Design for the emerging rural economy

According to the IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development), 3 billion people in developing countries live in rural areas. Agriculture is the main source of income for 86% of this population. Within this farming community, smallholder farmers make up the bulk of farmers (for more stats see the FAO rural economy fact sheet). Arguably, they have contributed substantially to the growth that many developing countries have experienced over the recent few years, not unlike SME’s being the motor behind Western economies. Smallholder farmers are thus an important group for working together with in our global ambitions of creating social and economic development (as demonstrated by the UN initiative of proclaiming 2014 to be the year of the family farm).

One of the leading strategies in developing smallholder farmers is providing them with knowledge and information on agricultural practices. The idea is that this will improve practices, make production more sustainable, and improve operations of the market. Given the increase in dissemination of (mobile) technology communication devices, there also appears to be a huge potential for reaching scale with ICT’s in outreach of these information and knowledge dissemination approaches.    

Smallholder farmers
Smallholder farmers by Jeroen Meijer from JAM visueeldenken

Despite the significance of the group of smallholders and the opportunity at hand, there is still a lot we are yet to understand about them. The majority of their lives take place in informal economic settings, where local activities and rules apply that simply do not light up on the formal business development radar. There is no real understanding available on their everyday lives and priorities. For instance the chocolate multinational considers the cocoa farmer, simply because she has a cocoa tree and supplies cocoa to the world market. But this farmer herself might see things differently:

I side-sell some of the milk to keep my husband from spending the earnings on anything other than our kids’ school fees,

I need to learn from a cousin about rearing rabbits to serve the growing number of road side dining stalls opening up in town, which are willing to extend me a loan to start operations,

I’m skipping dinner tonight to save up for airtime so I can call that trader which has recently been asking specifically for that variety of  mangos. It will save me the hassle of getting produce transported on market day and getting a raw deal in any case.

There is thus a huge gap in understanding, aggravated by the sheer number of people we’re talking about, and we have little basis to relate. As there is no substitute to fill this lack in understanding, smallholder farmers are oftentimes unfittingly lumped together in service and development program designs. There is no basis for targeting innovations to specific groups, nor obtaining specific feedback about what works for whom, and what doesn’t. The result can only be that a lot of the available information and knowledge doesn’t arrive or ‘stick’. A majority of smallholder farmers is likely to be underserved and under-utilised in their capacities to contribute to economic and social development.

We need to drastically enhance and update our understanding, if we intend to reach out to the smallholder farmer. And we should start with the basics such as:

  • Different mental models that farmers use for managing and operating their farms, which would reveal particular workflows and basic farm decision making foundations
  • Basic technology usage patterns that would reveal insights on user experience design requirements
  • Rules and systems that apply to the informal economy context, as well as business models that are currently successfully serving farmers.
  • The role of community and networks, and their social conventions and taboos, which make up the existing ecosystem in which the farmer organizes her life.
  • Lastly and most importantly, we need to understand farmers’ aspirations, and how to appeal to those aspirations, to provide an adequate basis of relation.

A proposition
It is evident that such research needs to be done, but it shouldn’t be done for research’s sake. Rather, understanding needs to be turned into actionable insights. What if we could develop processes, tools, and personas which would aid in segmenting farmers in a specific context for targeting innovations? Support materials, which would capacitate companies, CSR initiatives, and dedicated organizations working with smallholder farmers to design and build for their specific purposes in agricultural product and service development.

Tools and processes for segmentation
Process and tools for achieving segmentation by Jeroen Meijer from JAM visueeldenken

The aim would not so much be to directly provide solutions, but more so to put the design process and tools into the hands of the people who are most closely related to the problems at hand. On top of that there would be a need for continuous adaptation, tailoring, and distribution of such a resource to different and changing contexts, as developing country economies are in continuous growth flux.

Boldly stating, I say that such a resource would need to be developed and made available in the form of an organisation with a public purpose of overcoming our current common barriers to purposeful marketing to smallholder farmers. This would be a social venture, which would maintain itself by publically providing, tools, processes, and basic insights to customers. Furthermore this organisation could help out in tailoring to specific business and service development interests, based on agricultural practices, but fanning out into other areas like finance, insurance, farming input sales, sourcing practices, extension services, agribusiness sourcing, etc. To give the vision a name, I have dubbed this organization Ardhi, which is a holistic term in Swahili signifying soil, ground, or suitable (farm)land.

The Farmer
Insight and understanding of the farmer by Jeroen Meijer from JAM visueeldenken

Further idea development
Now I do warn that there is no clear fix for this initiative. We have the basic design tools and technology resources available, but they need to be tailored and refined towards a new market setting through the only way possible: practical experimentation and learning. It will thus be a journey, one which I would like to invite you on to as well.

I am part of a dedicated consortium, which is ready to start this research journey by looking into the space of information and knowledge exchange relating to agricultural practices. Over the past year, we have been enabled through seed funding to conduct a feasibility study in Kenya and India for our research, and compile a research plan (several insights previously published under the VCD category on this blog). We combine the skills of design, technology and agriculture for emerging markets. Leading this consortium are:

Bart Doorneweert, agriculture researcher at Wageningen University
Syamant Sandhir, tech specialist at Futurescape
Ric Edinberg, design researcher at Insitum

Together, we would like to hear from you about your interest for our initiative. Specifically we are looking for people and organizations that can help us on our innovation journey through either:

  • Field work collaboration- Involve us in projects in the early scoping and design stage
  • Testing research process and tool prototypes, and applying preliminary insights- Private sector and NGO parties collaborating with private sector who are interested to obtain and apply early insights and actively co-create methods and materials with us.
  • Providing broad-based funding support for deep-dive research to develop materials and insights, and seek the limits of their application. – Funding organizations that support the idea of strengthening the ecosystem of service and product development for smallholder farmers.

If you are interested to be involved, then do make yourself heard by dropping us a bit on your background and interests here. We look forward to hearing from you, and hopefully engaging with you in the near future! Do keep track with the progress of our journey under the Ardhi category of posts that will come.

Reaching rural communities in emerging markets: Ecosystems, people, and pipelines

In my previous post I’ve written about the limitations we encountered in applying the value chain approach when my team I wanted to understand how information and knowledge adoption and exchange works with farmers within their agricultural market system. What we were in effect mapping out appeared not to be a chain, but rather a network, or a web, for sharing information and knowledge. I’ve received some interesting responses on this post in the “Value Chain Thinking” group on Linkedin (requires administrator permission to join), as well as offline. The prevailing question posed to me was: “what have you observed that might work as an alternative for value chain mapping then?”

I don’t have this alternative ready. But, I won’t leave it at that. In this post I would like to share some observations on the patterns on information exchange my team and I saw in this web, and on its “components”. This in attempt to help improve the process of realizing understanding when conducting market system mapping exercises.

Patterns in the web
We started off with an attempt to map out the value chain, both in the context of Maharashtra in India, and in several areas of rural Kenya. The webs that resulted were too complex to enlighten us in our research. In search for an alternative approach to better illuminate how the system works, we took things back to the basics. We went through the conversations we had with several of the actors within the value chains in each of the countries (particular those conversations where we interacted with farmers). We then compiled profiles of these people to help in seeking patterns on information exchange within the complex maps we sketched out earlier.

The following farmer-types emerged from the data we were working with:

  • innovator farmers: people with a very broad worldview, looking outside their local context for interesting things to try. They are usually not (active) members of their immediate community
  • business oriented farmers: a farmer who is on top of the farming community, using it to pool supply for the market, someone who acts as a node in information gathering and exchange, and also can be selling inputs to the community.
  • bourgeois farmers (the large majority of the farming community); people who have been able to make a step forward, usually due to improvement in infrastructure, sometimes even moving there from the “stuck” situation. Despite their relative advancement they are still conservative in their aspirations.
  • Stuck farmers: farmers that are subject to slow decay of their land holding. They just about make ends meet enough to sustain their livelihoods. They’re main goal is to allow their children to advance, not so much focusing on opportunity for themselves
  • Drop-out farmers:  farmers who have no chance of sustaining their livelihoods and are likely to abandon their holding in the short to medium term

Consequent to this profiling, we looked at the interaction between these farmer types, to understand how the web of knowledge exchange and adoption between them would work. We observed that interactions between these farmer types could be differentiated and layered according to who the influencer is amongst them, who is being influenced, and what peoples’ aspirations are to achieve within the system.

In other words by taking a simplification of peoples’ conceptual worldviews of influence and aspiration, a mapping emerged of an information and communication exchange ecosystem amongst farmers. We have tried to capture our perspective on this ecosystem and its different layers in the sketch below.

The information exchange ecosystemAn information exchange ecosystem (visual by Jeroen Meijer of JAM Visual thinking)

Looking at the sketch in more detail it generally indicates that exchange doesn’t flow fully and freely within the ecosystem. There are people that subscribe to a certain part of the ecosystem, and information flows more easily and directly between them. This due to connecting worldviews that people in these groups have. There are also people who aren’t part of this section of the system (like the innovator), and information flows differently. Here, unconnecting worldviews are cause for a barrier to exchange.

People in the web
As a second step to understanding exchange, we attempted to identify key determinants that could show how farmers operate in their part of the ecosystem, what sources they would use for information, and what they could consequently do with that information and how they would apply it. The sketch below shows our thinking on these determinants.

Farmer persona

A farmer persona template in relation to information exchange

A farmer in each part of the ecosystem could be characterized according to 2 dimensions:

  1. a static dimension of information on her holding, categorized according to timing of cash flow (and the uncertainty thereof) generated from various crops, animals, and alternative non-farming sources of income.
  2. a dynamic dimension consisting of the farmer’s dreams, and aspirations on the one hand, and networks that the farmer belongs to on the other.

In this model changes in aspirations and networks, influence decisions made in planning out farming cash flows, and thus how the land is to be tilled and what investments will be made. By influencing aspirations and information that trickles through the network, this model would predict changes in management of the farm holding.

A different perspective
Taken together, what we have created is a conceptual model for understanding information adoption and exchange in the rural context of India and Kenya. By no means is this a complete method, nor the information validated as fully representative. More research is needed (*cough*). But by separating the communities of information exchange in an ecosystem, and by looking at the different members within these communities we have broken down a theory that could inform how information:

  • enters an ecosystem and is collected
  • is aggregated
  • interaction and dissemination takes place.

In other words we have compiled a theory of what an existing ecosystem of information and knowledge exchange looks like, and linked it to a behavioral model of how people work with, and respond to that system. Perhaps such a composition could be used as a premise for further research that will inform the design of appropriate ecosystem “grapevine pipelines”, which can provide contextually relevant and timely information to a targeted group of farmers who voice the need for it. After all, progress by technology comes from emulating the structures of human interaction that already exist. Our work continues…

PS. I came across a super informative video through Ken Banks’ twitter handle @kiwanja. It’s made by Dr. Clint Rogers, collating a couple of invaluable lessons on failure in ICT4D projects. Some points mentioned above resonate with the points delivered in the video. Do have a look at it, highly recommended!

——————

This is the seventh piece in a continuing series of posts (starting here) on what the role of human-centered design could be in development work. I’m working on this together with Niti Bhan, who will also be posting her observations at her Perspective blog. Posts are categorized as VCD