Blog Post 11/13 Lecture

 

 

The Conceptual Frame Work that my team developed is shown below. The CF is meant to show how GSIF creates an environment where all the “stuff” is channeled through the teams. Students and professors get to work together to make things happen. It really is all up to the teams to get work done.

CINQ Blog post 10/29

Blog Post Part 1

 

Tenet 1: Interdependence:

The interactive effect of tasks, goals, and feedback combinations. A state in which all firms in a market or players in a game, though in competition, are dependent on the actions and strategies of all the other firms or players in that market or game.

 

Our simple words: How different aspects all work together, relate to one another, and rely on each other.

Example: Behaviors in a region are interdependent when it comes to getting ebola.

Additional Example: Correlation between grain spawn sterility and the resulting bacteria levels in the substrate bags.

 

Tenet 2: Holism:

The idea that all of the properties of a given system—whether physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, or linguistic—cannot be determined or explained by their component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines how the parts behave.

 

Example: Every input for mushrooms is all worthless but when they come together a valuable product is created.

Our simple words: The whole make up something greater than the sum of its parts.

 

Tenet 3: Multifinality

Example: Mushrooms

  1. Jawara gets money and satisfaction from working on the job.
  2. People get mushrooms and more ability
  3. Marc and Belle receiving work experience, satisfaction from the job.

 

Definition: The same group of inputs is able to result in multiple potentially unrelated end products.  (The whole point of probability).. Subsystems meet goals and contribute to the larger systems goals.

 

Tenet 4: Equifinality: 

Example: There are multiple ways to grow and oyster mushrooms (3 main ones).

Example: Multiple groups in GSIF addressing maternal health.

Our simple words: There are many different ways to reach the same end.

 

Tenet 5: Differentiation:

Our simple definition: A method of identifying individual components of a large system

 

Example: Small stories building on each other and adding to the larger story. They’re different in that they each engage listeners in different ways and convey different aspects.

Mushrooms: Three main parts. Spawn. Substrate Pasteurization. Growth. All of these parts represent interdependence, differentiation, and holism.

 

Tenet 6: Regulation

Our definition: ensure that the system is actually working and all stakeholders are accountable to each other and the system

 

    Our simple definition: keeping people accountable

Example: How to ensure that Jawara is doing what he needs to be doing.

 

Tenet 7: Abstraction: Basically your start at the nitty-gritty detail of either an idea or point and then taking steps back until you can begin to grasp how things play together.

Example: We believe that bats transmit Ebola to humans, but this comes from the fact the bats are in the woods and have the disease, they can give it to multiple animals before it even makes it to a human. Then you have the health works trying to solve this from a urban point of view, then you can go higher all the way back to the ministry of health planning. When you look at how  bats lead Ebola to Humans, you can get different answers from different views.

 

Tenet 8: Leverage Points

Definition: The point(s) that would create the most change. Small shifts in one thing can produce big changes in everything.

Example: Malnutrition, if we give them what they need, they will do better in school, in life, won’t have as many problems in relation to health.

 

Examples: The barriers to entries of the mushroom market are all non-tangible like knowledge. All the inputs are waste products so the biggest leverage point is education.

 

Part Two

The Concept of Emergence: 

In simple words, the concept of emergence is when someone’s creativity has caught on and begins to spread. Something new is becoming popular or well known enough for it to be considered “a thing”. An example of an emergent system that creates a sustainable and scalable social venture is…. Exactly what all of us are trying to do. GRO mushroom project is an emergent system because no one has been able to thus far create a zero energy or zero waste way to grow mushrooms on agwaste. Their venture is sustainable in that it works of waste and doesn’t negatively impact the environment. They’re still working on the scaleable part but the idea is the slow spread of ideas and the sale of GRO mushrooms structures.

 Solutions to Water Hyacinth:

 

The solution to the problem:

  1. Advertise you are paying people to collect it for you. We will pay individuals the market rate for the amount of hyacinth. This will mean that people who collect it will make money, and they will provide the Entrepreneur with what she needs. This may slightly increase the price of the briquettes or composite but will solve the problem for collecting and put the community at ease. Instead of the entrepreneur owning all parts of the briquette market she will allow the community to supply her giving them an idea of control and benefit that they did not see before. This won’t significantly change any of the process in any way. Additionally, we could also only accept less hydrated hyacinth, which cuts done on the cost of the Entrepreneur in processing.

 

Partnerships and Coalitions Blog Post

Partnerships:

  1. Jawara
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. He is an employee of the venture
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. He runs our day to day activities growing mushrooms and he is our hands on the ground with our experiment.
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship?
      1. Yes because we paid him.
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. Communication is occasionally hard. We would do better with more time spent training him.
  2. John Pecchia
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. We corresponded with him over email about growing mushrooms and visited Penn State
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. He gave advice on what we were doing wrong and gave us ideas on how to adapt our processes. He got nothing other than a hand in creating impact
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship?
      1.  No
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. Involve him more as our actual advisor. He could go to Salone. We can give him credit for stuff
  3. Matthew Sicher
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. He is a knowledgeable grower in PA
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. He gave us a lot of knowledge and ideas about how we can improvise with the materials that we have.
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship?
      1. No, Matthew is just nice.
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. We did buy some spawn from him so that is nice. We can also give him more credit for his help or involve him further.
  4. World Hope
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. They support us on the ground. We found them through Khanjan’s relationship with them in Sierra Leone
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. We help them by bringing technical knowledge/knowhow and they help us with implementation and Sierra Leone specific knowhow
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship?
      1. Yes
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. Continuing our work and scaling up our venture so that their goal of impact can be met
  5. Sheku
    1. What constituted the partnership?
      1. He was a nearby carpenter.
    2. How did the partner help you? How did you help them?
      1. We employed him and he provided invaluable services for a good price.
    3. Was this a symbiotic relationship?
      1. Yes
    4. What would help strengthen this partnership and make it more equitable?
      1. Sheku wants us to employ his kids after he is too old to help us.

 

What is the larger cause that our project stands for!

Ideal world: Everyone has the tools to create circular ecosystems to create food and have absolutely zero waste. Increasing access to healthy nutritious foods.

EVERYTHING IS MUSHROOMS

everything

Our Coalition

  • Name : Earth Food
  • Stakeholders

Our team, World Hope, SLARI, the malnutrition team, investors

  • Opinion leaders

Us, world hope, community leaders and local farms who we’ve helped, spread the world through personal connections.

  • Policymakers

SLARI, local governments

  • Resource partners

Farmers around Sierra Leone or anyone with the desire to grow, anyone producing waste, WWOOF, Farmers from more privileged areas

  • Signaling partners

Who would add legitimacy: World Hope and SALRI

 

What we do:

We have lots of organizations that we can draw from to help organize sustainable farming. The scope of the coalition is Sierra Leone.

Teach countries (starting in Sierra Leone) how to properly utilize their resources and their countries’ ecosystem to create healthy foods in a sustainable way.

This would be a grassroots movement so to speak. Educating locals and spreading through word of mouth and proximity.

Once we have developed successful practices for farming our organization would grow and develop a strategy to impact regulation.

 

Team Building Notes

Team Name: Mushroom Team

Goals 

Project (Big G)

Metrics of success – mushrooms sold

Funding EPA P3 grant finishing – made into a more well rounded proposal to use for other sources

Additionally – publish a paper in the spring

Personal (Small g)

Belle: I’ve had this idea that my self worth lies in how I’ve impacted or changed the world after I die. And this project allows me to personally fulfill dreams and prepare myself for working in the real world and having a life after college.

Marc : ………..??

Roles 

We are equally responsible for each deliverable. Except Marc is responsible for keeping track of expenses and the team budget. Belle is responsible for all writing.

Our easiest avenue to effectively communicate is in person talking.

Procedures 

Decisions should be agreed upon by both parties.

Effective meetings need to have a planned start and end time.

Belle scribes.

We should meet twice a week. Expect quick responses and flexibility with times.

Relationships 

Very different programs and types of thinking. Different interests and skill sets. Different political alinements. This plays to over all team strength because we work well together.

 

Marc and I both missed this class on Tuesday due to a sickness going around. Please let me know if we are missing anything major.

Case 4

Part 1 

 

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state the ethical issue.

  • Chetan owns a business and uses neem trees which are used for everything
  • Neem industry provides employment for the poorest people
  • Chetan has a seven generation history in this industry
  • 60 people employed
  • Neem – Chetan doesn’t know its formal name (Azadirchta indica), indigenous to India
  • medicinal purposes, food production, toiletries, fuel, and pesticides
  • Ten years ago, Tom Johnson, the Director of T (OOPS) travelled to India on vacation and discovered the neem seeds’ use as a potent pesticide
  • Tom got a patent for the products

 

The ethical dilemma: Is it okay for OOPS to charge people in India royaltees on the patent even though they have been using the technology for decades prior.

 

Step 2 and 3: Define the Stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome  and their motivations

  • Chetan
    • Doesn’t want to pay the royaltees
    • Feels he owns the Neem products more than OOPS
    • Keep his tradition and culture alive
  • People in india employed in Neem products
    • Want to keep their jobs and maintain a salary
  • Tom Johnson (OOPS)
    • Make money
    • Tap into market in India
  • Neem product customers
    • Want to keep sacred neem
    • Want to stay at the same cost or lower
  • Chetan’s family
    • Want to keep in family to provide for them

 

What rights does Chetan have and is it ethical for the US company to uphold their patent rights?

So, is this moral? No. Is this ethical? That’s the bigger question.

 

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on the information available, using basic ethical core values as a guide

  1. Virtue based thinking. In a better world Tom Johnson would realize that although he has a patent on Neem products the ideas existed in oral tradition in other cultures and he shouldn’t own them. In this world he would avoid parts of the world where Neem products existed already.
  2. There should be a way for Tom Johnson to profit off of all the knowledge that Chetan and his company has about Neem products. They could collaborate and both profit from what the other has to offer.
  3. Another way to keep everyone happy is for Tom Johnson to buy Chetan’s company but leave him in a management position and keep all his workers employed.

 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – engineering codes of ethics, previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection

Theoretically Chetan can fight the patent because there shouldn’t be a patent on a naturally occurring thing, only on the process to make it. Additionally one could argue that any paperwork Chetan has regarding his business that outdated Tom’s patent can prove that Tom doesn’t own the idea. This would allow Chetan to fight the patent. From inside knowledge we know that getting into legal battles about these nit pick-y things takes time and money that Chetan’s and his employee’s don’t have. In the meantime they need another solution.

 

 

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that which satisfies the highest core ethical values.  Explain reasoning and justify. Discuss your stance vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in the class.

 

In the best course of action Tom Johnson would realize that ideas and knowledge exist outside the culture he is familiar with. It is not ethical from him to charge people for knowledge that has been theirs for decades. He should avoid all areas where using Neem products is part of the culture. Additionally if Mr. Johson recognizes this he could look into partnering with Chetan and trying to better both of the businesses.

I say it is unethical because patent law unfairly favors european cultures who write things down and file for patents. Just because the tradition is oral and engrained in a culture does not mean it doesn’t really exist, far from it, however, in the eyes of the law this doesn’t matter. Yet ethically, it should.

 

Step 7: (If applicable) What are the implications of your solution on the venture. Explain the impact of your proposed solution on the venture’s technology, economic, social and environmental aspects.

 

In this course of action everyone should go away happy. Chetan can continue his business and Tom Johnson will be able to sleep at night knowing he is doing the right thing. Tom Johnson is theoretically losing some economic profit, however, as discussed above this market is not his to own. Technologically both business’ will be better off for partnering because they have an imbalance in resources (Tom Johnson having much more) and understanding about the product (Chetan’s company has worked with this product for decades). Socially speaking Tom Johnson would stop being a monster and Chetan’s company would continue so everyone would be much better off.

 

Part two 

 

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state the ethical issue.

  • Chetan owns a business and uses neem trees which are used for everything
  • Neem industry provides employment for the poorest people
  • Chetan has a seven generation history in this industry
  • 60 people employed
  • Neem – Chetan doesn’t know its formal name (Azadirchta indica), indigenous to India
  • medicinal purposes, food production, toiletries, fuel, and pesticides
  • Ten years ago, Tom Johnson, the Director of Oregon Organic Pesticide Services (OOPS) travelled to India on vacation and discovered the neem seeds’ use as a potent pesticide
  • Tom got a patent for the products

 

The ethical dilemma: Is it okay for OOPS to charge people in India royaltees on the patent even though they have been using the technology for years prior.

 

Step 2: Define the Stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome

  • Chetan
  • Tom Johnson (OOPS)
  • Neem product customers
  • Chetan’s family
  • Previous employers of Chetan for products

 

Step 3: Determine and distinguish between the personal and professional motivations of the stakeholders.

  •  Chetan
    • Personal: Make sure all his valued employee’s stay employed, not lose his family’s way of life
    • Professional: keep his business open, not lose money
  • Tom Johnson (OOPS)
    • Personal: At this point we know he doesn’t care about the ethicacy of his business
    • Professional: Make money
  • Neem product customers
    • Personal: Use products they trust and have been using their entire lives
  • Chetan’s family
    • Personal: Keep valued business within their family
    • Professional: Keep making money
  • Chetan’s employees/ everyone already employed in the Neem industry
    • Personal: Want to keep their jobs and support their families
    • Professional: similar, keep their jobs.

 

Step 4 solutions(3):

 

  1. Collaborate with Tom’s OOPS company to get the original employees jobs there
    1. Who saves face?
      1. Chetan saves face because he is able to give his employees jobs but he might not be able to get a job and he will lose the business that he has worked so hard for. Employee’s may view this as Chetan selling out and abandoning them
  2. Offer severance package to employees
    1. Who saves face?
      1. Chetan somewhat saves face because he gives them the money that they need to survive until they are able to find another job but the employees might still be mad about this and could still cause problems for him. He would probably still view himself as a failure.
  3. Sell company out to OOPS, use the money to pay severance
    1. Who saves face?
      1. Chetan but same problems as both of the above things
  4. Fight to join the corporation and take whatever losses happen, accept you have to fire some people
    1. Who saves face?
      1. Chetan does have to sell out to OOPS but he sort of can retain ownership of his “branch” of the company. He and his employees both stay hired so they kind of all win. But only kind of. OPPS is still evil.
  5. Fight the patent. Sue for the oral tradition and culture showing they already knew what Tom owns the patent for.
    1. Who saves face?
      1. Nobody but really who cares because OOPS is the bad guy here.

 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection

 

It’s hard to believe that OOPS would collaborate with Chetan but maybe Chetan can make it worth their while because they know so much about Neem products.

Personally I have no faith in big corporations. However, I have even less faith in the global legal system. I think there is little to no chance that Chetan could get OOPS to stop operating in India before it is already too late to save anything. For this reason I think they must partner with OPPS to save their company.

 

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that solves the problem, saves face and has the best short term and long-term implications for your relationship and venture. Explain reasoning and discuss your solution vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in class.

 

Collaborate with Tom so that Chetan and his employees can keep their jobs if not their company. They have no chance of fighting the patent. And everyone needs to make a living to live to it is either join with Tom or don’t join with Tom and either way Tom owns the Neem industry everywhere. At least now they keep their jobs.

 

Step 7: List the sequence of actions you will take to implement your solution.

 

Chetan is going to have to really schmooze Tom Johnson to make this happen. He will have to prove that he offers knowledge that would take Tom ages to discover himself. Additionally Chetan could consider pitching the idea above Tom’s head if he really proves to be that much of a problem. After this happens Chetan will have to be willing to relinquish control of some aspects of his company and probably have to allow his operations to be overseen by some evil OOPS overlord.

 

CINQ Blog 4, case #3

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state the ethical issue.

  • 35% of the children in this East African region have stunted growth.
  • If children are breastfed for too long they have a higher chance of contracting HIV
  • Maize and banana gruel is the common food for the babies starting around 2 months to 24 months and accompanies breastfeeding. The gruel isn’t that nutritious even though people think it is
  • People are skeptical of the pesticides and the adverse health effects they can give to the babies
  • You have a grant to establish a women’s cooperative to improve the nutritional status of the children and improve the livelihoods of rural households.
    • The funds will help women’s group make nutritious self-stable porridge to help children ween off breastfeeding.
    • Approximately 500 women in the area are willing to join
  • WHO says to breastfeed exclusively until 6 months
  • The longer someone with HIV breastfeeds the more likely they are to transmit their diseases to their child

 

Step 2: Define the Stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome

  1. Children at breastfeeding ages
  2. Lactating mothers
  3. Women joining the co-op
  4. Women’s cooperative grant donor
  5. You as a researcher
  6. Local farmers
  7. Doctors / Health network
  8. The actual co-op

 

Step 3: Assess the motivations of the Stakeholders

  1. Children at breastfeeding ages
    1. Don’t want to get HIV
    2. Don’t want pesticides in their food
    3. Want to grow up healthy and alive
  2. Lactating mothers
    1. Want their babies to grow up healthy
  3. Other Women
    1. They may be in the women’s cooperative making the porridge as part of the project
    2. Potential employment opportunity with the cooperative
    3. Will want their future children to be healthy
  4. Women’s cooperative Grant Donor
    1. Want women to be healthier
    2. Want their money to go towards a productive venture (worthy investment)
  5. You as a researcher
    1. Want to make everyone happy
    2. Professionally need to develop a successful co-operative  – this is your main motivation not the ethical issue in question
  6. Local Farmers
    1. Your crops may be used to produce the porridge that will be created with the women’s cooperative.
    2. You will make money
  7. Doctors
    1. Want healthy communities
    2. Be equipped in the case of new health problems arise because of pesticide use?
  8. The future co-op
    1. Motivated to stay open
    2. Be useful – help women
    3. Make money

 

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, using basic ethical core values as guide

 

The problem: How can you ethically decide for a mother what types of pesticides you give her child when you know the child is malnutritioned and her breastfeeding may be dangerous.

 

Solution 1:

  • Potential solution: Form a section on the cooperative and educate women on the different risks of the porridge and HIV and let them decide, also produce the porridge and sell it.
  • Ethical Principle: virtue-based because a good person would educate the community about the problems so that you engage them in the decision-making process.
  • Pros: Promotes healthy choices among the women and they
  • Cons: the women could possibly make the wrong decision and put their child in danger. It is very hard to educate any possible buyer.

 

Solution 2:

  • Potential solution : Form the porridge – privately test the new supplement for pesticides, based on the assumption that pesticides are better than HIV. Don’t tell women about the dangers of pesticides. Teach women that after 6 months they have to stop breastfeeding.
  • Ethical Principle or code- consequence based thinking because if your goal is just to choose the healthier option, just take the fastest path of getting there by telling the women to make the porridge without educating them about anything.
  • Pros: You don’t risk damaging the reputation of the porridge and thus don’t give babies HIV. You are solving the problem as you see it as quickly as possible.
  • Cons: Is this moral? No. You are choosing for every mother in the community.

Solution 3:

  • Potential solution: cooperative grows its own crops without pesticides and uses those ingredients to make the porridge and give the porridge to every mother so that there is no risk of the babies getting HIV
  • ethical principle or code: virtue based. Be a good person and look for the best solution to improve the standard of living for the community.
  • Pros: ensure that every child is getting healthy nutrients and not getting HIV. This could make the co-op self sufficient and a closed loop system which is great.
  • Cons: growing your own crops adds another level to the co-op and will require investment (though odds are the women are educated about growing staple crops).

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – engineering codes of ethics, previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection.

 

Relying on my work with the mushroom team I know how valuable it can be to specifically engineer all the aspects and inputs in your business. You can realize how to create no waste and be as efficient as possible.

I think solution two while it might seem like the best choice to a robot is immoral and I could never carry that guilt if the pesticides became a big problem.

 

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that which satisfies the highest core ethical values. Explain reasoning and justify. Discuss your stance vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in the class.

 

Out of the three solutions that our group came up with I would choose solution 3. From working in agriculture I know that most people (or at least some who you could hire) would have background knowledge on staple crops. If your product is being sourced from local crops it would be beneficial to source your own. This would allow you to grow the co-operative and employ more women as opposed to outsourcing. This also eliminates the ethical issue of pesticides. Now you are giving women a completely safe alternative to breastfeeding which will hopefully help children stop breastfeeding earlier and thus avoid contracting HIV.

 

Step 7: What are the implications of your solution on the venture? Explain the

impact of your proposed solution on the venture’s technology, economic, social and environmental aspects.

 

This heavily impacts your co-operative. It could easily cause logistical problems and will make the co-op harder to organize and will be much more work for you. While it will save you money in the long run because you won’t need to pay farmers for crops and you can supply them yourself in the set up of the venture it will require a larger start up cost which may or may not be covered by the grant. This may irritate the grant donor who would not be in charge of making this change.

 

PART 2

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible. Clearly state the ethical issue.

  • The women in the cooperative are making alright money off of the venture (about $3 USD)
  • Cooperative also gives the women the option to sell their own family’s crops to the cooperative, gives them a little more money
  • Children of cooperative women aren’t getting fed
  • Money is being wasted by the men

 

Step 2: Define the Stakeholders – those with a vested interest in the outcome

  1. Cooperative women
  2. 7 women on committee
  3. You as the entrepreneur
  4. Children
  5. Husbands, brothers, fathers
  6. Grant donor

 

Step 3: Assess the personal and professional motivations of the Stakeholders

  1. Cooperative women
    1. Personal: they want the money to be used for their children. If they speak up, they might be subjected to domestic abuse.
    2. Professional: they want their hard-earned money to be put into good use.
  2. 7 women on the committee
    1. Personal: they want their fellow women to have control over their paycheck because “girls stick together”
    2. Professional: same thing but as committee members, they want to do what’s best for the cooperative
  3. You as the entrepreneur
    1. Personal: the morally good person in you just wants equality
    2. Professional: you want the grant that went into creating the cooperative to be used wisely
  4. Children:
    1. Personal and professional: they want and need healthy food to grow up healthy
  5. Husbands, brothers, fathers
    1. Personal and professional: they want that extra pocket money to spend on useless shit that will give them a good reputation among their men friends and have that cultural capital for socializing.
  6. Grant donors
    1. Personal: they want to empower women
    2. Professional: they want their money to be used well.

 

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on the information available, using basic ethical core values as guide

SOLUTION 1:

  • Potential Solution: Convince the board to: economically incentivise families to spend money responsibly by showing receipts spent on food, water, etc. If they are spending the money responsibly they get an X% raise so long as they continue spending responsibly
  • How does it solve the problem?
    • Pros: incentivises the families to spend money better, gets
    • Cons: more cost to the coop- HOWEVER this incentive may be as expensive as other solns
      • Also, this solution creates a need for much more bureaucracy which may be difficult to implement and enforce
  • How does it save face of those involved?
    • It doesn’t give the men a choice not to spend the money on food and necessities, so the women aren’t “taking” money from them.
  • Implications on relationships
    • Short-term: Gives women more power
    • Long-term: might make the men upset once they catch on
  • Implications on the venture
    • Short-term: should solve the problem for the women
    • Long-term: might not work at all, might lose money, is a huge logistical nightmare

SOLUTION 2:

  • Potential Solution: Convince the board to:  Barter instead of money for the goods because then the women will have no money to give to their husbands
  • How does it solve the problem?
    • Pros: Takes away the ability for the men of the households to take the money and use it for their personal use
      • The women will still be rewarded for their work but will be given things that will benefit them and their whole family (not alc and shit)
    • Cons: Men might get heated, cooperative would probably have to create some sort of store that the women can go to and exchange their points for goods, goods offered to barter for might not be what the women need for themselves and fam
  • How does it save face of those involved?
    • Women feel better knowing that there isn’t money being wasted and their kids can still get fed if some of the exchanges include the porridge itself.
  • Implications on relationships
    • Short-term: Women are bringing something home to their families that will
    • Long-term
  • Implications on the venture
    • Short-term: how do you get the goods to trade for- will give more responsibility to the co-op
    • Long-term: This creates a centrally planned economy vibe where the co-op would be deciding what goods the women can purchase and would eliminate the choice and benefit of the free market. Would likely come to irritate the women.

 

SOLUTION 3:

  • Potential Solution:  Cooperative keeps the money and keeps track of what each woman has earned, this is like a “share” within the co-op: money reinvested results in better wages eventually (has the benefits of a bank). The co-op makes rules about what you can withdraw money for and there is a cool down period before you get the money.
  • How does it solve the problem?
    • Pros: The women regain some control of their money
    • Cons: the men still have a little control, wiggle room to break the rules
  • How does it save face of those involved?
    • Cooperative grant donors can say they are addressing the issue. The men don’t lose total control and thus won’t act irrationally or in anger. It can be phrased as a new good business idea instead of a solution to a problem that no one wants to admit is happening.
  • Implications on relationships
    • Short-term may initially be confusing and hard to explain to workers
    • Long-term will give women control, higher wages, and better quality of life
  • Implications on the venture
    • Short-term lots more work
    • Long-term more money to reinvest into the co-op, basically a constant loan base

 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – engineering codes of ethics, previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection…

 

Solution 3 was Khanjans idea and I really have no knowledge of how this would work or if it occurs in the real world beyond what he told me.

I know that men in the real world would react very poorly and perhaps spell the end to the co-op if they lost control of money they viewed to be theirs. One should be very careful when interfering (even indirectly) in domestic affairs.

 

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that solves the problem, saves face and has the best short term and long-term implications for your relationship and venture. Explain reasoning and discuss your solution vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in class.

 

I believe that the best solution is solution 3. Solution 1 and 2 would become logistical nightmares supper quickly. There is too much doubt in whether or not solutions 1 or 2 would achieve the desired outcome. In the case of bartering the co-op would have to order goods and they wouldn’t know exactly what the women want, this would result in loss of money so this solution could never work. In the case of solution one it seems smart to incentive people to buy better goods but the men would feel attacked by this and perhaps react poorly as well as lie about the money spent. The co-op would also not make money from this and thus wouldn’t have an obvious source to give out the monetary incentives.

Solution 3 is possible and will save face for those involved. It doesn’t have the problems that solutions 2 and 1 have.

 

Step 7: List the sequence of actions you will take to implement your solution

 

First, you must win over the other 6 board members. Starting with the ones most likely to agree with you. Then move on the workers and make sure to include their male family members in this discussion. Angle it as a savvy business opportunity and a way for them to make more money (along with control for the women but don’t tell the men that). Slowly win over more and more people. You may have to make compromises or add to the solution and that’s okay as long as you don’t change the outcomes and impacts. Make a very specific and agreed-upon set of rules for withdrawing money and make sure the entire co-op is a part of this discussion. Then work hard to make sure the system, when put in place, is efficient and fair.

CINQ Blog #3 Case 2

Step 1: Determine the facts in the situation – obtain all of the unbiased facts possible

  1. Jack is in Kenya for 5 months
  2. Center for former street youth
  3. Jack was the gift distributor because he was a guest
  4. Gifts were from a separate donor
  5. The kids thought that Jack got the kids the gifts
  6. 4 kids didn’t get gifts and blamed Jack
  7. The 4 kids without gifts were unhappy
  8. The 4 kids got a black hat at the end
  9. Jack wants a good relationship with the kids and the center
  10. The people at the community center don’t care that the kids didn’t get gifts
  11. (Jack is Steve Suffian)

Step 2: Define the problem and the stakeholders

– those with a vested interest in the outcome
The problem is that 4 kids did not get gifts during a ceremony, and were given black hats afterward (unceremoniously)

Stakeholders:

  1. Jack
  2. Kids
    1. with and without gifts
  3. The Center and employees
  4. Funders of the gifts
  5. Funders of Jack’s venture

Step 3: Determine and distinguish between the personal and professional motivations of the stakeholders.

  1. Jack
    1. Personal: He wants to be liked
    2. Professional, wants to have a good long term relationship with the children while he is in Kenya.
  2. Kids who didn’t get the gifts: Everyone wants to be recognized in the ceremony and receive the same gifts
    1. Personal: No one wants to be left out,
    2. Professional: NA
  3. Kids who did receive gifts
    1. Personal: Feel superior to other kids who didn’t get gifts, might make fun of other children
    2. Professional: NA
  4. The center
    1. Personal: think Jack is dramatic and they just want to stop being bothered, might be offended if Jack comes in and criticizes them.
    2. Professional: They don’t want Jack to become a children’s rights activist → criticism for things that they are doing because they are working with what they have, they want to focus on bigger problems in the center and don’t want Jack to get in the way of their larger goal
  5. Funders of gifts
    1. Professional: Want to maintain a good reputation and a good relationship with the center for future gift-giving which is really just a form of publicity.
  6. Funders of Jack’s venture
    1. Professional: don’t want him to get sent home or be unable to do his work and lose their investment

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions – based on information available, to have a win-win situation for your relationship and your venture.

  1. Solution one: Jack can approach the children separately and give them real gifts by themselves – privately don’t involve the center
  • How does it solve the problem?
    o Pros: kids have the gifts
    o Cons: this will not improve their standing with the other children because it is not in the ceremony
  • How does it save face of those involved: Jack saves face with the children they will like him now
  • Implications on relationships
    o Short-term: kids will be happy and have a good relationship with Jack
    o Long-term: they might still feel awkward that they were left out and have strained relationships with the other kids
  • Implications on the venture
    o Short-term: kids more willing to take part in his study and may give better anecdotal evidence
    o Long-term: would need to get to the root of the problem – why did they withhold info from him?
  1. Solution two: Hold another non-related party but have Jack present those 4 kids gifts
  • How does it solve the problem?
    o Pros: kids will get the gifts ceremoniously and be recognized in front of their friends
    o Cons: kids might be embarrassed
  • How does it save face of those involved: children are saved face because they are given gifts in front of their friends, Jack saves face with the children
  • Implications on relationships
    o Short-term: Kids will be happy
    o Long-term: center might feel overlooked and resentful Jack worked around them
  • Implications on the venture
    o Short-term: it will be costly to buy new gifts and throw a new party
  • o Long-term: could harm the professional relationship between Jack and the children and Jack might have trouble continuing the work
  1. Solution Three: Do not give the children gifts
  • How does it solve the problem?
    o Pros: no cost and the center is left unbothered.
    o Cons: kids are sad and don’t get gifts   (aka it doesn’t solve the problem)
  • How does it save face of those involved – the center does not have to deal with Jack. There is no awkwardness of receiving gifts later
  • Implications on relationships
    o Short-term: kids may not like Jack or the center
    o Long-term: kids might be less willing to work with Jack and help him accomplish his goals
  • Implications on the venture
    o Short-term 4 kids are upset still but other kids probably don’t care
    o Long-term the center will be happy you obeyed them, con- might be more confident in rolling over Jack in the future

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate – previous cases, peers, reliance on personal experience, inner reflection

Some of us have met “Jack” at Mountaintop and know that he is a nice person, and think that he would want the children to receive gifts.

Personall experience with day care or nanny-ing kids get over stuff pretty quickly but in the short term irritating younger children can make them incredibly hard to work with.

Step 6: Select the best course of action – that solves the problem, saves face and has the best short- term and long-term implications for your relationship and venture. Explain reasoning and discuss your solution vis-a-vis other approaches discussed in class.

Solution 1: it won’t harm Jack’s relationship with the center like solution 2 would. The kids will like Jack and be willing to work with him over the next 5 months and the other children who did receive gifts will be indifferent. He needs to have good relations with both the center and the kids and this solution makes that possible. Solutions 2 and 3 each only saved face for Jack in the eyes of the kids or the center but not both. However, in this scenario the kids wouldn’t save face in front of the other kids while this was part of the problem kids should quickly get over this and still treat each other well, it is more important that the kids don’t resent Jack. Though Jack risks annoying the center or causing further complications if he is careful he won’t do this and additionally, he won’t continue to feel guilty which is how he would feel if he did nothing.

Step 7: List the sequence of actions you will take to implement your solution. 

  1. Jack will buy the gifts
  2. The gifts cannot be of greater value than the gifts the other children revised or this would cause further problems
  3. Jack will give the children gift without the center being involved or seeing
  4. Jack will explain to the children he was not responsible for them not getting gifts in the first place
  5. Jack will tell the children that the center also paid for the kids gifts and jack was giving them out regardless of whether or not this is true.

This scenario allows for the center and Jack to save face. The kids will feel less slighted by both Jack and the shelter and improve their professional relationships. Jack will have to buy the gifts with his own money which is a con considering economics but knowing Jack he is in a position where that won’t be a huge problem for him. The gifts also should not be expensive or worth anything, they are just symbolic. If the gifts were nicer and useful this would make the other children jealous and set the wrong precedent for Jack and his professional relationship with the children. Here the 4 children will be less upset with j=Jack and additionally not blame the center. The center won’t know Jack intervened as it will now be a non-issue if Jack is laid back and casual while tactful about his approach to the situation. This solution won’t impact the funders of jacks venture or the funders of the origonal gifts. Jack and the kids will be impacted and hopefully if all goes to plan the center will not be.

CINQ Blog #2

Case Study 1 – Dangerous Water Pathogens in Lesotho 

Step one: 

Facts of the case 

  • Goal is to test water for disease causing pathogens in Lesotho, Africa. 
  • Specific pathogen only found in this one place – no where else to do it
  • Communities only contribution is leading to water source
  • 11  researchers, 10 days

 

Step two and three: 

Stakeholders and Motivations 

  1. You and research team- 11 people. Motivations: To benefit from publication, professional clout, to further science 
  2. The community members. Motivations: May be harmed by bacteria, may benefit from the results of this research in the future
  3. The community members who help you. Motivations: reward of some kind, possible employment opportunities, social rise from working with foreigners 
  4. Anyone who reads the report. Motivations: Learn, profit of implementing a solution
  5. The University. Motivations: Make connections in other countries, further science, gain clout in academia from publications. 
  6.   Government of Lesotho. Motivations: possibly gain clean water, help their citizens

 

 Step Four 

Ethical Question: Should people be compensated for their time and resources? Is it ethical to conduct this study from a human standpoint? Is it ethical at all?

Is this research ethical at all? Yes, this research is ethical. From our class discussion no arguments were made for the research being unethical. The most damage it might do it lead people to worry over their water sources more than previously. Additionally, from a human standpoint this study is ethical.

The results of the study have the potential to help those involved or at the very least spread more knowledge about the pathogen in the water source. If the communities resources are depleted from the work being doing yes they should be compensated but that is not a foreseen effect of the study. As to should people be paid, we will get into that in further steps…

Alternative solutions

1) Give conclusions and results for free for the community members and relevant government departments, insure understanding

2)      Don’t pay them, faith based 

3)      Reimburse them for gas or only resources you use, no tip

4)     Get approval from the water ministry 

5) Pay everyone you encounter a tip 

6) Incentivize people to help with a low cost good like coke but not monetary payment 

Or any combination of above options.

 

Step Five : 

Previous cases and personal experience 

Past case from the Ebola team. Their research  did not pay anyone except for reimbursements. They also made sure anyone involved knew that. They introduced themselves and explained fully what they needed before asking for assistance. In this way they weren’t letting people agree to something thinking they might be paid. 

Personal experience: Paying people tends to get you the most reliable and useful assistance, however, when traveling you shouldn’t be expected to tip everyone you encounter just because you come from a wealthier country.

 

Step six: 

Best Course of Action 

My team decided that the best course of action is to go through all the proper channels but not pay any community members for their help with directions.

We would get a letter from the Ministry of Water Resources and come prepared with maps and areal photos of the place. However, we don’t feel that paying community members for this work is the best course of action.

Offering to pay for knowledge that everyone has and some might give for free puts people who need or want the money in a situation where they need to be the first to please you and disadvantages those you aren’t aware of the opportunity. In a very poor area this might cause resentment among citizens and also put you and your team in an awkward place.

The results of any study should be explained to all relevant parties in Lesotho and this will be free.

 

Step seven: 

Implications of our Best Course of Action 

The worst case scenario is that nobody is willing to help us. In that case we have listed other possible scenarios that include offering a good in return or tipping.

Best case, the research can be pulled off without wasting resources and keeping strong connections with the community.

The results of the study will be made free to the community and the government so they will be informed about their water sources. The information is also published so there is the possibility that a solution to the problem can be found and implemented.

CINQ 388 Blog Post #1

Blog Post Number 1, 8/27/19

  • What are the top 3 things I learned during my GSIF trip this summer?
    • Most importantly, all the possible ingredients for substrate
      • Learned by going to the markets
      • It matters for cost of bags and successful mushrooms
      • We now have to test all these new ingredients
    • Second, I got a greater understanding for the weather in Sierra Leone and factors that will change by season
      • I learned this by talking to Jawara and others about the dry season and experiencing the wet season
      •  This matters because it will impact the structures that we decide to grow and the durability of materials that we will need to be testing and eventually using
      • In light of this we need to let the structure we currently built survive and see how long it takes to break, we also need to find alternatives
    • Lastly, I learned that the tap water is not safe to drink
      • I learned this by bringing a water drinking test that I purchased
      • This matters because some fungus leach heavy metals out of waters
      • I will make sure that nobody can be harmed by eating our mushrooms, we need to get grant money to test them, we can also look into using rain water instead of tap water or water from harmful pipes.
  • How did the GSIF trip facilitate my professional development?
    • Taught me how to be a leader
      • Sierra Leone taught me how to take responsibility that I knew I was qualified to take and take charge. I needed to be more confident and more vocal as well as stricter in what I knew was required
      • I learned this because there was no way around it. If I didn’t take charge things wouldn’t get done. It was the way it had to be done whether or not I was seen as an authority figure I had to act like one
      • This matters because it will be applicable to any job that I take
    • Changed my world view. I now believe that I have a better understanding about how the world works and what is really required to make an impact.
      • I learned this by experiencing Sierra Leone
      • This matters because I have arranged my professional and personal life goals around experiencing the world and creating sustainable impact
      • In light of this I am considering other projects and programs I can be a part of
    • This trip taught me the importance of networking which before I thought was fluff and bs
      • I learned this through interacting with Jawara’s boss on accident and afterwards realizing the impact that conversation can have on our employee.
      • The success of our project will rely on the positive connections we make in country and also in the US.
      • Through this myself and my team should always be prepared and practiced before going into situations. Our elevator pitch should be spot on.
  • How did the GSIF trip help me grow personally?
    • Seeing the disparity in wealth up close and personal was really hard and makes a person face the reality of living on earth.
      • I learned this through experiencing Sierra Leone and her people and culture
      • This changed me personally which is why it matters to me? To be more specific the larger the world view you experience the more people you can relate to.
      • In light of this I believe I have more respect and understanding of the world I live in.
    • Makes everybody grow up a little to have that much responsibility
      • I honestly feel as though I have aged and entire year in this trip. I feel more mature and responsible
    • I was alone in a foreign country with people I barely knew and I kind of need friendship to survive so it was really helped me get out of my safe bubble of people I already know and am familiar with.
      • The friendships and professional relationships I made on this trip will stay with me forever.
Skip to toolbar