Month: September 2019

Part 1: 

The facts:

• Neem is indigenous to India and is considered sacred
• neem used extensively over the past 2,000 years for medicinal purposes, food production, toiletries, fuel, and pesticides. 
• Neem products used widely across India and the industry as a whole employs many poor people
• Chetan operates a small business of neem tree products
• Chetan’s family has owned this business for the last seven generations
• The business employs 60 people in different functions
• Despite being familiar with over 200 applications of the tree and its derivatives, Chetan does not know the exact name of the neem seed extract, Azadirachtin. 
• Ten years ago, Tom Johnson (OOPS) discovered the neem seeds’ use as a potent pesticide. 
• Tom received a patent for the pesticide formula and brought the product to market
• They have a worldwide patent and financial capital to manufacture and sell the product on a large scale.
• People are likely to prefer buying products from US companies over small Indian cottage, affecting Chetan’s business

Stakeholders:

• OOPS
  • Prof: Make a lot of money
    • Gain a huge market share
  • Personal: Also make money
• Chetan
  • Prof: Keep his employees, and provide goods to his community, make money
  • Personal: Keep his employee’s jobs and put food on his family’s table
• Chetan’s employees
  • Prof: Want to keep their jobs 
  • Pers: Need money for their families
• Other Indian growers of neem trees
  • Prof: money/job security
  • Personal: feeding families, social worth

• Secondary Stakeholders:
• Competing companies (Chetan could help them instead)
• Consumers in India

Solutions:

1. Try to design a new molecule that is different

Pros: Even a slightly different molecule is then patentable and Chetan can compete with OOPS. Chetan maintains his market control and can keep his employees and business.

Cons: Requires a lot of capital, and no guarantee new molecule exists

Ethics: It’s a risk to try this, but ethically you are trying to save your employees jobs and your family’s income.

2. Fight the patent

Pros: OOPS patented a molecule that wasn’t native to their country, therefore Chetan has some ground to stand on to fight the patent. If he wins, he can continue his business as usual.

Cons: Requires a lot of money to do so, and no guarantee the patent is reversed.

3. Work out a deal

Pros: Can possibly get OOPS to drop the royalty so the business can return as normal

Cons: No guarantee OOPS agrees to the deal, could increase royalty.

Speak to an expert:

We asked Prof. Cheng what she would do, and she stated that she would try to reverse the patent. She also believes that the patent is reversible, and at the minimum, the patent should only apply to the exact pesticide formula that they sell.

My solution choice:

I would also try to fight the patent. I believe that Chetan has solid ground to stand on, and the patent, if it stands, would only apply to the pesticide formula. This solution begins by Chetan gathering capatial to get a patent lawyer to help with the case. I don’t know the direct pathway to do this, but that’s the job of the lawyer. After the results come back Chetan can hopefully return to business as usual and support his family and emplyees.

 

Part 2:

The facts: 

• Six months after launch, OOPS is crushing the Indian market.
• OOPS now has over 20 different neem-based products being sold through partnerships with supermarket chains.
• Tom refused to abandon the market but was open to collaboration if it would help him make more money
• Chetan’s business is suffering and he will likely have to lay off half of his staff at the end of the month.
• Chetan’s employees saw him meet with Tom Johnson several times and believe that he has cut some kind of a deal with OOPS.

The stakeholders: 

• OOPS
  • Prof: Make a lot of money
    • Gain a huge market share
  • Personal: Also make money
• Chetan
  • Prof: Keep his employees, and provide goods to his community, make money
  • Personal: Keep his employee’s jobs and put food on his family’s table
• Chetan’s employees
  • Prof: Want to keep their jobs 
  • Pers: Need money for their families
• Other Indian growers of neem trees
  • Prof: money/job security
  • Personal: feeding families, social worth

• Secondary Stakeholders:
• Competing companies (Chetan could help them instead)
• Consumers in India

Solutions: 

1. Do the deal with OOPS

Pros: Save money, stay in business, keep employees

Cons: Employees lose faith in Chetan, OOPS has control over Chetan

2. Focus on one product

Pros: Can possibly survive by only focusing on one item, reduce the production cost of it, and sell it for a lower price than OOPS and gain market control

Cons: Not guaranteed to work, and if this plan doesn’t work, Chetan and his business will go broke.

3. Don’t do the deal with OOPS

Pros: Chetan saves his name and doesn’t sell out to OOPS

Cons: His business will probably go bankrupt and he will lose his employees and business

Speak with an expert: 

I asked my friend from Penn State that works on his own global social venture and he stated that he would do the deal with OOPS, becuase while some people may think that you sold out, at the end of the day, you keep your business, food on the table, and your employees.

My choice and the following actions: 

I would also do the deal with OOPS. Although OOPS may be the villain in this story, in order for Chetan to keep his own income, the income of all of his employees, and the business that has been passed down for generations. I would work out what figure keeps Chetan in business and make that the bottom line for the deal. Tom will not leave the market, so as the saying goes, “If you can’t beat them, join them”, and I feel that applies to this situation very well.

 

Part 1 :

1. The facts:

• Gruel currently made of corn and bananas 
• the growth of ~35% of the children are stunted due to poor nutrition
• Mothers believe that gruel is effective 
• HIV/AIDS is bad in this region
• More breastfeeding = higher chance to get HIV/AIDS
• Mother’s think gruel works
• 500 women are involved 
• Crops used can cause health issues because of pesticides
• Ween off children at 6 months of age
• Women are skeptical of early weaning
• Cash crops are: maize, sorghum, cassava, several varieties of legumes (dried beans), French beans, coffee, pineapple, bananas, pumpkins, tomatoes, carrots, kale, white (Irish) potatoes, and sweet potatoes
• The goal of the coop is to have a shelf-stable porridge product that weens kids off of mothers milk 

2. Stakeholders 

Mothers

• Professional- An effective solution that keeps their children from getting HIV/AIDS while keeping them nutritious
• Personal- They want their kids to be healthy and safe

Potential Women’s cooperative

• Personal- want to make a positive impact 
• Professional- bring in stable income to support families

Infants involved  

• Personal – Want to be healthy and grow up healthy
• Professional – none

Innovators

• Professional- they want a porridge that is nutritious and that the coop is doing well. They want to make an impact. I.e. they want people to use their product and they want people to be healthy and safe 
• Personal- Recognition, basically the same as the professional 

Local government 

• Professional- potential to profit if people are healthier/economic gain, social capital gain
• Personal- happier and healthier residents, a better quality of life

Local Farmers

• Professional- Might lose business if their crops are no longer used for gruel/Might gain business if their products ARE used for the gruel
• Personal- N/A

3. Solutions

Utilitarian- Give kids porridge, forget about pesticides. HIV is a more serious issue

• Pros: Kids are much less likely to get HIV and get the nutrients from the porridge
• Cons: possibly poison kids with pesticides

Deontology – Give children porridge that is sourced from all-natural farms no matter the time and resource cost 

• Pros: All food is sourced from organic farms, nobody will get sick and will be well nourished. 
• Cons: more expensive/more work

Solution 3: educate

• Pros:
• Cons:

4. Ask an advisor for advice

We spoke to Khanjan Mehta, our advisor, for his advice and what course of action he would take on the project. He said that he would have tried different techniques to clean the food first, but at the end of the day, the pesticides are less of a risk than the HIV/AIDS, so he would still implement the product.

5. Best solution

I feel the best solution here is to give the children porridge, knowing the pesticides could cause harm, but I feel getting the children off of breast milk to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS is more important and a larger risk.

6. Implementation

The way to implement this solution is to continue to grow the porridge business by finding local food producers, training the women to work in the coop, gather information about the children’s sensory preferences to make a desirable product. I work on a similar product, so our process involved building a code that could optimize recipes based on the nutrients in the foods to get as many nutrients to children as possible for the lowest cost. Our next steps include doing shelf-life testing and nutrient profile testing to ensure the products have the content we intend, and that our products are safe to consume.

Part 2: 

1. The facts:

• Business is thriving
• Women work for about nine hours every day and earn KES 300 (about $3)
• Women sell produce grown on their farms to the coop
• Sold at market rate
• Women are happy. Saves them time and money. Strong sense of community/identity
• Women have to give their earnings to their husbands/fathers/brothers
• Husbands use the money for alcohol and “frivolous” things
• Children in this community are not getting nutrition 
• You are one of seven members on a leadership committee 
•  The committee is elected on an annual basis and you have six months left on the committee
• The other six members of this committee are local women 
• Women are not opposed to the men taking away their money
• Women are upset that their hard-earned money is not used to feed their children
• Women are hopeless/convinced nothing can be done

Ethical issue: issue of autonomy/who decides how money is spent

Twin social outcomes  goals are: improving the nutritional status of children and improving the livelihoods of rural households

We need to: get the cooperative back on track to meet the twin social outcomes for the cooperative on a sustainable basis

2. Stakeholders

• Women not on Committee
  • Prof: Make money
  • Social: Feed children, improve livelihood
• Us as part of the innovators/ community
  • Prof: Achieve both outcomes with no backlash. Our success depends on the success of coop in the future 
  • Social: recognition and reputation
• Committee:
  • Prof: They want the best for the coop and community
  • Social: they want to be reappointed/want more votes
• Male: secondary stakeholder
  • Prof: N/A
  • Social: social norms, wants control over household
• Children of workers
  • Prof: Need nutrients
  • Social: N/A

3. Solutions

a. Cut pay and give them some porridge 

• Pros: Easy to do. Their kids get better nutrition
• Cons: Males could be upset at the lack of money 

b. Give vouchers instead of cash/partner with vouchers

• Pros: Better relations with food vendors, could be for other necessities.
• Cons: males could be upset at the lack of money

c. Women acquire shares in coop instead of cash/women build equity

• Small amounts of money are spent quickly
• Allows the family to save up for larger purchases

4. Ask an advisor for advice

I spoke to a friend of mine that now works at a non-profit providing nutritious foods in Southeast Asia. He suggested that the best solution is to supply the women with common necessities that they need on a weekly basis to supplement some of the money they would receive. This way the mothers can help their children and stay on the good side of the men in their family.

5. Best Solution

I personally feel the best solution is to give the women vouchers that can compensate for some pay reduction but guarantees the mothers will be able to use some of their income for their children needs.

6. Implementation

The best way to make this solution work is to first identify what the voucher can best be used for whether that be food or clothing, etc. and set up a system for how vouchers will be able to redeem goods. We will need to find suppliers of the goods and estimate what the exchange rate can be. After that, a test-run with 50 women should occur before the system rolls out entirely.

 

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

• Jack is American 
• Kids are in charge of handing out gifts 
• The staff have not acknowledged the problem, they think it’s a “trivial” matter 
• The 4 kids who received hats are angry at Jack 
• Jack wants the kids to like/trust him
• Jack works at a youth center working on a social venture 
• The kids think the gifts were from Jack because he was assigned to give them out
• There weren’t enough gifts for all of the kids
• The staff members want Jack to solve the “problem”
• All the gifts were labeled and assigned to the kids
• Jack will be in Kenya for 5 months

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

• The kids
• Jack
• The youth center staff

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

• The kids (that did not get gifts)
  • Personal-
    • They want gifts that were given ceremoniously
• The kids (that got gifts)
  • Personal-
    • They got great gifts and probably want to show it off
• Jack
  • Professional-
    • Jack wants to have a good relationship with the kids because he will be working with them  for five months
    • Jack wants a good relationship with the staff, doesn’t want things to escalate unnecessarily 
  • Personal-
    • Wants to be seen as a good person

• The youth center staff
  • Professional-
    • They want to keep their reputation 
    • Don’t want Jack to disrupt the way things currently work

Step 4: Formulate (at least three) alternative solutions

Approach 1: Utilitarian 

• Potential solution: Jack should not take any additional action as what was previously done was enough. The other children still were given a black hat so no extra action is required. 
• How does it solve the problem: This solution means that there really was not a problem. It is not worth the time and effort to address the mistake, rather, the kids will soon forget that day. Using time and resources on this side-project takes away from the end goal as a whole.
  • Pros:
    • No additional time or money cost, in agreement with the staff of the center
    • The Staff does not have to “deal” with jack 
  • Cons: 
    • Kids could hold a grudge, and could emotionally weigh on Jack
    • Jack would be upset 
• How does it save face for those involved: It saves Jack’s face to the youth center staff as he is now in agreeance with them, its doesn’t save his face to the 4 kids that only got hats. 
• Implications:
  • Short Term: The children who were forgotten are still upset. The staff is content with the situation. No resources used up for the children. 
  • Long Term: Hopefully the children will forget. Kids could hurt the project, but money and time are saved

Approach 2: Deontology 

• Potential solution: Go out on your own and purchase gifts and give them to the kids who got left out and hold a ceremony.
• How does it solve the problem: The kids who were left out now get gifts presented to them in a special way. They not don’t feel as left out and now have more trust in Jack.
  • Pros: 
    • the kids who were left out are now happy and think of Jack in a positive way
  • Cons: 
    • Money (to purchase more gifts), time (you have to hold an additional ceremony), effort (to find those four kids and plan when you will give them the gift)
• How does it save face for those involved: Jack makes it up to the left out kids and makes them feel equally as important as the other kids did. Jack emotionally feels less guilty and awkward. 
• Implications:
  • Short term: Kids trust Jack. Awkward with youth center staff because they didn’t see it as a problem
  • Long term: The problem will happen again, there’s no system in place or no guarantee that this won’t happen again and it will be up to Jack to make the situation “right” to himself

Approach 3: Absolutism 

• Potential solution: Organize another gift ceremony for the four kids who did not receive the main gift before. 
• How does it solve the problem: The kids would feel as though they were given the same emotional and material satisfaction as the others.
  • Pros: 
    • Everyone is on the same level again; equality
    • No one is left out
  • Cons:
    • Is a large undertaking requiring more time and money from Jack 
    • Staff might get upset he is making a big deal out of it 
• How does it save face for those involved:
  • All the kids are now on the same level and no one feels left out in the long run. The staff might be initially upset he went to such lengths to fix a relatively small issue.
  • Implications:
    • Short term: Kids are satisfied. Staff might be a little upset.
    • Long term: Will not fix the underlying problem and would set a precedent for Jack so he has to keep fixing the mistakes. 

Step 5: Seek additional assistance, as appropriate 

• The group reached out to Khanjan, our leader in these projects, and he informed us that he would go with option 1 in this scenario.  Khanjan feels that setting up another ceremony would set a dangerous precedent. 

Step 6: Select the best course of action

The best choice is option 1. This action is the most focused on the work that Jack is trying to accomplish, and keeps a strong relationship with the staff that he works with. While the children being upset could make some problems; Jack upsetting the staff is a much larger problem.

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

The beautiful part of this solution is that there are no future action points.