Question 1: In a partnership between a mobile network operator and agricultural partners...

Good point Fiona, with what you stated on agriculture partners. My experience with these so called 'agricultural partners' is that, they have different expertise based on the goals of the organization, but are not collaborating to leverage these skills. So the problem we are having on the ground is where myriads of these agricultural service providers are duplicating projects and services.

That is why mFarmer initiative needs to be clear with what they are looking for in these partners. From the last sentence of Fiona's post, we can see at least 3 key functions by agricultural partners - "understanding farmers need"; "providing content"; "connecting with farming communities". All these are key in leveraging the role of mobile companies and are at the same time totally different.

The reason the national agricultural extension services continue to fail is that, they combine all these functions and a lot others for one extension offcer to deliver.

Agricutural partners should be evaluated not based on what their objectives are but what they are actually doing. In that sense, the mfarmer initiative should look for more than one agriculture partner within a given partnership.

IFFCO's case may be a good example but I believe we can get better models/approaches when we look critically into these agricultural partners.

Ben

bkaddom, while I agree that the 3 key functions by agricultural partners - "understanding farmers need"; "providing content"; "connecting with farming communities" may be different, they are not mutually exclusive, but complimentary in practice, and can be effectively provided by one ap.

Thanks.

Adrian

Adrian, thank you for this comment. Can you share an example of an agricultural partner that is providing all three functions in a relationship with a mobile network operator?

Michael, I believe that we Kenya Agricultural Commodity Exchange Limited (KACE) (an ap) in collaboration with the Safaricom Limited (an mno) are a good example of this in Kenya. Not only do we provide content (reliable & timely market price information as well as commodity offers to sell and bids to buy) but to do so we had fisrt to understand the farmers' needs for market access, then develop the content, as well as develop appropriate ICT based platforms (in collaboration with mno) to provide the content, and build farmrs' capacity to access and use the platforms effectively through farmer training workshops and promotions.

Thanks.

Adrian

Sure Adrian, I agree with you but the challenge on the ground is more than being complimentary in practice. It is about duplication of functions/projects under the limited resource conditions.

Let's take Kenya Agricultural Commodity Exchange Limited (KACE) for example as the Agricultural Partner (AP). KACE has all the resources and expertise to i) articulate knowledge demand from users (farmers and researchers) - DAF, ii) network partners according to their needs and resources -NFF, iii) manage the process in terms of funding, repackaging of raw data/information, etc. - PMF, and also be able to iv) signal the advent of new innovation and train users how to use it - SAF. This is the entire chain that I refer to as "Knowledge Brokkering Role (KBR).

You will agree with me that, in Kenya you will identify myriads of NGOs, international development organizations, community based organizations etc. that will also profess to have the same skills and expertise and therefore be abe to deliver through the entire chain. That is the situation on the ground, leading to duplication of roles because there is little or no doordination/collaboration among these organizations.

So my argument which is based on field research is that, for effective and efficient use of resources, the APs should identify their strengths within one or two of these four functions and focus their limited resources on that. With collaboration from others, we may see concentrations of APs that are good in Demand Articulation (DA), others in Network Formation (NF), stil others in Process Management (PM), and some in Supply Activation (SA). It is more about distribution of functions and developing expertise in it.

In reality/practice is tough, but it should be possible once the network is formed.

Ben

Ben, I hear you. But aps are in a market place of ideas! And the market will sort out the concentration. It is hard for anyone to "legislate" it, in a free market environment!

Thanks Adrian,

I differ from that, even though you are not the first to argue that way. If we actually want the 'market' to improve lives of our clients, then the agricultural partners (AP) must put their house in order.

I think that is what the mFarmer Initiative is about - partnership between the MNOs and APs and possibly among the APs and/or MNOs. My approach is just looking at ways to improve the existing 'chaos' agricultural value chain where everyone is doing everything.

Of course if the market cannot legislate itself, funders with their requirements can decide who they fund. Unless the AP is funding its own projects.

Ben

I agree with Ms. Smith that leveraging existing brand of the MNO or Agri VAS partner in rural areas allow the service to build awareness and establish credibility.  However, in the long run, the customers , especially those in the bottom of the economic pyramid, simply look for  “Value for Money” rather than the “Brand”. 

For example, a poor, rural customer will discard a branded handset and go for a not-so-popular brand for the reason that the latter is claimed to have a battery life many times that of a branded one.

Hillary has brought up critical issues that face many development programmes where partnerships are involved: sustainability and successs. Without doubt these points will come up repeatedly during our discussion, and they will be dealt with in detail under Question 3 and Question 4. Keep those good ideas rolling.

Hi,

I think one of the key elements a mobile network operator should bring to the table is 'credibility'. It is very cruicial to establish early on that the services to be offered by a mobile operator in collaboration with agricultural partners do not, in any way, replace the credibility or the 'ways of getting reliable information' from already established sources - something which the farmers may be already accustomed to, or aware of.

It is important to establish early on how a mobile operator positions itself sufficiently as a carrier only of timely and reliable information on agriculture information on demand and it does not in any way, threaten, diminute or displace the knowledge possessed by say agricultural extension workers on ground.

Also your question suggests that 'a mobile network operator' can have multiple agricultural partners. What if there are more than one network operators willing to partner with government agencies? It is interesting to know whether or not 'agricultural information' should ever become a 'commodity' - something the competing telecom operators will be fighting for in the same market space (farmers) with a profit motive.

Thoughts welcome.

Thanks.