| Course | HLTH 6880 Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation: A Global Perspective |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Peer critique discussion post |
| Length | About 600 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | graduate health administration program |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6880 Week 9
Week 9 Discussion: Response to Marisol
Peer Critique: What Happens to Marisol's Solar Refrigerator Rentals When the Pilot Grant Ends?
Marisol, here is your model as I understand it, so you can correct me if I have it wrong: your venture installs solar-powered vaccine refrigerators in rural clinics without reliable grid power, rents them to the clinics for a monthly fee that includes maintenance and pays for the first two years of rent through a pilot grant, after which the clinics are expected to pay the rent themselves. The beneficiaries are children and pregnant women who need vaccines kept at the right temperature; the payer, after year two, is the clinic.
I think the problem is real and the technology fits it. My critique is about one dependency only, because I would rather you could answer one question well than six questions briefly: the clinic as payer in year three.
In your Week 4 model, clinics pay rent from their operating budgets. But in the setting you described, rural clinics do not control much of their own budget; their funds come from a district health office, and the clinic staff you interviewed told you that money for anything beyond salaries and supplies arrives irregularly. So the concrete question is: in year three, who at the district office approves the rental line, on what evidence, and what happens to the refrigerator in a month when the payment does not arrive? If the answer is that the venture removes it, the children lose vaccine storage. If the answer is that the venture leaves it, the model has become a grant-funded program with a rental invoice nobody pays.
Research on social enterprises describes this exact situation. When the people who benefit are not the people who pay, revenue tends to follow the payer's priorities, and the governance of the venture determines whether the mission survives that pressure (Ebrahim et al., 2014). Here, the payer you are counting on in year three may not have the authority, or the budget line, to pay at all.
Two things that might help. First, consider moving the payer up one level. If the district office, not the clinic, signs the rental contract, payment depends on one budget decision a year rather than on many small monthly ones, and you can present the district with the evidence it actually cares about, such as vaccine doses not wasted to temperature failures. A framework for scaling social enterprises treats earnings generation and alliance-building with government as separate capabilities, and argues that ventures often need both (Bloom & Chatterji, 2009). Your model currently has the first and not the second.
Second, consider stating your own conflict rule in advance, as several of us did in Week 5: for example, a refrigerator is never removed from a clinic while it holds vaccines, and unpaid rent is carried as a debt the district settles at year end. That rule costs you money, but it makes your mission testable, and it gives the district a reason to trust that you will not hold children's vaccines hostage to an invoice. Hybrid organizations that protect the beneficiary through explicit rules like this tend to be more resistant to drift than those that rely on good intentions (Battilana & Lee, 2014).
None of this is a reason to drop the venture; it is a reason to know your year-three payer by name before year one starts. My question back to you: have you been able to talk to anyone at the district health office yet, and did they say whether a rental line could appear in their budget?
References
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397-441. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615
Bloom, P. N., & Chatterji, A. K. (2009). Scaling social entrepreneurial impact. California Management Review, 51(3), 114-133. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166496
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001
HLTH 6880 Week 9 instructions, in plain terms
Peer critiques late in this course usually focus on the riskiest part of a classmate's model. Open by restating the model in one sentence, payer included, that the classmate would recognize. Isolate one dependency rather than listing every weakness, because a post raising six problems rarely gets any answered. Ask a concrete question, such as who renews a contract and on what evidence, and explain why it matters. Supply something useful, whether a comparable arrangement, a source or an alternative payer. Keep the tone on the model and off the person. Cite any figure or claim you introduce, and do not invent numbers to make a point. Finish by asking something the classmate could settle in a single reply, so the exchange moves the design forward.
Inside the HLTH 6880 Week 9 example
The opening restates Marisol's model, from refrigerators to rent, maintenance and a two-year grant, and names the clinic as the year-three payer. The second part explains that clinics depend on irregular district funding and asks who approves the rental line and what happens to the refrigerator when payment fails, citing Ebrahim, Battilana and Mair. The third part offers two suggestions: contract with the district instead of the clinic, citing Bloom and Chatterji on alliance-building, and state a rule that refrigerators holding vaccines are never removed, citing Battilana and Lee. The close asks whether she has spoken with the district office.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 6880 Week 9 rubric
Critiques are graded on whether they could change the model. A post of general sustainability concerns gives the classmate nothing to act on, while naming the payer, the renewal condition and the consequence hands over a revision. Accurate restatement is checked, since critiquing a model the classmate did not propose earns nothing. Sourcing counts as much in a post as in a paper, and invented figures are treated the same way. A professional tone is assessed. Supplying a usable idea earns more than identifying a problem alone. A closing question the classmate can answer shows the critique is meant to continue the conversation. Critiques that treat a classmate's venture as naive lose points even when the concern raised is valid.
HLTH 6880 Week 9 help from the desk
Peer critiques often say that sustainability is a concern without naming whose money, when or what happens if it stops. Others list many problems and solve none. Read the classmate's model and write it in one sentence; if you cannot, ask before critiquing. Then find the single point where the model would break first, usually the payer after a grant. Write one specific question about it and one suggestion that would help, with a source. Keep the post short enough that the classmate can answer it fully. We can draft a peer critique that tests one dependency in a classmate's venture and offers a usable alternative.
Get a HLTH 6880 Week 9 example written to your instructions
For a critique, the classmate's post counts for as much as the prompt, so send both along with the rubric. A reply that restates the model, isolates one dependency and asks a question worth answering is written in 24 to 48 hours, free on a first request. Nothing beyond that post is used.
More HLTH 6880 papers and graduate health administration program samples
- HLTH 6880 Week 1: Social Venture Problem Statement
- HLTH 6880 Week 2: Social Venture Evaluation Post
- HLTH 6880 Week 3: Social Venture Opportunity Brief
- HLTH 6880 Week 4: Social Enterprise Business Model
- HLTH 6880 Week 5: Beneficiary and Payer Analysis
- HLTH 6880 Week 6: Social Venture Theory of Change
- HLTH 6880 Week 7: Cross-Country Venture Comparison
- HLTH 6880 Week 8: Social Impact Measurement Plan
- HLTH 6880 Week 10: Social Venture Scale Plan
- HLTH 6880 Week 11: Full Social Venture Proposal
- HLTH 6840 Week 9: Policy Peer Reply Post
- HLTH 6100 Week 9: Vulnerability Literature Synthesis
- HLTH 6771 Week 9: Continuity of Operations Brief
- HLTH 6200 Week 9: Mitigation Benefit-Cost Brief
HLTH 6880 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6880 Week 9 sample paper?
The peer critique of Marisol's venture is reproduced here and is free to read.
What venture does the HLTH 6880 Week 9 critique examine?
A classmate's model renting solar vaccine refrigerators to rural clinics, paid by a pilot grant for two years and by the clinics afterward.
Which dependency does the critique isolate?
The clinic as payer in year three, when its funds come irregularly from a district office.
What does the critique suggest?
Moving the contract to the district office and stating in advance that a refrigerator holding vaccines is never removed over unpaid rent.
How does the critique end?
By asking whether Marisol has spoken with the district office about a rental line in its budget.