196 Chapter 5 they functioned as a higher management group with independence and freedom as top management trusted them. Hence, authority was more decentralized than in non-crisis times so the group could have expedited decision-making, self-coordinate, and adapt quickly according to the circumstances. Experimental culture: In the interviews, respondents reported the difference they felt in the culture/way of working. They noted the difference from the slow way things were accomplished in Sanquin before the pandemic to the immediacy of decisiveness, action, flexibility, and collaborative spirit that was found during the pandemic (Table 5.3). The crisis created space for experimentation and the inevitable mistakes that occurred. These mistakes included donor assistants forgetting to take additional test tubes for future testing or blood product types not being separated well so that time was wasted in manually searching. Many respondents spoke of the notable “experiment” that had to do with donor recruitment, which was both successful and had errors. While publicity had garnered thousands of donors and donations (a success), the backlog overwhelmed the system for months, and it was later found that less than half were not suitable due to insufficient antibody titres: “a disappointment in this whole project” (Respondent 3). Months later, the challenge was still to find suitable donors with sufficient tires using a combination of old and new strategies. Real-time information and communication: While Sanquin did not have preplanned procedures of crisis communication in place, intensive communication occurred as many stakeholders became involved and the CCP project entered the Dutch limelight. Both the interviews and document analysis showed how communication efforts were constant and comprehensive, both internally among team members and other Sanquin employees and externally for donors and affiliated organizations such as hospitals, the Dutch government, and international transfusion groups (see Table 5.3). Keeping up with all these channels was hard work as it was demanding, with constantly fluctuating information that needed to be relayed in the ever-changing context. Internally, one respondent noted parallel elements within the group’s communication: “the lines were short” yet, simultaneously, “there was too much talking” (Respondent 2) which would delay decision-making. Externally, there were challenges in communicating to external stakeholders, such as the donors, so that a special subgroup in the Donor Service Centre had to be created especially for tasks such as ensuring donors booked their first appointment. Training: Within the immediate group, training was not needed due to the experience and team learning described above. Externally, however, respondents shared how training was done with two specific groups of people: the donor assistants who had to be quickly trained as standard operating procedures (SOPs) changed, and volunteers who aided with conducting intakes for the thousands of new donors who had
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw