Partners List

1. World Hope International
   1. They provided us with a place to work, a starting point to find additional contacts in the region, and drivers/transportation while we helped them advance their mission to improve the social, health, and economic outlook of Makeni and Sierra Leone on the whole. This was more of a symbiotic relationship because we received the material support that we needed to carry out our work in the country while they received the greater support of all the GSIF projects that are contributing to progress on issues similar to the ones World Hope works on. We could continue to strengthen this partnership by delivering on our desire to educate and inspire change to be made on the community level to reduce maternal mortality rate. This would help make their area of operation easier and give back to them for investing in us.
2. Bruce Whitehouse
   1. He gave us information on West African culture, specifically focusing on family dynamics. In doing so, he helped us formulate better research questions while we were still at Lehigh. We did not really help him with anything other than giving him an opportunity to talk about his research. This was not a symbiotic relationship because Professor Whitehouse helped us more than we helped him. Perhaps, one way to make the partnership more equitable is put our best effort into the presentations since he his one of the judges and he would like to see that he his investing his help in a group that is passionate and knows what they are doing.
3. Susan Kart
   1. She provided with information on West African culture, specifically the societies, FGM, and the women’s place in these societies. Despite this wealth of information she provided us with we have almost no way to make this symbiotic relationship aside from crediting her in the final product and thanking her for her time. We can improve this relationship by producing a great final product that she can be proud to have contributed to.
4. Dr. Sweetie Jane
   1. She gave us insight on the medical knowledge behind maternal death and how healthcare and treatment works in West Africa broadly and how we as westerners should approach the subject. We think this partnership can be improved by performing well during the presentations and showing that her expertise and knowledge helped us get to where we are now and still continuing to grow.
5. Yakuba
   1. He worked as our translator so that we were able to conduct our interviews smoothly and be introduced into communities without seeming too intrusive. He benefited from this partnership by getting paid for this job and he was able to improve his bilingual skills. To make this relationship more equitable, we could have gotten closer with him and interacted with him more as a friend than a business partner so that he doesn’t feel so isolated.
6. Capa Care
   1. We benefited from this SACHO training program because they provided us a story that we are currently making a documentary on. We are benefiting them by giving the program recognition for its impactful work in Sierra Leone. To make this relationship more equitable, we could probably do a follow-up visit since we only visited Masanga Hospital once and they may still have more stories to tell.
7. Midwifery School
   1. This partnership consisted of going to the school and filming the area and interviewing some of the students, administrators, and faculty. This partnership was beneficial to us because it provided us with a great look at how health workers are being trained to effectively combat maternal mortality, and in turn we helped them by providing in depth coverage and exposure for their institution, even centering a whole segment around their work. We can improve this relationship by following up with them throughout the next year and showing them what we are using their footage for.
8. Makeni Regional Hospital
   1. This partnership included shooting around the campus and interviewing multiple doctors, nurses, midwives, and the Hospital Superintendent. In doing this they provided us with exceptional information and a unique perspective on maternal mortality that we didn’t hear while at the clinics. We hope to strengthen this partnership by delivering on our desire to affect community change on the local level which will hopefully lower maternal mortality and make their jobs easier. We can strengthen this relationship by following up to send them the footage when we put it in a doc segment.
9. Carrie Jo
   1. As one of the administrative employees of World Hope, she was able to connect us to many of our stakeholders while we were in Sierra Leone. She also gave us very useful information when we did an interview with her. We helped her by allowing her to voice her position on the issue. We can make this relationship more equitable by using the footage of her interview in our documentary so that she feels like her interview didn’t go to waste and this will also give World Hope more recognition.
10. Marie Stopes
    1. Marie Stopes provided us with an exceptional overview of their work in the country and how their family planning initiative is impacting women on the ground now by educating women on how to avoid dangerous pregnancy. We will reciprocate by supplementing their educational initiatives. We can improve our relationship with them by following up during the distribution stage so that we can work together to get our work out there in sierra Leone and also providing them with material to further their mission.

COALITION – Safe Motherhood Advocacy and Support Posse

Common goal: reduce maternal mortality in Sierra Leone

1. Core Stakeholders
   1. Fertile population
   2. Marie Stopes
   3. Capa Care
   4. Ministry of Health and Sanitation
   5. Hospitals
   6. PHU’s
   7. World Hope International
2. Opinion Leaders
   1. Community elders
   2. Community Health Workers
   3. Local religious leaders/figures
   4. Mother support groups
3. Policy Makers
   1. Ministry of Health and Sanitation
   2. UNICEF
   3. United Nations
   4. World Health Organization
4. Resource Partners
   1. UNICEF
   2. Marie Stopes
   3. PHU’s
   4. Mother Support Group leaders
   5. Hospitals
   6. UNFPA
5. Signaling Partners (someone who adds more credibility to your project)
   1. Marie Stopes
   2. World Hope International
   3. Capa Care
   4. UNICEF
   5. United Nations
   6. World Health Organization
   7. UNFPA

This conceptual framework outlines how we view our role within the complex fight against maternal mortality in Sierra Leone. As you can see, the base of the outlines some of the numerous cultural and material problems people in Sierra Leone face in combatting maternal mortality. These issues produce certain problems, such as women not wanting to go to the clinic because of fear or cultural stigma.

Moving on to the next level of the pyramid, we . can see some of the institutions/stakeholders involved in the issue. Each, whether as an institution like the Ministry of Health, or as individuals like the women, play a role in addressing the issue. However, these groups are often separated and lack a view of what the others are doing.

Another thing these groups and people lack can be . seen on the penultimate level of the pyramid. They lack a view of the human, compassionate side of the fight against maternal mortality. They cannot see the success and real struggles faced by the others. This, in turn, breeds a culture of increased suspicion and sometimes resentment.

Thus we come in at the top of the pyramid. By producing personal, human based documentaries we are able to shed a light on what each of these stakeholders is doing for the others to see. When the issue broken down to this more human level, it is easier to see that progress can only be made through collaboration, which is exactly the culture we wish to foster with the groups on the second level.

1. Interdependence 
   1. Relationships that are symbiotic in that when one person makes a decision it directly affects another or the larger system 
   2. An example from malnutrition is while we were in country we were partnering with the bettah bakery. We worked with them to improve their business model but when they decided to not show up or there was huge miscommunication, it directly impacted our efficiency and work for the muffins
2. Holism 
   1. The individual parts by themselves cannot operate a complex function– this requires all the parts to work together to form a system to perform that function. 
   2. When it comes to distributing our documentary we are going to be unable to do it without the help of other components of the system. For example, we want to distribute our doc through Marie Stopes and they want to help spread the word about maternal health and mortality throughout their system. We each cannot easily do this by ourselves, we each need the other component to reach our desired outcomes and joint outcome of eliminating maternal mortality.
3. Multifinality 
   1. The same or similar inputs lead to different outputs. Or a win-win situation for all
   2. Sickle cell diagnostic devices can be used to provide different outputs depending on the context. For example, in Nigeria, sickle cell diagnostics were successful because of their use in family planning, whereas in Sierra Leone programs are more focused on newborn screening efforts. 
4. Equifinality
   1. The idea that any given output can be reached by a variety of potential means or combination of inputs.
   2. An example for malnutrition is how we originally created a lot of products that essentially all did the same things but through different “means”. We had different products but ultimately the outcome would have been the same – healthier children 
5. Differentiation 
   1. Each part in the system plays a crucial role and the system would not be whole without each individual part
   2. An example from the Safe Motherhood team would be when we compiled a list of our stakeholders we wanted to interview, we wanted to include as many people as possible. We needed to get the perspectives of the local community members, the PHU, and the hospitals. Each doctor, nurse, midwife-to-be and mother were essential to understanding the problem of maternal mortality in Sierra Leone to help prevent us from jumping to conclusions. 
6. Regulation 
   1. A process using checks and feedback to make sure goals are being accomplished & taking corrective action. Accountability. 
   2. In the future, the sickle cell team will rely heavily on regulation concepts. For example, during clinical trials, we will need to confirm our test results by comparing our results to the gold standard (either collecting dried blood spot samples or using in-country IEF), and will adjust accordingly. 
7. Abstraction 
   1. “Zooming out” to look at a problem from multiple angles or “zooming in” to see underlying concepts 
   2. For the Safe Motherhood team, we had a point in our fieldwork when we were coming up with all these theories of how Sierra Leoneans are trying to hide the problem of maternal mortality and how we needed to focus our documentary on exposing the truth. But we had to zoom out to look at the problem from different angles to realize that there could be multiple reasons why people were telling us that maternal mortality wasn’t a problem in their clinic. They could be telling the truth that maternal death didn’t happen in their clinic because any deaths occurred after they had referred them to the hospital and therefore they did not count as patients of the clinic. 
8. Leverage Points
   1. Places within a complex system where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in anything.
   2. For the Safe Motherhood team, we encountered an example of this can occur when we simply change the pacing of one of our films. It may not seem like a large input but when it comes down to it Sierra Leoneans will watch and listen to what appeals to them the same that we do. If the pacing is not customary to a familiar Sierra Leonean style then the impact will be much less because of a simple change. 

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. 
  • Jessica – I want to learn how to use Adobe Premiere better and get fancy with the editing software. I also want to be able to complete a documentary film with a story that I developed. 
  • Grace – I want to further develop my filming and editing skills, and get “real life” experience working on a film. I also want to make a difference and raise awareness about an issue that I’m passionate about. 
  • Griffin – I want to become a better editor and storymaker. I still struggle with my editing skills and hope to further develop them over this semester. I also hope to learn how to better communicate our project and perform on a higher level during the presentations.
• What is the Project GOAL (big G) we’re all committed to achieve together?
  • MAKE IMPACT! REDUCE MATERNAL MORTALITY! And we believe the best way to do this is to explore the complexities of the human experience and touch people on a personal level.
• Is our Project Goal scaled to our resources (dreams, materials, skills, differences, etc.) and constraints (assignment, time, skills, etc.) 
  • Our project goal is harder to measure than others – it is hard to quantify the impact of films. However, we have the resources available to us and are aided by professionals who teach us the skills we need. 
• What are the metrics for success for what we’re producing?
  • Views? Website traffic? Focus Groups?

 

Roles –

• Who is responsible for which deliverables?
  • Our team tries to divide work as evenly as possible – we are all responsible for deliverables. When we were in Sierra Leone, we all filmed and we all conducted interviews. This is important to us, because we feel that if we assigned roles, we would not all gain individual skills in filming and interviewing. We are each responsible for producing one short film this semester, however, the process is collaborative and we will help each other and share ideas and skills as necessary. 
• Which deliverables that require collaboration, subgroups & individual work? Who does each person depend upon to succeed?
  • Filming and interviewing is a collaborative process. We all planned questions and interview topics, as well as talked about what shots to take as b-roll. 
  • Editing is an individual task, but during our meetings we all give feedback. The work itself is individual, but the stories and final outcome are collaborative. 
• Do we need a project manager to coordinate? 
  • We do not need a project manager in our team. Michael sort of acts as our project manager because he holds us accountable for deliverables and is a good mediator. 
• What are the deliverables each person is accountable to produce? 
  • Each team member is accountable to produce a short film by the end of the semester. 
  • As a team, we need to decide how to build our website/what content to put on it.
  • We are all responsible for presentations/making slides/etc.

 

Procedures – 

• Decision Making – What process shall we use: consensus, majority rules, deference to expert, default to the loudest, or?
  • We will discuss our problems and raise our concerns so that we can all have a voice in the matter before coming to a consensus.
• Effective Meetings – Focus on key, timely decisions together vs. status/update (offline); 
  • For the most part, we work on our independent short films and when we meet with Michael, we go over our progress together and give feedback so that we have a new assignment for the next week. 
• Meeting roles: scribe, facilitator, time keeper 
  • All of us are responsible for providing feedback and helping answer any questions on how one should edit our documentary. This is a collaborative project and all of us have the same role of storymaking and working on presentations. 
• Communication – FTF: frequency, time, location; type of technology: (Googledocs, Hangout, etc.); expectations for responsiveness; ‘best time to work’ (AM, PM, weekends?)
  • We have a group chat on iMessage and we respond as needed usually in the afternoon. 

 

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;
  • Our team is remarkably diverse from both an academic and personal perspective. Grace, Jessica, and I not only study entirely different things  but also have individual approaches to the same problems. We are also all of remarkably different backgrounds which allows us to view issues and potential  solutions from different angles.
• Team Name–What’s a team name that captures who we are and what we’re going to do?
  • Safe Motherhood: Sierra Leone 

FACTS OF THE CASE

• Neem considered sacred by Hindus and Muslims 
• 14 million neem trees in India
  • Used widely across India
  • Neem industry employs a large population of poor people in India
• Neems can be used for medicinal purposes, food production, toiletries, fuel, and pesticides
• Chetan runs a family-owned business of neem products
  • His family has run the business for the last 7 years
• Tom has a patent on the pesticide formula, he is the director of Oregon Organic Pesticide Services (OOPS)
• Tom’s business became immediately successful and OOPS is now working towards moving worldwide
  • OOPS will be able to sell the neem products for a lower price than Chetan
• Tom open to collaboration if it would help him make more money
• Chetan met with Tom several times

 

Ethical Question: What rights does Chetan have to the Neem seed extract and is it ethical for the US company to uphold their patent rights? 

 

Who has the rights to the seeds and the pesticides? Indigenous knowledge

 

STAKEHOLDERS AND MOTIVATIONS

 

1. O.O.P.S.
   1. Incentive to make money and be successful
   2. Could earn a greater profit by demanding royalties from Chetan
   3. Want to bring in an income for the Oregon Organic Pesticides Services
2. Tom Johnson 
   1. Currently has a patent of the pesticide recipe
   2. Wants to make money off the pesticide that he created
3. Chetan
   1. His family has been running the business for 7 generations
   2. Has been using the neem tree to produce products for generations
4. Chetan’s Employees
   1. Want to keep their jobs and provide for their families
5. Corporate investors in the US
   1. Want a return on investment 
6. Other small businesses that make neem-based insecticides
   1. They would suffer from the larger US monopolizing the market
   2. They would also have to pay a royalty
   3. Plant is native to India and sacred

 

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

 

1. Continue as normal 
   1. Pro:
      1. Has nothing to do 
      2. Sees no immediate change 
   2. Con:
      1. Risks losing company
      2. Cannot really challenge the rival company in the future

 

1. Chetan partners with the O.O.P.S if possible
   1. Pro:
      1. Will be able to continue operations
      2. Might be able to reach  more markets
      3. Would have influence in the other company
   2. Cons:
      1. They might say no
      2. Might see an initial decline in profits 
      3. Could be betrayed by the other company
2. Stop selling pesticides
   1. Pro:
      1. Will be in an entirely different market 
      2. Will not have to compete with the other company
   2. Con:
      1. Will lose large part of sales

 

1. Based on past rejections of patents, Chetan should fight the patent.
   1. Pro:
      1. Could force the rival company to not patent the pesticides 
   2. Con:
      1. Would not stop the company from selling the pesticide under an unpatented label
      2. Would cost a lot of money

 

Seek Outside Guidance:

https://sites.psu.edu/senhese/2016/10/24/case-study-7-intellectual-property/

 

https://www.neemfoundation.org/about-neem/patent-on-neem/

 

BEST SOLUTION/IMPACT:

I believe the best option is number two. Chetan should attempt to partner with the other company. I believe that this is the best solution because Chetan has valuable on the ground partners and practical knowledge that would be beneficial to the company if they decided  to work with him. This would allow Chetan to expand his operations while maintaining the integrity of his current company. Additionally, he would be further protected by outside competition as he now has this larger corporation at his side.

 

This solution would also be incredibly beneficial to the company because, as was previously stated, Chetan has a wealth of knowledge about operating in country that would help the growth of the operation for the corporation. This would likely increase profits for the corporation and also allow for them to develop goodwill with the community and internationally as it would be seen as the ethical thing to do. In this case people in the country would be more likely to buy from them if they knew the corporation was working with a local business, and investors abroad would see the venture as ethical and sustainable.

Facts: Part 1

• Gruel is used to wean children off breastfeeding from 2-24 months
  • Cornmeal and bananas
• The gruel is not nutritionally valuable
• The mothers believe it is nutritionally valuable
• The mothers don’t believe in the efficacy of the new gruel
• The women would own the new formula through a co-op and make the new gruel
• 35% of children have stunted growth due to poor nutrition in a certain region of East Africa
• HIV/AIDS is prevalent in the region and is spread through breastfeeding
• Cultural Belief: Women tend to breastfeed until around 2 years of age 
• Has a solid funding base 
• Pesticides are used in the crops and could have adverse health effects on the children
• The prevalence of HIV/AIDS transmission is increased over time
• I received a grant to start the women’s co-op
• The goals of the co-op
  • Help the women make money
  • Have a stable product for the children/babies

Stakeholders/Motivations:

• Children
  • Personal Motivations: 
    • Want good tasting foods 
    • want to be breastfed
  • Professional Motivations:
    • n/a
• 1: Mothers
  • Personal Motivations:
    • Want healthy kids
    • Want to do what is socially acceptable 
    • Don’t want to pass on HIV
  • Professional Motivations:
    • Child-rearing
• Gruel makers/manufacturers
  • Professional Motivations: 
    • May think that their food is actually helping
    • Weaning babies off breastfeeding
    • Want to keep making money
    • Provide cheap food
• Women’s co-op = formula makers (are they a stakeholder yet??) They exist through shared social bonds currently) 
  • Professional
    • Making money
      • Support their family
    • Make porridge from local materials and sell the product as a product
  • Personal
    • Help raise their children and children of other mothers in the community
• Donor
  • Professional
    • Want the women’s co-op to be successful 
    • Expand the co-op
  • Personal
    • To create social impact 
• Grant recipient (myself)
  • Professional
    • Developing a women’s coop that can create a sustainable food product
  • Personal
    • Social impact
• Local farmers
  • Sell their locally grown crops

Ethical Questions:

How would you address the ethical health issues associated with prolonged breastfeeding in an area where there is

• a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS and few women are tested for the virus
• very early introduction of supplemental foods to the diets of infants
• possibility of pesticide residues in foods developed for infants and young children 

 

Drawing the line between education on HIV/AIDS education and running a business that makes nutritionally beneficial gruel. 

 

Drawing the line between what is in your court and what is not

 

Finding balance between using pesticides and educating on the prevalence of HIV/AIDS?

How invested should the co-op be in education ‘against’ HIV while still working on the sustainable food and recipe

 

Cultural implementation issues

• Standard introduction of supplemental food at 2 months
• Standard weaning period from 2 months until 24 months. 

 

Solution insight: the co-op can be designed to be whatever you want it to be

• Large
• Small 

Solution #1:

• Mass education program with the marketing of the porridge product
  • Workshops, fun women empowerment group days, mother support groups
  • Informative advertising
  • Educate mothers on the importance of feeding children the porridge and the importance of stopping breastfeeding at 6 months for mothers that are HIV+
    • Importance of peeling and washing fruits and vegetables
• Pros:
  • Can lead to positive behavioral change that can impact nutrition levels and lower HIV levels
  • Positive press for the women’s co-op
• Cons:
  • Lots of effort and money to implement these programs
  • Still have to compete with gruel makers 

Solution #2

• • Research what sociocultural norms are causing women to start breastfeeding at 2 months, and not want to stop after 6. Meet with the elder women to recruit them as sponsors to change that behavior by using our product. 
    • Bring gifts, use the local language, stay there for a small extended period of time → building rapport and trust. 
  • Pros:
    • Elders are respected
    • Are more in touch with the community
    • Change in behavior of the mothers
    • Nobody is intervening, we just plant the seeds and leverage an already existing cultural norm
  • Cons:
    • Actually convincing the older people to help and endorse the product
    • Recruiting will take lots of time and money
    • Network of impact is limited

 

• Which communities would we choose and how would we fund this education/scalability

 

 

Solution #3:

 

• Questionnaire to screen for HIV and target those women who are at high risk
  • Not practical – ethics questionable by itself
  • This would not solve the issue of needing to find a better food replacement and would also create a social divide between HIV+ and healthy people and only further contribute to discrimination

Implications:

• Need to be able to say who will educate and how many customers we will reach across the country — and at what cost

 

Seeking Additional Assistance

Work with local NGOs and the regional government to screen out solutions that would not work within the cultural context

The best course of action

I believe the best course of action is the second option. This would mean figuring out why women stop breastfeeding so early and working with various community elders to stop that behavior and implement our product with the support from the respected elders.

Implications of solution

• Advice from the elders would be much more respected
• We would be working on the community level and could change strategy for each area if something didn’t work in a particular context
• Would allow the people to feel empowered since the directive comes from their own people

Grassroots

Our role: achieve both outcomes of improving nutritional status of children and the livelihoods of rural households

• Convince other board members and constituents of what needs to be done

Facts: Part 2

 

• Co-op is very successful and the women are overwhelmingly satisfied
  • Livelihood improvement was not attained
    • It’s going to the husbands instead of the women or children 
  • Empowerment was attained by the co-op
  • Men take all the money from the women 
  • The money goes to alcohol and “frivolous things” instead of supporting their children
• We are still a board member for 6 months and we are loved and respected by the community 
• Other 6 board members are local women who also want things to change but they are not necessarily for or against taking away the money from the men
• Not achieving strategic social outcomes of improving the nutritional status of children and the livelihoods of rural households

Stakeholders and Motivations

 

1. 1: The original entrepreneur
   1. Personal 
      1. Leave with an impact that is aligned with your personal ethics and morals and reasons for engaging
   2. Professional
      1. Align women with the advantage of their opportunity
2. 1: Board members
   1. Personal 
      1. Avoid stirring up too much of a dilemma for something they don’t massively care about
   2. Professional
      1. Have a fully functioning co-op
3. 1: Women involved in the co-op
   1. Personal 
      1. Feed their children good food
      2. Make their husbands happy
   2. Professional
      1. Make money that goes towards the family
4. 3: Children and families in the cities who have improved nutrition
   1. Personal 
      1. Continue purchasing this decent product
      2. Health of the children
   2. Professional
      1. none
5. 2: Children and families with unimproved nutrition (co-op worker families)
   1. Personal
      1. Health
   2. Professional
6. 2: Husbands taking the money
   1. Personal 
      1. Drink more
   2. Professional
      1. Not look embarrassed

 

Ethical problem: 

The husbands are taking the money from the women and it doesn’t go to improving the conditions of the family.

 What is your strategy to get the cooperative back on track to meet the twin social outcomes for the cooperative on a sustainable basis? 

Do we have any say in how a family spends their money?

Make coop work in the long term to enhance your own credibility

Solutions

• Do nothing

  • Pros
    • Lol none
  • Cons
  • How does it save face of those involved?
  • Implications on relationships (short and long term)
  • Implication on venture (short and long term)

 

• Paying them in nutritious food or with free porridge to feed and benefit their children with their salary

  • Pros
    • Goes back to twin social outcomes for benefitting family and providing nutrient to foods
    • Give food that will go bad/porridge that is already made so that it cannot be sold on a black market
      • Tumbler can be refilled each day 
  • Cons
    • Men can still waste the rest of the money
    • Potential of a black market
  • How does it save face of those involved?
  • Implications on relationships (short and long term)
  • Implication on venture (short and long term)

 

• Having medical programs, food banks, and other benefits for mothers and children that work at the co-op

  • Pros
    • Program you can opt into
  • Cons
  • How does it save face of those involved?
  • Implications on relationships (short and long term)
  • Implication on venture (short and long term)

 

• Embarrass the men for depending on their wives’ money to have fun by stamping pacifiers onto the bills

  • Pros
    • Easy to implement
    • Easy to a/b test
    • Easy to get approved by the board
  • Cons
    • Potentially patronizing the men → they could hurt the women

 

• Not liquidate cash- women get shares in country and build equity

  • When you have small amounts of money you tend to spend it
  • Requires no corruption and strong book-keeping
    • Women must be ensured that there would be a return on investment

 

• If women have children, set up daycare at facility and make porridge and food available to children

  • Pros
    • Women would love to see their children at work

 

The best course of action

I believe the best course of action would be to not pay women in  liquidate cash but pay women in shares of the company and allow them to build equity.

Implications of solution

• Could liquidate the equity in a relatively short time if a sudden expense came up
• Money would not be on-hand for the husbands to waste
• The equity could grow and become more valuable over time
• Women get a sense of ownership in the venture

Next steps: focus on how to get other 6 women on board and make this happen

• • Informally talk to women individually
  • Or hold a meeting
  • If you can get 6 women on board, they can get more (20 workers) on board 
  • Self interest
  • Common interest and goals
  • Trust
  • Desire to be around a group of people
  • How do you help people build trust and build the social capital to work together
  • Play local politics

Facts of the Case

• Jack is American college student 
• Jack was tasked with handing out gifts to the kids
• The staff views the 4 kids not getting gifts as a non-issue; they do not want drama
• The kids think Jack bought gifts for them 
• The kids were mad when they thought he “shorted them” with the hats 
• Jack wants the kids to like him because it will make his work easier
• Jack is there for five more months 
• Jack works at a youth center 
• There were not enough gifts for all of the kids and some received worse ones

 

Stakeholders and Motivations 

• The kids (personal)
  • Want the nice gifts 
  • Want the gift ceremony and the attention that comes with it 
  • Want to show off their gifts 
  • Want attention from Jack 
  • Those who did not get the good gifts want to be seen as the same as those who got the good ones
• Jack (professional)
  • Wants the staff to trust and like him because it will make for a better working environment 
  • Wants the kids to trust and like him because close relationships will make his job better
  • Wants the staff to see him doing good work and be respected
• Jack (personal)
  • Wants the kids to see him as cool and a good person
  • Does not want the moral weight of kids blaming him for bad gifts
• The youth center staff (professional)
  • They want to maintain their reputation and credibility
  • Do not want Jack undermining them 
  • Do not want Jack making their jobs harder with additional problems
• The youth center staff (personal)
  • Do not want to be called out for a “moral failing”
  • Want to be seen as good people 

 

Alternative Solutions

Approach 1: Utilitarian 

This approach is just to do nothing further. Doing the ceremony the first time already benefited most of the kids and doing any more would just upset the staff and make the other kids irrationally jealous about the “extra attention” being paid to the four kids. This would allow the situation to blow over while Jack saves face with the overwhelming majority of the stakeholders.

• Pros:
  • • There is no additional time or monetary investment from Jack
    • The Staff does not get upset with Jack
    • The other kids don’t feel like the four are getting special treatment 

– Cons: 

• • • The four kids could be upset for a little bit 
    • Jack would be upset for a little bit 

 

Approach 2: Deontology 

This approach is the “moral high road” choice and involves buying four more gifts for the kids and giving it to them independently. This would allow Jack to save face with the four kids while also not making too big of a deal out of the situation. However, the staff and other kids would certainly notice and could get upset.

• Pros: 
  • • The four kids who were left out now feel like Jack cares and he looks good in their eyes
    • Jack feels better about the situation
  • Cons: 
    • This requires a decent investment of money, time, and effort on Jack’s part 
    • Makes the staff look bad 
    • Makes the other kids feel like the four are favored by Jack

 

Approach 3: Absolutism 

Either everyone gets the gifts in the same way or no one gets them. Since Jack couldn’t really take the gifts from the kids back he would have to solve the problem by buying gifts for the four kids and hold just as elaborate of a ceremony for them. This would likely be problematic with the staff and other kids who did not need the headache of another ceremony.

• Pros: 
  • • Perfectly equal
    • No one is left out
  • Cons:
    • Lots of time and money needs to be invested in such a large undertaking  
    • Staff would get upset that Jack made a big deal out of the situation
    • Other kids could get upset that they are not getting gifts this time 

Best Choice:

I believe that after considering all the information the best course of action is to go with solution #1, or the Utilitarian approach. This means that Jack simply needs to forget about it and move on without doing anything. I think this is the best solution because it primarily saves face with the staff who, like it or not, have much more of an impact on Jack’s enjoyment and effectiveness while working at the center. This would show the staff that Jack is serious and professional while also not undermining their authority. The other kids would also not get jealous if Jack went out and bought more gifts for the other four kids and the ones who did not receive them in the first place would likely forget it even happened shortly after. This would allow Jack to still have a strong relationship with most of the kids, the staff, and likely the other four kids once they moved on and forgot about it, all without creating a tense situation.

Facts of the Case

• Going to Lesotho for two weeks with nine other researchers, most (if not all) of whom are white westerners
• They will be traveling to different villages to test water sources for disease carrying pathogens
•  There is nowhere else to do this testing; this is the best and only place to carry out the research 
• The main goal of this team is to conduct research, not implement a solution 
• The people in the community where this research is being done are, at least initially, not going to see any tangible benefit to contributing their labor to the research 

 

Main question: Is this study ethical to carry out?

• Sub-question: Should people (the locals) be paid for the work that they are doing in helping the researchers? 

 

Stakeholders:

• Investors
  • Have a return on investment 
  • Have a social impact
• University/foundation/organization
  • Increase their prestige
  • Further academic work
  • Attract new students with groundbreaking work
  • Make their research more recognized and respected 
• Research team
  • Want to publish their findings in papers and be credited for their work
  • Hope to make progress for the understanding of this issue 
  • Want to help people by providing to the general wealth of knowledge around the issue 
• Community members
  • They likely desire better health for the community and families within it
  • Likely want to improve the safety of people in the village/community
  • They also want their community to grow stronger and more prosperous 
• Other communities threatened by this pathogen 
  • They want to stop an outbreak before it happens 
  • They hope to benefit from the safety spreading to them
  • They want to facilitate ease of travel and lessen the chances of disease spreading 

Three Potential Solutions 

1. Partner with an established NGO/Organization to pay community members fairly and use their institutional knowledge
   1. PROS
      1. They could decide who gets paid and what
      2. They are more in touch with the community
      3. Have pre existing standards
      4. Could share the responsibility 
   2. CONS
      1. Bureaucratic issues
      2. Logistically much harder
      3. Conflicting motivations and ends 
2. Hire a couple specific, well regarded community members to ask the questions for you and collect the data from the rest of the community and then pay them
   1. PRO
      1. You would know who to pay and how much based on hours
      2. More direct communication/logistics
      3. More direct oversight 
      4. More credibility
   2. CONS
      1. More costly
      2. More responsibility on you
      3. Less time; might not be able to cover as much ground 
3. Do not pay them and instead “compensate” them with  education about the issue and how to prevent it short term in exchange for their work in helping develop a long term solution
   1. PRO
      1. Cheap
      2. Compensates them with practical knowledge right off the bat
      3. Mutually beneficial relationship 
   2. CONS
      1. Translation/language barrier affecting the education
      2. Not cash, not tangible 
      3. White savior-ish
      4. May not be fair, taking advantage 

Chosen Solution: #1: Partner with an NGO to decide who gets paid and what

Upon considering the various options, I believe this study is ethical and that the best course of action would be to partner with a local NGO focusing on water security. This approach would provide numerous benefits in the long run while minimizing personal risk for the research team. Firstly, this approach would allow for the team to have an institution backing their work that already has existing safety and ethical standards which would help confront future ethical concerns. Secondly, a partnership would allow the researchers to have a contact that is much more in touch with the community and could better understand how to approach the issue. A greater understanding of the community would also help in paying the participants, which should be done, because then they would be compensated fairly as per the NGOs guidance. Lastly, this would shift some responsibility off the research team in the short run and allow for the NGO to carry on the work of the team after they leave so people might benefit from the research. The only serious drawback to this solution is that there would be more bureaucratic red tape and some conflicting interests on the project’s ends, but the additional support stated above would be well worth it.

Develop a detailed business model canvas for one of the following social enterprises: One Acre Fund, Acumen Fund, or Environment International. Integrate insights from at least five different valid sources for your chosen social enterprise and provide those citations in your blog. You may choose to work on this with one other person.

 

1. Value Proposition
   1. The problem being addressed by the Acumen Fund is one of providing growth investments to small companies in low income countries with the goal being to confront issues of poverty and need through meaningful investment. This is valuable because it provides actual, tangible resources and promotes the growth of infrastructure which is much more likely to lead to real improvements in these countries and raise the standard of living. Source: https://acumen.org/approach/
2. Customer Segments
   1. Acumen seeks out customers or investment opportunities that are both in low income, underdeveloped countries and also provide a solution to the problems affecting the nation in which the company operates. Specifically, the trust primarily targets industries in the infrastructure, healthcare, agricultural, and housing sectors. By doing this the trust hopes to break down the large overarching problems it seeks to address and allow smaller innovators that are more in touch with their community. Additionally, the way they focus on these industries is a great way to focus their limited resources based on what the need actually is opposed to broad aid. Source: https://acumen.org/companies/

3. Channels

1. Acumen’s channels of distribution are a little less traditional in the sense that instead of delivering a product to customers they are attempting to seek out and invest in companies located in less traditionally invested in regions. To do this more efficiently Acumen has done two primary things. The first being developing a new marketing strategy, both for themselves and the companies they invest in. By doing this they are hoping to gain a greater outreach for their investments and impact more people in the companies nation’s. This also has the goal of expanding Acumen’s own outreach and discovering more companies that fit their investment criteria. The second shift in their delivery channel has been a change in their IT. By changing their accounting and tracking systems they are now able better monitor their investments and help the companies they invest in manage their own operations more efficiently. Both of these things combined help Acumen and their investments reach more people and act more efficiently along the way. Source: https://thegiin.org/acumen-fund

4. Customer Relations

1. Customer relations are also a little different given the nature of Acumen but similarly to above answer, Acumen has been improving customer relations by implementing better marketing for invested companies and implementing new IT practices. Additionally, Acumen also works directly with these entrepreneurs to help their ventures succede. They do this by having in person meeting and consulting sessions, access to experts, and post investment support. This allows the companies to both have the space they need to grow while also receiving the high level support to help them reach that next level.

5. Revenue Model

1. Acumen bases the quality their investments not on the dollar amount they see in return, but instead based on the social impact of their venture; or put simply, how many people on the ground it impacts. Because of this Acumen is heavily dependant on philanthropic donations from wealthy individuals and organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. These donations make up the bulk of their operating budget and allow them to provide the most for their chosen investments. Source: https://acumen.org/financial-overview/

6. Key Resources

1. The key resources Acumen include the capital from philanthropists that they need for their initial investments. This is arguably the most essential resource for Acumen because without the financing they would not be able to do the investments they seek to do in the first place, much less at the same rate and value. The Second key resource for Acumen is their training programs and professionals because these people and programs are essential to the success and development of their enterprises. Finally, the last major resource is the marketing and outreach team for Acumen because this is now they are able to reach these companies for investment and their customers.

7. Key Partners

1. Acumen’s key partners can be broken down into a few main categories. First and foremost are their fellows on the ground who actually run the businesses. Without them, nothing else would be possible. Another resource are the expert who work and consult with the Fellows in order to give them the best possible information and help them succeed. The trust also works closely with government offices to ensure favorable conditions for the companies they sponsor. Finally, the last key resource is the philanthropists who provide them with their principal investment fund. This is fundamental to Acumen being able to provide top level support and investment while still being a non-profit organization. Source: https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/acumen-funds-model-social-investment/

8. Resources

1. The resources Acumen use include the teams on the ground that provide direct support, the workers at the companies they invest in, the government funding they receive, the relationships they have with company suppliers, and finally the producers of the actual products.

9. Cost Structure

1. The cost structure of Acumen is set up in a way so that they invest in either equity or debt in the companies they engage with and seek a payback or exit in around 7-10 years. This makes it a relatively long term investment where the people receiving the investment are able to grow and develop with a limited economic burden from Acumen. Source: https://acumen.org/about/patient-capital/