Originally posted on the GBI Portal – Page 25

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

Civil Society, Democracy & Governance, Elections, Governances, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

2011: A revolutionary year in democracy and governance

"Mohamed suffered a lot. He worked hard. But when he set fire to himself, it wasn't about his scales being confiscated. It was about his dignity." —Mannoubia Bouazizi, Tunisia Photograph by Peter Hapak for TIME

2011 will be remembered as the year that democratic awakening occurred in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Activists used information and communication technology (ICT) tools to organize and coordinate political demonstrations that brought an end to long-standing regimes and paved the way to landmark elections.

Time Magazine fittingly awarded the “Person of the Year” accolade to the protester. What would come to be known as the “Arab Spring” began in Tunisia’s under-developed town of Sidi Bouzid, where the late Mohamed Bouazizi, a street vendor whose wares were confiscated by the police, set himself on fire outside of a government building in December 2010. Few would have predicted that Bouazizi’s actions would trigger an uprising that brought an end to Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s 23-year-old regime on January 14th.

Video clips of the first protests, including demonstrations at the spot where Bouazizi set-himself on fire, were recorded on mobile phones, posted on YouTube, and spread across Tunisia and in the Arab world when they were shared on Facebook before news media outlets such as Al Jazeera began running their stories, reports Robert Mackey in the New York Times.

The Tunisian revolutionary spirit spread in neighboring Egypt. Inspired by events in Tunsia, political demonstrations began in January as thousands took to the streets in anti-government protests against poverty, rampant unemployment, corruption, and demanding an end to the 30-year autocratic rule of President Hosni Mubarak, writes Cara Parks in The Huffington Post.

Aware of the potent effect that social media had in Tunisia’s uprising, the Egyptian government blocked Facebook, Twitter, and later Internet services to lead a crackdown on the largest protests the country had witnessed since 1970s, according to Parks. Despite violent clashes with the riot police, protests kept going not only in Cairo, the capital, but also in Alexandria and Suez, and two other major cities.

Photo Credit: Huffington Post

The revolution’s main goal was achieved with the resignation of President Mubarak on February 11th. Activist Wael Ghonim, a marketing manager for Google who played a significant role in organizing the January 25 protests by reaching out to young Egyptians on Facebook, credited the social networking site for the success of the Egyptian people’s uprising, says Catharine Smith in The Huffington Post.

“[…] This revolution started on Facebook. […] We would post a video on Facebook that would be shared by 60,000 people on their walls within a few hours. I’ve always said that if you want to liberate a society just give them the Internet. […],” Ghonim told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in an interview that Facebook and the Internet were responsible for the uprising in Egypt.

After Egypt, it was the turn of Syrians to protest against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Pro-democratic demonstrations began in January and young Syrians, inspired by the ousting of Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt, began organizing protests online and then took them to the streets.

In this citizen journalism image made on a mobile phone, Syrian men carry bread loaves during a protest against Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime, in the coastal town of Banias, Syria, May 3, 2011 Photo Credit: AP

Syrian activists have been working their computers and mobile phones, updating Facebook pages, sending out messages over Twitter, and uploading videos onto YouTube to inform the outside world of what was taking place in their surroundings since foreign reporters were banned, reports Margaret Besheer for VOA news.

Libya was the revolution’s next stop in North Africa . Protests broke out in February in the eastern city of Benghazi and escalated to an armed conflict as forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi clashed with anti-government rebels. Gaddafi was captured and killed on October 24 bringing an end to four decades of autocratic rule.

Libya Crisis Map illustrates how ICTs can be applied in a conflict situation. This web-based platform was created by the Standby Task Force, and used the Ushahidi crowdsourced crisis reporting system to map latest news from Libya gleaned from Twitter and traditional news sources.

The LibyaCrisisMap platform was activated by the request of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) to the Standby Task Force (SBTF). The platform was fully handed over to OCHA supervision in April 2011, and continued to be supported by a team of volunteers until June 4th of 2011.

Yemenis also took up the streets in February to protest against President Ali Abdullah Saleh calling for his resignation. Saleh agreed a deal, in which he will transfer power to his deputy by February 2012, ahead of elections. Young Yemeni Activists are however angry that the deal guarantees immunity for Mr Saleh and his allies, reports the BBC.

The Kingdom of Bahrain, with financial, equipment and manpower backing from its Saudi neighbor, is the only government in the MENA region to have successfully crushed pro-democracy demonstrations, reports Adrian Humphreys in the National Post.

Revolutions in the spring paved the way to landmark elections in the fall.

Tunisian politicians engaged voters via YouTube ahead of the October 23rd elections of representative for the new Constituent Assembly, which will ratify a new constitution and appoint a new transitional government that will schedule elections for a permanent government. Tunisia Live, a startup news portal, launched Tunisia Talks on YouTube where citizens asked questions to politicians.

Egyptians also queued up in numbers at polling stations in the country’s first democratic elections. Citizens took up the responsibility to monitor the electoral process blogging and Tweeting about irregularities and fraudulent activities. Parliamentary elections will end in March and Presidential elections are scheduled for mid-2012.

ICTs in form of social media platforms, cell phones, and the Internet played a significant role in the push for democracy and governance not only in the MENA region but also throughout the world.

December 29, 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, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Warid Telecom launches cross-network money service

Warid Telecom in Uganda has launched its own money transfer service, called WaridPesa, and it will allow users to transfer funds to other users, no matter which network they are on.

Warid Telecom launches cross-network money service (image: stock.xchng)

“The technology revolution is transforming Uganda’s population in a profound way and this is leading to economic development,” said minister for ICT Dr Ruhakana Rugunda.

Warid’s Chief Commercial Officer Shailendra Naidu added that it’s a great way for users to send money to other users. “Not only will it provide another choice, it is an easy, convenient and quick money transfer service across all networks,” he said.

“To register, customers have to visit a WaridPesa outlet with a passport photo and a copy of their identity card. The activation of the account is instant and the client can make transactions immediately,” noted The Observer.

Charlie Fripp – Acting online editor

December 27, 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, Mobile, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Kenya’s Mpesa to experience more disruptions

Safaricom in Kenya has warned users of its mobile phone money transfer service Mpesa that further disruptions to the service will occur as demand grows.

Safaricom CEO Bob Collymore (image: file)

“We wish to advise our esteemed customers and agents that they are likely to experience some delays on the M-PESA service. Consequently, they should wait for a confirmation SMS before they can issue or receive cash,” said Safaricom CEO Bob Collymore.

The festive season causes a peak in user activity and is one of the busiest times for the service, which will cause more technical problems to the transfer system that has had its fair share of outage this year.

“Mpesa has the biggest subscriber base among the four mobile phone service operators. Statistics by the firm show that by last month, Mpesa had 15 million customers and about 34,000 agent outlets countrywide with 800 organizations now accepting their bill payment via the service,” wrote the Nairobi Star.

Charlie Fripp – Acting online editor

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, Health, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Public Health Informatics Certificate Training Program

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Public Health Informatics Certificate Training Program
Tuition Subsidies Available*

Application Deadline March 15, 2012

Public Health Workers in the Community Encouraged to Apply

Targeting public health professionals, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in collaboration with the Johns Hopkins Schools of Medicine and Nursing and the Public Health Data Standards Consortium (PHDSC), is pleased to announce that the Public Health Informatics Training Program is accepting applications. This program results in a Maryland State-approved Post-Baccalaureate Certificate in Public Health Informatics.

The goal of the program is to offer training in methods and concepts of health informatics and health information technology for application to public health. It is designed for current and future public health professionals who wish to develop expertise or specialization in this area. Courses for this program are available completely online. Individuals residing in the Mid-Atlantic region may also take selected courses on site.

The training program focuses on the following core informatics topics:

Overview of public health and biomedical informatics
Health information systems design and development
Health information technology standards and systems interoperability
Systems evaluation in health sciences informatics
Population health informatics

Electives are available in: Knowledge Engineering and Decision Support; GIS; Real-Time Surveillance; and “eHealth and mHealth.” The program culminates with a practicum, working on an approved public health informatics project.

Tuition Funding

Qualified applicants are eligible for a $10,000 tuition subsidy via a grant from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), US Department of Health and Human Services. This subsidy is available on a competitive basis and with receipt of the award, the total tuition and fees that the student or employer will be required to pay to complete the certificate requirements is approximately $9,200. The ONC sponsored scholarship program is especially interested in applicants currently working within US public health agencies who wish to re-tool to specialize in public health informatics.

* Only US citizens or verified permanent residents are eligible for the ONC tuition subsidy. Those awarded the subsidy must complete all certificate requirements within 12 months. Priority for the tuition subsidy will be given to professionals currently employed in the public health field within the US or those intending to enter the domestic public health field. The tuition subsidy is not intended for those already working on a full time basis in the public health informatics field. All tuition subsidy awards are subject to ONC approval.

Applicants not eligible for the ONC funding can expect to pay approximately $19,200 to complete the certificate program and are permitted up to 24 months
to complete the certificate courses.

Certificate Application Eligibility

The certificate in Public Health Informatics is open to both current degree candidates at the Bloomberg School of Public Health as well as those with no School affiliation working in the field of public health who are seeking to move into the informatics field. Credits earned in the certificate program may be applied towards other Johns Hopkins degree programs – such as the MPH or informatics MS – if accepted into a program at a later date.

Eligibility requirement for the certificate include either: 1) an earned graduate degree in public health; or 2) current enrollment in graduate public health degree program; or 3) a bachelor’s degree and a minimum of 3 years of direct public health experience.

The next cycle of training will commence in late August of 2012. The application deadline for entry into this cohort is March 15, 2012.

More information about the Public Health Informatics Certificate Training Program, including application forms and detailed instructions, can be found at:
http://www.jhsph.edu/dept/hpm/certificates/informatics

If, after carefully reviewing the program web site, you have further questions, please contact Ms. Pamela Davis, the program coordinator at pdavis@jhsph.edu or 410-614-1580.

As part of the Johns Hopkins University-wide health informatics training, two other programs (also with subsidies funded by the ONC) are available for medical, nursing, information technology, software engineers, and clinical management professionals without public health experience. These other programs are hosted at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and School of Nursing. Information on these other programs for professionals without public health experience can be found at: http://www.jhu.edu/healthIT

Order:

December 22, 2011/by actualize

Agriculture, Health, Originally posted on the GBI Portal

Inaugural meeting of the Technology Standards & Interoperability Working Group

The inaugural meeting of the mHealth Alliance’s Technology Standards & Interoperability Working Group was held on December 20th, 2011. There were 11 attendees representing varied groups including: donors, academics, implementers, clinicians and technology providers. A zip file is attached to this blog; it contains an audio recording of the meeting (with the chair’s thanks to Ricardo Leitao of Andago).

The (draft) mission of this new working group is to: Achieve alignment on and adoption of standards which support greater interoperability amongst mHealth deployments to ensure improved continuity of care, technology re-use, and cost effectiveness. The mHealth Alliance’s two key strategic focus areas for 2012 are: Evidence and Interoperability.This working group is intended to give effect to the latter.

There was helpful and insightful discussion regarding the ways both a “top down” and a “bottom up” approach can usefully inform the group’s activities — with examples given of each. As a “homework assignment”, group members will digest and comment on the two work items that are already posted to HUB, and will begin posting other artefacts (requirements docs, architecture diagrams, etc.) that provide informative examples from initiatives in the field. We will also start to catalogue a list of projects (especially open source examples, please) that illustrate “going to scale” with m/eHealth technologies in low resource settings.

I wish to thank the attendees for their active and helpful participation. I also hope that the audio recording will help others who were unable to make the scheduled time-slot to “join” and would welcome any and all comments (please post to this blog) they might like to add.

Our next meeting will be scheduled early in the new year. Between now and then, I wish everyone a safe and happy holiday season and all the best in 2012!

-Derek Ritz

Initiative:

mHealth Systems Integration

December 22, 2011/by actualize

Case Studies

Contact Details

Quick Links

About

Expertise

Impact

Join

Sign up for Updates