The Business of Philanthropy; What happens if there is a cure?

Recently there has been a lot of news swirling around a potential cure for Multiple Sclerosis. MS has always been considered a progressive neurological disorder, but that notion is being challenged by an Italian vascular surgeon Dr. Zamboni. The Liberation Treatment or CCSVI, has had amazing results. It takes MS to a vascular vs. a neurological disorder, whereby MS patients with clogged veins in the neck are "liberated" by opening these veins and allowing the blood to flow unrestricted.

Promising results have been reported and studies are underway, and rightfully there has been resistance by some, including the MS fundraising societies, to ensure that proper, repeatable, scientific studies are done to ensure this is not a false hope situation...and that it is not "the cure."

However, it got me to thinking about what happens if this is "The Cure" and what happens if cures are found for other diseases. Not what happens to the patients, and the researchers will always find something new to research, but what happens to the large infrastructure that has been put together to raise funds for the disease?

Because let's make no mistake about this...these societies that raise funds, provide awareness, support etc. are large corporate machines that employ hundreds if not thousands of people. So what happens if there is a cure? What happens to this large corporation which has basically lost its one "product" and now has nothing else to sell?

It is an interesting question...one that most of us in the corporate world do not have to consider, because most corporations do not rely on just one product/service offering...there is usually a slate of options...potentially related, but not alone.

How does this philanthropic organization wind down? Where do the monies raised go? Many, many questions...and as far as I know this has never happened since fundraising has become somewhat of a big business.

It will be interesting to see. From everything I've read to date and the reports coming forward it seems that Dr. Zamboni's CCSVI treatment may be the first real cure for a major disease that we have seen, and I hope it proves out. But the implications go beyond the thousands affected by this disease, the implications will also be felt by those who are employed by the societies some who have dedicated their entire life to the pursuit of a cure and may soon find themselves without viable employment!

The disruption of the organ donation supply chain

We have a short memory. Although I am quite confident that there were many more contingencies in place since 9/11, however, once again we are being forced to recognize the fragility of the supply chain when modes of transportation are affected.

Although there are obviously many other modes of transportation that are unaffected, such as ships, rail and truck, there are many other items which actually do get flown with the likes of FedEx, DHL, and others that are now grounded.

Probably one of the things that has the most profound impact -- truly life and death -- has been the transportation of organs for transplant. In Europe, organs for the last week, have been going to those within driving/rail distance wherein the organ's viability is ensured.

It's interesting that as I consider myself to be a Supply Chain expert, that I hadn't actually thought of organ donation as having a very intricate supply chain aspect to it. In fact, considering the limited time for transport, it is probably one of the most complicated supply chain's around.

Firstly, if there is a mistake, it literally means life and death. Because the person on the receiving end, may not live until another organ donor becomes available. In the case of the volcanic ash from Iceland, there are surely dozens of people, whose life is now at risk or perhaps they have even died, because air transport is not available. Of course on the other hand, there are others who may very well be alive, because of the disruption. Waxing philosophically this is an inevitable yin/yang scenario.

But if you think of organ donation as an end-to-end Supply Chain issue consider these points.

• you never know when your "product" will become available
• you have multiple products coming from the same "supplier", which are going to different destinations, with a limited shelf life -- with the shelf life for each "product" being somewhat different.
• you need to obtain the "product" from the "supplier" with specialists and each extraction requires a different approach. Furthermore, until the "product" is actually viewed/extracted, its viability is unknown
  
• when it is known that a "product" is becoming available, there is a search to find who the customer is who is most in need. The customer could be a few kilometers/miles away or possibly hundreds
• As the customer is identified, there is a need to assemble specialists at the "customer's" location for "installation" of the part
• And during this entire time, the actual logistics for the transport will need to be put in place in a last minute scenario, with transportation "experts" accompanying the part/product

I know that putting life/death scenarios into these simplistic supply chain terms may seem a little harsh, but the reality is that this is exactly what it is. It makes me think that in reality, everything we touch, everything we deal with is somehow intertwined with the supply chain, and although I had already encompassed most of the world and activities in that thought process, I had missed organ donation as part of the vast world of supply chain.

I feel sorry for those who have lost their opportunity for a transplant and may die because of it. On the other hand, one can understand that there may be some rejoicing by some that the volcanic eruption in Iceland occurred.

Let's hope that the wind shifts soon, and that the supply chain world of organ donations can begin to deliver to those most in need.

THE GUARDIAN OF THE CORPORATE REPUTATION -- WHO IS IT?

You are probably thinking that this is an easy question to answer, because by all logic it is everyone. But not everyone is affected by a misstep, and not everyone thinks about the ramifications of breaches -- ethical, legal, financial etc. -- which would irreparably harm an organization's reputation and potentially lead to its eventual demise.

In a recent conversation which I had, the question was posed "Is procurement the keeper of the keys to the corporate reputation vault?" And quite honestly, from my perspective, procurement has probably the most important role to play. But let's first look at the other players.

• Legal: Well, there is an excellent argument to be made that legal is the inevitable authority on what could get an corporation into legal trouble. But considering the massive amount of interpretations that the law could take...this is an important consideration, but not the final one. Because often what is legal and what is not in important regarding fines, imprisonment and reputation as well...but there are things that might be perfectly legal, but are seemingly questionable -- ethically, morally etc. -- and might make a good headline in the newspaper...Legal yes, but a strike out on the reputational front.
• Internal Auditor: Again, the internal auditor has an important role to play, but is often fiscally focused, although some internal auditors can be used as sounding boards for other issues. But the actual title "internal" auditor, harkens to the focus is internally and yes, ensures that things are being done correctly so that the organization can pass an external audit..but just like legal....not necessarily bigger picture focused.
• Marketing/Communications: I put these two areas together, because they are impacted by the same issues to a certain extent. Certainly Marketing and Communication "spin" the message....trying to get clients to buy their product/service. When a misstep occurs both are severely affected -- communications trying to get ahead of the story and spin the issue, and marketing considering their options for messaging based on the headline story -- and how it is going to affect the brand. And although Marketing helps to build the brand, the message is a pitch and doesn't look at internal operations trying to figure out what could hit the company in the backside. And communications? Well there is a lot of reactivity there...and not the "keeper of the keys" activity.

There are other areas within organizations that could be discussed, but if I listed them all this would be a very long entry. So let me get to Procurement and why with the global view that procurement has, one needs to seriously consider the impact on the corporation's reputation, and also one needs to consider how some of the measurements that are used to determine a procurement team's efficacy may in fact be counter-productive.

First, let me go back a step and talk about the definition of "keeper of the keys". I want to make sure that no one believes that what I'm suggesting is "policing". That is not or never should be the role of procurement. This is at a higher level, which looks at moral, legal, ethical issues -- risk mitigation and the like.

Procurement has a 360 degree lens into the internal and external aspects affecting the organization. With appropriate market intelligence a good procurement department understands potential issues with suppliers -- including how they do business (around the globe) and the risks associated with those who have questionable business practices. Also, procurement has a lens into conflict of interest issues....and hopefully has a full disclosure policy to ferret out any potential issues regarding impartiality of the evaluation team.

How about sustainability? A lot of sustainability initiatives to date have been driven by the proverbial "low-hanging fruit", and that is in building operations (turn off the lights!), recycling etc. But what about the rest? What about travel and potential alternatives, such web conferencing etc. -- Travel is usually managed and negotiated through the procurement office -- so what better place to initiate positive change?

How are suppliers meeting their "global" obligations re sustainability? Right now, there is too little done within procurement organizations here -- beyond putting something into RFPs which says "Are you Green?" Reality check here -- no one is going to say no, and unless you are actually going to audit them and beyond them -- their suppliers as well -- their is absolutely no point in putting this into an RFP. Yet the point remains the same -- this could and should be driven by procurement.

I could go on ...but this posting is already too long...Nevertheless, I have one more comment to which I alluded to earlier, which is about counter-productive measurements. This brings me back to the nit which I have always had, regarding the inordinate amount of focus on cost savings -- which unfortunately drives the focus to be on price (and let's be serious here -- we can talk about total deliverable costs -- but often the measures issued by the powers that be end up being price driven) -- this pushes procurement to make decisions which may in fact be contraindicated when trying to focus on the corporate reputation -- not always, but it does have significant impact.

So the question becomes -- when it comes to the corporate bottom-line what is more important? A few thousand dollar savings, or a long term excellent reputation? I'm sure these days if you ask Mattel or Toyota you'd know what they'd say...the loss to the top-line can be measured by decisions made as a result of incompatible metrics....

....So procurement in my mind, should be the "keeper of the keys"....but the savings metric needs to be relegated to a lower status for procurement to become effective in this role.

THE TRICKY QUESTION OF EMAIL ETIQUETTE

There are a lot of opinions out there on what is proper email etiquette. As a rule, I've always liked to say thank you or acknowledge an email receipt.

Yet this is becoming a questionable practice given the number of emails some people get in a day.

So I'm beginning to be careful about to whom I write a thank you, or in fact whose email I acknowledge. If an email says "I'll get back to you", then isn't it somewhat redundant or even pushy to say "Thanks, I look forward to hearing from you"?

At that point it could be said that they could write back to you and say "Yes I will" or "Me too", and then you'd have to answer again. This could result in an endless number of polite yet totally unnecessary emails.

I'm not sure about what the correct protocol is, but then again, I don't know how many folk do...and what's right for one person, might be wrong for another.

Which means there is no real solution to this quandry...so I decide to mix it up and judge the scenario based on the individual...and I hope that I get it right!