Introduction
The healthcare system is a complex structure where one cannot make decisions without consulting various parties involved. Even a relatively minor organization such as a local blood center has many factors and opinions to consider. The case under consideration presents a complicated situation related to the issue of supplying hospitals with raw materials. As a result, a new blood center was established to fight the monopolist’s pricing, but the organization faced unexpected challenges that threatened its existence. The following analysis will identify the main issue, the stakeholders, and potential solutions and select the most appropriate one to coordinate with the relevant parties after evaluating them.
The Problem
Community Blood Center of the Carolinas (CBCC) is a new initiative in the Charlotte area to make blood supplies more affordable to the local hospitals. It has a robust rival, the American Red Cross, and management issues, leading to staff reduction and poor budgeting (Swayne & Hassett, 2013). While the situation has improved, evident by the improved cash flow, customer service, and donor relationships, some financial concerns remain, caused by insufficient sponsorship and the rival’s dominance in the region (Swayne & Hassett, 2013). The strategy, both immediate and long-term, also appears absent, which aggravates the situation (Swayne & Hassett, 2013). However, amending the issue would require consulting various stakeholders to respect everyone’s interests.
The Stakeholders
CBCC, being a healthcare organization, has to consider multiple parties before attempting significant decision-making. Typical stakeholders may include the staff, the leaders, the initiative’s beneficiaries, contributors, community groups, experts, and professional associations (Leviton & Melichar, 2016). Most of those can be identified in the case, for instance, the center’s staff. The leader would be the new executive director, who is responsible for making the decision. The beneficiaries are the adjacent hospitals and the community because CBCC was ultimately established for its sake. The contributors are blood donors and sponsors, who provide either the material or money. The professional associations are the blood banking organizations where CBCC is a member: the American Association of Blood Banks and America’s Blood Centers. The other two parties appear irrelevant for the case, although the current executive director would be considered an expert if contracted externally. Overall, the list of stakeholders is extensive even without involving local and federal governments, and each will have an input in the solution.
The Solutions
The decision-maker has several potential paths to follow, considering the opportunities and the previous steps. The center could undergo another staff optimization, easing the budget’s burden (Baş et al., 2016). Another solution is to expand by covering more hospitals within the two states (NC and SC), as material transportation costs will likely remain moderate (Baş et al., 2016). The center could also focus on drawing new donors through additional marketing and retaining the existing pool. CBCC might merge with its rival, the American Red Cross upon realizing that it is impossible to compete with such a powerful player and gain certain benefits as a new department. Lastly, the organization may choose to proceed without any changes, considering the situation appears challenging but not life-threatening. Those solutions are only some of the available options, but they seem the most immediate and viable.
Evaluating the Solutions
Although all the provided alternatives are valid, some are more beneficial than the rest. The first one, staff optimization, was already attempted and did not bring the desired results. Repeating it would only lead to the remaining specialists’ increased workload and potential deteriorated quality of service. The latter can be especially detrimental to the center, as the present donor pool’s loyalty will be damaged, and finding new contributors will be challenging (Melián-Alzola & Martín-Santana, 2019). Regional expansion appears sensible, but the solution does not respect the beneficiaries’ interests, potentially alienating them and losing their trust. Merging with the rival is a risky development, as CBCC will be unable to push its terms due to the organizations’ unequal status. Furthermore, most stakeholders might find the solution disadvantageous, as some staff will be left redundant, the hospitals will pay more for the material, and the donors will be intimidated by the Red Cross’s controversies. Remaining idle and waiting for the situation to resolve itself is also a venture, as the decision-maker will have no control over future developments, and other parties will not appreciate the uncertainty.
The Chosen Solution
The last alternative to consider is focusing on the donors. Out of all, it appears the safest because no one’s interests will be affected. Finding new contributors will bring more material and income, sparing the staff and alleviating the financial issue. The community will remain prioritized, as donors will be primarily discovered in the area, so the beneficiaries may be satisfied. The specialists will work with the locals to identify potential donors through promotional activities. Moreover, sponsors might notice that the center can entice and retain customers and start offering their support. The professional associations will not have to provide supplies, but remaining a member will have some benefits, such as brand reputation. Finally, the solution is close to what the executive direction envisions, so its success is more or less solidified, given the leader’s experience, although it will require investment in promotion. Overall, focusing on expanding and retaining the donor base will satisfy all stakeholders and prove financially viable.
Conclusion
Blood donation is a sensitive topic in healthcare, considering its necessity. The process involves many parties whose opinions cannot be disregarded, or the organization will face the consequences. Compared to other elements, identifying the alternatives was the most challenging task because they are numerous, and some omitted ones may be ethically ambiguous. Thus, the priority was given to an appropriate solution respecting all the shareholders, which will be implemented by a competent manager.
References
Baş, S., Carello, G., Lanzarone, E., Ocak, Z., & Yalçındağ, S. (2016). Management of blood donation system: Literature review and research perspectives. In A. Matta, E. Sahin, J. Li, A. Guinet, & N. Vandaele (Eds.), Health care systems engineering for scientists and practitioners (pp. 121-132). Springer.
Leviton, L. C., & Melichar, L. (2016). Balancing stakeholder needs in the evaluation of healthcare quality improvement. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(10), 803–807.
Melián-Alzola, L., & Martín-Santana, J. D. (2019). Service quality in blood donation: satisfaction, trust and loyalty. Service Business, 14, 101-129.
Swayne, L. E., & Hassett, T. (2013). Case 3: Community Blood Center of the Carolinas: Donations, donations, donations. In P. M. Ginter, W. J. Duncan, & L. E. Swayne, The strategic management of health care organizations (7th ed., pp. 476-498). John Wiley & Sons.