Extension Service – Integra LLC

Fasal: A Free SMS Service to Boost Farmers’ Income

Photo Credit: Intuit Fasal

Over 500 000 rural farmers in India can now access free daily market information and weather services on their cell phones with the help of Intuit Fasal platform, an SMS based mobile service.

Fasal begun as an experiment after it was recognized that rural farmers in Karnataka, India lack price information in relevant multiple markets; have issues with price transparency in markets; and also lack knowledge of potential buyers of their farm produce.

After a period of interaction between some company executives and the farmers in their rural setting, it was identified that the above challenges lead to information gaps that have a huge impact on the livelihood of the farmers and their families who often look at existing means of livelihood as one that does not provide sufficient returns.

The opportunity to provide a service where actionable information on price, potential buyer, weather, etc. would be invaluable to farming communities while also helping bridge the gap for large organizations to reach out with relevant offerings and advisory services in India was irresistible and therein was born Fasal.

Fasal has a single objective of helping farmers make more money or save more money! And this is being achieved through a business model that ensures that Fasal is a free for the farmer while companies providing household items to these rural communities, consumer durables, automotive equipments, agriculture implement and inputs, financial service, consumer goods, and other advertisers are rather charged for the service.

How it Works

Step One: A farmer calls toll free number in their respective local languages to register for Fasal. The farmer is then profiled by the staffs of Fasal based on information such as the commodity s/he grows, current crop season, land size under cultivation, etc. The farmer’s profile is then mapped to the markets that s/he visits to sell his or her produce.

Step Two: Based on this highly personalized information of each farmer, regular market and weather information are sent in their preferred local language at a time that it is most actionable. Additional relevant messaging is also sent on the basis of farmers’ profile such as use of irrigation facilities or ownership of farm equipments, etc.

Step Three: Using a complex and patented matching algorithms, Fasal service connects farmers to potential buyers/agents/institutions who would like to connect directly with farmers and make a purchase – creating an engaged and busy marketplace. The service using complex matching algorithms ensures that the multiple service messages reach the farmer every day, providing him/her data so that s/he can make informed decisions.

Impact

Even though the service is still at its infancy, its social and economic impact on the rural communities is being closely monitored, including the use of independent third-party research. According to Fasal, the vast majority of Fasal customers in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat found the service useful and it is helping them earn an average of 20% more with the service.

For more information, visit Fasal site and also read this interesting article about the innovation.

January 10, 2012/by actualize

Agriculture, Extension Service, Food Security, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Reflections on mAg. Services: Mistakes and Pitfalls of MNOs/NGOs

Photo Credit: HD Guru

NB: This is my personal analysis of contributions to question six from the forum. This post is the final in series of six, analyzing each of the six forum questions that were discussed.

Question 6: What are some of the common mistakes or pitfalls mobile operators or NGOs run into when developing these services?

Below is a quick summary of the contributions from the forum.

Building “FOR” Users: The first post to the question raised an interesting point by arguing that when the MNOs and NGOs have the goal to develop the service “for” the user without understanding the needs of the users and involving them, usually leads to a failure. Citing Richard Heeks, the post explained that in order to avoid these pitfalls, MNOs/NGOs first need to i) identify the development objective of the project/service; ii) identify the new and/or re-engineered information requirements needed to meet those objectives; and iii) identify the role that ICTs and other information-handling technologies have to play in meeting those information requirements.

A related post from a software developer agreed with the point and argued that ICT software or application development should be a user-centric approach, whereby developers collaborate and work closely with users or some categories of stakeholders.

Putting All Bets on Mobile Phones: A second mistake pointed out was, when NGOs and other development/commercial projects put all their bets on mobile phones. Like any other technology, mobile phones are “effect multiplier” and it only works when there is an underlying robust system (either an agro-advisory or private extension) which in effects get multiplied. If there is no underlying system or process and mobile phones are just introduced, as a magic bullet, it seldom works.

Lack of Understanding the Complexities with Content: Most often MNOs especially underestimate the complexities associated with sourcing and aggregating content, and designing the content management system that can meet farmer’s localized content needs but at the same time scalable.

Failure to Design Services for Scale: Another pitfall that is linked to scale is ensuring that services are designed from the start to enable scale – such as using efficient technologies, working with partners who have existing assets such as marketing and distributing capabilities so you can reach a large number of farmers cost-effectively.

Ignoring the Trust Factor: Utility VAS needs high degree of “trust factor” in the user’s mind in order to make the user stick-on to the service even if it does not bring in any instant benefit to them. A case in point is IKSL service in India, which is backed up with the goodwill of IFFCO, the largest and most preferred fertilizer supplier in India.

MNOs Using Traditional Marketing Channels for Farmers: The marketing channels of mobile agricultural services need to be different from a conventional entertainment VAS. Conventional promotions like push SMS or Out Bound Diallers (OBD) not necessarily convince a farmer to subscribe to a mobile agro-advisory. Alternative channels, like affiliation to farmers groups, bundling with agri-inputs, customization to contract farming etc. are some of the innovative approaches which have been tried in India.

Focusing only on Information Service: MNOs and NGOs also need to design their services keeping in mind that information alone does not solve all problems of farmers. An information-service which links various service delivery agents like, agri-input marketers, warehouses, laboratories etc. will have better attractiveness for farmers in comparison to simple information push.

Problem of Distinguishing between Demand Analysis and Needs Assessment: One problem that NGOs have that MNOs usually don’t have is distinguishing between a demand analysis and needs assessment. NGOs often conduct needs assessment which documents what farmers say they need but it does not have the discipline needed in a business analysis. If NGOs are to provide such services, they need to prioritize features that they will provide and sort out which are valuable enough for someone to pay for.

Sources of Funding for NGOs: NGOs are often funded by donors on a project basis. This can easily drive them to a project orientation, especially when donors call for “success stories” and do not have the incentive nor the process to follow up after a project to see if a service they have supported is continuing and scaling.

NGOs for Development versus MNOs for Business

There was a concern about why the question under discussion had grouped MNOs and NGOs together since their perspectives and the pitfalls they face may be quite different. Interestingly, there was a contribution that separated these two areas and then grouped NGOs together with the development sector and MNOs together with business/private sector. While some of the responses also grouped the mistakes and pitfalls accordingly, others combined them.

NGOs Taking One-Sided Stand: A contributor sharing his experience pointed out that mostly people in development sector (NGOs) take a one-sided stand, when it comes to developing services for people. While it is very important to design services that would deliver certain benefits to the community from pure development point of view, it is also very important to see how the same benefits will continue to reach the community even after the development intervention has stopped. This call for a business case for development work and many NGO-s and development agencies do not consider this as a key factor while designing mobile services.

MNOs Taking One-Sided Stand: Mobile Network Operators also make mistake by considering agro-advisory services to operate on the same principles of other value added services (mVAS) like entertainment or news. While the target customer segments for both may be same, the decision factors for subscribing to such services are completely different.

Other common mistakes that MNOs/ NGOs make are:

Not profiling the customers
Not properly identifying the information needs of customers
Wrong customer acquisition – customer not having interest in the service
Extending services where network is not strong
Content not having relevance to the local conditions
Not being fully aware of the telecom regulation policies of their geographic area.

NB: This is the final in series of six post on the subject “Reflections on Mobile Agricultural Services”. The earlier posts can be located through the links below:

1: Reflections on mAg Services: Partnerships Between MNOs and APs

2: Reflections on mAg. Services: Barriers to Scale

3: Reflections on mAg Services: Is there a Business Case for Serving Farmers?

4: Reflections on mAg Services: Financial Sustainability

5: Reflections on mAg Services: Content Sourcing, Quality Assurance & Dissemination

January 5, 2012/by actualize

Agriculture, Extension Service, Farmer to Farmer, Food Security, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Reflections on mAg. Services: Content Sourcing, Quality Assurance & Dissemination

Photo Credit: IITA

NB: This is my personal analysis of contributions to question five from the forum. This post is the fifth in series of six, analyzing each of the six forum questions that were discussed.

With my interest in this area, I began the discussion with a post which pointed out the need to source content from farmers themselves – that is farmers’ local knowledge and innovations (FLK/I). A number of subsequent posts agreed with the fact that local knowledge is critical, and any effort to spread this knowledge and prevent its dearth by recording it through technology is also essential.

Question 5: What are the methods for sourcing appropriate content to be delivered to farmers, what standards should be followed when disseminating information to farmers, and who is best placed to manage quality assurance?

Most often when it comes to services for farmers, we immediately jump into ways of providing technical/scientific content. So I may say my post did change the tone of discussion of the question, at least at the beginning. Below are some of the ways that FLK/I could be sourced from farmers as primary content and then improved through other scientific methods for use by these farmers.

Sourcing Methods of Farmers Local Knowledge and Innovations (FLKI)

Use of face-to-face meeting with farmers to help identify FLK/I and then “validate” it together with them
Use of mobile vans with the necessary recording equipments to source content from farmers
Use of radio in combination with mobile phones to source FLK/I from farmers. Specifically, radio “Phone-In” program in most parts of Africa could be an excellent method
Farmers could be trained with basic documenting tools so that while they are engaged in their local farming activities, they can also be recording these activities for researchers to use later in their research to improve these innovations.

Other examples of the use of ICTs to facilitate peer-to-peer knowledge sharing among farmers and possibly for sourcing content for farmers were also pointed out by other discussants as Awaaz.De, Digital Green, and Video Viewing Club (VVC).

Another promising application that was mentioned later during the discussion is NEXT2 – a geosocial network app that automatically connects subscribers around location and by common topics of interest or concern. I believe the potential of this app is great for those interested in utilizing farmers local knowledge and innovations. While the app may primarily help strengthen the existing social capital among farmers through knowledge sharing, it could also be used to strengthen the link between farmers and their officers with close geographic proximity.

Customized/Localized Content for Farmers

A related point made by another contributor emphasized localized content instead of global scientific knowledge, which may not be appropriate for all contexts. The post asked for a process to build a database of customized content that is relevant to a group of farmers instead of defining apriori what is needed. The contributor called for a system where farmers can both receive support when they need it, and provide supports to others when it is in their area of expertise. Also with the use of technology such as efficient search interface, ‘farmers’ will be able to take advantage of previously answered questions when it becomes necessary.

In fact this point agrees with one of the components of the mFarmer Initiative that aims at providing bespoke, digital agriculture content via an online database. Making this database a dynamic resource with up-to-date content will be very useful for agricultural development.

Conventional Approaches to Content Sourcing

While others agreed that knowledge from farmers is important to remember, they believe that the bulk of content farmers need to improve their farming techniques is from known sources such as public and private extension services, R&D units (both private and public), and universities. The problem with the content from these sources is that they are in diverse formats that needed to be managed for farmers to be able to use. Below is a summary of traditional methods of sourcing content for farmers:

Printed literature and website information that are authentic and are available in public domain
For information not available in the public domain, special tie-up with appropriate organizations to enable content enrichment and broadening of the knowledge base
Feedback and success stories from the customers

Feedback on Content Versus User-Generated Content

Another important contribution from the experts pointed out the difference between feedback from farmers and content being generated by farmers. Feedback is useful to increase the relevance of the service, content itself, content sourcing methods and understanding of the on-the-ground needs by the research units. On the user-generated content, it may be appropriate for a service provider to take this approach, but it should be noted that the quality of the advice given by one user to another, inevitably affects the perceived quality of the service itself.

Who is Best Placed for Quality Assurance?

Intermediaries? The first concern of how quality assurance should be structured for user-generated model so that it increases the value and doesn’t become a bottle-neck for the scaling up was raised. Even though there was no direct response to this concern, the structured architecture of M-Kilimo and IKSL platforms where their systems have frontline staff, supported by subject matter experts/specialist and again independent evaluators were cited as good examples for content validation.

But at the same time, a concern was raised with the competency of these intermediaries such as knowledge workers, call center operators, and helpline that are critical part of the value chain. Most often, they have access to a vast repository of content and in majority of cases, take the final decision on what content to push to the farmer. Experts are usually one step removed from this process.

This has been my argument after my 2009 study in Ghana where I stated that the mere emergence of intermediaries cannot solve the knowledge barrier challenges that we currently have. We need strategies that ensure that their activities are coordinated (See my four component-strategy to do this).

Research Institutes? It was also pointed out that sourcing, aggregating, managing and assuring quality content for mobile agricultural services is complex. The role of national agricultural research institutes and universities is vital in this process to validate and adapt the content to the local context of the users.

International Organizations? The case of TECA’s partnership with organizations such as the Grameen foundation to use TECA’s information for their farmer helplines and community workers was also shared. It noted that a lot of highly relevant knowledge about successful agricultural practices and technologies for small producers comes from projects but when the project ends, the lessons learnt are often not documented in a way that could be useful for extensionists, local NGOs and farmer cooperatives in the project area and beyond.

Below is quick breakdown from a discussant on quality assurance of content for farmers:

In-house content personnel for developing content plan and protocol
Experts who will be vetting the content for messages
In-house content personnel for carrying out regular internal audit
Obtaining feedback from farmers through participatory appraisal to improve the services
Periodic audits conducted by external agencies

Standards to Follow while Disseminating Information to Farmers

Protocol of information dissemination is required to be developed for each category of information.
Requirement in respect of the following should be well defined in these protocols of information dissemination such as source, adequacy, accuracy, relevance (location specific), clarity, and sensitivity to the socio-cultural aspects

In summary, as we explore mobile agricultural information services, it is expedient for us to combine these services with human actions. There may be situations where experts will need to visit farmers field to be able to do the right diagnosis to the problem. Those from the field will agree that not all problems can be solved through phone calls or SMS. Sometimes, the experts need to see the infestation, disease, etc. on the ground to be able to recommend a solution. We need the mobile services but at the same time we should be able to determine when to use it, especially when we are concern with quality of content to the users.

NB: The last in the series (6th) is “Reflections on mAg Services: Mistakes and Pitfalls of MNOs/NGOs” (Available on 01/05/2012)

The first, second, third and fourth posts are:

1. “Reflections on mAg. Services: Partnerships Between MNOs and APs”

2. “Reflections on mAg. Services: Barriers to Scale“

3. “Reflections on mAg Services: Is there a Business Case for Serving Farmers?“

4. “Reflections on mAg Services: Financial Sustainability”

January 3, 2012/by actualize

Agriculture, Agriculture Markets, Extension Service, Food Security, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Reflections on mAg. Services: Financial Sustainability

Photo Credit: Book Blog

NB: This is my personal analysis of contributions to question four from the forum. This post is the fourth in series of six, analyzing each of the six forum questions that were discussed.

The fourth question for the forum was about financial sustainability. With a thorough discussion on partnership models in question 1, the focus of this section was therefore on financial sustainability of such partnerships. Also with the business case laid out nicely in the previous discussion, partners have no choice than to look into the future of such partnerships through sustainable approaches.

Ensuring financial sustainability requires looking at the sources of revenue for the service. In this context, I believe the main source of revenue is from the users – the rural poor agricultural farmers supplemented by other users. So thinking of a long-term sustainability will call for actions beyond the roll-out funding to ensure that services being provided meet the needs of the users to continue paying for them.

Question 4: How can a partnership model between a Mobile Network Operator (MNO) and Agricultural Partner (AP) increase the financial sustainability of the service?

As stated above, the question assumes that without a partnership (i.e. either MNO or AP alone) delivering agricultural service to rural farmers should have some financial sustainability. So a partnership between MNO and AP should increase this financial sustainability due to the unique value proposition that each brings into the partnership.

Background

A nice background to financial sustainability of services to rural people was presented by one of the experts. It brought out the fact that in most developing countries, the bottom of the pyramid offers an excellent opportunity to the Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) for increasing the rural penetration and achieving a large customer base. At the same time, the targeted segment is price-sensitive, making it necessary to develop affordable products or schemes.

With specific example from India, the contributor stated that falling mobile tariff over the last decade has been a major enabler for increased rural penetration providing increased business volume to the MNOs and an enabling environment to the APs for extending the advisory services to the rural base. Another contributor recalled that, in Africa between 50% to 80% of the workforce depends on agriculture and in most cases it also represents its GDP. So considering the transaction that goes on in the agricultural industry, it will worth it for MNOs to take a look at this industry, when investing in mobile agricultural services.

Financial Sustainability through AP-MNO Partnerships

Discussants pointed out that a partnership between MNO and AP can increase the financial sustainability of mobile agricultural services to rural farmers because of the complementary value propositions that each partner brings into the partnership.

While MNOs are in the business of collecting small amounts of revenue from millions of customers and also have the business systems to support this, the APs have the value added service that the users need for generating this revenue.
The MNOs are also skilled at marketing and getting feedback from customers but again, for these services to meet the demands of the users, APs are the right partners to develop the necessary rapport with the farmers.
The MNOs have many business skills, systems and discipline that complement the know-how that APs bring to a partnership.
The MNOs also have a strong profit incentive to keep focused on what is financially sustainable.
MNO-AP partnership could allow the MNO to understand and learn from the AP how farmers conduct their business and over a period of time, they can build products that will help farmers enhance their yield and in turn increase the profitability of the partnership.

From a different perspective, another contributor classified the strategy of ensuring financial sustainability of MNO-AP partnerships into 3 main dimensions. These are:

1) Short term: In the short term, the MNO may have to pass on part of the benefit of acquiring a new customer as an investment for their future annuity that can accrue from customer loyalty. They may also have to share a part of the future revenue based on the increase in average revenue per user (ARPU), and incentivize the service through the talk time sales to the users. This arrangement provides the initial impetus for extending a high quality advisory service to the users.

2. Medium term: In the medium term, there is the possibility of monetizing the services by the MNO. There are existing models, which are subscription based in which a farmer who is getting value for money would be willing to pay for the services.

3. Long term: In the long term, it requires continuous engagement with the customers which may provide an opportunity to extend other value added services related to financial including education, livelihood, health, etc. In each of these, the subscribers can be provided services through mobile phones on subscription basis or usage basis.

Presented from the MNOs’ side, another discussant also looked at how MNOs are able to benefit indirectly as a result of MNO-AP partnership. These are:

Increase in Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) of existing user base. The ARPU of the regular rural user versus ARPU of rural users of Agri VAS on the same network, multiply the difference by the number of Agri VAS subscribers.
Increase in market share. Increase in number of rural customers attributed to Agri VAS is a source of additional ARPU every month. ARPU from new Agri VAS customers could be equal to regular rural ARPU.
Increase in loyalty and decreased churn. Churn rate in a regular sample versus churn rate in a sample of Agri VAS users. This % difference multiplied by number of Agri VAS multiplied by rural ARPU is the saved revenue of MNO due to decreased churn.
Reduction in acquisition cost. The acquisition cost per customer of a MNO multiplied by number of new network subscribers attributed to Agri VAS is the saved acquisition costs for the MNO.

It is also observed that, MNO-AP partnership could increase the credibility of the whole venture thereby enabling them to explore other sources of revenue generation such as through m-governance services (which are being actively promoted by governments) and m-commerce activities.

Multiple MNOs in a given Partnership

The issue of multiple MNOs partnering with APs came up again in relation to the financial sustainability of the partnership. The questioner was interested in the trade-offs from taking a multi-MNO approach versus an exclusive approach in countries where there are two or more MNOs sharing the market more or less equally. In other words, would the strengths of having one exclusive MNO as a partner be so diminished by a multi-MNO approach, that a multi-MNO approach would rarely be seen as a likely path to financial sustainability?

There were mix responses to this concern including the fact that MNOs, especially in countries where market share is relatively balanced, will all try to develop their own proprietary mobile agricultural platforms with similar content and business models, which will result in a race to the bottom. Some others believe that multi-MNO approach is possible but:

a) Agriculture partners need to retain ownership of the data, thereby allowing them to use it on multiple platforms but, add value to each MNO by supporting them with the development of differentiation strategies.

b) Agriculture partners can work exclusively with an MNO but, as part of that effort, work with the telecom company to establish a fair and transparent pricing model to enable out-of-network users to access the information.

Apart from these ideas, there was no specific examples of multi-MNO partnerships from the forum. But another interesting view from India was that, because there is already a substantial struggle to ‘sell’ agricultural content, the issue of exclusivity is debatable. However if the agricultural content is customized and filtered enough (customized as per local needs) placing the same in a shopping cart is relatively easy.

So how can a partnership between MNO and AP increase financial sustainability of such association? Each partner has some unique skills and abilities that they use in their business as shared above to financially sustain their activities. Bringing these unique qualities together is expected to increase the individual potentials of the partners at the same time ensuring higher quality service to the users.

NB: The Next in the series (5th) is “Reflections on mAg Services: Content Sourcing, Quality Assurance & Dissemination” (Available on 01/03/2012)

The first, second and third posts are:

1. “Reflections on mAg. Services: Partnerships Between MNOs and APs”

2. “Reflections on mAg. Services: Barriers to Scale“

3. “Reflections on mAg Services: Is there a Business Case for Serving Farmers?“

December 31, 2011/by actualize

Agriculture, Extension Service, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Reflections on mAg. Services: Is there a Business Case for Serving Farmers?

Photo Credit: David Fletcher

NB: This is my personal analysis of contributions to question three from the forum. This post is the third in series of six, analyzing each of the six forum questions that were discussed.

Following the first two discussions on partnerships and scale, the third discussion was based on justifying a business case for investing in mobile agricultural services for rural poor farmers and the motivations for the service providers.

Question 3: Is there a business case for serving poor rural smallholders and what are the motivations for the Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and Agricultural Partners (APs)?

Understanding the term “Business Case” for the Discussion!

As the discussion begun, a question was asked to clarify the term “business case.” In response, the facilitators pointed out that “Business Case” for the purpose of the discussion refers to “service models that meet specific needs (that of the customer/user) and are ultimately financially viable.”

Justifying a business case for serving poor rural smallholders with mobile agricultural services that meet their needs and at the same time financially viable, may involve identifying factors that currently contribute to their information deficit or information gap. It also involves proving that investment of capital and other resources are justifiable over time such that the benefits, costs and risks balance out to create this commercially viable service for both users (farmers), and service providers (MNOs and APs).

A Business Case for Serving Poor Rural Smallholders with Mobile Agricultural Services

The first contribution to the question from one of the experts used the case of Indian smallholder farmers as a typical example in the developing world, which shows the current deplorable state of smallholder agriculture. Some of the reasons due to low agricultural productivity include dearth of physical infrastructure, deficiency in the availability of agricultural inputs and lack of, or uneven access to information. Small and marginal farmers are often unable to gain access to reliable information that could help them increase their farm yield and get better price for their crops.

In earning their livelihood, small farmers face innumerable hurdles such as small acreages with low yields and low profit margins; less access to irrigation; susceptible to problems like crop diseases; scattered geographically; difficulty in pulling resources to accessing the latest information on growing techniques and the market; lacking access to credit to buy inputs; borrowing at exorbitant interest rates; forced to buy inputs at high costs and of poor quality from the money lenders’ shops; exposed to high risk; not being aware of agricultural insurance; facing shortage and high cost of labor; lacking facilities to store their crops; disorganized market; lack of efficient procurement system for their crops; and being compelled to sell their crops to brokers.

This array of problems and challenges facing smallholder farmers in the developing world, justifies serving them with mobile agricultural services. Access to mobile agricultural services is expected to increase the farmers access to credit, information on farming techniques, procurement of inputs as well as marketing their goods directly to customers or commodity exchanges.

Business Case for Service Providers

Looking at the specific needs of the rural poor farmers (users) who are at the bottom of the pyramid in the developing world, providing affordable and financially viable mobile services could be challenging. So the issue was whether it was the duty of the private sector or the national governments to meet these needs.

An interesting argument from one of the discussants was that serving rural poor and rural smallholders often is the duty of national governments to come up with certain schemes and programs. However, governments have limited resources and priorities, and it is a challenge to address the information needs, when other basic social needs are yet to be fulfilled. Sharing experiences from Bangladesh, the contributor stated that governments today are looking at alternate models like Build, Own Operate (BOO), Build, Own, Operate, Transfer (BOOT), Private Public Partnership (PPP), and outsourcing of non sovereign functions.

The partnership eco-system is also another dimension that needs to be looked into and nurtured and this is where government and MNOs can work together to deliver value to customers in rural areas. The bottom line is that there is a compelling business case today for MNOs and governments to work together to jump start the process and explore alternative business models that are sustainable in the long run.

Motivations for MNOs to Serve Rural Poor Farmers

The general view from the discussion also shows that, making a business case for MNOs is about whether the service is serving the rural poor to increase market share and revenues in the short or longer run. The MNOs, according to the discussion also may have two distinctly different views on how serving the rural poor will increase their market share. These are:

i) Provision of mobile agricultural services as a stand-alone business that should generate revenue for the company through direct revenue from charging per customer,

ii) Provision of services intended to boost revenue in the company’s core business or through indirect revenue benefits from acquiring and/or keeping customers loyal and active on their network such as selling SIM cards, air time, ring tones or launching mobile money services, etc.

If MNO looks primarily from a financial viability alone, there would not be any business case in providing services to rural areas. But when the business case is looked from a holistic view, then the whole paradigm of business case changes. In this case the Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) are motivated to take up a number of m-services via mobile networks such as financial services like mobile payment and banking, financial literacy; health services including health education clinical care, health worker training; mobile-based learning and education; market information services including farmer information services and help-lines, market pricing information and transportation.

Another view is that, scale is critical for MNOs to reach commercial viability and currently there is a business case for only a few mobile solutions serving farmers as it is not easy to reach the right income-costs balance and achieve service self-sustainability. It was noted that the private service provider will not venture into rural areas, which do not have economy of scale.

Commercial Services Versus Social Enterprise

There was also another concern about the service provision in terms of commercial services (services targeted at making profit) and services developed by social enterprises or social entrepreneurs (where the focus is improving people lives in a way that does not rely on donor funding). The questioner believed that this is often the tension between APs focusing usually on the social impact, and the MNOs, focusing on the commercial aspect.

Motivation for AP’s (Social Enterprise)

Providing mobile agricultural services from social enterprise perspective was seen as complicated because it usually includes some measure of the public good. But this approach depends on the willingness of donors to help out with up-front investments. Defining and honing these investments is critical, said by an expert. The mFarmer Initiative is focusing on doing this with its Challenge Fund as well as its learning component and technical assistance.

Another concern with the social enterprise approach is the long-term financial sustainability of the service after a potential start-up funding runs out.

In summary, the discussion brought out the proof for a business case for MNOs and APs to partner and invest in mobile agricultural services that could serve rural poor farmers and increase their access to agricultural information. Such investments will invariably improve lives in these rural communities but it was also necessary to ensure the financial viability of such services for the MNOs and APs. It was noted that the commercial viability and social impact of such a service are often closely related. Ensuring that the farmer use the service and act on the information received, is a long-term driver of repeated usage.

NB: The Next in the series (4th) is “Reflections on mAg Services: Financial Sustainability” (Available on 12/31/2011)

The first and second posts are:

1. “Reflections on mAg. Services: Partnerships Between MNOs and APs”

2. “Reflections on mAg. Services: Barriers to Scale“

December 29, 2011/by actualize

Agriculture, Agriculture Markets, Extension Service, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Reflections on mAg. Services: Barriers to Scale

Photo Credit: Spore

NB: This is my personal analysis of contributions to question two from the forum. This post is the second in series of six, analyzing each of the six forum questions that were discussed.

One of the objectives of the mFarmer Initiative is to drive scalable, replicable and commercially successful mobile agricultural solutions that bridge the information gap and increase the productivity and income of rural smallholders. With this mind, the second forum question was about barriers to scaling mobile agricultural services as stated below:

Question 2: What are the barriers to reaching scale with mobile agriculture information services and how can partnering with a mobile network operator (MNO) reduce these?

To really answer this second question, discussants needed to first understand what a successful ‘scaled’ mobile agricultural service is; identify the barriers to scale; and then look at the unique value propositions that each partner brings and their roles in the partnership.

Successful Scaled Mobile Agricultural Service?

The challenges associated with scaling ICT projects in general and mobile services in specific came up several times during the discussion. Scale by default may be seen in terms of wide-reaching impact of the service through adoption by a large number of individuals, communities, regions, etc. It is about moving projects from being islands of excellence to serve and empower a larger audience. Others also look at quality benefits of the service to more people over a wider geographical area, more equitably, more quickly, and more lastingly. So what are the barriers to taking mobile agricultural services from small-scale level to a larger scale and at the same time maintaining the quality and ensuring sustainability?

Below is my summary of barriers to scale of mobile agricultural services from the forum:

Infrastructure strength – weak presence in terms of infrastructure of MNOs could be a challenge to scaling
Reliability of message delivery – less reliability in delivery of messages to the customers may prevent future expansion
Cost of delivery mechanism – high cost of the delivery mechanism could also be a challenge to the MNO
Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) – low ARPU of customers shows how unprofitable the MNO will be and a barrier to scale
Language – high diversity of local languages within a given country/region of service deployment could affect smooth scaling
Literacy – low illiteracy rate in a country or region may affect successful scaling of mobile agriculture service
Technology – highly complex mobile handsets, difficult-to-use interface and medium of delivery could be a barrier
Government Policies – since most of these mobile agricultural services are private sector driven, without sound government information and agricultural policies and regulations, it will be difficult to scale
Accessibility – to MNO for smooth and easy enrolment process and Point of Presence for post-sales service
Affordability – expensive services to the user will prevent wide-scale adoption
Local needs of users – lack of understanding of local needs and demands of the users

“If right products in which the targeted beneficiaries find value are created, scaling should happen by itself.”

Part B: How can partnering with a mobile network operator (MNO) reduce barriers to scaling mobile agricultural services?

The first post in response to the main question seemed to address this second part of the question that focus more on “intermediaries.” The post argued that barriers to scale of market information systems are more about the ‘architecture’ of the system than the kind/type of partnerships formed between and among the service providers and MNOs. In other words, partnership with MNOs is not a magic wand for scaling mobile agricultural services.

So does it worth it for agricultural value added service provider to partner with MNO for scaling?

This interesting post critiqued the role of intermediaries in delivering market information to users within the agricultural value chain. The contributor argued that the cost involved in identifying potential intermediaries, training and maintaining them to access agricultural information through SMS or helpline services and then delivering it to the farmers is a huge challenge to scaling and sustainability.

Based on the contributions from the forum, I have identified two types of intermediaries namely ‘human intermediaries’ and ‘technological intermediaries’ in the context of mobile agricultural service delivery.

Human Intermediaries

This includes intermediaries working directly with farmers such as the agricultural extension agents and also the Grameen Foundations Community Knowledge Workers (CKWs). The challenges associated with the human intermediaries have led to the enormous utilization of the technological intermediaries.

Technological Intermediaries

The technological intermediaries are the communication technologies that ensure direct-to-farmer services, and in this case mobile services such as SMS, data, voice, etc. that are all critical channels for delivering targeted, relevant and actionable information to as many farmers as possible. But the need to use the right technology at the right stage of the value chain for effective content delivery was deliberated upon.

a) SMS services: The ability of SMS services like Esoko and Reuters Market Light (RML) to timely deliver market information to farmers has been well documented but the actual impact of these services on the production of the farmers and their living conditions is yet to be documented. Meanwhile, the social and technological challenges associated with SMS in these rural areas have been mentioned as a barrier. While the cost of providing SMS service may be cheap, due to the low literacy rates in these areas and the complexity with some of the user interface, some discussants do not see the future of SMS in providing mobile agricultural services to farmers.

Some other contributions pointed out the challenge with illiteracy and SMS use but cited examples where farmers are overcoming this by engaging other family members to read and translate the SMS messages for them, especially with Mobile Money services. With agricultural information, farmer groups/cooperatives are the target rather than individual farmers so that within each group, at least one literate member can play the intermediary role by reading and translating text messages to other group members.

The idea of using volunteers or exploring national service or youth service schemes in some parts of Africa to provide agricultural information through the technological intermediaries to smoothly transition into more sustainable economic models was also brought up.

b) Voice-based services: When it comes to voice-based services, discussants were concerned with their economic sustainability. They argued that interactive voice response (IVR) that allows computers to interact with humans, and call centers are the most costly information delivery mechanisms. And since farmers’ willingness to pay for agronomic information tends to be low, any business model that depends on IVR or call centers may need some other funding alternatives for sustenance. So the key question to ask is, if there are any indications that farmers’ willingness-to-pay will increase to the point of equilibrium with the cost of these services?

Another view is to go automatically with IVR without any real time human input, which can empower farmers directly to search and find information they need, or feed the system with information they have through voice technology. Some examples of systems currently exploring this system includes Voice Browsing Acceptance and Trust (VBAT), Web Alliance for Re-greening in Africa (W4RA), and Voice-based Community-Centric Mobile Services (VOICES).

And so What?

The need to take some of the existing mobile agricultural services from one level to another has been acknowledged. Even though partnering with a MNO is not a magic wand to scaling of these projects, the potentials for such a partnership as noted in the discussion of question one, and the barriers outlined above may necessitate collaboration for scaling.

The issues of intermediaries that dominated the second part of the discussion is a good example for experts (both from MNOs and agricultural partners) to understand all the complexities with mobile agricultural services. It is more than technology. It is about using the right technology at the right time to deliver content in the right format for users. It is about combining social and technological processes to deliver user-centered content.

The success story of IKSL in India came up again to attest to the fact that, partnership can help in scaling mobile agricultural services. But the success of IKSL is linked to the partnership with IFFCO, a 40 year old co-operative that has a strong base with the users. The idea of working towards removing human intermediaries in mobile agricultural system can me catastrophic. The citing of Direct2Farm project of CABI which aims at enabling farmers to seek and source information, tailor-made to their individual need, at any time in any form/format sounds great. But a search on this Direct2Farm project does not give any further information.

We will have to wait to see how this works – either through the automatic IVR system or the CABI’s Direct2Farm project. But I believe the consensus at the end of the discussion is that the technological intermediaries are not to replace the human intermediaries but to be used in stages of the value chain where the human intermediaries are not needed. I agree with another contributor who stated that “The issue is to remove people where they are not critical, so that services can increase in quality, quantity, and efficiency.”

The next in series (3rd) is Reflections on mAg Services: Is there a Business Case for Serving Farmers? and available on 12/29/2011.

The first post is “Reflections on mAg Services: Partnerships Between MNOs and APs”

December 26, 2011/by actualize

Agriculture, Extension Service, Farmer to Farmer, Food Security, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Reflections on mAg. Services: Partnerships Between MNOs and APs

Photo Credit: GSMA

NB: This is my personal analysis of contributions to question one from the forum. This post is the first in series of six, analyzing each of the six forum questions that were discussed.

Partnership, being one of the key criteria for selecting mFarmer Fund beneficiaries, the introductory question (below) for the forum was about partnership.

Question 1: In a partnership between a mobile network operator and agricultural partners, what unique value proposition does each partner bring, how can they leverage of each others’ strengths and what roles should each play in delivering a service to farmers?

Quick Summary of Contributions to the Question

With regard to the unique value propositions that each partner brings to the partnership, most of the contributions centered around the fact that Mobile Network Operators (MNOs):

Are providers of the mobile technology platform for the delivery of agricultural services
Have crucial role in ensuring access to the telecom network (adequate)
Have the responsibility for developing products that are affordable for farmers
Are responsible for addressing coverage issues
Need to ensure that they provide credible and dependable service
Have the responsibility of charging users and share the generated income with external Value Added Service providers
Are to be in charge of marketing and communicating the services to users (branding).

On the other hand, the Agricultural Partners (APs):

May be considered as content providers
Be able to clearly identify who the target farmers are and what their real information needs are
Must have rich experience of quality content for the farmers
Must have clear distinct experience and expertise in the areas of understanding farmers need
Shall have the ability to solve farmers’ problems and ultimately help them with inputs and services to implement the solutions
Must have the skills of connecting with farming communities
Be able to understand which format is best suited for the collection and delivery of information
Be able to collect, analyze, refine and disseminate (or make available) relevant agricultural information to the target audience
Be able to market available information services in the field, including through networks of extension workers
Shall ensure that the MNO fully understands that there is a real business behind Value Added Service (VAS) targeting farmers, even if the information service may take a longer time to take off
Be responsible for formatting of the content, reformatting, sometimes translating to be delivered and understood by the end user
Be responsible for quality assurance of the content – including sources, processes and final advice delivered
Are most likely in the best position to make sure that the mobile “channel” is used well to augment other info delivery channels.

Part B & C: How can the partners leverage of each others’ strengths and what roles should each play in delivering a service to farmers?

Contributions from the forum emphasized the importance of utilizing the existing infrastructure and assets including the mobile channels such as call center, SMS and Interactive Voice Response (IVR) infrastructure, short-code, and billing and revenue collection facilities. The partners can also utilize their respective brand strength and marketing expertise. For example MNOs have some of the strongest brands and trust with the users which can be powerful agents for marketing and driving awareness and the APs can also through their Agriculture VAS, help the brand and increase the market share of the mobile operator. Also pointed out was the possibility of MNOs to provide Agri VAS access via basic Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) menu service which could drastically decrease the barriers for the rural users to access the service and increase the usability. Potentially MNOs have the capacity to blend Agri VAS with mobile money solution and compliment advisory with agricultural financial services, such as loans and crop insurance.

Reflections on the Discussion

My take on this first question is that the understanding of the “AP” and “MNO” has not been made clear at the start of the discussion leading to all kinds of interpretations, assumptions and labeling. A first look at the question makes it simple and obvious but a critical analysis reveals how complex it is especially with the key terms – MNOs and APs.

In my first post at the forum, I did call for the definitions of these terms that seem obvious to the e-agriculture community. Fro example with the APs, are we talking of any group or organization involve in agricultural development services such as NGOs with agricultural service provision; community-based organizations involved in agriculture; farmer-based organizations; national agricultural units such as extension services, or research institutes?

A key argument that ran through the discussion and confirmed my argument was the call for a third party organization for the partnership. The issue of third party partners such as software developers, technology developers, new start-ups, research institutes, international organizations, etc. partnering with MNOs and APs to ensure the success of good mobile services for users came up. The case of IKSL was mentioned where other agencies and institutions which generate actual content – like Agricultural Universities and Research Institutes, International agencies like CABI, Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), Agmarknet for market information were involved in the partnership as third parties.

So a successful partnership for the mFarmer Fund may need more than MNO/AP partnership by reaching out to other institutions and organizations that have expertise in the Initiative’s Core Service. Alternatively, the APs and MNOs may be able to subcontract some of these services, but the positions of these different expertise need to be recognized.

The four points below could summarize the components of the partnership, whether two, three or more partners are involved:

Demand Articulations – partners that have skills and expertise of understanding the users (needs and potentials), understanding the content dynamics for users, etc. (e.g. NGO, CBO)
Network Formations – partners who are able to help connect other partners together and also connect users to product developers, ensure boundary spanning and information filtering (e.g. social media firms)
Process Management – partners that have the capacity to ensure infrastructure development, management and maintenance, generation of revenue for sustainability, quality assurance, formatting, etc. (e.g. MNOs, Software companies, IT firms, Universities, etc.)
Supply Activation – partners that have the skills to train and educate users on the products and services, who understand the language of the developers, able to communicate VAS, (e.g. extension services, NGOs, research institutes, etc.)

These are quotes from some of the experts at the forum:

“The Agricultural partner might not have an immediate capacity to do this in-house, as Agricultural Partner is usually an NGO or Ag. institution and not a VAS provider it its traditional sense.”

“For this, independent agronomists/ SMEs might be recruited if for example the agricultural partner has extensive experience on the ground but not so much access to the latest deep research around each individual crop/ animal.”

In otherwise, it has been acknowledged that partnership is necessary between AP (s) and MNO (s) but other views are that, the role of the MNOs, should be seen as roles being played by Internet Service Provider (ISP). That is providing the platform or network that could enable start-ups and VAS providers to utilize their services and innovations. VAS provision should remain independent of the MNOs.

Other Important Points and Questions Raised on this First Question!

The mobile channel is great for delivering certain types of information, but not all.
The profitability and success of the partnership is key
How would a model work that included two or more MNOs as the service delivery partners?
Sources of funding for the partnership – governments or on business models for profitability?
Would an MNO go into massive infrastructure investment just because of a partnership with AP for delivering agricultural services?
Where are the farmers in the partnership?

NB: The next in series is “Reflections on Mobile Ag. Services: Barriers to Scale“ and available on 12/26/2011.

December 22, 2011/by actualize

Agriculture, Agriculture Markets, Extension Service, Farmer to Farmer, Food Security, Originally posted on the GBI Portal, Sustainable Agriculture

Reflections on Mobile Agriculture Services: Blog Series

Photo Credit: e-Agriculture

The mFarmer Initiative, a partnership between GSMA, USAID and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) in collaboration with e-Agriculture, initiated an online discussion late November to early December 2011.

The 2-week forum which was organized around six main questions, touched on critical issues from partnerships, barriers to scale, business cases/models, content, and mistakes committed by service providers in delivering these services.

As one of the participants in this forum, I have decided to reflect on the discussion which falls within my professional interest of using information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve the living conditions of rural people in the developing nations, most of which are farmers by enhancing their access to resources.

There are six reflections in the series that are available through this portal for readers. Below is the list of titles, links, and dates of the posts:

1: Reflections on mAg Services: Partnerships Between MNOs and APs (Available on 12/22/2011)

2: Reflections on mAg. Services: Barriers to Scale (Available on 12/26/2011)

3: Reflections on mAg Services: Is there a Business Case for Serving Farmers? (Available on 12/29/2011)

4: Reflections on mAg Services: Financial Sustainability (Available on 12/31/2011)

5: Reflections on mAg Services: Content Sourcing, Quality Assurance & Dissemination (Available on 01/03/2012)

6: Reflections on mAg Services: Mistakes and Pitfalls of MNOs/NGOs (Available on 01/05/2012)

NB: These posts are summaries of the discussion and my personal reflections on some of the key points, and do not reflect the views of any of the sponsors, experts or contributors to the forum.

I hope we can continue the discussion.

December 22, 2011/by actualize

Agriculture, Agriculture Markets, Extension Service, Food Security, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

The Debate over Intermediaries in Ag. Value Chain: E-TIC Project

Photo Credit: CartoonStock.com.

For decades, the role of intermediaries between farmers and other stakeholders (researchers, policy makers, donors, etc.) has been key in the exchange of agricultural information, knowledge, innovation and other resources. The traditional intermediary role has been played over the years by the various national agricultural extension services but due to the challenges with this system, there is an emergent of the private sector intermediaries. However, with the advancement of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and their potential technological intermediary role, the role of “human” intermediaries is being questioned time after time.

While one school of thought thinks “technology”, specifically ICT will eventually eliminate and replace “human” intermediaries or the middlemen within the agricultural value chain, another school of thought believes that the “human factor” in extension cannot be eliminated. As a socio-technical researcher, I find myself between these two schools of thought. Even though, I have a stand in this debate (see bkaddom’s comments here), the recent selection of E-TIC project by the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) as a success story during its 2010-2011 stocktaking gives me the courage to write this reflection.

The E-TIC project is an initiative involving various players coordinated by ICVolunteers, a nonprofit organization and being implemented in Senegal and Mali (Sahel region), with the support of the Fonds Francophone des Inforoutes and a series of other partners.

An important component of the E-TIC project, however, is the role that intermediaries are playing in this multidisciplinary network as “field connectors” by providing links between small farmers and “new technologies.” The project uses local connectors (human intermediaries) such as governmental representatives; community leaders; volunteers deployed in the localities; universities and journalists are used to gather information/data; community radio for the dissemination of information; mobile phone operators; local authorities; and NGOs, all of whom cooperate in sharing information relevant to the project.

The E-TIC project then facilitates the functions of these connectors by providing them with tools (technological intermediaries) and training components so that small farmers, herders and fishermen are better able to sell their products. Among these tools is the E-TIC website, to be translated into multiple languages – French, English, Wolof, Fulani and Bambara, as well as a number of other work and exchange tools (wiki, distribution list, etc.) for communication between project stakeholders. The Internet platform aims to provide information regarding agricultural activities, including production, marketing and promotion techniques, market prices and other useful data, both for the farmers themselves and other stakeholders, including researchers in this domain. Through the creation of this portal and a series of training courses for field connectors (youth, women, community radio journalists), the E-TIC project aims to provide knowledge relevant for efficient and effective farm management.

The architecture of the E-TIC project system shows a differentiation of intermediaries whose roles are being enabled by the new technologies and tools. Instead of seeing the intermediaries as a threat to exchange of resources – information, knowledge, innovation and even physical agricultural inputs, the project recognized as tools for strengthening the delivery of these resources.

I believe that the ‘human factor’ in the exchange of information between the smallholder farmer and other stakeholders in the agricultural sector is something that cannot be replaced. ICTs are technologies that could be used to improve social processes such as extension services. It is up to the stakeholders to identify what catalyzing role the ICTs can play in facilitating the social role of these intermediaries. The type of ICTs and the degree of use at the various stages of the value chain, may depend on a number of factors including the type of content being delivered, the size of the target audience, the educational status of the users, among others.

And I quote “ICTs have an important role to play for the populations in Senegal and Mali, but the specific applications need to be adapted to local needs and means, for example, low literacy and local languages. Given the relatively low literacy rate in most cases and a strong oral tradition with the use of local languages, the most common means of communication remains direct conversation (whether through farmers, herders, etc. meeting each other or speaking with each other by mobile phone) and community radio stations” (WSIS Success Stories 2011).

December 19, 2011/by actualize

Agriculture, Agriculture Markets, Extension Service, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Is e-Krishok a Model for Scaling ICTs for Ag. Projects?

Photo Credit: e-Krishok

Integrating information communication technologies (ICTs) into agriculture is still a challenge, especially at the farm level in most developing countries. While the potentials of ICTs in improving access to agricultural information for these smallholder farmers is huge, the impact of the technologies on the productivity and living conditions of farmers is yet to be realized.

The task, therefore, for Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and Agricultural Value Added Service (Agri VAS) providers in their efforts to develop commercially viable, sustainable and scalable models that will facilitate information delivery to farmers, is still far from achieving.

This is why the e-Krishok project in Bangladesh is being praised for its innovative approach. Developing from a successful pilot phase in 2008, e-Krishok has just launched its nationwide scaling up initiative to bring information and other services to rural Bangladesh. e-Krishok is a promotional campaign in motivating farmers to use information and advisory services of a Grameen Phone Community Information Center (GPCIC). Supported by Katalyst Bangladesh, a pro-poor market development project funded by a donor consortium of DFID, SDC, CIDA, ACI and Royal Dutch Embassy, the campaign is being implemented by Bangladesh Institute of ICT in Development (BIID).

The campaign promotes information and advisory services targeted at farmers in enabling them to address their agricultural problems and constrains to improve farm productivity. The Information and advisory service at GPCIC works through an Internet enabled process in which an agricultural information repository, ruralinfobd is at the heart of the service delivery mechanism. Also added to the platform is a link to direct consultation with agriculturists through e-mail. Farmers are not required to interact directly with the technical interface.

A farmer is encouraged to go to any Community Information Center (CIC) whenever they have a specific problem issue. The operator (entrepreneur) at the CIC browses through the web portal to locate solution to the problem presented by the farmer. In case the solution is not immediately available at the web site, a query is forwarded to specific email address that is used and maintained jointly by BIID, and an assigned agriculturist replies to the queries on daily basis.

Case Studies

Contact Details

Quick Links

About

Expertise

Impact

Join

Sign up for Updates