Posted by chris on February 26th, 2009 | No Comments »

In keeping with its mandate to “bring together partners,” the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council together with the Association for Canadian Community Colleges, spearheaded a gathering of self-identified stakeholders in training and certification related to supply chain. Like most “stakeholder” gatherings, the room included representatives from competing organizations. In this case, that meant representatives from “rival” colleges and institutions, as well as from bodies offering “competing” certifications. The potential value of such gatherings comes in identifying shared interests and in enabling better solutions.

My exposure to this sector is largely through such stakeholder gatherings. Cross-functional (or cross-associational) gatherings in “supply chain” often generate discussion around “what is supply chain, anyway?” The opportunity to clarify the function and value of the sector has the potential to unite the many stakeholders. All of a sudden, there is a pan-sector identity (e.g., in-group) whose job it is to convey that value proposition to non-sector (e.g., out-group) stakeholders, who include employers, job-seekers, students, their parents, other functional areas of the business, etc., etc. We all win when these “others” realize the strategic importance and potential of supply chain… and they win, too!

Interaction between competing forces also helps everyone, by fostering good-old differentiation. For colleges, associations and “others”, this is positive – and necessary – because competitive markets don’t tolerate a “six-of-one” and “half-dozen-of-the-other” split for long. Contact and dialogue help to define core competencies and clear the way for collaboration that helps the sector overall.

As a related example, I worked in media sales where we had one main competitor. At an ad-agency function, I recall turning a corner and coming face-to-face with my “rival account manager” who was talking to our mutual client. Once our poor client realized that she could not avoid acknowledging us to each other, she betrayed the look of someone forced between former spouses from an acrimonious marriage. Shortly after I left that company, the “six” and “half-dozen” merged into one company. Strange how competition forces new ways of working.

It is very easy to pay lip service to collaboration and looking for “win-win” solutions to today’s complex problems. Examples are rarer in reality, but I came across one recently whereby rival conference organizers found they both targeted events in Western Canada that addressed the environmental implications of supply chain. Isn’t it fitting that the two are co-branding their events to spur discussion on the opportunities for supply chain and corporate social responsibility to deliver positive impact? Check out “Supply Chains and the Environment,” to take place on May 25 and 26 in Calgary.

The lines between friends and enemies may be blurring. There is value to be had and created in stakeholder gatherings that help us look for intersecting interests. I guess it takes a sector council to foster that dialogue.

THIS ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE FEBRUARY NEWSLETTER FOR THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL (www.supplychaincanada.org).

 

Tags: Tags: , , , ,

Posted by chris on June 18th, 2008 | No Comments »

In working with a client recently, a hospital nurse relayed a situation to illustrate some of the conflicts that can arise between staff. The loose details are as follows: a patient is recovering in hospital and begins to feel nauseous in the middle of the night. The nurse records a prescription for Gravol on the chart. The following dialogue ensues during the doctors rounds:

Doctor: Who prescribed Gravol for this patient?

Nurse: I did; he was nauseous.

Doctor: Listen, I prescribe meds for patients, OK?

Nurse: (either out loud or internally) It’s Gravol! The patient was nauseous, and you weren’t around. Would you rather I let the patient vomit on themselves while I wait for you to come around and prescribe Gravol?

Behind this conflict, there may be several issues (interpersonal history, sleep deprivation, emotional strain of the job, frustration at poor handwriting, etc.). One of the issues may well be that this particular doctor does not respect the nurses full ability to provide insightful medical care. If the nurse suspects or understands this to be the doctor’s orientation, he/she has two options:

  1. Change the doctor’s orientation toward him/herself and toward nurses in general;
  2. Work around the orientation to get the right treatment for the patient.
  3. The nurse pursuing Option 1 may face this interaction:

    Doctor: Who prescribed Gravol for this patient?

    Nurse: I did; he was nauseous.

    Doctor: Listen, I prescribe meds for patients, OK?

    Nurse: Gravol does not need a prescription. Since the patient is not allergic to Gravol, it was the best and safest answer. I am in a position to make that call.

    Doctor: No you are not. Doctors make decisions.

    Nurse: With all due respect, my training gives me the expertise to make this decision. This can allow you to focus on more serious issues. You would be my first contact if I had any uncertainties. With this patient, I believe this was the right approach.

    Doctor: Doctors make decisions.

    Nurse: …

    The nurse pursuing Option 2 may find this:

    Doctor: Who prescribed Gravol for this patient?

    Nurse: The patient was nauseous; I suppose I should have written “nausea” on the chart instead of “Gravol,” but because the patient has had Gravol before, I didn’t see a problem.

    Doctor: Just give me the information; I will make the decision, OK?

    Nurse: Sure.

    From the outside, it is objectively wrong and a misallocation of resources for nurses (or any other participant in a system) to not be allowed to make full use of their training and expertise. Although in selecting Option 2, you are enabling that misallocation, you are saving your time and energy with a work around solution. It is a trade off.

    In a very real sense, objectivity allows you to pick your battles. You have the option, in some cases, of steering away from the “let me change your mind” conversation and still get the “right” outcome. It is a tough turn to take, but often an easier and faster resolution.

 

Tags: Tags: , , ,