Project Everest

Future of FarmEd

Unfortunately, only a small proportion of the consultancy reports sold earlier in the year generated social impact. So logically we (July team) asked why.

 

Why? Here are our guesses

  1. The reports are too long and hard to comprehend

We tried to fix this issue using a short-term solution, by reducing the size of the consultancy report, adding pictures and focusing specifically on one issue.

-       We are yet to find out if No 1 is successful or not

  1. Fijian farmers prefer to be physically demonstrated than be handed a piece of paper

 

I wish to propose a solution for No 2, which is more long term. I propose that on top of providing a consultancy report, we should physically demonstrate how to implement what has been recommended. The consultancy report is still necessary because it can serve as a reference for farmers in the future.

 

Basic concept

First, we would identify the main solutions we are able to offer farmers, namely setting up irrigation systems, pesticides advice and fertiliser usage. Then, Team Leaders are trained and informed in Sydney regarding the implementation and process of our set consultancy advice before country. Upon arrival in country, TLs translate what they have learnt to trekkers.

 

The idea envisioned

In country, trekkers would pitch the benefits to farmers and the latter would be able acquire our services for a set fee (similar to how the proof of concept team operates now). Post payment, we would provide them with a consultancy report as well as set a time to specifically demonstrate how the consultancy advice should be implemented. In other words, translating methods discussed in the consultancy reports through practical demonstration. Trekkers would then set out to find and purchase the set resources needed to achieve the task.

 

Payment

This had always been problematic because it’s difficult to establish a reltonship that is not on-going. Right now, the pricing system is as follows:

 

<5 acres: first report $249, subsequent report $149

6-19 acres: first report $349, subsequent report $249

20+ acres: first report $499, subsequent report $399

 

We could increase the price, including all the resources needed to facilitate the implementation process. Further, each payment would include a demonstration process, not a long-lasting relationship. The new payment system could look like this:

 

<5 acres: First report $(depends on solution), subsequent report $(depends on solution but cheaper)

6-19 acres: First report $(depends on solution), subsequent report $(depends on solution but cheaper)

20+ acres: First report $(depends on solution), subsequent report $(depends on solution but cheaper)

Each report would now include {including, a physical report, a demonstration process and a check-up 6 months later}

 

Resources required

-       Additional training and agricultural knowledge for TLs (perhaps during TL training)

-       People with agricultural knowledge (Lisa and Zoe could take the classes!)

 

Benefits

-       We can boost our chances of ensuring we make a social impact

-       Low cost, easy to implement

-       Building on what we have learnt through the lean start up process

Tagged users
No comments yet, be the first to post one!