Step 1- Facts: 

-An auto-disable function that needs to be implemented in the syringe is costly but crucial for safety precautions. 

-The designer is conflicted because the safety feature would prevent the spread of diseases, however, the clinics and hospitals that the syringe is being made for will potentially not be able to afford it. 

 

Step 2- Stakeholders: Hospitals and Clinics, Patients, The Government, The regulatory body, the insurance company, manufacturers of syringe, designer of syringe, the company funding the creation of the syringe, people that care about said patient, 

 

Primary Stakeholders: Doctors and Patients 

 

Step 3- Motivations of stakeholders: 

-Patient safety is definitely a priority for the patients themselves as well as the doctors who will be utilizing them 

– Monetary gain is an important factor for the company funding the project, the designer, and the manufacturers behind the creation of the syringe. 

– Hospital credibility would be very crucial for the hospitals and clinics that will be using the syringe since they want their patients to trust them with safely caring for them. 

 

Step 4- Potential solution: 

• Create more affordable design options for the syringe stopper. Potentially find inspiration from ways that other hospitals ensure to prevent diseases spreading. 
  • Pros: There are most likely ways that this technology will continuously evolve and potentially get cheaper as the technology becomes more common.
  • Cons: There will probably be a lot more time that will go into the creation of creating another form of a safe vaccine that will have a cheaper cost. 
• Offer alternatives to syringe – atomizer- more affordable but less effective 
  • Pros: Such as an atomizer that is more affordable and easier to dispense to hospitals and patients.
  • Cons: Less effective in terms of medical administration, does not take advantage of modern technology that exists today.  
• Do half with the syringe stopper and half without. Healthy patients that have high chances of survival receive the syringe with the stopper and patients that appear to be in bad shape get the syringe without. This allows for a cut in cost while still utilizing the technology. 
  • Pros: This would reduce the cost of the vaccines since half of them will be created without the expensive addition of the safety feature. 
  • Cons: Some people may view this as unethical since they would specifically choose who gets the vaccine with the safety feature and who doesn’t. There may arise problems of bias if the people who are choosing who gets the safety feature or not are unfairly choosing. 
• Speak with the hospitals/clinics that will be purchasing the syringes to see if they can potentially meet the designer half way in terms of what they can afford. Because this case study claims that the additional feature may “potentially” be unaffordable does not confirm the final product with the feature will be unaffordable for hospitals to get ahold of.
  • Pro: Potentially decrease in cost when more patients use it. Ensures that all patients are being safely injected.
  • Con: By implementing the feature, the early stages of selling the syringes will be more costly.

 

Step 5- Seek additional assistance, as appropriate:

• Affordable design options would be seeking a lower bottom line- change manufacturer. This will allow for more safe and effective syringe usage but at a more cost effective price. 

 

Step 6- Select the best course of action:

Cost is incredibly difficult to cut down. Because of this our second approach was to implement a half and half system. Each facility gets half high-tech syringes and half regular syringes. The Patients that have lower survival rates will receive the syringe without the stopper and the patients with the highest survival rates will receive the syringe with the stopper. This keeps the healthy healthy and this allows for them to get the best care in order to survive while still compromising on cost. The technology can still be used however not everyone will receive it. 

 

Step7-  (If applicable) What are the implications of your solution on the venture:

 

The impact of our proposed solution on the ventures economic aspect will be beneficial because since we will be creating both of the kinds of syringes it will allow for the venture to be able to provide for the hospitals/clinics while still meeting what they can afford. In addition to this it will also affect the ventures social aspect since they will be able to provide overall a cheaper vaccine for the hospitals and clinics that are in dire need of it. 

I would sell both to accommodate this solution. This way people can make the choice for themselves.