President Clinton also pointed out that “healthcare is not only a right, but an extraordinarily good economic investment.” If you consider the long-term gains in economic productivity from investing in the health of one individual then the fight against AIDS becomes an economic priority as well.

Walking around the exhibition area at AIDS2010 it is clear that many NGOs have invested a lot of money in this conference. But the business presence here, outside of the pharma industry, is conspicuously absent. (Umm, didn’t we just finish clapping and nodding our heads for the President’s words of warning on bloated overheads and economic incentives?)

To be clear: 1) Conferences are not per se a waste of money: they can provide cost-effective networking and learning opportunities if approached properly; 2) many businesses have understood the economic importance of responding to HIV/AIDS and other healthcare issues (see earlier post on PPP3.0).

But before registering for another HIV/AIDS conference, NGOs (and donors) need to ask themselves: “What are our strategic objectives for this conference and how will we measure their achievement?”

Before businesses turn down the invitation to another HIV/AIDS conference, businesses need to ask themselves: “If we’re serious about HIV/AIDS are we know enough about what’s going on to say that we’ve got the most effective and efficient response?”

And the HIV/AIDS conference organizers? They need to ask themselves: “Are we building a platform where NGOs and businesses can meet their strategic objectives and how will we measure our success?”

I look forward to your questions….

Fast forward to sub-Saharan Africa, anno 2010. HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis are the perennial chart-toppers on the region’s mortality tables. Transport plays an important role in all three. So responsible (and/or risk averse) supply chain operators are naturally going to include transporters in their HIV prevention and management programmes, right? Right? Hello?

According to a 2006 report from the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and Booz & Co. transport was at the very bottom of industry responses to HIV/AIDS. A 2010 GBC/Booz study on the Oil and Gas industry found that “the sub-contractor community remains the most poorly served in terms of disease prevention and management programs, yet it is this community that is the most at risk.”

What gives? “They just don’t care,” quips the cynic. But that dog don’t hunt. Just look at Heineken’s ground-breaking HIV management programme or Chevron’s unparalleled corporate commitment to the Global Fund. Yes, many had a slow start, and, yes, some still aren’t even out of the gate yet, but big business has responded to HIV (and other health issues).

But look at how they have responded. By focusing on what they can control, and ignoring the rest. Big businesses are control freaks; control (standardization, scaling) is the secret of their success. But how do you control the behaviour and health of your supply chain when it is largely made up of people working for other companies?

“Are you saying businesses have no control over their supply chains?” I hear you ask. No, on the contrary. They have a lot of control over their supply chains. They impose it through a tried and true mechanism: the contract. Anyone who has ever contracted for a major corporation will know that the sharp end of quality control is actually a corporate lawyer’s pen.

Back to HIV. So far most of the corporate response to HIV and other diseases has been the domain of the Corporate Responsibility and Health and Safety departments. But maybe it’s time we also looked further down the hall. When it comes to healthy supply chains, maybe a lawyer is what the doctor ordered.

To get from the DRC to the factories in China and Taiwan, those minerals travel thousands of kilometres and cross multiple borders to the ports in either Tanzania or South Africa. The truckers hauling them work for SMEs or themselves. They spend an average of 27 days a month on the road with no access to health or information. HIV prevalence rates are twice as high among truckers as among the general population and is the number one killer of drivers. Road accidents and malaria come in at numbers two and three respectively. At the congested borders, where the drivers often spend days or even weeks waiting their turn to cross, sex work flourishes, turning rest spots into public health “hotspots“.

Blood minerals are fuelling a war that has killed millions, and we should applaud and support those responding to this tragedy.

But the same blood minerals are also fuelling the spread of HIV and other epidemics. Those affected deserve our support too.

Teamwork. Most of us recognize (intuitively, logically or empirically) the importance and difficulties of building and nurturing good teams. I don’t want to add my personal philosophy to the vast tome of information (example) already available on the topic. Instead, I offer an observation on the intricacy of its benefits and the importance of recognizing them using a slightly unorthodox metaphor: the submarine movie.

The context for my observation is rapid growth. Business is booming at North Star, which is a good thing. We’re on course to double the number of Wellness Centres for the fourth year in a row. Now that’s not too difficult when you’ve got one centre. But going from 12 to 25 is another matter. Maintaining quality, meeting new client expectations while nurturing exiting relationships is a tight rope that many an organization has had to walk.

“So where do the submarines come into it?” you ask. Ok, now if you can ignore the potential sinking=failing connotation, in my opinion being in a rapidly growing organization feels a lot like being in a submarine during a crash dive. As you continue to sink (grow) the pressure on the sub (organization) builds. A gasket blows here, a leak springs there. Around you you can hear the hull creaking and groaning. You know you’re heading in the right direction, but you start to wonder: “can we get there without breaking up?”

Naturally your thoughts turn to the super-structure: how strong is the hull? How accurate are those don’t-dive-deeper-than-this warnings? But what about the crew? How are they dealing with the pressure? Can they hold it together?

One of my favourite movies is Wolfgang Petersen’s classic Das Boot. So how does Der Alte stay so composed during those nail-biting crash dives? My theory is that he knows he’s got the best crew that ever sailed onboard. He can’t do anything about the sub: he can trust that they’ve built it to the best of their ability, but it is what it is: it’s out of his hands.

But the one thing he can influence is his crew. Der Alte knows that he can rely on his crew. He’s got the right people on board. He has invested in them both individually and as a team. So even when one or two of them lose their composure, he knows that they’ll pull through as a team.

Der Alte knows the sub will survive, because he’s got the right crew onboard. So when you growth takes off and your organization starts to feel the pressure. Ask yourself this: are you in the same position as Der Alte? If not, then…

If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to grow fast, get a good crew.

First, a brief word about PPP versions 1.0 and 2.0.

The first “version” of public-private partnerships was more or less a modern twist on classic corporate philanthropy and grew out of the American model made famous by the Carnegie’s and Rockerfeller’s of this world: corporations, like individuals, were expected to support good causes.

At the turn of (this) century, with the internet taking transparency to new levels, corporations made more effort to show that they were “doing well, by doing good”. This phase was characterized by large bi-lateral brand-partnerships between well-known companies and causes (e.g. ING Bank and UNICEF). To be sure, there were variations within the theme: some companies gave cash, some in-kind, but at the end of day they did not expect to see a return on their “investment”.

Version 2.0 married the good cause to the bottom line and PPPs moved from the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to the marketing department. Inspired by the hype generated by PPP 1.0, companies and charities started to explore real win-win’s. Accounting departments stop rolling their eyes and rubbing their hands as companies saw that they could actually make some money while addressing social issues.

It’s hard to say exactly when PPP 2.0 was released in beta form, but its hay-day was in the mid naughties. This version is perhaps most memorably epitomized by Hindustan Lever (Unilever)/WHO/Indian government partnership on hygiene and rural health education ( driving sales of Lifeboy brand soap), which features prominently in C.K. Prahalad’s The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid (the “PPP 2.0 for Dummies” for many a CSR-practicioner – absolutely no disrespect intended).

And now to the latest release. PPP 3.0, as I see it, is not driven by guilt or greed. It occurs at the intersection of corporate and public needs. Specifically, it arises when corporations, governments and/or NGOs realize that they are facing overarching issues that have a direct impact on their primary processes, but cannot be addressed through traditional internal or external mechanisms. Where PPP 2.0 united good deeds with good profits, 3.0 unites practical needs with practical solutions.

The environment and health are typical 3.0 issues, where combining problem-solving capacity and resources is a logical response and not just a pet project. Reducing emissions and fighting AIDS  are everybody’s problem, but no one organization’s sole responsibility.

Take the case of healthcare and supply chains. Public health experts have known supply chains and transport routes are an important vector of disease transmission since at least the 14th century when a cargo ship docked in Marseille and brought the black plague to Europe from China. On the other hand, transport companies in southern Africa, where the working life-expectancy of long-haul truckers had dropped to as low as five years by some calculations, know the devastating impact HIV, malaria and other diseases all too well. The scope of the problem deterred many on both sides from mounting a response. But by creating a joint platform like North Star, they have been able to combine their skills and (financial) resources to develop an effective and affordable answer that is having a measurable impact.

As North Star grows and learns, we are benefiting from other aspects that distinguish PPP 3.0 from its predecessors. Whereas the previous approaches to PPPs tended to create partnerships with rigid timelines (usually five years), structures (Memoranda of Understanding), and memberships (two to five partners), PPP 3.0 is characterized by more fluid arrangements. For example, more than 60 partners work together through North Star.  Each partner contributes according to their own (perceived) interest and capacity. Their contributions can be one-off, in-kind, country-specific or multi-year, multi-country and international. North Star provides a platform to combine and channel the various efforts into a clearly defined result. And while some organizations are happy to walk away after their initial engagement, more are coming back and seeing how they can get more out of the programme.

As with such developments, PPP 3.0′s recent growth spurt has been fuelled by a combination of factors. However, the ever-increasing connectivity driven by internet-based communications is surely one of the most important.

As social media continues to gain traction among businesses and government alike, the office cubicle is being transformed from a cage into a portal. Through that portal trouble shooters from all walks of life are connecting with a kindred spirits around the world. Problem solving capacity and creativity are expanding exponentially.

It is this almost limitless access to new ideas and resources that make me think we’ll be working with PPP 3.0 for some time to come. To be clear, this is a whole new release and not just a minor bug fixes and tweaks. Like all major systems upgrades companies, governments, NGOs and other bodies need to take it seriously and to plan it meticulously. For those that are prepared to take the plunge a whole new universe of possibilities awaits!