What Drives Innovation In Apple?

What Drives Innovation In Apple? Apple generates ideas, manage innovation and then effectively diffuse the innovation. They generate ideas or search for opportunities by carrying out effective research and development, Apple has an innovation factory which carries out all experiments using the talented pool of people they have. It follows competition and tries to stay one step ahead of them. Effective linkages and networking is very important as valid information can be gained from them, so relations should be maintained with suppliers, dealers and other partners. Apple believes in learning and working in teams. Apples innovation is driven by external uncertainty and competition. Apple is also very effective in finding new market opportunities and reorganizing areas which were inefficient. It fills the gaps existing in the markets for example the gap of a product which was needed to fill the gap between a computer and a phone, so Apple came up with IPAD. Authority is delegated by Apple so that the innovative people can focus on their creative work rather than sorting out other problems. Apples credibility is very high, it is a trustworthy company and trust breeds innovation. Criticism is accepted willingly by the company as it helps out shaping good ideas into great ones. Optimum use of Apples resources the right time and place and proper project planning has enabled it to innovate. Effective marketing activities have been carried out to position the new idea or product in the minds of the customer. For E.g.: Think Different Campaign. Apple is way ahead in this field in comparison to the other competition it develops such a demand for its products even before its production, for instance their pre-booking of the new product IPAD even months before launch of the product, proves that they are pioneers in innovation and customers belief in them to create strong and innovative product. Strategic enablers for innovation Enablers of innovation capability in Apple are its Organizational Culture, People Management, Innovation Strategy and its Innovation Competencies. Apple develops an innovative culture right from the top of the management. Apples culture of innovative thinking also fosters the innovation process. Moreover leadership of Steve had been empowering to the company, he has inspired many new ideas and helped sharing the visions of the company. Apples functioning has been smooth and open, without any bureaucracy. Apple has been able to develop models of change and innovation through systems theory and used focused groups and experimentation. Apples motto Think Different promotes all working people in the organization to be innovative. Apple recognizes, protects and encourages all innovators in the organization. Innovators in the company are also rewarded either in monetary terms or recognition based. Apple has invested many resources in innovation because innovation requires much funding and lack of it can hinder creativity. Apple promotes diversity in their workforce as people from different background perceive things differently, so new interpretations and ideas can be created if diverse thinking is involved. Innovation is internalized in all people working for Apple as it is everyones role. Apple regularly evaluates all on going projects, as analyzing current activities is essential to ensure proper work is being done, double loop learning should be followed. The employees of Apple are skilled so they are able to handle the risk; it also tries to learn from their mistakes in the fast. Financial resources available to Apple also help in funding the innovation of the company. Best human resource is available to Apple which keeps them a step ahead of the rest, as there is no substitute for knowledge and talent, unless Apple innovates and tries to comes up with an alternative. Barriers to Innovation Apple faces a few hurdles which curtails their innovation capability. Apple always launches any new idea quite early and gives a date for the product launch in the future; it starts it marketing activity early. So Apple has to be efficient to make the deadline, this hinders any further innovative changes that could have been brought to the product as its focus shifts on to production. Moreover under delivery pressure products are made costly, rather than cost effective. Administrative pressure also increases as the products have to meet the launch date, so they stop thinking about things differently. Under this daily pressure to stick to time horizons and budgets, innovation leaves to be of prime importance until the goal is met. Apple sometimes tries to avoid risks, but low risk leads to low rewards, so Apple must take some calculated risks if it wants high rewards, Apple can do so. Apples culture and structure of the organization can sometimes constraint innovative thinking even if the technology is available, so culture needs to be shared by all and communication should be open. Public can sometimes doubt the effectiveness of some of the Apple products and expects a lot. This expectation can burden Apple a lot, so constant efforts have to be made to keep up the innovation. Apple sometimes tries to protect its reputed identity to increase their credibility and sustain itself, so it creates limits and gives responsibilities and lays down rules but innovation crosses the limits set by the organization. So instead of limiting its network, it should broaden it and manage all stakeholders effectively. Apple sometimes calculates the value of innovation in quantifiable terms like market share and profits and forgets things like reputation, leadership, talent, etc. These things neglected sparingly make the value of the firm so it should change the way it values innovat ion. Apple leads the customers rather than following them, this can hurt their company in the long run. So customers should be given utmost importance. Apple may have diverse workforce but overtime their thinking will start matching this may hurt the innovativeness of the company. Apple tries to make all its products look quite similar, this stops the creativity of the design innovation. Apple itself is its biggest enemy so it manages innovation effectively. Negativism and giving up can hurt Apples innovation capability. Complexity should also be avoided, managed or used effectively. Innovators come up with many ideas but which is the most appropriate one is hard to decide Apple has to keep that in mind. Microsoft were not going to work on the internet idea until now but they did this made our life so much easier. Apples market research is limited and this can hinder their organization as customer is the ruler and not Apple and importance should be given to their needs. Apple has also faced some barriers to Innovation when it has outsources some parts to other companies and they have come up short, or some suppliers did not provide in time. Apple relies on logic a lot but innovation is not derived by logic and some assumptions are also made which may be incorrect. Apples Designing Process Apples innovation strategy involves terrific new products and innovative business models. Genius ergonomics make Apple products effortless to use. Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works, said Steve Jobs. Apple has repeatedly demonstrated with its innovation management what a success user friendliness and design can generate. Some key elements of Apples design process are: Matching Top-down and Bottom-up Strategies Senior managers describe their dream products and outline what they want from any new application. In response, design teams select and present the best ideas from the paired design meetings to leadership, who might just decide that some of those ideas are, in fact, their longed-for new products. In this way, the dream products morph into deliverables. Top managers are also involved in the development process to ensure that there are no nasty mistakes down the line. Paired Design Meetings. Every week, design teams at Apple have two meetings: a right-brain creative meeting and a left-brain production one. At the creative meeting, people are to brainstorm, to forget about constraints, to think freely, and to go crazy. At the production meeting, the designers and engineers are required to nail everything down, to work out how this crazy idea might actually work. This process and organization continues throughout the development of any application. The balance shifts as the application progresses. Options are kept for creative thought even at a late stage. Developing Perfect Mockups Creating a full-size model of a design or a device requires a huge amount of work and takes an enormous amount of time, but it removes all ambiguity. That might add time up front, but it removes the need to correct mistakes later on. Apples 10 to 3 to 1à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ³ approach Im as proud of what we dont do as I am of what we do, used to say Steve Jobs. Apples strategy for innovation demands that design ideas to be generated in multitudes. They are all run through a sort of artificial natural-selection mechanism that kills off the weak and only lets the strongest ideas rise to the top. Apple designers give themselves room to design without restriction and come up with 10 entirely different mockups of any new feature. Later they whittle that number to three, spend more months on those three and then finally end up with one strong decision. 4.5. Apples Venture Acquisition Strategy and Practices Apples venture investing and acquisition strategy is not very aggressive To stay ahead, Apple usually over-invests in its supply chain. The company is reported to pay a significant portion of the factory construction cost in exchange for exclusive rights to the output for a set period of time, and then for a discount once this period expires. Not only does this allow Apple to come out with new components long before rivals, but these components are very difficult to duplicate. The company makes fewer acquisitions than their competitors. When Apple does buy companies, its almost always tight lipped about how they will fit into its strategy and how easily their technologies can be integrated into existing company projects. Yet, some acquisitions stand out in terms of adding important features to existing product lines or opening doors into new markets. The company made its first acquisition in 1988 when it purchased Network Innovations. Apples $429 million acquisition of NeXT in 1997 helped the company move smoothly from PowerPC to Intel processors. This deal also brought Steve Jobs back to Apple. In 1998, Apple acquired the intellectual property and the development team from Macromedia to make Final Cut Pro one of the top video desktop editing programs on the market. In 2002, Apples acquired a German firm Emagic for $30 million. The Mac versions of its high end audio recording and production application Logic was further developed by Apple to produce Logic Studio. The PC version of Logic was buried. By acquiring FingerWorks, a developer of gesture recognition technology, in 2005 Apple added a significant patent and engineering value to its multi-touch technology package. PA Semi was another essential acquisition. Apple which is now referring to itself as a mobile device company wants as much of the value chain under their control as possible. Purchased in 2008 for US$278 the chipmaker startup was tasked with making system-on-chips for iPhones and iPods. Apples $275 million acquisition of mobile advertising firm Quattro Wireless in 2010 reflects the companys desire to strengthen its mobile technology portfolio. Quattro deal gives Apple an alternative to Googles entrenched dominance in mobile advertising. Quattro is a counterpart to AdMob, the mobile advertising firm that Google acquired in 2009 for US$750 million. With Quattro, Apple is able to deliver advertising to mobile devices while improving the measurement and execution of digital ad campaigns. Strategic Leadership of Steve Jobs Centralized , disciplinarian style of leadership Mechanistic approach to organization Core Strategy product based aimed at being creation of products to stay ahead of the market Core Focus Design Aspect of the product which included not only the aesthetic pleasing nature of the products but also simplification in its working Long Term View with focus on investments in the new products (Iphone, Itunes) which are not inside the core business of the company (Apple Computers) Mr. Jobs had exhibited roles of strategic leader such as : Talent Advocate When recruiting Mr Tim Cook in operational role , Sir Jonathan Ive as the the VP of the Industrial Design Strategist : Shifting of the focus and investing in products outside the core playfield of the company Iphone , Ipod .This long term approach of getting into the products which could be profitable in future had lead to development of Iphone which is the cash cow for Apple contributing to more than half of its revenue Captivator Mr Jobs had build passion commitment in his team to drive them to achieve new milestones in both product and service arena Strategic Canvas : Strategic canvas apple vs dell vs samsung : Strategic canvas apple vs samsung : Strategic canvas apple vs dell Value Elements Eliminate : Price Range: Apples products are premium and dont really come on a broad price range. Apple essentially serves a premium segment. Inventory Management: Apple is not able to en cash upon economies of scale as much as Dell and Samsung in their respective core industries which have specialization in Just in Time inventory management. Reduce: Supply chain innovation: Apple has not innovated much on the front of Supply chain management despite the fact that It sources its integrated chips from a set of suppliers. While Dell and Samsung (to an extent) have much robust supply chains to sustain their JIT system. Customization: Dell specializes in customization which is a big plus point. Apple doesnt provide as much variety for different customer segments at different price ranges as much as Dell and Samsung do. Raise: Features: Although Samsung also provides a rich set of features, but, Apple is even more highly loaded with innovative features. Apples interface and apps provide a completely different customer experience. Create: Product Innovation :Apple Products are at the frontier of product innovation . They have brought new paradigm to innovation by introducing multi-touch ,Firewire , Aero Theme Design Quality: Apple focus highly on design aspect where products created are high on aesthetic appeal .The components used are of highest quality and sometimes custom-made (Scratch Free Glass Screen of Iphone) Targeting High Profit Margins :Apple products follow strategy of more for more and have higher margins . For Eg : On high end macbook pro Apple captures margin as high as Rs20k ,while dell on similar laptop are able to capture on Rs 5k as profit margin from the user. Innovation-Radar : Innovation radar : apple vs dell : Innovation radar : apple vs samsung 4.10. Strategic Innovation Milestones by Apple Launch of Lisa Machintosh The Lisa followed by Macintosh:putting a dent on the universe Initially the whole PC market was captured by IBM.Though the first IBM PC was too expensive for the home market, but it proved a huge hit with business.That time IBM failed to realise the importance of the operating system and it purchased one from Microsoft. As a result other manufacturers were then able to copy the IBM hardware design and ship their Clones with copies of MSDOS purchased directly from Microsoft. As a result, even without IBMs approval or participation, their PC became an open standard with virtually unstoppable economies of scale. By 1990 IBM Compatible PCs captured an 80% market share, by 2000 97%.Following graph shows the market capture by incumbent. : personal computer market space Now, Apple innovated the market by following an entirely different business model for which it will remembered as the innovative company behind the first mass market GUI based computer. What -Who-Why Model applicable to Macintosh Lisa What: The first mass market GUI based computer which replaced the text based interfaces. Did not worked on product innovation , rather worked on bringing revolution The computers mouse could move diagonally, it had overlapping windows, dialogue boxes, and its operating system moved away from keyboard commands(not an existing idea then) Who : The Lisa computer was an expensive machine targeted at business and academia .Though Lisa proved to be a commercial failure but a year later Apple launched their successful Macintosh computer for consumers. How: Responsiveness Prediction of future of technology- After seeing Xerox-Alto, running on graphical interface Steve Jobs instantly started working on the technology with his engineers. Before Xerox could realize its true potential and launch its next Star 8010, Apple was already hard at work on their own GUI based computer Capturing competitors resources: Jobs hires 15 Xerox employees to work on the Lisa Project WHAT:GUI based computer replaced text based HOW: Responsiveness, Strategic leadership ,capturing competitor resources WHO: For Busness Academia Although Apple remained a niche player, it should be remembered that the IBM PC was a sort of meteor that hit the earth and wiped all life, Apple was essentially the single survivor of this dramatic evolutionary event. Apple Newton: The Apple Newton was an innovative and cutting-edge product , a handheld device with features like handwriting recognition, virtual keyboards, and an effective portable OS.The Newton was a breakthrough for the 90s and still at par or above some of the smartphones on the market today. Despite a glowing reception by consumers and Apple loyalists, the product failed and the idea of a tablet/PDA/phone was not resurrected by Apple until a few months ago with their announcement of the upcoming iPhone. Reasons it failed: Ahead of time : Market was not ready for this kind of product Not right timing: Apple was just not ready to integrate a non-computer product into their portfolio. Wrong positioning : Many saw the Newton as a competitor rather than a complement to the burgeoning laptop market. Basically, the product was too good. The Newton projects broad vision fell victim to project slippage, feature creep, and a growing fear that it would interfere with Macintosh sales. It was reinvented as a PDA which would be a complementary Macintosh peripheral instead of a stand-alone computer which might compete with the Macintosh. iTunes iTunes is a media player computer program used for playing, downloading, saving, and organizing digital music and video files on desktop or laptop personal computers. It can also manage contents on iPod, iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad devices. iTunes can connect to the iTunes Store to purchase and download music, music videos, television shows, iPod games, audiobooks, podcasts, movies and movie rentals , and ringtones. It is also used to download application software from the App Store for the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch. iTunes has been criticized for not being able to transfer music from one portable device to another. iTunes was introduced by Apple Inc. on January 9, 2001. The Strategy behind iTunes Over the past decade, Apple Inc. has been extremely successful in formulating and implementing a coherent and focused strategic vision. Its success is evident not just in the companys bottom line results but also in its attractiveness to investors. Innovation has continued to keep Apple on the cutting edge of the consumer electronics market. One of Apples key innovative successes was the integration of its iTunes platform strategy with its overall vision of the company as a digital convergence company. Apple observed the flood of illegal music file sharing that began in the late 1990s. Music file sharing programs such as Napster, Kazaa, and LimeWire had created a network of Internet savvy music lovers freely, yet illegally, sharing music across the globe. By 2003 more than two billion illegal music files were being traded every month. While the recording industry fought to stop the cannibalization of physical CDs, illegal digital music downloading continued to grow. With the technology out there for anyone to digitally download music free instead of paying $19 for an average CD, the trend toward digital music was clear. This trend was underscored by the fast growing demand for MP3 players that played mobile digital music, such as Apples hit iPod. Apple capitalized on this decisive trend with a clear trajectory by launching the iTunes online music store in 2003. In agreement with five major music companies-BMG, EMI Group, Sony, Universal Music Group, and Warner Brothers Records-iTunes offered legal, easy-to-use, and flexible à   la carte song downloads. iTunes allowed buyers to freely browse two hundred thousand songs, listen to thirty-second samples, and download an individual song for 99 cents or an entire album for $9.99. By allowing people to buy individual songs and strategically pricing them far more reasonably, iTunes broke a key customer annoyance factor: the need to purchase an entire CD when they wanted only one or two songs on it. iTunes also leapt past free downloading services, providing sound quality as well as intuitive navigating, searching, and browsing functions. To illegally download music you must first search for the song, album, or artist. If you are looking for a complete album you must know the names of all the songs and their order. It is rare to find a complete album to download in one location. The sound quality is consistently poor because most people burn CDs at a low bit rate to save space. And most of the tracks available reflect the tastes of sixteen-year-olds, so although theoretically there are billions of tracks available, the scope is limited. In contrast, Apples search and browsing functions are considered the best in the business. Moreover, iTunes music editors include a number of added features usually found in the record shops, including iTunes essentials such as Best Hair Bands or Best Love Songs, staff favorites, celebrity play lists, and Billboard charts. And the iTunes sound quality is the highest because iTunes encodes songs in a format called AAC, which offers sound quality superior to MP3s, even those burned at a very high data rate. Customers have been flocking to iTunes, and recording companies and artists are also winning. Under iTunes they receive 65 percent of the purchase price of digitally downloaded songs, at last financially benefiting from the digital downloading craze. In addition, Apple further protected recording companies by devising copyright protection that would not inconvenience users-who had grown accustomed to the freedom of digital music in the post- Napster world-but would satisfy the music industry. The iTunes Music Store allows users to burn songs onto iPods and CDs up to seven times, enough to easily satisfy music lovers but far too few times to make professional piracy an issue. Today the iTunes Music Store offers more than 8 million songs. iTunes is the largest music retailer in the US with sales exceeding 5 billion songs. Apples iTunes has unlocked a blue ocean in digital music, with the added advantage of increasing the attractiveness of its highly successful iPod player and other Apple products like iPhone and iTab. By entering the market early and firmly entrenching its brand name, Apple was able to leverage a first movers advantage with its iTunes Music Store. By 2010, the iTunes store had grown into the worlds largest music store. Apple was able to further exploit this advantage by creating a proprietary technology for the iPod which protected songs downloaded from the iTunes store against piracy. An additional element of this Digital Rights Management System was that no competing MP3 player could play songs protected by it. Hence, Apple was able to gain an important advantage over existing competitors and potential new entrants into the MP3 arena. Apple also was able to take advantage of its economies of scale in controlling the pricing of digital music content made available through its iTunes store. Music labels were very concerned about the impact of this new a la carte pricing model on their CD sales, but there was little that they could do to stand in Apples way in light of its enormous market share of MP3 players. By 2010, Apple held more than 70% of the U.S. MP3 market. Apple has also utilized this controlled open platform strategy to develop content for its iPhone and iPad product lines. The App Store was introduced to the world as a part of iTunes which already was a hit amongst consumers. Apple once again gained first mover advantage in this smartphone arena by being the first smartphone app outlet that made it simple to distribute, access, and download content directly to its iPhone. In addition, third party developers flocked to have their content distributed via the App Store despite Apples strict control over content. Apple reserved the right to refuse content and received 30% of all sales made through its distribution channel. Apple continued to follow the model that made it successful with iTunes and the iPod, by using its market dominance to keep app prices low. Many of the apps distributed via the App Store were free or priced at a mere ninety-nine cents. Once again Apples competitors were left to play catch-up. In 2009, Apple pulled in n early $1 billion dollars in app sales alone. Apples true success lies in its ability to innovate and create new experiences for the customer based upon its ever burgeoning content base. Some would argue that Apple could gain an even greater competitive advantage in the marketplace by removing restrictions on developer access to its platform. The continuing restriction on compatibility with Adobe products is an obvious example. However, Apple has for at least a decade now been able to stave off the introduction of disruptive innovations by adhering to its strategy. As the market leader in consumer electronics, Apples future course may be rocky since competitors are vigorously working to create the magic bullet which will unseat iTunes dominance as the essential platform for distributing digital music, books, movies, TV shows, and other content. If Apple remains true to its platform strategy, this will be difficult for competitors to accomplish. iPad The iPad is a line of tablet computers designed and marketed by Apple Inc., primarily as a platform for audio-visual media including books, periodicals, movies, music, games, apps and web content. Its size and weight fall between those of contemporary smartphones and laptop computers. The iPad runs on iOS, the same operating system used on Apples iPod Touch and iPhone, and can run its own applications as well as iPhone applications. Without modification or a developer certificate, the iPad will only run programs approved by Apple and distributed via the Apple App Store (with the exception of programs that run inside the iPads web browser). Like iPhone and iPod Touch, the iPad is controlled by a multitouch display-a departure from most previous tablet computers, which generally used a pressure-triggered stylus-as well as a virtual onscreen keyboard in lieu of a physical keyboard. The iPad is sold with Wi-Fi and cellular models. The Wi-Fi connection is used to access local area networks and the Internet. Cellular models connect to mobile data networks with 3G or 4G in addition to Wi-Fi. The iPad was announced on January 27, 2010, by Steve Jobs at an Apple press conference at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in San Francisco. Jobs later said that Apple began developing the iPad before the iPhone, but temporarily shelved the effort upon realizing that its ideas would work just as well in a mobile phone. The strategy behind iPad The iPad success strategy is the result of being able to pinpoint your companys competitive advantages in a given market and identify an effective strategy to tie these factors together. Apple did just that by building its Apple iPad around its competitive advantages, and as a result has seen tremendous success with tablet, maintaining its dominance in the technology devices market despite tremendous competitive pressures. Apple is a perfect example to demonstrate that knowing your companys identity and competitive advantages will provide great direction in terms of what marketing and product strategies will and wont work for a company. Ultimately, that will increase the likelihood of success with implementing new corporate strategies. A little over 6 months ago, Amazon took the tablet market by surprise and decided to enter into the space with its $199 Kindle Fire tablet offering. With that entrance many thought Apple would be forced to alter its iPad strategy because Amazon was offering a commodity-priced tablet that the lower-end of the tablet market might consider a sufficient substitute for the iPad, and that it also might challenge Apples dominance of tablet content consumption, as well. Rather than cave to pricing pressure from competitors like most companies facing similar situations would Apple did not budge. It knew its competitive advantages did not lend themselves to a price war. Instead, Apple stood strong and built a compelling strategy around its competitive advantages in the tablet space. Michael Porter Competitive Advantage Table : competitive scope versus competitive advantage Apples key competitive advantages in the tablet space are its: Premium brand image Market position Technology leadership and patents Product development Large number of ancillary service offerings Despite the entrance of price targeted competitors and the opening of a new set of more price-sensitive customers in the tablet space, Apple refined its iPad marketing strategy to address these changes in market dynamics, but made sure its competitive advantages in the market were at the heart of its iPad marketing strategy. The company has built its 3rd generation iPad marketing strategy and product strategy around the following eight factors, and has maintained a laser sharp focus to maintain its market position despite many competitor attempts to unseat Apple from market leadership in this product category. Dont compete on price, regardless of competitor offerings. Maintain the iPad as a premium brand. Utilize Apple exclusive services like FaceTime and iCloud to further differentiate the iPad from competitors. Exploit network effects like benefits to having more people on FaceTime. Make sure the hardware is profitable and the additional content revenue is just add-on revenue. Lead the race in research and development to ensure that the iPad Organ Donation: Ethical Arguments and the Law Organ Donation: Ethical Arguments and the Law According to Erich, (2004) â€Å"Organ donation† is defined as the taking away of tissue from one individuals body to let the transplantation of that tissue into another individuals body. Major organs for example; the lungs, liver and heart and kidneys can be contributed and donated, also parts of tissue for example the heart valves, corneas, tendons and skin can also be given. Organs and tissue can generally be removed from people who have recently died. In fact, since major organs for transplantation are taken out right after death and only a small number of people die in a way that allows them to donate organs. Nonetheless, kidneys and sections of the liver and pancreas can also be taken out for transplantation from living donors. In Australia, the donation of organs and tissue is a process that generally happens in a hospital operating unit. Erich, (2004) states that the transplantation of organs is now a highly recognized practice for those at risk of organ failure or suf fering from diseases which limits their life relentlessly. It is, however, the link between organ donation and transplantation that is significant for this discussion. The ‘major issue in the transplantation of solid organs is, according to Chapman (1992:48), the ‘availability of donors†¦ The number of organs available is not sufficient for any of the programs. Factors influencing the supply of donor organs thus provide the first indication of the nature of the social context in which organ transplantation is located. According to Erich, (2004) understanding this helps to explain the nature of individuals ethical responses to the process. We need to first acknowledge that the availability of donor organs is primarily influenced by a potential donor or donors family agreeing to donation at death. Moreover, a precondition of this agreement is the perceived desirability or at least the absence of its undesirability. This is another way of saying that the act of donating an organ must consciously be seen as ethically acceptable or not ethically acceptable. These factors, however, do not exist in a social vacuum but are mediated by a range of others that can be gleaned from the specialist literature on organ donation and transplantation. Such factors include the decline in road accidents which means less availability of donor organs, educated programs, bereavement programs for relatives of the donor, increased success rates for transplantation surgery, rising health care costs and government concern to promote transplantation units, awareness of, and pressure to introduce a policy of opting out of being a potential donor r ather than the current situation of opting out and so on. Currently in Australia, the level of organ donation is 9 organs per million people, half the rate of the USA and only a quarter of Spain, the leading proponent of organ donation. According to Lewins, (2001) Spain currently has the highest rate of organ donation in the world largely due to its commitment to improving organ donation rates throughout the countrys entire health care system. As a result, many other countries have drawn on aspects of Spains organ donation and transplantation sector in an attempt to lift their own rates selectively so in Australias case. Elements of the Spanish system that have been emulated by other countries include the national coordination of all aspects of the organ procurement and transplantation system, dedicated organ donation coordinators and transplant teams within hospitals, and presumed consent legislation. Lewins, (2001) states that transplant law in Spain operates under a presumed consent, or opt-out system. However, families must be approached and sign an authorization in order for the procedure to take place.   The uniform act provides for a more common form of recording a persons intention to make an organ donation: a donor card that may be carried in a wallet. States also allow this donor information to be imprinted on a drivers license. When a person applies for a drivers license, she or he has the option of including a desire to donate organs. Despite the simplicity of this option, it has not generated the quantity of donors that proponents of the procedure expected. Organ Donor Register of Australia Fellner, (2009) declares that in Australia, Organ donation is mainly revolved around The Organ Donor Register of Australia (ODRA), which is managed by Medicare Australia, and is Australias current major register of consent to organ donation and transplantation. It is a register of consent or approval for donated organs to be utilised for transplantation reasons only, and not for scientific reasons. The ODRA was created in 2001 as a national register of peoples want to donate. Subsequent to a review in 2003-04, the Australian Health Ministers Conference (AHMC) declared that the ODRA would be altered as of a record of intent to a record of consent. The declared intend of this change was to make sure that the acknowledged desires of the deceased, whether compliant or objecting, are valued and acknowledged (Fellner, 2009). Nevertheless, as shown above and discussed further later in this essay, to register consent is not to create a lawfully binding decree. Based on subjective evidence, t he National Clinical Taskforce has stated that, in some jurisdictions, donation can still happen if the next of kin has prearranged their permission, even with a registered objection by the deceased. (Wroe, 2004) Legal guidelines of organ donation are the sole responsibility of the Australian states and territories under the federal legal system. Each state and territory has different legislation to do with organ donation and transplantation, including commandments on consent for organ donation. With reference to McLean, (2003) not only is there not a Commonwealth legislation to do with organ donation, but there is as well no national organising body or agency with legislated authorities. As a consequence, legislation and directives of Australias organ donation and transplantation division, which covers a wide range of actions and procedures, vary across the country. While there is not any Commonwealth legislation concerning organ donation, there are a few general guidelines and protocols that are appropriate to every state. State and territory legislative frameworks in relation to transplantation are majorly based on the concept of informed consent. In the occasion of their death, people can decide to have consent for their organs to be taken. Where individuals provide their approval for their organs to be used and employed for transplantation use, this consent is then documented and recorded. This consent is now a type of legal accord that their organs can be used, if required, for transplantation. Though Kirsty, (2002) states that again registration of consent is not a lawfully binding decree. Under different state and territory laws, consent can be shown in a variety of different ways. For example, in New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland (QLD), donation may only continue where the deceased has beforehand given written consent. In Victoria, approval and consent can be given in writing or verbally at some point in the last stages of infirmity of the deceased. In addition, whenever there is no legal co nsent registered, the next of kin or close relatives and family are able to provide consent or approval for organs of the departed to be donated. When the deceased individuals family members cannot get in touched with, the states and territories vary with regard to the problem of whether or not they permit donation to continue. In NSW, Western Australia (WA) and Tasmania (TAS), when no consent was listed by the deceased and a next of kin cannot be made contact, donation cannot continue. In Victoria (VIC), South Australia (SA), Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), where efforts have been made to contact the relative or family and there are no grounds to believe that both the family and the deceased would disagree to the deceaseds organs getting donated, and then donation can legally carry on (Kirsty, 2002). Although, whether or not an individual has shown their consent for donation, family members are consulted at all times (Kirsty, 2002). Donation cann ot happen when family members firmly disagree to such a process, even when the deceased individuals consent has been registered. It is therefore, clear that one can only consent to donate a part of ones body if it causes no appreciable harm or at least, if the harm caused is greatly outweighed by the resultant benefits. Another legal aspect in relation to organ donation is the selling of organs, which is illegal under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act that was drafted in 1968. Though, a very good case has been made out for the organ being the property of the donor insofar as it is within his or her to dispose of it as desired, subject only to the common law. But, McLean, (2003) states that if the organ is something that can be gifted, why is it not something that can be sold and it is at this point in the argument that Parliament has felt itself bound to call upon stature law which has done by way of the Human Organ transplant Act 1989. The 1989 Act has two main functions. The first is to criminalise all aspects of financial trading in human organs and this includes being and selling organs from the dead as well as the living, the second is to regularise and control non commercial organ replacement therapy using living donors. As to the first, it is an offence for any person to make or receive payment for taking any active part in the transplantation programme. Those in favour of the ban would say that commercial donors are exposing themselves to unacceptable risk but, live organ donation is legally, morally and technically acceptable when it is conducted on a non commercial basis. Secondly, the ethicist will say that free, unfettered consent is impossible when it is associated with financial pressure, but the financial pressure exerted commercialism is no greater than the emotional pressure involved in free donation within the family. Thirdly, the process can be seen as exploitation of the poor by the rich, but momentary reward for any unpleasant form of employment is a form of exploitation. Lastly many people would say that the commoditisation of the human body is intrinsically immoral. Subsequent to the modifications made to the ODRA in 2004, the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Committee (AHMAC) has charged the National Health and Medical Research Committee (NHMRC) with taking on an evaluation of its procedure, Commendation for the Donation of Organs and Tissues from cadavers for Transplantation (1997). This evaluation also reflects on background documents from the Australian Health Ethics Committee and performed sessions and conferences with the appropriate groups and stakeholders. The new NHMRC plans, Organ and Tissue Donation following Death, For Transplantation, offer a guide to ethical standards in relation to organ donation. The guidelines are founded on the beliefs that; Firstly, the donation of bodily organs and tissues is a just act of unselfishness and human cohesion, Secondly organs and tissues for transplantation should be acquired in ways that: Show respect for all aspects of human dignity Respect and acknowledge the wishes, where known, of the deceased Give priority to the desires of the potential donor and kin over the benefits of organ procurement Protect all recipients from harm and Recognise the desires of all those directly involved, which take account of the donor, recipient, kin, guardians, friends and health experts. (List adapted from Erich, 2004) Thirdly, organ and tissues must be allocated according to just and transparent procedures and lastly, the decision not to donate must be respected and the family shown acknowledgment for the choice. The guidelines, in addition gives advice as to how authorisation of donation ought to be resolute to where there is no next of kin on hand, as well as offering ways to make sure that family members make an knowledgeable decision in regards to the donation of the deceaseds organs. But in ethical terms, whos to choose who gets to receive an organ and live? To decide that some people are less socially desirable than others and to allocate life saving resources on the basis of â€Å"social worth† has justifiably been in disrepute. According to Thomas, (2006) not only so such judgements disrespect all notions of primary worth, but they also easily open the door so arbitrary value judgements in which national origin, race religion and social class become determining factors. In Kantian terms, all persons by virtue of being persons deserve absolute respect. If we allow social worth criteria to protrude into our medical judgements when it comes to the allocation of scarce resources, we are indeed violating the respect for sentimental beings that forms one of the cornerstones of contemporary ethics. According to Thomas (2006), there are three types of donation in relation to organs by living individuals to their recipients. They are, directed donation to a family member or friends; non directed donation, in which the donor grants an organ to the wide-ranging selection to be transplanted into the recipient at the peak of the waiting list, and direct donation to a stranger, where donors decide to give to a particular individual with whom they have no preceding emotional relationship with. However, each form of donation presents its own individual ethical concerns and issues. With directed donation to family or friends, uncertainties occur about the extreme pressure that can be put on individuals to donate, and those who are unwilling to do so to feel forced. According to Wroe, (2004), transplantation programs are usually prepared to identify a reasonable medical excuse, so that the individual can bow out gracefully. Equally significant, however, are situations in which people fee l obliged to donate in spite of the penalties to themselves. In cases like these, merely getting a hold of the informed consent of the relative is not enough; physicians are obliged to stop people from making possible life threatening decisions unless the likelihood of success is large. Non directed donation creates different ethical concerns. The essential unselfishness that encourages an individual to make a possible life threatening sacrifice for an unfamiliar person calls for careful inspection. With reference to Truog, (2005) a recent case involved a male who appeared mentally obsessed with donating all that he has, from his wealth to his bodily organs, saying that doing so was a great deal as the obligation as eat, drink, and breathe.After giving one kidney to a stranger, he speculated on how he could donate all of his other organs which would result in death. Other mentally suspicious motivations must be taken into consideration also, to prevent unnecessary deaths. Hence, after this dilemma society questions if the individual is trying to pay off for depression or low self esteem, in search of media attention, or harboring hopes of becoming occupied in the life of the recipient. Transplantation experts have the responsibility to evaluate possible donors in all these dimensions and forbid donations that provoke catas trophic concerns. (Truog, 2005) Directed donation to a stranger creates analogous ethical questions with a few extra notions. This kind of donation generally takes place when a patient advertises for an organ openly in public, on television or newspapers or online. According to Truog, (2005) such advertising is not against the law, but it has been solidly discouraged by the transplantation experts. Two major objections are that the practice is unjust and that it intimidates the outlook that the bodily organs are in fact a gift of life, and not a product to be bought and sold. On the other hand, the thought of transplanting the organs or the newly dead into the living makes some people uncomfortable. Transplanting organs from the living donor into the needy recipient often meets with other objections. With reference to Erich, (2004) three philosophical objections have been raised; Firstly, Capriciously removing a part of an organ not only is irrational but is â€Å"mutilation† and unacceptable. Persons are their bodys stewards and compelled not to treat their bodies in injurious ways. Secondly, Persons, since they are merely stewards of their body, are justified in removing a part of their body only by so doing they preserve the integrity of the whole. If however, a part is removed so as to the preserve the integrity as a whole, then, in the context of a stewardship, such â€Å"self mutilation† is not only permissible but, perhaps, since it promotes wholeness, mandatory. Thirdly, mutilation of the body by removing a part is impermissible for any reason, even that of helping ones neighbor, other than to preserve the integrity of the whole body of which it is a part. And lastly, the idea of totality to be preserved intact when a man dies persists. Deontological ethics Deontological ethics is too inflexible in its importance on duties, utilitarian ethics too keen to overrule fundamental human rights. Deontology and utilitarianism are both types of ethics referring to how one responds in a certain situation. Deontology is based on following a set of duties and sticking to these duties no matter what the consequences, whereas utilitarianism is based on choosing the best outcome over a short term and long term even if it means depriving people of basic human rights. According to a deontologist, ones actions must be determined by a set of duties regardless of whether the long term consequences are good or bad. According to Micah, (2005) a deontologist believes in human morals and that every human has certain rights which should not be betrayed no matter what the cost. For example, taking organs from an individual without their consent, even to save one hundred lives would be unacceptable to the deontologist even though the fact the consequences would be better on the whole. The biggest problem with deontology knows which set of duties to pursue; there could be a huge variation in systems between people from different backgrounds, different social classes, different religions and people from different cultures. Micah, (2005) questions as to how do we tell which obligation is the most important and which is the least? If the consequences of each are to be considered then this would make it a consequentialist view and not a deontological one. Single duty conflicts cause just as many problems such as two individuals imminently need a heart transplant but only one organ is available, a deontolo gist has a duty to save lives but on this occasion only one out of the two can be saved. For example, a case that was discussed at a recent public forum hosted by Harvard Medical Schools Division of Medical Ethics: a Jewish man in New York learned of a Jewish child in Los Angeles who needed a kidney transplant. The man wanted to help someone of his own race and resolute that he was willing to donate a kidney to aid this child. Regardless of his discriminatory preference, one may analyse the donation as acceptable, since at least several patients would benefit for example, the child would be given a kidney, and those under her on the waiting list would move up one) and no one would be harmed (those above the girl on the waiting list would not get the kidney under any conditions, for the reason that the man would not give it to them). Whether directed donation to strangers violates values of equality is thus controversial. But if it is acceptable, it will be very hard to disallow discriminatory preferences, since donors can just specify that the organ must go to a particul ar individual, without saying why. According to Mill, (2004), Utilitarianism is a theory that promotes the best welfare and the greatest good for the greatest number. To attain this objective, societys resources are shared so that the maximum number of individuals benefit. In the context of organ transplantation, patients desires are compared so that the greatest results can be obtained and the greatest use of a scarce resource can be made. Our use of organs from patients who initially are judged to be medically unsuitable as donors supports the utilitarian approach of expanding the pool of potential donor organs and providing benefits to a greater number of patients. The ending result, however beneficial, does not justify the use of unethical means. Medical utilitarianism is therefore subjected to principles that reflect deontological theory. For example the â€Å"Karlovian† transplant case is an example of the anti-utilitarian theory. In this made-up case, a doctor has to m ake a decision whether to take the life one of his patients in order to save four other patients by using the victims transplanted organs. In conclusion, we have questions whether or not it is reasonable to continue to assert that there, or should be no property rights in the human body, or at least in its parts. Modern medical reality might provoke a re-evaluation of this mantra. At the same time, we have emphasised the complexity of the very concept of property itself, arguably requiring the law to take a more sophisticated approach to individual rights in respect of control, ownership and disposal. Not only would this present an accurate foundation for Australias organ donation and transplantation scheme, but it would also permit for the widest variety of motivations for organ donation while not negotiating peoples capacity to create ethical choices in donation. At the same point, preparation Australias organ donation and transplantation scheme on the idea of a rational, autonomous decision-maker could allow a number of changes to this scheme, the final result of which may be an increased amount of organs obtainable for transplantation and additional Australian and New Zealand lives saved. â€Æ' References Erich, H. (2004) Textbook of Healthcare Ethics. New York and London: Plenum Press. Fellner, C. (2009) Organ Donor Register. Retrieved 4th October 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/topics/Organ_Donation Kirsty, A. (2002) Organ donation laws. Retrieved 5th October 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s103007.htm Lewins, F. (2001) Bioethics of Health Professionals: an introductions and critical appraoch. Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia. McLean, S. (2003) Legal and Ethical Aspects of Healthcare. San Francisco: Cromwell Press. Micah, H. (2005) The American Journal of Bioethics. Retrieved 2nd October 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/american_journal_of_bioethics/v003/3.1hester.html Mill, J (2004) Practical Reasoning In Bioethics. Retrieved 29th September 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://facweb.bcc.ctc.edu/wpayne/utilitarianism.htm Thomas, C.(2006) Ethics Around Organ Donation. Retrieved 4th October 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.chf.org.au/Docs/Downloads/HV_Issue1_April08_Thomas.pdf Truog, R. (2005) The Ethics of Organ Donation by Living Donors. Retrieved 5th October 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/5/444 Wroe, D (2004) Law change to make organ donations easier. Retrieved 5th October 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/23/1082616327960.html?from=storyrhs