Partnerships

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

 

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

 

Who’s in the Coalition: Ebola Busters

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

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

 

Part 1: 

Step 1

The facts:

1. Neem is indigenous to India and is considered sacred
2. neem used extensively over the past 2,000 years for medicinal purposes, food production, toiletries, fuel, and pesticides. 
3. Neem products used widely across India and the industry as a whole employs many poor people
4. Chetan operates a small business of neem tree products
5. Chetan’s family has owned this business for the last seven generations
6. The business employs 60 people in different functions
7. 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. 
8. Ten years ago, Tom Johnson (OOPS) discovered the neem seeds’ use as a potent pesticide. 
9. Tom received a patent for the pesticide formula and brought the product to market
10. They have a worldwide patent and financial capital to manufacture and sell the product on a large scale.
11. People are likely to prefer buying products from US companies over small Indian cottage, affecting business locally

 

Step 2 & 3:

The stakeholders

1. OOPS
   1. Professional: Making a lot of money, Gain a large market share
   2. Personal: Make a lot of money for themselves, they also have serious money at stake
2. Chentan
   1. Professional: Keep his employees, have a business to still run/not be the guy who ran the company to the ground
   2. Personal: Family relationships at stake, money (not as much a worry though)
3. Chentan’s employees 
   1. Professional: They don’t want to lose their jobs, they probably like the jobs
   2. Personal: They rely on the job to make ends meet, they need the money from the jobs and probably will have a hard time finding a new one 
4. Other Indian growers of neem trees
   1. Professional: money/job security
   2. Personal: feeding families, social worth
5. Competing companies (Chentan could help them instead)
   1. Professional: 
6. Consumers in India
   1. Professional: Economic impact of large job layoff
   2. Personal: Want there friends to have 

Step 4:

Solutions:

1. Try and employ the people affected in a new way by selling a different product/Work with locals to create a new formula and have a shared patent
   1. Pro: This could fix the problem from a revenue standpoint, they would have all of the systems to sell the product as well as the expertise to do it.
   2. Con: It would be hard to find a new strain to a patent if so the patent might not hold up. It will be expensive to create a new formula from a farming point of view and a legal point of view. Plus people might still prefer the other product.
2. Try and persuade the government to not accept the subsidized goods
   1. Pro: This would allow the locals to manufacture the goods and sell them locally at the price they were at before.
   2. Con: It might be really hard to get them to actually convince the government to actually do this. After all, there is not an extremely important reason to not enforce the patent.
3. Have the locals sue in regards to the patent because it probably isn’t strong enough. (Have the local form a gang). 
   1. Pro: This could fix the problem without having to deal with the government which could be a large factor. They would win the fact that the this material is not patentable, but thats not really a win-win situation because it could against there favor later on if they tried to patent it.
   2. Con: OOPS has the money to out price them in the short term just to force them anyway so the patent is sort of irrelevant in my mind, whether they would do this is its own ethical question. It’s also extremely expensive to try to sue the US company, especially when it comes to

 

Step 5:

Additional Resources

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/the-patent-landscape-of-genetically-modified-organisms/

https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2016/si/article_0004.html

Step 6:

Best Course of action

 

I think the best course of action would be to try and get the patent taken away while trying to convince the this is by far the most expensive, most difficult, as well as most time-consuming approach, but I think it is the only one that brings them back to an even playing field. If they don’t take drastic measures they will probably go under anyway so you might as well go out with a fight. You can try and employ the people using other methods or by growing crops, but you don’t know that would work plus if you have to find the money for more crops, you gonna be short anyway so you might as well be short, and have a chance at fixing your problem long term by making sure you can’t get your product stole by a US corporation. I think that OOPS is ethically allowed to do what they did, is it legal from a sense of intellectual property, I don’t think so, but I do think it is ethical. The basis of IP law is to ensure that if you spend a bunch of money on R&D you get the money back. Did OOPS do this, no, but did they use the law to their advantage, that not ethical, it’s just a little immoral. The world is a capitalist society, well sort of, so is it ethical to sell a product at a lower price than others can: yes, as long as your not price gouging which they weren’t doing. 

 

Step 7:

Implication

The implications of fighting the patent are enormous. The first one is the debt the locals will incur if they choose to hire lawyers. They also will have to spend a tremendous amount of time gathering evidence and using their time to win this trial. It is entirely possible that could go bankrupt if they lose the case. There are also legal implications if the case is overturned and precedent if it is not. Either way, this could impact other business of similar nature, thus they might be able to ask outside sources to help fund the battle.

 

Part 2:

Step 1:

Facts

1. Neem is indigenous to India and is considered sacred
2. neem used extensively over the past 2,000 years for medicinal purposes, food production, toiletries, fuel, and pesticides. 
3. Neem products used widely across India and the industry as a whole employs many poor people
4. Chetan operates a small business of neem tree products
5. Chetan’s family has owned this business for the last seven generations
6. The business employs 60 people in different functions
7. 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. 
8. Ten years ago, Tom Johnson (OOPS) discovered the neem seeds’ use as a potent pesticide. 
9. Tom received a patent for the pesticide formula and brought the product to market
10. They have a worldwide patent and financial capital to manufacture and sell the product on a large scale.
11. People are likely to prefer buying products from US companies over small Indian cottage, affecting business locally
12. 6 months down killing the Indian market
13. 20 products sold at supermarkets
14. Neem based soap is best product
15. The wrapper of soap has tom on it
16. Chetan has his grandfather on i 
17. Chetan met with tom multiple times urge him to move out of the market
18. Tom refused to move out but would collaborate
19. Chetan business is suffering
20. Likley will have to lay off workers at least half
21. They have worked with the company for a long time
22. Chetan is finically well off and will do fine if the company shuts down
23. Chetan is sad to lay them off
24. His employees think he cut a deal with OOPS
25. They feel cheated by chetan

Step 2 & 3

1. OOPS
   1. Professional: Making a lot of money, Gain a large market share
   2. Personal: Make a lot of money for themselves, they also have serious money at stake
2. Chentan
   1. Professional: Keep his employees, have a business to still run/not be the guy who ran the company to the ground
   2. Personal: Family relationships at stake, money (not as much a worry though)
3. Chentan’s employees 
   1. Professional: They don’t want to lose their jobs, they probably like the jobs
   2. Personal: They rely on the job to make ends meet, they need the money from the jobs and probably will have a hard time finding a new one 
4. Other Indian growers of neem trees
   1. Professional: money/job security, will OOPs get a monopoly?
   2. Personal: feeding families, social worth
5. Tom
   1. Professional: needs to make the most of his company, can’t afford to give up anything in a tough market.
   2. Personal: Probs doesn’t want to have to make Chetan lay off workers

 

Step 4:

Solutions 1

1. Potential Solution: Negotiate a partnership with OOPS
2. How does it solve the problem? 
   1. Pros: It allows them to keep running, at a decreased profit, but still run. You also get to keep your employees or at least some of them
   2. Cons: Your probably gonna have fewer employees and less profit, doesn’t look great for image
3. How does it save the face of those involved?: It allows you to keep the business running but at a decreased profit. You save jobs and people’s livelihoods.
4. Implications on relationships
   1. Short-term: Might piss people off that some lose jobs and that people probs get paid less
   2. Long-term: Might help keep your business running in the long run, thus making you not look like the person who killed the business
5. Implications on the venture
   1. Short-term: Cash flow back in, Keep jobs, keep employees, low moral over layoffs
   2. Long-term: Could save accounting problems and cash problem with competition

Solutions 2

1. Potential Solution: Convince OOPS to buy them out
2. How does it solve the problem?
   1. Pros: This has the same benefits as solution 1, but adds to the fact that opps are incentivized to make your company work and function because otherwise, it is a cash problem. Verse with solution 1 they don’t care if you do badly only if you do well.
   2. Cons: Will be extremely hard to make happen unless Chetan sells at a deal, everyone might not keep their jobs, and the company might just be sold for scraps
3. How does it save the face of those involved?:  It allows Chetan to exit peacefully and make this toms problem. It also lets people keep their jobs, probably temporally, but long enough to figure out what to do.
4. Implications on relationships
   1. Short-term: Might be considered a coward, but should help keep family has a little hope, buy out can lead to house cleaning, which could be bad for morale.
   2. Long-term: People might have a chance to keep jobs long term vs the other solutions don’t offer the same incentive. 
5. Implications on the venture
   1. Short-term: Might allow for cash flow to start back in, which could allow people to keep jobs, also might kill jobs unknown
   2. Long-term: Could keep the business long term, or could be sold for scraps.

Solutions 3

1. Potential Solution: Shut down the business
2. How does it solve the problem?
   1. Pros: No longer have cash hemorrhage, can retire, less stress
   2. Cons: You have to fire everyone, pay severance packages, no income from your end
3. How does it save the face of those involved?: It doesn’t necessarily, but it prevents a long drown out bankruptcy which people would get nothing, thus saves the company from this.
4. Implications on relationships
   1. Short-term: People might be mad they lost jobs
   2. Long-term: People might hate you for shutting down the company
5. Implications on the venture
   1. Short-term: Money for exit 
   2. Long-term: N/A

 

Step 5:

https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/manage-your-business/close-or-sell-your-business

https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/closing-a-business/necessary-steps-to-dissolve-your-company.html

https://thebusinessprofessor.com/knowledge-base/closing-up-shop/

Step 6:

I think I would try to get the company bought because either way it is going to shut down. Do I believe I owe jobs to each employee, not really because my job is to best for the company, so if selling it or shutting down is best then I must do that. Would I write great recs, of course, but thats a moral reason not because I feel obligated too. I think that in this scenario selling might get people jobs for a little longer, thus I think it worth trying, also the sale could be used for a fund for severance packages for the works who might get laid off. If I can’t sell I would shut down the business because it is not a charity, it is not supposed to run at a cash negative state. If it’s not making money it shouldn’t be open. Does that suck for the employees, yes, but times change, and if you don’t change with it you get left behind.

 

Step 7:

1. Try to get company bought
2. If fails shut down
3. Write recs for employees
4. If successful sell and help run the company for a little so they don’t run it to the ground.

 

Part 1: 

Step 1

The facts:

1. Neem is indigenous to India and is considered sacred
2. neem used extensively over the past 2,000 years for medicinal purposes, food production, toiletries, fuel, and pesticides. 
3. Neem products used widely across India and the industry as a whole employs many poor people
4. Chetan operates a small business of neem tree products
5. Chetan’s family has owned this business for the last seven generations
6. The business employs 60 people in different functions
7. 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. 
8. Ten years ago, Tom Johnson (OOPS) discovered the neem seeds’ use as a potent pesticide. 
9. Tom received a patent for the pesticide formula and brought the product to market
10. They have a worldwide patent and financial capital to manufacture and sell the product on a large scale.
11. People are likely to prefer buying products from US companies over small Indian cottage, affecting business locally

 

Step 2 & 3:

The stakeholders

1. OOPS
   1. Professional: Making a lot of money, Gain a large market share
   2. Personal: Make a lot of money for themselves, they also have serious money at stake
2. Chentan
   1. Professional: Keep his employees, have a business to still run/not be the guy who ran the company to the ground
   2. Personal: Family relationships at stake, money (not as much a worry though)
3. Chentan’s employees 
   1. Professional: They don’t want to lose their jobs, they probably like the jobs
   2. Personal: They rely on the job to make ends meet, they need the money from the jobs and probably will have a hard time finding a new one 
4. Other Indian growers of neem trees
   1. Professional: money/job security
   2. Personal: feeding families, social worth
5. Competing companies (Chentan could help them instead)
   1. Professional: 
6. Consumers in India
   1. Professional: Economic impact of large job layoff
   2. Personal: Want there friends to have 

Step 4:

Solutions:

1. Try and employ the people affected in a new way by selling a different product/Work with locals to create a new formula and have a shared patent
   1. Pro: This could fix the problem from a revenue standpoint, they would have all of the systems to sell the product as well as the expertise to do it.
   2. Con: It would be hard to find a new strain to a patent if so the patent might not hold up. It will be expensive to create a new formula from a farming point of view and a legal point of view. Plus people might still prefer the other product.
2. Try and persuade the government to not accept the subsidized goods
   1. Pro: This would allow the locals to manufacture the goods and sell them locally at the price they were at before.
   2. Con: It might be really hard to get them to actually convince the government to actually do this. After all, there is not an extremely important reason to not enforce the patent.
3. Have the locals sue in regards to the patent because it probably isn’t strong enough. (Have the local form a gang). 
   1. Pro: This could fix the problem without having to deal with the government which could be a large factor. They would win the fact that the this material is not patentable, but thats not really a win-win situation because it could against there favor later on if they tried to patent it.
   2. Con: OOPS has the money to out price them in the short term just to force them anyway so the patent is sort of irrelevant in my mind, whether they would do this is its own ethical question. It’s also extremely expensive to try to sue the US company, especially when it comes to

 

Step 5:

Additional Resources

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/the-patent-landscape-of-genetically-modified-organisms/

https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2016/si/article_0004.html

Step 6:

Best Course of action

 

I think the best course of action would be to try and get the patent taken away while trying to convince the this is by far the most expensive, most difficult, as well as most time-consuming approach, but I think it is the only one that brings them back to an even playing field. If they don’t take drastic measures they will probably go under anyway so you might as well go out with a fight. You can try and employ the people using other methods or by growing crops, but you don’t know that would work plus if you have to find the money for more crops, you gonna be short anyway so you might as well be short, and have a chance at fixing your problem long term by making sure you can’t get your product stole by a US corporation. I think that OOPS is ethically allowed to do what they did, is it legal from a sense of intellectual property, I don’t think so, but I do think it is ethical. The basis of IP law is to ensure that if you spend a bunch of money on R&D you get the money back. Did OOPS do this, no, but did they use the law to their advantage, that not ethical, it’s just a little immoral. The world is a capitalist society, well sort of, so is it ethical to sell a product at a lower price than others can: yes, as long as your not price gouging which they weren’t doing. 

 

Step 7:

Implication

The implications of fighting the patent are enormous. The first one is the debt the locals will incur if they choose to hire lawyers. They also will have to spend a tremendous amount of time gathering evidence and using their time to win this trial. It is entirely possible that could go bankrupt if they lose the case. There are also legal implications if the case is overturned and precedent if it is not. Either way, this could impact other business of similar nature, thus they might be able to ask outside sources to help fund the battle.

 

Part 2:

Step 1:

Facts

1. Neem is indigenous to India and is considered sacred
2. neem used extensively over the past 2,000 years for medicinal purposes, food production, toiletries, fuel, and pesticides. 
3. Neem products used widely across India and the industry as a whole employs many poor people
4. Chetan operates a small business of neem tree products
5. Chetan’s family has owned this business for the last seven generations
6. The business employs 60 people in different functions
7. 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. 
8. Ten years ago, Tom Johnson (OOPS) discovered the neem seeds’ use as a potent pesticide. 
9. Tom received a patent for the pesticide formula and brought the product to market
10. They have a worldwide patent and financial capital to manufacture and sell the product on a large scale.
11. People are likely to prefer buying products from US companies over small Indian cottage, affecting business locally
12. 6 months down killing the Indian market
13. 20 products sold at supermarkets
14. Neem based soap is best product
15. The wrapper of soap has tom on it
16. Chetan has his grandfather on i 
17. Chetan met with tom multiple times urge him to move out of the market
18. Tom refused to move out but would collaborate
19. Chetan business is suffering
20. Likley will have to lay off workers at least half
21. They have worked with the company for a long time
22. Chetan is finically well off and will do fine if the company shuts down
23. Chetan is sad to lay them off
24. His employees think he cut a deal with OOPS
25. They feel cheated by chetan

Step 2 & 3

1. OOPS
   1. Professional: Making a lot of money, Gain a large market share
   2. Personal: Make a lot of money for themselves, they also have serious money at stake
2. Chentan
   1. Professional: Keep his employees, have a business to still run/not be the guy who ran the company to the ground
   2. Personal: Family relationships at stake, money (not as much a worry though)
3. Chentan’s employees 
   1. Professional: They don’t want to lose their jobs, they probably like the jobs
   2. Personal: They rely on the job to make ends meet, they need the money from the jobs and probably will have a hard time finding a new one 
4. Other Indian growers of neem trees
   1. Professional: money/job security, will OOPs get a monopoly?
   2. Personal: feeding families, social worth
5. Tom
   1. Professional: needs to make the most of his company, can’t afford to give up anything in a tough market.
   2. Personal: Probs doesn’t want to have to make Chetan lay off workers

 

Step 4:

Solutions 1

1. Potential Solution: Negotiate a partnership with OOPS
2. How does it solve the problem? 
   1. Pros: It allows them to keep running, at a decreased profit, but still run. You also get to keep your employees or at least some of them
   2. Cons: Your probably gonna have fewer employees and less profit, doesn’t look great for image
3. How does it save the face of those involved?: It allows you to keep the business running but at a decreased profit. You save jobs and people’s livelihoods.
4. Implications on relationships
   1. Short-term: Might piss people off that some lose jobs and that people probs get paid less
   2. Long-term: Might help keep your business running in the long run, thus making you not look like the person who killed the business
5. Implications on the venture
   1. Short-term: Cash flow back in, Keep jobs, keep employees, low moral over layoffs
   2. Long-term: Could save accounting problems and cash problem with competition

Solutions 2

1. Potential Solution: Convince OOPS to buy them out
2. How does it solve the problem?
   1. Pros: This has the same benefits as solution 1, but adds to the fact that opps are incentivized to make your company work and function because otherwise, it is a cash problem. Verse with solution 1 they don’t care if you do badly only if you do well.
   2. Cons: Will be extremely hard to make happen unless Chetan sells at a deal, everyone might not keep their jobs, and the company might just be sold for scraps
3. How does it save the face of those involved?:  It allows Chetan to exit peacefully and make this toms problem. It also lets people keep their jobs, probably temporally, but long enough to figure out what to do.
4. Implications on relationships
   1. Short-term: Might be considered a coward, but should help keep family has a little hope, buy out can lead to house cleaning, which could be bad for morale.
   2. Long-term: People might have a chance to keep jobs long term vs the other solutions don’t offer the same incentive. 
5. Implications on the venture
   1. Short-term: Might allow for cash flow to start back in, which could allow people to keep jobs, also might kill jobs unknown
   2. Long-term: Could keep the business long term, or could be sold for scraps.

Solutions 3

1. Potential Solution: Shut down the business
2. How does it solve the problem?
   1. Pros: No longer have cash hemorrhage, can retire, less stress
   2. Cons: You have to fire everyone, pay severance packages, no income from your end
3. How does it save the face of those involved?: It doesn’t necessarily, but it prevents a long drown out bankruptcy which people would get nothing, thus saves the company from this.
4. Implications on relationships
   1. Short-term: People might be mad they lost jobs
   2. Long-term: People might hate you for shutting down the company
5. Implications on the venture
   1. Short-term: Money for exit 
   2. Long-term: N/A

 

Step 5:

https://www.sba.gov/business-guide/manage-your-business/close-or-sell-your-business

https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/closing-a-business/necessary-steps-to-dissolve-your-company.html

https://thebusinessprofessor.com/knowledge-base/closing-up-shop/

Step 6:

I think I would try to get the company bought because either way it is going to shut down. Do I believe I owe jobs to each employee, not really because my job is to best for the company, so if selling it or shutting down is best then I must do that. Would I write great recs, of course, but thats a moral reason not because I feel obligated too. I think that in this scenario selling might get people jobs for a little longer, thus I think it worth trying, also the sale could be used for a fund for severance packages for the works who might get laid off. If I can’t sell I would shut down the business because it is not a charity, it is not supposed to run at a cash negative state. If it’s not making money it shouldn’t be open. Does that suck for the employees, yes, but times change, and if you don’t change with it you get left behind.

 

Step 7:

1. Try to get company bought
2. If fails shut down
3. Write recs for employees
4. If successful sell and help run the company for a little so they don’t run it to the ground.

Part 1

Step 1:

Facts

1. 35% kid in east Africa are stunted
2. Maize and banana used for infants
3. Mother believes gruel work, science says it doesn’t provide what they need
4. HIV is prevalent in the region
5. If children nurse beyond 6 months great chance of HIV from positive mother
6. You have received a grant to establish a woman’s cooperative
7. Grant to make food for infants and young children from locally grown ingredients
8. With the goal of weaning kids of breast milk by 6 months of age
9. 500 woman are interested in working on this, but not sure people will use it
10. Cash crops are grown in the area, use pesticides known to hurt infants

Step 2 & 3:

Stakeholders

1. Woman looking to join
   1. They want to make money
   2. Feed their young children the right foods
   3. The social aspect of people to be with and have a job
   4. Not give children HIV if they don’t have too
2. Your team
   1. Has money from grant at stake
   2. Reputation professional
   3. Research publication
   4. Money to be made?
   5. Fewer kids with HIV
   6. Resources at stake
3. Farmers
   1. Pesticides yield better crops are more money
   2. Money/livelihood
4. Children
   1. They don’t want to be malnourished
   2. They don’t want to have HIV
   3. They have better food thus will have better lives
5. Mothers looking to buy the product
   1. They don’t want their kids to be malnourished
   2. They don’t want their kids  to have HIV
   3. Their kids will have better food thus will have better lives
6. WHO
   1. Wants kids to live healthy lives
7. Foundation giving grant
   1. Have money on the line
   2. Looking to see the impact
   3. Resources at stake
8. Government of country
   1. Hoping to find a way to get more healthy kids food-wise, and less HIV Cases.

 

Step 4:

Potential Solution  (All could be a part of the solution)

1. Only use vegetables they don’t have pesticides on them
   1. Pros: Won’t have had chemicals in the food that would affect the children
   2. Cons: Extremely expensive, also might have troubles getting a supply
2. Use pesticides
   1. Pros: Supply would be better and the product would be much cheaper
   2. Cons: You have the chemical problem with feeding children a product that could harm them
3. Make a product for 0 to 6 months
   1. Pros: You could bridge the gap so that children don’t have to drink the mother’s milk thus less of a chance of getting HIV
   2. Cons: Expensive, have to convince mothers to buy it, have to make a product
4. Find a way to provide Formula to children
   1. Pro: help cut the number of transmissions from parent to child, also will provide them with nutrients they need
   2. Getting them the product manufactured somewhere else would be expensive, also would be extremely unpractical from a logistics point of view
5. Provide the product for free to HIV positive mothers
   1. Pros: Once you have figured out who has HIV the product could reduce the spread of HIV to kids
   2. Cons: Figuring out who has HIV will be tough, expensive
6. Test mother for HIV with test strips
   1. Pros: Could be extremely valuable for other groups and the government
   2. Cons: Expensive, extremely difficult to figure out
7. Don’t sell the product
   1. Pros: Won’t have to sort any of the solutions above cheap
   2. Cons: You won’t actually be helping anyone and people are dying

 

Step 5

Research

https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-programming/testing

 

Step 6 & 7

In this case, I think the best course of action would be to use a product that is made of fruit that has pesticides, work to provide children with formula for the 0 to 6 range, as well as provide the product at a discount to those who are proven to be tested and come positive for HIV. So the reason I thought they should use with fruits with pesticide contamination is that the cost of getting fruits without chemicals on them would be extremely expensive, also supplying un chemical used fruits would be extremely tough if they were trying to mass-produce this product. Though it is true that these fruits can result in adverse health issues in infants, I think that the number of kids who would receive adverse effects would be less than the amount who would be affected would probably be less than the amount who wouldn’t be affected. I also feel that the effects of HIV in the long wrong are most likely worse than the affects of pesticides on children as the effects are most likely short term from the chemicals and long term from the HIV. To make sure that the effects aren’t getting too many children though I would train the woman in the cooperative the signs and symptoms of the pesticide overdose for children.

In regards to providing parents who have tested positive with discounted formula, providing a discount would be subsided by the cost of the product to mothers who don’t know they have it. This also would encourage mothers who aren’t tested to get tested because then they can get this product at a discounted cost. Though there is the problem that people who don’t get the discounted price will probably not buy the product because they see that other people get it for a lower price, which is a problem if they don’t see the value in the product though then we need to work with the corrapetive to find a way to motivate people to buy the product. 

As for dealing with children who are too young, I would like to find a way to provide the formula to those who have tested positive, as for how to do this I am not sure yet, but by providing formula we could prevent 0 to 6-month kids from initially getting HIV.

In regards to the impact, this venture could be extremely impactful. The venture will provide jobs for women, give farmers money to form their crops, and allow kids to not get a disease that could kill them.

 

Part 2

step 1

Facts:

1. 35% kid in east Africa are stunted
2. Maize and banana used for infants
3. Mother believes gruel work, science says it doesn’t provide what they need
4. HIV is prevalent in the region
5. If children nurse beyond 6 months great chance of HIV from positive mother
6. You have received a grant to establish a woman’s cooperative
7. Grant to make food for infants and young children from locally grown ingredients
8. With the goal of weaning kids of breast milk by 6 months of age
9. 500 woman are interested in working on this, but not sure people will use it
10. Cash crops are grown in the area, use pesticides known to hurt infants
11. 6 months down the line
12. Make 3 dollars a day roughly
13. Can sell their own crops at market rate
14. After the woman makes money she had to turn it over to here male superior
15. Then the money is spent on like alcohol and things they don’t need.
16. You don’t have direct say in the functioning of the cooperative
17. One of seven in leadership have 6 months left

 

Step 2 & 3:
Stakeholders

1. Board members
   1. Professional: They want to leave the coop in a better position than they left it, they also don’t want to have the coop go badly as it would look at bad on them professionally. 
   2. Personal: There money stream is based on this business, they are also in charge of a woman who lives with them, they are all woman so they are incentivized to keep more money to themselves and actively are probably annoyed by this problem.
2. Yourself
   1. Professional: You don’t want the coop to fall apart as it has been your job, by trying to fix this man might boycott the coop thus driving down business and making it harder to succeed.
   2. Personal: Has an incentive to help the locals on the ground as probably has personal relationships with them, may not like the way the money is being treated from a personal aspect, as the whole point of the coop was to provide money to a woman so they could feed there children not buy booze for their husband
3. Cooperative members
   1. Professional: The entire coop is a woman thus, they all most have this problem, so they all may not see any value to making this money if it won’t be spent the right way anyone, so what is the value to them.
   2. Personal: They want to keep more money to themselves and don’t want it being used for beer money
4. Men taking money
   1. Professional: Networking from sitting at the bar and having more money, more clout 
   2. Personal: They get to have more money in their pockets and thus get to enjoy themselves more often and too a great length, thus they have no incentive to end this.
5. Other women in the area not apart of the coop
   1. Professional: Might encourage more woman to work if they know they would get the money
   2. Personal: They want to keep more money to themselves and don’t want it being used for beer money

Step 4

Solution 1:

1. Potential Solution: You establish a bank where all the wages for women go too.
2. How does it solve the problem?
   1. Pros: It makes it so the woman has no physical money to give to the male in charge, at least in physical form. They also will get away to store their money safely, and might even make interest
   2. Cons: The males might be annoyed knowing that the woman have this money but they can’t touch it, might cause more grief than the other solution, might make it dangerous for a woman as they are holding money from the men
3. How does it save face of those involved?: It limits the woman from having to turn in the money in person, and they can just say it is the bank, thus allowing the man to have access but it makes it harder for them to get at it.
4. Implications on relationships:
   1. Short-term: Might make couples or males mad based on the change of money situation
   2. Long-term: Might help a woman keep more money to spend on food, but men might just figure out who to get the money out of the bank, really just making it a pain in the ass for them, not really a solution
5. Implications on the venture:
   1. Short-term: Might make males at the company thus protest might happen
   2. Long-term: Might make the company image look bad, but more woman might want to work for them.

Solution 2:

1. Potential Solution: Don’t give salary as currency give it as food
2. How does it solve the problem?:
   1. Pros: They won’t get any money thus males won’t be able to take it away, plus the food they get will have to be eaten so the kids will get fed
   2. Cons: They may want the money instead of food for other things that are more necessary, then food like health needs or such… Food cost changes, thus salary  would have to adjust very often
3. How does it save face of those involved?: The woman won’t have to bring home money thus the situation won’t happen.
4. Implications on relationships:
   1. Short-term: Men will be mad that they were cut off, plus if a woman were relying on the money they no longer have it, which could be a problem
   2. Long-term: Might cause money problems down the line if they need it, also men might get annoyed and just start selling the food for beer money.
5. Implications on the venture:
   1. Short-term: It could be hard to find quantities of food to give out, thus making it really tough to actually do it and expensive.
   2. Long-term: Could make more women and other people want to work for you because they know that they would have a steady supply of food, but because of that those who need money will not be incentivized to work with you.

Solution 3:

1. Potential Solution: Give half as money with bank or without, half as food
2. How does it solve the problem?
   1. Pros: It allows some of the money to be accessed in the bank by males, so the problem of not having beer money is fixed they just don’t get as much, the food also means that they will have to either use it or sell it, but they have money so they probably won’t try and sell the food. 
   2. Cons: Males still might be mad that they have less beer money, they also might not be happy that they are receiving food and not money.
3. How does it save face of those involved?: Males still get money, so they feel ok, but the kids get fed in the process, the only downside is that the males still get beer money that could be used more effectively in a better manner.
4. Implications on relationships:
   1. Short-term: Men get money which makes them happy, and the children get fed which makes the mothers happy, might make the males jealous that they could have gotten more though.
   2. Long-term: The mothers make sure the kids get enough while the males get too feed, they also will have money, if the males don’t use it if need be.
5. Implications on the venture:
   1. Short-term: Hard to supply that much food, also has to keep money safe. Males still might get mad at the business.
   2. Long-term: Hard to supply long term, but should motivate employees to stay on if they need money and food, thus keeping a strong workforce and membership

 

Step 5:

https://www.coop-africa.org/

https://www.co-opbank.co.ke/

https://www.grocer.coop/articles/membership-ownership-cooperative-advantage

 

Step 6: 

 

I think the best solution to the problem is half as money in the bank, and half as food. I think this is the best because it takes all of the best parts of the bank and food concept and puts them together. You have less of a chance of having males get at the money if it’s in a bank, plus if they want it they can get it but it makes it harder from them to do this. The food fixes the inital problem that is had which is the money being made is spent on beer, not on food the commodity that is needed. Though it would be hard to find enough food for the company to pay out, on top of the fact it would probably get stolen, I think that it allows the company to solve the initial problem the employees face, it just cost them to do it, but at the same time it is a coop, not a corporation so the rules on how the money should be spent is a little different. On the front of males getting mad because their money is being taken away, they are going to do that anyway, so I think it is a game of making it as little as possible, so by still sort of allowing them access to some of the money you piss them off but not too a crazy extent.

 

Step 7:

1. Talk to board to implement a plan
2. Talk to people and see if they like it.
3. See how to set up bank accounts for them
4. Find food/enough of it
5. Set up accounts for people, pay them in food and in money through the account
6. See if it works and reevaluate.