Mark Koscinski NFP

Stabilizing an Organization

What do you do when you take over an NFP organization that is in turmoil?  Surprisingly, the answer is sometimes nothing. At least for a while. When faced with a decision, we often have a predilection for acting, even when there is no persuasive reason to do so. The father of modern decision analysis, Daniel Kahneman, would often counsel waiting before making a decision, eschewing the psychological pressure to act as quickly as possible. Perhaps new data will become available, allowing a better decision to be made. This can be frustrating for observers, but it might be the right decision when a new CEO is leading an organization that has recently experienced turmoil. In such a case, the organization’s leaders have determined that it is necessary to stabilize the organization before it can move forward. In a sense, it is the opposite of a turnaround situation, in which every piece of furniture and every employee can be thrown overboard to save the organization. 

One example of this principle has been the way that Pope Leo has operated the Vatican since his election in 2025. There has been no radical change in the doctrine or structure of the Roman Catholic Church since the beginning of his pontificate, nor has there been any reversal of actions undertaken by his predecessor, Pope Francis. Francis addressed many contemporary issues during his pontificate, to the consternation of many in the Church. Consequently, the Church was rocked by the specter of synodality, LGBTQ issues, and the virtual ban on the Latin Mass. Pope Leo has undertaken some diplomatic initiatives and sought to address AI’s impact on the world, but his actions have focused more on consolidating the Church’s position and maintaining unity. This has been applauded by many Catholics as a way of steadying the ship on a rough sea. 

This can only be a temporary stance, though. Leo’s current posture may not be possible much longer. The SSPX (Society of St. Pius X), a traditionalist wing of Catholicism, has threatened to ordain bishops without the Vatican’s permission. German bishops have been actively advocating for the ordination of women to either the priesthood or the diaconate. Many traditionalist Catholics are calling for the return of the Latin Mass. It seems Francis will need to act soon on these issues. Only time will tell how his leadership will shake out.

The Pope’s recent encyclical on artificial intelligence can be found here.

Mark Koscinski decision analysis, NFP

Back Again

Hello, everyone. I have been away from this website for over a year due to some tragic circumstances. During the past year, my beloved wife contracted a rare form of an affliction that resulted in paralysis for several months and her eventual death. My mother, who suffered from dementia, also passed away. Finally, the family dog Molly, who reached the ripe old age of seventeen, also passed away from internal organ failure. 

I don’t bring this up to ask for pity, as I am acutely aware there are clearly those who had much more traumatic experiences than I. My position, for better or worse, is contained in the book of Job: The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord (Job 1:21).

 I do think that there was clearly a learning moment here for nonprofit organizations. My wife, Susan, was originally diagnosed with an aggressive form of melanoma, resulting in two operations that failed to curtail the spread of the disease. As a result, Susan underwent immunotherapy, which is today thought to be the best approach to handling the melanoma.  Chemotherapy would be the second line of defense. Several months into the treatment, Susan began to feel ill. Within five days, she could no longer get out of bed and was functionally paralyzed. The doctors were perplexed, having no explanation or treatment for what was happening. 

They began by treating the most likely causes of the paralysis, taking the most appropriate course of action with the highest potential for success. This approach failed. The doctors then began holding daily conference calls to brainstorm the situation. This was also an appropriate course of action, but produced no better treatment option. Finally, a friend who was also an oncologist thought outside of the box and found that similar symptoms were reported from treating various forms of cancer associated with female organs with immunotherapy. There were only two other reported cases where the immunotherapy resulted in this paralysis for patients being treated for melanoma. The upshot was that it was considered such a remote possibility that it was initially set aside. After all other possible diagnoses were ruled out, the correct diagnosis was made. The delay of about two weeks had devastating consequences. The proper treatment was finally given, but it was too late.  

The question that arises is whether the diagnosis and decision process was flawed or appropriate. From a decision analysis perspective, probably not. The most common possibilities were treated first. As the situation worsened, doctors began consulting with one another to pool knowledge. Where did the process break down? Perhaps the doctors did not think outside the box and did not quickly consider other options with very low probabilities. Most strikingly, there was no discussion of using AI to attempt to diagnose the malady. Perhaps a proper questioning architecture could have cut days off the diagnosis process and possibly saved my wife’s life. It is simply not possible to know now. The point I am making is that decision protocols should now include consultation with AI when an expert system or a proprietary large language model is available. Bayesian analysis might have helped as well. 

Note: The doctors were professional and worked long and hard to save my wife. I have no complaints. You will also forgive me if the medical details I have outlined here are not entirely correct. I am a simple CPA who studies decision methodologies and misses Susan dearly.

Mark Koscinski Uncategorized

AI and NFPs

Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) has made amazing progress in recent years and has had  an incredible impact on the business world. Scanning resumes and making credit decisions are two examples of common AI utilizations that come immediately to mind. Even NFL teams are using it to evaluate players.  As time goes on, it will become more and more ubiquitous. Small NFP organizations  often lack the funds to deploy this technology, but as its cost comes down NFP entities will need to utilize AI to efficiently achieve their missions. However, before they do, management will need to understand that AI is not the panacea for all of its problems. The sad truth is that AIs often do make mistakes.  How can I prove this bold statement? Let’s look at the world of chess. 

The internet is ablaze with the story of AlphaZero, currently the best chess player in the world. AlphaZero is an AI owned by Google that trained itself to play chess.  It was given the rules of the game and then played 44 million games against itself to become the best player in the world. AlphaZero played two historic matches against Stockfish, a brute force chess engine that calculates millions and upon millions of moves  a second.  The first match was 100 games.  AlphaZero won 28 games and 72 games were drawn. This would be a staggering achievement for a human player. For technical reasons we don’t have to get into here,  many discounted this smashing victory.  The technical deficiencies were corrected in the second, longer match of 1,000 games. AlphaZero won 155 games, drew 839, and lost 6. This was another very lopsided match, but AlphaZero did make mistakes since it lost games.  

 AI can make mistakes. They are not infallible. (Of course, those of us from the Baby Boomer generation do remember Terminator and HAL 9000…) Granted, AlphaZero had a very limited number of losses but these were only the discernible mistakes.  There is a second type of mistake. AlphaZero may have made inferior moves earlier in drawn games it was able to compensate for later in the game.  Put another way, AlphaZero could have won the game but it only ended up with a draw. A third type of mistake could occur when AlphaZero played an inferior move and then had to fight for a draw. The latter two types of mistakes are often overlooked because we tend to focus on the games won and lost.  Drawn games are often insufficiently analyzed. 

What lessons can NFP management learn when they begin installing AI? NFP organizations need to understand their tolerance for errors and omissions mistakes and put appropriate internal controls in place to insure against them.  After all, many NFP organizations deal with human services.  Six mistakes out of 1,000 can still be devastating when dealing with human lives. 

In short, AIs are very efficient assistants, but they can make mistakes. Sometimes these mistakes can be hard to find. An organization employing AI needs to make sure it has sufficient safeguards and internal controls in place to make sure these errors are not dangerous to the organization’s mission.