Eva’s Print Shop

Eva’s – – Print Shop: tripled bottom line operates as a social business and a corporate structure divided in terms of it’s two businesses some horizontal connection between the teams but not a clear functional structure hybrid between functional and divisional innovative features: social business (mohamed yunous) – integrating the production (commercial) and the teaching (social) business side – bringing in money to sustain the organization social side 2002 – they used to be funded by federal grants BUT caveat w. overnment funding required the trainees to be paid†¦ issue: these are homeless youth and they are being taken off the streets – giving them homes and are taught basic survival skills on how to live, and take care of themselves any kind of not for profit formula has strict guidelines which is why they switched because it was counter intuitive to the social goal. Case: Who: (names and position): – Andrew Macdo nald and the Advisory Board (primary stakeholders) – Eva’s initiatives What: (Key Issues): – Whether or not to expand and if so how Why: (Root Causes): Funding Will the business side fund the social side?Need to help more at risk youth is pressing – growing problem When (Timeline): – No, just as it works for the company – Changing the funding has put some constraints on the economic business, BEP Analysis: (application of course concepts, models, theories): – Performance: changing in funding formula away from government funding was made after 2005 strategic review – allowed Eva’s Phoenix †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. How did this impact its organizational design?Strategy: integration of its social and commercial elements of the enterprise – triple bottom line, includes environmental – uses Bullfrog Power Models: – triple-bottom line – effectiveness measures: goal approach – internal process model: h ow does the training side interact with the commercial side? How are conflicts resolved? resource model: by choosing bullfrog power, they may be paying more for their power but using homeless youth – they may be comprising their efficiency and quality – Balancing Act between the 2 – Professionalism – more professional you’re staff, the more you have to pay them Decision Criteria 1. ncrease youth participation 2. increase efficiency on the economic business side 3. feasibility and funding 4. keeping or increasing the synergy 5. no compromise the social or environmental objectives for the business objectives 6. complexity in the design structure 7. maintaining your volunteers Alternatives: 1. Keep the structure the same but tweak it, make economic more efficient (incremental efficiencies) 2. Grow the business using the same structure – just bigger 3. Grow geographically – replicating the model in different cities where there is a simila r need 4.Separate the print shop and the social initiatives Evaluation of Alternatives 1. Incremental efficiencies will allow for more professionalism and customer focus – some basic training before anyone works in the print shop handling customer materials – meets a, b, c & d 2. Growing the†¦ Recommendation/Implementation/contingency – finding a suitable location – must find advisory board and volunteers – securing funding to run a similar operation – finance volunteer – finding customers and sales volunteer – onnecting with volunteer agency in the designated city to source homeless youth and discuses details on how to manage the process hiring staff with the expertise needed to run both the print side and the social side create and accountability Constrains – Budgetary issues – Timelines Downside Risk: – Failure of program – volunteer not committed – Not find youth who are interested in staying and learning new skills – Not enough customers Contingency: partnering with a local social agency and try to implement the program using their infrastructure and recourse while providing your expertise