian market.

Situation 2: Chetan appeals directly to the government to place tariffs on OOPS (and other imports) to ensure they cannot enter the market or to require OOPS to not enforce royalties

  1. Pros:
    • the Indian based neem industry is protected
    • Thousands of jobs saved
  2. Cons:
    • No increased profit for OOPS
    • Decreased efficiency in the economy
    • Sets precedence of not enforcing IP laws (could be controversial/cause issues in the future)

Ethical Principle: Duty-based- thinking the Indian government has a duty to protect their own citizens’ livelihoods over the interests of a foreign company

Situation 3: OOPS enters the neem industry but doesn’t charge royalties to Chetan because of an agreement

    1. Pros:
      • the company can still make a profit
      • will likely edge out other neem producers due to economies of scale
    2. Cons:
      • Loss of profit for OOPS
      • Sets precedent not to uphold IP laws

Ethical Principle: Virtue-based – OOPS believes removing hundreds of employees and shutting down businesses is ethically wrong, so does not do it.


This case is difficult, because the issue itself isn’t ethical. OOPS has a patent and ethically and legally have no obligation to not uphold it, however, local Neem companies, like Chetan’s will go out of business from the royalties and competing businesses. Even if they didn’t apply royalties, OOPS would most likely outsell small companies just because of simple economies of scale. To say that OOPS should not sell in the international market because it will put smaller companies out of business goes against the idea of capitalism and is a slippery slope. Unfortunately, it is also unethical to say that OOPS specifically cannot sell or uphold their patent because they worked to earn it and go earn it.

Situation 1 is most likely to occur if OOPS enters the market, charges Chetan royalties for their IP, and edges out any competition. Situation 2 is less likely as the Indian and American governments have close ties, and India would not wish to jeopardize this relationship over saving several small companies. In addition, not allowing OOPS to enforce the patent would set a negative precedence in the area of IP. Situation 3 assumes OOPS will be willing to compromise, which it is not, making it an unrealistic expectation for a corporation to turn down royalties from a company they will likely outcompete.

In situation 1, OOPS will generate economic profit which will allow their business to grow, outcompeting smaller Neem companies, including Chetan’s. Will this revenue, they will be able to hire new employees and expand operations, stimulating the local economy and likely engaging in new research and development of their product. The growth of the neem industry, however, could impact the environment negatively in unforeseeable ways.


Part 2: Grassroots Diplomacy


OOPS launched 6 months ago, crushing the market

  • OOPS has over 20 different neem based products being sold in supermarkets
  • OOPS wrapper features a photo of Tom Johnson
  • Chetans wrapper features a photo of his great grandfather, who is a local legend
  • Chetan has tried to persuade Tom to leave the market or collaborate
  • Tom is open to collaboration if it will make him money
  • Chetan’s business if suffering and he will have to lay off half his staff by the end of the month
  • His employees and their families have worked with him for generations
  • Employees feel cheated and abandoned
  • Some are confident in Chetan but others want to physically want to beat Chetan up


OOPS is dominating the neem industry and small business owners like Chetan and his employees are in danger of going bankrupt and want tom to leave the market or collaborate. Chetan needs to find some way to save his business and/or his family legacy.

  1. OOPS
    • They want to keep their business growing and keep control over the market
  2. Tom
    • He wants OOPS to grow and make more money by providing neem products for indians.
  3. Chetan
    • His family legacy is on the line and after generations working for his family, he has a duty to his employees to ensure they remain employed
  4. Chetan’s family
    • Want to maintain family legacy/name/reputation
  5. Chetan’s employees
    • Personal: Likely have personal ties to Chetan and the business and have been working with him for a long time
    • Professional: Need the money to make a living so they can’t be fired.
  6. Employees’ family
    • Personal/professional: they need to make money to provide for their families
  7. Neem customers
    • Personal: Desire to get products at the lowest price
  8. Other small neem product businesses
    • Professional: Continue making money/grow profits
    • Personal: Keep their employees’ jobs
  9. Neem farmers
    • Personal/Professional: Want to make income selling neem



Solution 1: Chetan closes his business and negotiates with Tom to find jobs for him and his employees at OOPS

  • Pros:
    • Jobs are saved and his employees have an income
    • Chetan saves relationships with employees
  • Cons:
    • Chetan’s reputation for the business is impacted negatively
  • Implications on relationships
    1. Short-term:
      • Chetan will maintain his relationship with his employees and form a relationship with Tom and OOPS
      • Relationship with his family will likely worsen because he closed the family business
    2.  Long-term:
      • Chetan’s relationship with his employees could remain strong
      • There could be increased tensions with other Indian Neem businesses and their employees
      • His relationship with his family may not recover (family legacy)
  • Implications on the venture
    1. Short-term: Chetan’s venture will no longer exist but his employees will keep their jobs
    2. Long-term: Same

Solution 2: Chetan makes a deal with Tom to use his business image alongside Tom’s to bring in additional profit Chetan receives compensation from this deal and his employees receive jobs.

  • How does it solve the problem?
    1. Pros:
      • Chetan gets to continue employing his workers
      • Family’s legacy will continue
    2. Cons:
      • Will likely have to surrender capital and/or oversight
      • Chetan may not be able to influence how the business is run
  • Implications on relationships
    1. Short-term:
      • Chetan will maintain his relationship with his employees
      • Forms relationship with Tom and OOPS
    2. Long-term:
      • Chetan’s relationship with his employees could remain strong
      • There could be increased tensions with other Indian Neem businesses and their employees
  • Implications on the venture
    1. Short-term:
      • No need to lay off employees
      • Management will likely change with OOPS having main control
    2. Long-term:
      • Employees will keep their jobs and make (potentially) more money from OOPS
      • Business structure will be permanently changed and restructured
      • Will edge out other small Neem businesses

Solution 3: Chetan and Tom do nothing and Chetan will help his employees find jobs

  • How does it solve the problem?
    1. Pros:
      • Minimizes the tension between Tom and Chetan
      • Chetan’s employees can still bring in an income
      • Some of the employees (at least) will remain employed.
    2. Cons:
      • Chetan’s family legacy is lost and he gives up his profitable venture
      • Chetan does probably resent Tom since he had to give up the business
  • Implications on relationships
    1. Short-term:
      • Tom and Chetan likely will have reduced tensions but Chetan will still resent him
      • Former employees may resent and distrust him
    2. Long-term:
      • Tom and Chetan will have no reason to continue a relationship
      • Employees will still distrust him and his family will likely have negative feelings towards him as well.
  • Implications on the venture
    1. Short-term: Chetan’s venture will no longer exist but his employees may find new jobs
    2. Long-term: Same


In Chetan’s community, it is essential to save face and maintain relationships if he wants to engage in business later down the road.

The worst option is Solution 3, because although Chetan will still have personal financial support, his employees don’t, and he would “destroy face” to employees, his community, and his family. Solution 1 is a better solution as his employees will still have jobs and Chetan can use his knowledge in Tom’s corporation. However, he will be destroying family legacy and may have a strained relationship with his family. Solution 2 is the best solution for all parties involved because OOPS can gain an additional edge in the Indian market and may get more national loyalty with a local collaboration with Chetan. Chetan can offer his great grandfather’s image for OOPS’ packaging in exchange for jobs for his employee and both parties will win: a positive international appearance for OOPS and as well as for Chetan, his family, and his employees.

Chetan simply should pitch this solution in his negotiations with Tom. If Tom is not receptive, he can fall back on Solution 1 in order to continue to save face with Tom and his employees. OOPS’ new products will be produced with the new images and the companies will be integrated.

Case Study 3: Ethical Decision Making and Grassroots Diplomacy

Part 1: Ethical Decision Making

In a certain region in East Africa there is a high HIV/AIDS rate and 35% of children are stunted. Mothers who are HIV positive risk transmitting the virus to their child if they breastfeed and few women are actually tested for the virus.  When weaning children off of breastmilk, mothers use a porridge that is not nutritious and is missing key nutrients. However, the cash crops that could be used to make the mix more nutritious are grown using pesticides. There is a grant to establish a women’s cooperative to create a nutritious mix for infants while improving the womens’ livelihoods.

The ethical issue surrounds the question of how the women’s cooperative can the prevent transmission of HIV from mother to child AND prevent children from eating pesticides and whether or not it is worse to get HIV or ingest pesticides.

This ethical issue has several main stakeholders:


  • Mothers 
    • Want children to be healthy
    • Don’t want to pass HIV to children
    • Don’t want children to have adverse effects from pesticides
    • Want children to be properly nourished
  • Children
    • They are directly impacted by the breastfeeding/pesticides
    • They need to obtain all required nutrients 
  • The donor
    • Wants its money to be spent properly
    • Wants a good reputation
  • Us
    • Provide nutritious porridge for the children
    • Ensure the cooperation is built right and is sustainable/scalable
    • Invested in seeing the impact through 
  • Women’s Cooperative
    • Wants to provide children with a nutritious porridge to wean children off of breast milk
    • Are skeptical of the impacts of pesticides and of HIV transmission 
    • Wants to attract investors to the cooperative
    • Want to bring in a stable income to support their families
    • Wants good reputation
  • Local cash crop farmers
    • They grow the crops that are being bought for the porridge
    • Financially invested

There are 3 solutions that could be put into action to ensure children are receiving proper nutrients and also empowering women in the cooperative.


Solution 1: Have the cooperative grow their own produce (pesticide-free) and employ more local women 

Ethical Principle: Duty-Based

  • “Do only that which you would want everyone to do”
  • We would not want our children and communities eating crops sprayed with chemicals


  • Creates jobs for women
  • Not only the cooperative but the community as well can have access to clean and healthy crops
  • Can be fully in control of the crops 
  • Children will get the nutrition that they need


  • It may cost more setting up another piece of land
  • Have to educate the women on farming practices
  • Will put some farmers out of business 

Solution 2: Wash the produce when it gets to the cooperative
Ethical Principle: Virtue-based thinking

  • “What is ‘honest’ depends on social traditions, history, etc. the gruel the children receive already has pesticides (the maize and bananas currently used currently in gruel also have pesticides) and the solution would reduce HIV transmission while possibly decreasing pesticides in gruel. 
  • Ethics often times can rely on judgement


  • There would be no more/significantly less pesticides in the food
  • They get the nutrients they need
  • Don’t need to breastfeed so avoid HIV transmission 
  • Cheap way to avoid pesticides


  • The water may not be clean
  • Hard to measure if washing it is effective
  • We’d need a water filtration system
  • If the pesticides were treated with wax then they could be trapped beneath the waxy surface


Solution 3: Develop a vitamin supplement to add to the gruel so that children can continue eating gruel but also be nourished
Ethical Principle: Consequence-based thinking

  • Although the children would still be eating pesticide-contaminated gruel, they would definitely be getting the nutrients they need through the supplement
  • The benefits outweigh the negatives


  • They get the key nutrients that they need
  • Don’t need to breastfeed
  • Better than HIV
  • Using the base recipe – may be cheaper


  • Probably have to import the supplement which might be expensive
  • Still getting pesticides 
  • Could possibly alter the taste
  • Supplements may not be as nutritious as incorporating healthy foods 
  • The mission is to create opportunities for women and this does not follow that

The malnutrition team in Sierra Leone had experience creating a product for children and have learned the importance of incorporating whole, nutritious foods into childrens’ diet, but have also learned about supplements that can be effective too if they need to be used.

The best solution is to wash the produce with filtered water while creating a porridge that is more nutritious. This will easily get rid of the pesticides in the food and children will be able to eat clean and nutritious food. Although it might be expensive to get a water filter, this will be a one-time upfront cost. There might be slight maintenance costs in the future that the cooperative will have to cover (because the donor money will eventually run out) but this will be much cheaper than starting up a new farm, so it is better than Solution 1. Additionally, it is better than Solution 3 because eating whole foods is much better than using supplements and Solution 3 still gives children pesticides. 


  • There would be an added step in the preparation of the porridge
  • We have to educate the women to make sure they properly wash all the fruits and vegetables
  • We have to know how to install a filtration system properly so that the water is clean 
  • They will have to upkeep the costs of maintaining the filtration system, even when the money from the donor runs out
  • Children will not be getting as many pesticides and will be properly nourished 
  • Using locally grown cash crops will also stimulate the local economy and create more revenue streams for farmers.


Part 2: Grassroots Diplomacy



The cooperative is doing well and there are multiple income earning opportunities for women as they can sell produce from their own small farms for cash. However, the womens’ hard-earned money is taken by their husbands to be gambled. The cooperative is not achieving its dual outcomes of both improving nutritional status AND improving livelihoods. I do not have a direct say in how the cooperative functions and I have 6 months left to make a change before I have to leave. The women are upset that the money that they are earning is not being used to feed children, but also don’t mind that they are not in control of the money because it is culturally normal. However, the children of the women in the cooperative are not getting the nutrition that they need.


Ethical issue: How can we achieve the twin social outcomes without disturbing the culture?



  • Us
    • Personal and Professional
      • We want to achieve twin social outcomes
      • We want to financially empower women
      • We want the children of the women in the cooperative to be fed nutritious foods
      • We want cooperative to be successful
  • Women in the cooperative: 
    • Personal
      • Want to use the money they earn to support their families
      • Want their children to be healthy and fed
      • Want to have a good relationship with their husbands
    • Professional
      • Want to make money from the cooperative and their farms
      • Want the cooperative to be successful
  • Children
    • Personal
      • Need the money that their mothers are earning to be used to support them
  • Men
    • Personal
      • Want to be in charge of the money
      • Want to buy alcohol and frivolous things 


Solution 1: Compensate the women in goods (i.e. food, personal care products) instead of money

  • Pros:
    • Women are able to support their families with goods and foods
    • The products and nutrients are going directly to the children in town rather than just to the cities
    • The children will have more resources
  • Cons:
    • The husbands could be upset that the women aren’t bringing money back with them
    • Hard to always predict exactly what women need
    • The women may be less willing to work such long hours without monetary compensation
    • Might be hard logistically
  • Saves face for 
    • the women because they do not have to directly face their husbands, but are getting the desired outcome of putting the money towards the family
    • the cooperative because they would achieve their joint goals and run a more ethical venture
  • Implications on relationships 
    • Short term
      • Men may be angry at the women for not bringing home money
      • Immediate unhappiness within family units
    • Long term
      • Family will be better off so it may eventually build relationships in the family
  • Implications on venture
    • Short term
      • The children will receive the necessary nutrition 
    • Long term
      • The venture will achieve both of its goals
      • The children will have more resources and become more nourished


Solution 2: In addition to still paying the women regular wages, compensate for some of their wages in goods (i.e. food, personal care products) 

 -The goods would be in exchange for the money they would get for selling their produce

  • Pros:
    • Easier to integrate with the families because they are getting both money and resources 
    • The products and nutrients are going directly to the children in town rather than just to the cities
  • Cons:
    • Men can still waste money 
    • Women may want to choose exactly what all their money goes to go
  • Saves Face
    • Saves face for the women because they are still bringing in money and it will keep the peace between them and their husbands
    • Saves face for the cooperative because they are able to accomplish their goals and provide nutrients through the goods 
  • Implications of the relationships
    • Short term
      • Men in the family may be angry 
      • Unrest within the family units
    • Long term
      • Hopefully the families get used to this way of compensation and relationships strengthen
  • Implications of the venture
    • Short term: 
      • The children receive more nutrients and are healthier
    • Long term
      • The venture will be achieving its duel goals
      • The children will get more resources and access to nutritional foods (the porridge)


Solution 3: Doing nothing 

  • Pros:
    • Not interfering in culture 
    • Women are not necessarily opposed to men taking money anyway 
    • Not putting women at risk since not taking money away from men 
  • Cons:
    • Men can still waste money 
    • Children do not receive as much food
  • Saves Face for the women and their husbands
    • The women do not have to disturb the family dynamic
    • The husbands are not exposed for their irresponsible behaviors
  • Implications of the relationships
    • Short term
      • There is no tension in relationships between men and women because the status quo is maintained
    • Long term
      • The issue could cause problems down the line as the children aren’t getting important resources like food and clothing.
  • Implications of the venture
    • Short term
      • Venture still not achieving dual goals 
    • Long term
      • The power dynamic within the family still probably would not be fixed and tensions could run high


Other solutions could also include vouchers for food instead of money, setting up a daycare at the cooperative to ensure that children are receiving food, resources, , get shares (build up equity which you can liquidate for a lump sum).

The best solution is to compensate the women with a monetary salary but also include goods as some of their wages. This would ensure that the women’s earnings are being put, at least in part, towards their children and household.  This is a good middle ground between only compensating the women in only goods, which may impact the relationships between them, and paying them a normal salary which leads to the men spending all of their money, impacting the lives of the children. In addition, paying the women with only goods could cause their husbands to pressure them to get different jobs with normal compensation. 


  • Women will be able to provide food and clothing for their children 
  • The women “save face” by appeasing the men by allowing some of their income to go toward their habits 
  • This could be the start of a gradual push towards the women taking greater ownership in their fiances
  • Providing goods to the women as well will stimulate the local food and clothing markets

Week 2: Case Study CINQ

In this week’s case study, Jack is an American working at a youth center in Kenya for 5 months. During a gift-giving ceremony, the center had 4 fewer gifts than children so they gave the left out kids black hats in a non-ceremonious manner. Jack noticed that the children were upset, so he brought it up to the staff at the center. He didn’t want the kids to blame the mishap on him since he was the one giving the gifts, straining his relationship with key players during his stay at the center, the children. The staff told Jack that if he had a problem, he should deal with it himself and they don’t want him becoming a “children’s rights activist”. The issue here arises because Jack wants to “save face” with the kids, but also his coworkers, with whom he wants to maintain a strong professional relationship. Jack needs to find a solution in which he can make the four kids happy again without offending or undermining the staff of the youth center by seeming as though he is stirring trouble.

The three main stakeholders in this situation are Jack, the youth center staff, and the children. Jack is a stakeholder because his reputation is on the line with both the children and the center. Personally, he wants to fulfill a moral obligation to treat all of the kids fairly and make them feel like equals. The inequality in gift receiving could also cause problems between kids which he could feel responsible for. Professionally, he wants to accomplish his goals of the trip during his 5 months there, which may not be possible without a good relationship with both the children and staff. The youth center is a stakeholder because they are the primary ones responsible for the wellbeing of the children. Personally, the staff likely have the best interests of them at heart and want them to be happy. Professionally, however, they have a job to get done with limited resources and likely wanted to give the children gifts and move on. Jack’s questioning of the gift giving likely questioned their process and they may want to ensure that Jack does not cause a stir over what they may deem to be a small issue again, causing them more work and trouble. The kids who did not receive normal gifts are stakeholders as well because they may have felt left out by receiving a black hat instead of a nicer gift. They have personal motivation because socially they could have been teased or excluded for their gifts or generally made to feel inferior because of the lack of ceremony in their gift as well. The kids also blamed Jack for this because he handed out the gives so they may feel some resentment towards him as well.

  1. Administer the same gifts to the 4 children who did not get them originally

    1. Make sure this is in a public place to ensure that they feel respected and the “ceremony” aspect is achieved
    2. Pros
      1. Equality is achieved
      2. No difference in what the kids are getting or how they are getting it
    3. Cons
      1. The other kids might get mad that these 4 kids get the same gifts they got + a hat and another ceremony
      2. The youth center workers might get mad for working without them ruining necessary relations
    4. Saves face for the children, Jack and the youth center
    5. Implications on relationships
      1. The relationships between the kids would be salvaged because they would see each other as equals (short term and long term)
      2. The relationship between the kids and Jack would be fixed because the kids would believe Jack cares about them all (short term and long term)
      3. The relationship between the youth center and Jack could be fixed too because Jack would have taken the advice the youth center said and fixed the issue on his own (short term and long term)
    6. Implications on the venture
      1. Long term – Jack could show the initially hurt kids that he went out of his way to make an effort which, in the short term, would get him in better standing with those specific kids and also, long term, strengthen his relationship with all of them, allowing him to be more effective in his work
      2. Short term, his colleagues may be surprised that he took charge which they could potentially view poorly. However, it could show that Jack takes initiative and could be positive for his relationships with his colleagues in the long term.
  2. Give the kids some type of a leadership role in some event in order to make them feel as though they are on the same social level.
    1. Pros
      1. The kids feel equal
      2. Might seem to the staff as though Jack did not see a problem with their opinion and preserve the relationship
    2. Cons
      1. The other kids may feel slighted for not receiving a leadership role
      2. Maybe the kids actually just care about the gifts and will still be upset
    3. Saves face for the kids, Jack, and the youth center
    4. Implications on relationships
      1. Hopefully the relationship between Jack and the children would be fixed because they would know Jack cares about them. However, the children who do not get a leadership role may feel to be second tier.
      2. The relationship between the youth center and Jack may be fixed because Jack solved the solution but it also may be worsened if they feel Jack went behind their backs.
    5. Implications on the venture
      1. Long term– May be extremely helpful to figure out this situation in the beginning so that it does not spiral into something bigger affecting the actual venturelater on 
      2. Short term- There may be some upset between the youth center and Jack because the youth center did not think that this was an issue to begin with.
  3. Work in collaboration with the youth center workers to educate them about the problem in the situation and then plan something nice (but can be small) for the 4 children.
    1. Pros
      1. Not backdooring the youth workers, they will appreciate Jack prioritizing working with them
      2. Teaches the youth workers to better understand and deal with situations like these in the future
      3. The 4 children are receiving something special, and could improve their relationships with both Jack and the workers
    2. Cons
      1. Other kids may be mad bc the 4 kids are getting extra events for them
      2. The youth center staff may tell Jack to “fuck off”
    3. Saves face for Jack, the youth center workers (even though they might not care about that) as well as kind of patching up the relationship with the children
    4. Implications
      1. Short Term
        1. Makes 4 kids feel important/at the same level as the other children, could help them integrate themselves back into the rest of the group
        2. Kids will appreciate Jack doing something for them
        3. Rest of the kids may be mad the 4 kids are getting another event
      2. Long Term
        1. All kids may respect Jack & workers, make the 5 months easier
        2. Workers may appreciate you trying to work with them on that situation, helps your time with them
        3. The health workers may treat the kids better and have better relationships

The best solution to the issue is for Jack to wear a black hat every day for a few weeks or months after the ceremony. This would show the kids that the gift they received is special and “cool” because Jack is wearing it too, saving face to the kids. In the short term, it will likely mend Jack’s relationship with the left out kids because they won’t feel inferior. In the long term though, Jack will need to continue to work to maintain his relationship with them as similar situations with staff members could arise in the future since Jack didn’t really push for any change or inclusion of the kids after being brushed off by the staff. In the short term, his relationship with the staff could be a little strained because it might be bold of him to start wearing the hat and they may view it in a negative way. He did avoid confrontation though, maintaining a professional relationship with the staff and saving face. In the long term, after a few weeks, it probably will have little to no impact on their relationship and the staff may approve of his diplomatic way of solving the problem.

An advantage solution is that it is subtle, and non-confrontational. Jack caused a little stir by bringing up his concerns to the staff before, so this solution shows that Jack can take matters into his own hands and solve the problem. It also seemed that culturally, they may have not liked Jack coming in as a foreigner trying to create new problems so this would respectfully and subtly push for change without stepping on any toes. It would also likely improve his relationship with the kids because it would demonstrate his effort to make them feel included and make them happier with their gifts in general. A disadvantage to this, however, is that this relies on the kids seeing Jack in a way that him wearing the hat would make them want to as well. From our experiences in Sierra Leone though, we found that kids were eager to follow and look up to us which would probably work in Jack’s favor. In addition, this method, although non-confrontational, could be viewed as a little passive aggressive by staff members as Jack would be making a statement by wearing the hat. However, Jack would be taking matters into his own hands which the staff suggested and he wouldn’t cause any more work for them either.

Jack should start wearing the hat the next day after the ceremony, and should wear it every day after that. By wearing it all the time, he makes a stronger statement and it is more noticeable to the kids. If questioned about why he wears it by staff he should explain that he likes the hat but also wanted to set an example for the left out kids. This could also show the staff that there are small solutions to make everyone feel included and keep the peace in relationships.

Case Study One: Ethics

The case study today surrounded the theme of ethics when conducting research, especially in an international setting. A team of 10 researchers travel to test the water in Lesotho, a community in South Africa for a pathogen that could harm the people there. However, in order to successfully survey, the team will need significant on the ground support from community members, who they assume will help them with the project out of generosity.

The ethical dilemma in this situation is whether or not it is ethically correct to enter into a village planning to not need to pay for the time and knowledge of the community members. Without absolute guarantee that people will be willing to help readily, it is unreasonable to travel so far without another plan since the two weeks of surveying time is on the shorter side as well.

In class we talked about the terms respect, beneficence, and fairness surrounding research. It is important to consider what others can contribute to a project and to ensure that everyone’s efforts are compensated for justly. It is unrealistic to not pay for costs such as transportation and guidance when traveling to sampling sites.

The stakeholders in the project include the organization that supports the researchers such as a university or funders who seek to gain a better reputation for themselves in research, to advance science for the better of society, and to gain a return on their investment. The research team also holds a stake in the project as they want to spread awareness of the issue they are working to solve and they likely want to publish their work in journals and papers. Community members want cleaner water for better health in general, for a stronger community, and for a sense of security and safety. Another stakeholder is the large scale government which has political, capital, and economic opportunities from this international research and has the well-being of its constituents in mind as well.

The ethical question in this scenario is whether it is just to not compensate community members for their guidance on where to survey. The research team made the assumption that people would want to get involved because their work could better lives. However, there are other alternatives that could be more reliable for conducting the study as well as more fair to all parties involved.

An alternative is to partner with a NGO or established organization in Lesotho instead of arriving to the area without support. An advantage of establishing these connections would be that the NGO could decide, using their experience, who the team should work with and how they could collect samples most effectively. In addition, the organization makes the work of the team more credible to people on the ground, similarly to how GSIF worked with World Hope International in order to arrange transportation and meetings in Sierra Leone. This would be a better solution than, for example, hiring specific community members to help with sampling locations or educating community members and hoping they will let researchers sample their water because the infrastructure behind the NGO would likely help the researchers collect more accurate and precise data because of their credibility and pool of resources. If they used specific community members, there could be mistranslation or interpretation when going out to collect data and a bigger organization could provide a connection to a reliable translator.

Some potential issues with an NGO are that they can be bureaucratic and hard to work with at times. A solution to some of the difficulties that may come with working with an organization would be to be very specific and clear with the colleagues at the organization about the team’s objectives before arriving to Lesotho and what non-negotiably needs to get done on the ground. From my team’s experience with our translators and working in a country where things can often be slow to get done, we found that letting our translators and partners know that we absolutely needed to achieve a minimum number of surveys each day created some accountability and ensured that everyone knew our expectations. Being direct, clear, and helped to resolve almost all of the issues that we personally faced while working with an NGO in Salone. Since the researches are collecting samples, they also will have a “quota”, which will give them enough information to process the data properly, and will need to be upfront and hold the organization accountable in order to get work done, however, the benefits and resources of a partnership outweigh the challenges.

Partnering with an NGO or other organization has the most benefits and is likely to result in the best outcome of the study. It will provide added credibility and safety while on the ground while also giving them team resources and invaluable knowledge. The NGO may be paid for the partnership or have an another agreement with the team in exchange for their help, stimulating the local economy by paying for accommodation, transportation, food, etc. in country. This decision is also the most ethical because it involves community members and gives them a fair exchange for their time and efforts. The solution would also likely ease stress and tension within the group because the small details pertaining to things like transportation and translation would be handled by those who better understand the culture and environment and the team can focus on collecting the best data. In addition, socially, the partnership would help to avoid the perception of white saviorism by working in collaboration with the community.

Fall Week 1: Assessing the Socioeconomic Factors Underlying Ebola Infection

Lessons Learned:

  1. The first lesson I learned was about acceptance and understanding. There were many times that I felt out of place while in Sierra Leone, however, I felt surprisingly welcomed by almost all of our respondents. It seemed like community members generally understood that we came to Salone with positive intentions and through our connection with World Hope, trusted our credibility. They always made an effort to pull up a chair for us during an interview or told us that they were thankful for our efforts. This made me want to approach all new situations and people with an open mind and a good attitude.
  2.  I learned another important lesson about differences in lifestyle. I realized quickly during our trip that things work differently in Sierra Leone, and that their concept of time, work, family, and relaxation all differed greatly from mine. It was a little bit of a culture shock at first to experience so many new people with different boundaries that tested my comfort zone and adaptability in a unique setting.
  3. The third most important lesson that I learned was that people really tend to get used to and accept their version of “normal”, whatever that may be. I realized that a lot of the material things I missed while in Sierra Leone and “couldn’t really imagine living without”, most people there had never experienced. It made me realize that we really are products of our environment and can learn to adapt and live contently for the most part wherever we are placed.

Professional Development

  1. On the ground, I really learned how to step up and be vocal in my group in a new setting. I got more comfortable with my teammates on the trip which I think helped me do this, but also I think will help me to take a stronger leadership role in new groups in future endeavors as well.
  2. Working in a smaller team with only three group members, I really learned how to better understand my teammates’ strengths and weaknesses. This helped to assign tasks and get work done most efficiently with our limited resources. It also helped to understand the different personalities and roles within the group in order to better manage and use them.
  3. Finally, professionally I gained a better of understanding of how to participate in a professional meeting to form potential partnerships. We met with Statistics Sierra Leone and the Ministry of Health and our professors gave our project “pitch”. It was great to gain firsthand experience that I can use later in my professional career.

Personal Growth

  1. On a personal level, I learned a lot about myself on this trip as well as well as about my project. I discovered that sometimes it can be hard for me to accept change but I really like routine and can fall into “homeostasis” wherever I am. At first, I was really overwhelmed and homesick in Sierra Leone, however after one of our first days surveying where we got used to the timing and went really fast, I realized I liked the work we were doing and started getting used to the new environment.
  2. I learned to be a lot more independent this summer as well. We got some freedom in SL and there were times I really missed my family and friends, but I got used to a routine on the ground and was accustomed to it by the end. I think it was a good life experience to be able to survive on my own and take care of myself to some extent.
  3. I also learned a lot about gratitude and appreciation. I realized that it’s really the people in life that make it worth living. I saw so many moments of genuine and strong happiness experienced by people who, by the standards of the developed world, have practically nothing. It really emphasized for me what I really find of value in my life.

GSIF Blog 11

Develop an M&E plan for your project. [Clearly, list all assumptions. develop a Logic Model to identify short-term and long-term metrics and methods to determine them.]


  • That Ebola will strike west Africa sometime soon. A very disturbing assumption to be having to make.
  • That we will be able to get data based on Ebola from WHO and the Ministry of health
  • That we will actually fill out these reports that I said we would make and present them
  • That the data we will be using is actually right and not false data
  • That we will be able to make a model that will accurately predict where Ebola will strike
  • That having the government use its resources more accurately will decrease the death rate from Ebola.
  • That we will be able to decrease the death rate by 10%
  • Sort of assumption is the education regarding behaviors that increase risk, will be able to quantify through the use of survey
  • Our survey will work

Logic Model:


Estimate the Social Return on Investment for your project. [Clearly, list all your assumptions.]


  • If the government doesn’t have to spread itself thin preparing resources across Sierra Leone, that if we can tell them that they need fewer resources in that area that they will actually do that.
  • That the average cost to treat an Ebola patient is around 600 USD if they die with treatment and disposal of the body. (
  • Approx 5000 confirmed cases in SL
  • Our product will be able to reduce death rates by 10%
  • Rest are listed in the Excel sheet
  • Important to note that the cost of a caring for a patent is relevant because its the SROI, so this SROI is dependent on the cost of caring for dead and sick patients with Ebola
  • The model I have below infers that if we improve the death rate, the people who don’t die don’t get sick. In other words, our model would prevent those from dying to be able to help the government from even getting Ebola.
  • SROI:
    Through the use of our model, for every 1 USD, we create a saving of 30 USD. [Rounded to the nearest dollar. The real number is closer to 30.25 USD].

    A 3000% return on the investment.

GSIF Blog #10


Design Phase (These are two grants for the design phase. We have two design phases, Survey, and modeling.)

  1. NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant Award (R21) This grant is a beginning grant for initial stages of research. We already have an NIH grant for our project, but it’s focused more on the original project with modeling bat movement. If we were to apply to this grant we would have more resources for our project to look into how we are building our survey. We would apply for it with logic using this grant to hire some professional help with the development of the survey. We need a good survey for the rest of our project to work, so professional help could improve the accuracy of our data and overall improve our project.
  2. NSF Computational and Data-Enabled Science and Engineering (CDS&E). This is a grant focused on developing models and conducting research into modeling. We would write a proposal targeting this grant from a modeling perspective. Our project once the survey is completed and the data collected we need to create a model to implement the data into. This is sort of our second phase of development of the project, but fortunately, we can borrow the model from our bat project to accomplish the beginning of the modeling. We have made a lot of progress in this area, but we need money to run simulations and buy time with computing power, which would be the use of this grant.

Dissemination Phase (This first grant targets collecting data in Sierra Leone, the second i

  1. NIH Modeling of Infectious Disease Agent Study Research Projects (R01) This grant is focused on infectious diseases. We would write a proposal for this grant focusing on how our project has the potential to model the transmission of Ebola, which is an infectious disease. We would also probably add that if we get our model to work we can adapt it to other infectious diseases. Thus, the NIH would be more likely to approve our proposal. We would use this money to hire people in Sierre Leone to collect data and survey people while we are not there. This data is valuable to the NIH as raw data and is necessary for us to model the spread of Ebola
  2. CDC 2019 Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases (ELC). This grant is focused on the spread of disease worldwide. We would write a proposal to receive funding once we have completed the data collection and modeling, we would hope to start adding data from other countries, factors, and diseases into our model. We would use this grant to that by making new surveys, collecting new data, and improve the model with these new diseases by testing.



  1. CDC: We need to form a relationship with the CDC because they have experts that have a great understanding of Ebola. They also were on the ground in 2014 during the last outbreak, so they have an understanding of how the disease spread in humans which can help us better understand how the disease transmits from bats to humans. The experts who do what we are trying to do for a living who can give us advice. Finally, they have a lot of data from the 2014 epidemic which can use to train our model and better understand what is going on. Overall the CDC has so much human capital that we could use to further our project. The CDC has a mission to understand the disease and find methods to better control and understand disease, which we are doing so our interest align.
  2. NIH: The NIH has a lot of grant capability and also has a large research network we can rely on. Our relationship with NIH would be similar to our relationship with the CDC. They have experts, first-hand experience with Ebola, and data from the epidemics from before. There reach and network of researchers can allow us to connect with and improve our model. The NIH literally has tons of people who are doing what are doing that we can help, and that can help us. Take as much help as you can get. The NIH mission is to study health across the world, so if we are doing that, which we are they are incentives to work with us.
  3. WorldHope: Obisoiuvly we have a relationship with world Hope through Khanjan, but we need to establish a better relationship with them so in the future, we can have them possibly conduct our surveys for us while we are not in the country. We also can use them as a base to get transportation, translators, and a place to work, which are key resources we need in order to gather our data. WH will want to work with us because we have money and human capital that they desperately need.
  4. Statistics Sierra Leone: We would like to establish a relationship with statistics SaLeone to hopefully have them collect our data using our survey while we are not there. If World hope won’t or can’t play a part in the collection of the data Statistics can because they are already doing what we are trying to do, so we just need to convince them to do it with our survey. We just have to find the right motivation for them to do this for us. We can provide them with some capital resources to encourage them to work with us.
  5. UNSD (United Nations Statistics): The UNSD can provide us with connections to statistics bureaus across Africa. Ebola is really only found in Africa. We want to grow our model as much as we can, so we need someone who makes all the right connections and has a global reach. UNSD can make these connections to allow our model to grow and allow us to collect data in more countries to improve our model. I am not really sure why the UNSD would want to work with us other than to collect data that can be valuable to the world.