« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
5. Potential for Improving the Programme and its Monitoring
5.1 Set Up
The approach to establishing the groups has been variable and constructively criticised by the key stakeholders involved. The early involvement of those to whom the project is targeted is essential; the issues centre around when and how.
Farms in the earlier stages of the programme generally have limited involvement beyond the Facilitator and Monitor Farmer to begin with in establishing the project. They later engage and involve the wider group in the setting of objectives. The lack of a clear focus in a farmer chairman has been recorded by some Facilitators as something that should be addressed, and a committee of a few members to provide a clear decision making forum has evolved in some cases.
The set up phases for new QMS funded farms take this stance with a committee of 3 and a chairman, having learnt from the earlier process where focus and targets have been hard to define and agree, which has lead to a programme trying to cover too many issues. This need for such a farmer lead governance group was also identified in the ADAS 2000 study and by Campbell et al 2006. Our investigations would support this view and we believe this group should work with the Facilitator and Monitor Farmer for a period of time before the project 'goes live' to the wider group.
This approach would mean that the initial ground work would be laid which could then be refined through consultation with the full group.
The need for a good chairman is recognised by funding stakeholders who see that they can provide direction to the Monitor Farmers and Facilitator to ensure a better programme and that this would help clarify the focus and objectives.
The set up period should be used not only to develop ideas for a programme of events that are aimed at the expressed interests of group members, but as recognised by most Facilitators and some group members, to be used to garner data about the Monitor Farm. Such data should be used as a platform for setting objectives and against which progress can be monitored. Ideally the baseline position should be established on member's farms, but from the evidence collected we believe this may prove a rather greater challenge at this stage of the programme.
If the farm has good records already, organising these and working with them to develop an understanding of the business issues and the objectives might take a period of 3 months. However if the farm does not keep detailed records already, more time especially from the Facilitator will be required to establish a better understanding of the physical and financial performance of the farm. Some community group members felt this might be up to year, and one facilitator estimated a period of 8-12 months to fully establish data and monitoring framework. In reality we believe this would be too long and momentum would be lost. Facilitators would need to achieve this much more quickly.
However, as Facilitators have identified, this should ideally be achieved before the full group meeting so that an initial baseline can be established and the effect of the overall programme can be fully monitored and the benefits of the programme communicated more rapidly. This was a fundamental aspect in Campbell et al 2006 where two years accounts were used as the baseline before the programme intervention, and then operating profit was monitored annually.
Although there were comments from some Facilitators, Monitor Farmers and members for reducing the length of programme from 3 to 2 years to maintain momentum, overall most stakeholders and members considered 3 years was a good length to build the group to see the changes through and yet remain fresh. From the literature, Campbell 2006 argued for a longer programme so that impacts could be better measured. There is merit in the time for full impacts to be noted, and consideration could be given to maintaining the monitoring for longer than the 3 years and having some form of ad hoc update open day say a year or 18 months after the programme to report more fully on the programme impacts. A potential down side of this could be that once the intensive group involvement moves from the farm, adherence to the agreed objectives may slacken and this would then make interpretation of the data difficult.
5.2 Farm Choice
The choice of farm is less clear cut. There is quite a compelling argument for choosing farms that are average or close to average in performance rather than outstanding. This is based on the observation that the Monitor Farmer may then be seen as more like the group members and thus would provide more accessible learning opportunities and a chance to contribute to its progress. The alternative of choosing someone who is seen as a good practitioner can be viewed as having 'done it all' or in circumstances removed from the group members own experience such as the estate farm whose context was so different from members.
Riddell 2001 notes that in the New Zealand model (which forms a basis for the Scottish programme) Meat NZ draw their farms for the programme from the top 20% of farms to increase the rate of change. Although working with those in the higher performing groups may increase the rate of change, McRoberts 2007 identifies that this dimension (as well as the differences between those who were part of the pilot Monitor Farm project and those who were the control group) may increase rather than decrease divergence between the most progressive (who tend to participate) and least progressive (who tend to opt out) farmers.
Classic adoption theory (Rogers 2003) proposes that those most likely to influence their peers are farmers who are seen as legitimators or opinion leaders. These are farmers who would usually adopt new ideas quite readily and are looked to by their peers for advice and information. They are already perceived as role models by the community but are not too far ahead of the average individual in terms of their innovativeness. They themselves also recognise their place within their social and community networks and are careful to retain that through judicious decisions. Such opinion leaders exist within progressive and less progressive networks, although programme managers may need to work harder at identifying the less progressive if it is an aim to reach them. Because of the nature of those employed by organisations whose purpose is to influence change such less progressive networks are often not as visible to them.
Much work has been done to identify who such individuals are, based on the level of education, their connection to a wide range of networks, how cosmopolitan in nature they are, their information seeking behaviour and so on. Whilst of some interest such characteristics are hard to use in practice. A more practical approach is for those driving the programme to use their own and other networks to identify individuals who are known to be widely respected across a broad range of farmers.
The non-member survey has identified both time and distance as constraints on attendance. Whilst this clearly must be a consideration we are aware from this research of one individual who has travelled up to 100 miles and attended every meeting over the three years period of the organic Monitor Farm. For enterprises such as this where the constituency for the target audience is widely dispersed it is likely that individuals may be prepared to invest more time (and cost) in participating. The regional analysis depicted in Appendix 7 shows that some farmers are willing to travel considerable distances although it is not possible to identify if this was on a regular basis. More generally a journey of 1- 1.5 hours is a useful guide as a maximum time most farmers are willing to travel.
The Islands create a particular challenge and the community are used to facing the logistical complications created. However one Facilitator noted that for the future he would chose a farm on an Island rather than the mainland. He considered this would increase accessibility because the current choice on the mainland was seen to reflect only a small proportion of the land in the target area, and so was less relevant to the whole target group.
5.3 Facilitation
The choice of Facilitator is critical to the process of the Monitor Farms, and generally our research found that farmers were supportive of the way Facilitators had run their groups. The approach generally taken by them has focused around stimulating discussion and debate. There were mixed views on the use of sub groups, which within the resources available and the time available to members have not always proved easy to manage. There was also some evidence of concern by some funders that the Facilitators and farmers views coincided too closely, so the degree of challenge was insufficient.
Facilitating programmes like this is a demanding task with a need to balance local expressed needs, national priorities and drivers, as well as the inherent trials of managing diverse personalities and interests.
Clearly knowledge of the farming systems involved is essential, but more crucially Facilitators are as one Facilitator commented "in the business of changing attitudes". In taking the programme forward emphasis must be given to their understanding of approaches to learning and behaviour (Garforth et al 2003) and specifically to have:
- Knowledge of agricultural issues
- A proactive ability to get farmers to share information
- Knowledge of group dynamics and a range of techniques for engaging farmers in exploring new ideas
- Ability to develop a working rapport with the Monitor Farmer and management group encouraging their ownership of the process, be willing to respond positively to their interests yet be able to balance these with the objectives of funders and programme managers
- Project management skills and clarity of focus in regard to the setting and monitoring or projects objectives
- Access to a wide range of expert contacts from a variety of sources
Also depending on the future aims for a programme there may be a need to consider a wider range of backgrounds from which Facilitators are drawn if there is an intention to widen the target audience. It is known that those in the business of influencing change tend to work best with those who are most like them (Rogers 2003).
5.4 Monitoring for Measurement of Future Success
In the current set up and operation of the Monitor Farms we found that there is no consistent process to measure the success of the programme on either the Monitor Farms, Community Group or wider farming community. The ethos we found was focused on important practical issues and the physical and financial performance of those. There was much less emphasis on the overall financial impact of adopting and implementing best practice across the total business.
The programme would benefit from having a common approach and set of indicators of success that could be tracked right through from the set up stage to the completion of activity, and beyond as changes instigated towards the end may take 1-2 years to yield impact. This should apply to both the host farm and the community group members, although the records kept could be slightly different, with more emphasis on detail at the Monitor Farm.
Such a method would allow the cost benefit style of analysis used in this project to be undertaken. In addition this approach has a role to play in reinforcing the action and review phase of the management cycle that it is the core of the Monitor Farm process.
Figure 9: The process of planning and implementation on monitor farms
The specified indicators could be prescribed as a requirement of the operation of the programme when the facilitation roles are let by tender. As such these in themselves would provide a focus for the objective setting at the highest level.
Specific objectives and targets have been set for individual physical and efficiency improvements, but with greater focus on indicators as suggested, a broader target for improvement could be constructed. This should adhere to the SMART approach to objective setting - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Result focused, Time bound. The importance of setting and communicating a set of clear and well thought out objectives for the farm and programme was also highlighted in a number of studies ( ADAS 2000, Angell et al 2004, Kelly et al 2004, Campbell 2006, MAF 1999,).
Having a more rigorous framework for measuring progress on the Monitor Farm and Community Group farms would provide an environment in which some of the issues raised in our research can be addressed. In particular, improved two way feedback between Monitor Farmer and members, so the combined learning process is enhanced. The need for regular dialogue and presentation of progress was also noted in other studies ( ADAS 2000) as being necessary to maintain focus and impetus. To ensure this happens, there needs to be a balance between readily produced figures relating to physical performance and marginal financial savings or benefits, and more comprehensive financial analysis.
Over time this approach will allow the effectiveness and impact of the programme to be more readily assessed.
5.4.1 Physical Performance Data
Information on key indicators of physical performance such as yields of crops, milk yield, calving and lambing percentages, daily liveweight gain should continue to be tracked from just prior to joining through to completion of the project. This is very important for the monitor farm. It is likely that this will require some additional Facilitator input and input from the Monitor Farmer.
Our interviews with Facilitators noted that whilst attempts had been made to do this with group members, that the farmers found it difficult to put the information together. There is the opportunity in future to consider using farm secretarial type input to work one to one to assist group members set up systems and gather this data. This would have significant cost savings over using Facilitator time to do this.
5.4.2 Financial
For the monitor host farm the Net Farm Income should be calculated and recorded by the Facilitator in a standardised way. It can then be tracked over time adjusted for deadweight, in the same way as we have done using the published NFI figures for similar farm types.
This approach does raise the issue of confidentiality and it may only be feasible to report these in confidence to the project funders. There is a time delay in this process due to preparation of audited accounts. The benefit is that the impact of the programme can be measured in a way that allows for industry trends to be taken into account.
To provide more immediate financial monitoring the host farm gross margins should be prepared for each of the major enterprises, and up dated annually. Where the data exists, these can be routinely compared with published data, although care will be needed to ensure that a standard approach to the treatment of assumptions is used.
In addition the trend in fixed costs should be tracked, at finite level by the Facilitator but with trend only information to share with the group (unless the host was happy to share finite figures).
There is a small issue with the date of year ends being reported. An examination of the Annual Monitor Farm Reports found that these were dated e.g. 2007-2008. The accounting period was not precisely stated nor did the reports carry a date of publication.
The activities of the groups are often focused on enterprise level management and improvements. In the programme to date there has been less focus on direct financial management techniques, how they can help how to access and use them (e.g. the use of benchmarking a whole farm business to look at margins and costs and identify opportunities). Better up-skilling in financial management aspects could therefore be a pointer to the future added success of the programme.
5.4.3 Managerial
At programme managerial level an ethos of farm business management being an important and integral element of the programme should be encouraged. The objective setting and monitoring approach proposed will provide a sound context within which this can take place.
This would also be encouraged if communication among the Facilitators of all the live projects was enhanced. We found that the Facilitators only have a very loose association between them and we believe it would be beneficial for them to meet occasionally and network more effectively on their experiences and problem solving. Establishing clear indicators and objectives would provide the necessary focus, around which other technical and communication aspects can be debated and through such discussion, changes implemented. Such a network will also be able to reinforce the very good level of success that the Facilitators have achieved in the widest sense from delivery of the programme so far and in the future.
5.5 Opportunity to Promote Results More Widely
The current website information is accessed through the QMS website and those of other funders. It may be worth investigating whether a more clearly distinct location would appeal to more of the target audience.
The results of the non-member survey show that already the programme is widely known and furthermore farmers are acting on or intending to act on things they have heard or read about without being part of the programme.
The routine publishing of event and annual reports not only provides a useful discipline for the projects themselves but the information contained has the potential to promote a lot of detailed information. However it seems that the traditional press is where the majority are gathering their knowledge. From our data it is not possible to say if this leads on in due course to use of the information presented on the web.
Nearly a fifth of respondents would like information presented on the web. The current approach requires limited programme costs to deliver. A distinct identity could be given to such information from all the farms if there was either a central portal providing links to the sponsors sites where data is held, or that this is co-ordinated and held centrally. The latter approach is likely to require more central funds to achieve where for the former this should be less. It will require programme sponsors to agree what would be the best way forward. This idea has been raised in the past ( DBPWG (2006)) as a single information portal in which it was proposed other related programmes should be included.
The postal survey revealed a high level of interest in the programmes with 50% of farmers wanting to know more and strongly indicates an interest in:
- Visiting a Monitor Farm
- Receiving an invitation to visit
- Receiving news and information by post, email, web site in that order
Creating more open day visits may not be a practical response in regard to the imposition this may place on the host farmer, and the potential to undermine the intimacy of the Community Group approach.
There are significant opportunities to promote the outcomes from the programme more widely, but again care will be needed not to undermine the benefits of the group approach for those within reach of the Monitor Farm. In particular we believe the following opportunities are worth further consideration:
- To continue to work with the press through timely coordinated press releases of success stories.
- Further developing the approach already used with media in regularly profiling the Monitor Farms so that the physical and financial progress achieved is clearly demonstrated.
- To further develop specific press events on farm either exclusively for the press or by invitation to a press oriented community group event, co-ordination of this across the network of farms would be required to ensure relevant coverage.
- Produce a direct mail service to farmers with incentives to move towards email receipt. This could be based on a collective news sheet approach or through production of specific technical notes on the rationale behind significant changes to individual enterprises on specific farms. The administration and management of this may again be best borne centrally to ensure appropriate and adequate coverage.
5.6 Relationship with Other KT Activity
The Monitor Farm approach is only one source of information for farmers. In our research concern has been expressed both in relation to the plethora of sources available to farmers and the potential conflict (in terms of time and cost) with other initiatives whether funded by the industry, trade or public organisations. This concern was also a feature of other studies into similar activities ( ADAS 2000, Bailey et al 2005)
In the case of the arable Monitor Farm lead by HGCA, relationships with their arable business groups are being fostered. It is too early to comment on the benefit or otherwise of this association; however, fostering links with other initiatives should be encouraged. For example, arranging as part of the Community Group programme to visit other demonstrations as group - perhaps specifically on specific environmental management techniques - the group can then, with the Facilitator and Monitor Farmer, consider the implications of the messages for the Monitor Farm and make and monitor changes as agreed. The benefit of working with other initiatives in this way as a group, rather than just farmers going on their own, is the application of what is learnt. Having been as a group they can use the group decision making and monitoring processes to apply the ideas and then ultimately in the context of their own businesses.
For public funded initiatives there is merit in a regional forum to develop a knowledge transfer strategy that would foster the necessary synergy between initiatives.
5.7 Funding
Funders are broadly content that value is obtained from their current level of funding and that they doubted the willingness of farmers to contribute. The majority of funds from outside Scottish Government are from levy bodies. The levy bodies felt that farmers already consider they are contributing through their levy contributions, and introducing direct farmer funds might create unrealistic expectations and be hard to manage, although off setting some direct costs might prove easier.
There may be an opportunity to encourage farmers to match fund levy, or other public funds such as the SRDP, on the basis of the direct benefit the business would receive from a programme tailored to their needs, whilst constraining expectations through the need to meet the public funding objectives. Care would be needed to ensure that farmers can identify the direct benefits and so are not dissuaded from engaging in the process.
In addition it may be possible to encourage the supply chain to fund key aspects that benefit them, e.g. specialist advice on produce quality or complying with the dairy road map to encourage a more sustainable supply chain. Again care would be needed to avoid the potential of commercial bias interfering with the independence of the current approach a concern also expressed in Kelly et al 2004.
« Previous | Contents | Next »