The MINDMark

MAKING MONEY FROM NEW PRODUCTS: A NEW MODEL

2013-01-28T14:51:00.000+03:00

New discoveries are described as the engines that uphold economic growth. They are said to give the impetus for improved standards of living, human health, nutrition and environment. Nevertheless, in practice, new discoveries do not create wealth by themselves. But the exploitation of profit from the new discoveries does create wealth through consistently matching customer needs with the value of new discoveries.

This paper, brings forth a new generic commercialization model that solely focuses on predicting and improving the commercialization process across sectors, nature of products and stage of commercialization. The model also points out cross-sector barriers, accelerators and threats that are important in improving or appraising a given commercialization process.

Download the model here

HOW TO PROFIT FROM TELECENTRES: A NEW MODEL INTO THE FUTURE

2013-01-06T13:05:00.000+03:00

As a result of this long journeying, I have come at point where I present to you ‘a new model’ with which I am convinced that telecentre self reliance could be; planed, implemented, evaluated and predicted. The attached paper, hence, has been structured to communicate to practitioners, how the new model could guide the roadmap to telecentre self reliance. Nevertheless, pages talking about the framework’s application, limitation and recommendation have been extracted on purpose – to invite sector appraisal and dialogue – in form of feedback. I hope you find the new model applicable to the problem at hand.

Review the model

HOW TO PROFIT FROM TELECENTRES: A NEW MODEL INTO THE FUTURE

2013-01-06T00:09:00.000+03:00

For the decade of 2000s, I was anxious that telecentres would become the way of life – linking rural people to their urban counterparts and the markets, than ever before. In each telecentre expedition I made; from India to Sri Lanka, Costa Rica to Canada, Hungary to Spain, and through Africa, the flames of this hope become more visible and strong. But at the same time, the hope for a self reliant telecentre was dimming by the time. This has made me wander through places; physical and virtual, looking for possibilities that would carve self reliance in telecentres. As a result of this long journeying, I have come at point where I present to you ‘a new model’ with which I am convinced that telecentre self reliance could be; planed, implemented, evaluated and predicted. The attached paper, hence, has been structured to communicate to practitioners, how the new model could guide the roadmap to telecentre self reliance. Nevertheless, pages talking about the framework’s application, limitation and recommendation have been extracted on purpose – to invite sector appraisal and dialogue – in form of feedback. I hope you find the new model applicable to the problem at hand. Review the model

My Quail in the Monitor 23. Nov. 2011

2011-12-08T08:08:00.001+03:00

m-Marketing to free rural people of hunger and poverty

2011-05-22T23:15:00.002+03:00

Mobile Meals – moMEALS is an m-Marketing system implemented by UgaBYTES and funded by CTA. moMEALS processes started with pondering the issue of hunger and poverty – MDG No.1. Realities of rural people were explored, as a starting point. The feelings of food vendors visited. And the role of middlemen, analyzed. Farmers want to be able to tell middlemen to buy or forfeit the produce to the next buyer. But, not being told to let rot their produce or sell at low price, by middlemen. Process 2 involved a review of the ICT tools that could be used in the fight against hunger and poverty. No single technology could be comprehensive at serving the purpose. So - Mobile devices, the web and reduced telecentres, were adapted. The slogan – Let every hut smile – would become the driving statement.

Now – process 3 is covering the basic functions of moMEALS database. Basic statics underlying the rational for the system design are also relayed.

How the system is structured and will be used

MoMEALS platform is built on a SMART texting system. It starts with a user typing in ‘buyer’ – for food vendors or last mile consumer; or ‘seller’ – for small scale farmers. The message then triggers off requests for further information – in a set of three questions; farmer’s or buyer’s name, location by district and nearest town. Subsequently, the user is assigned a login pin number as a system password. The user’s mobile number is his or her user name.

The user posts an advert after signing in; if using the mobile phone, the user states if he wants to ‘buyproduct’ or ‘sellproduct’. This triggers off a couple questions e.g, what you want to sell or buy, quantity on sell or for buying and price desired. If using web panel, the user accesses two things; the home page and match. Here, the user is able to 1) create products; 2) see his or her goods; 3) match products; 4) search products; or 5) see product posts from other users. The three stage process ends in an advert that states the users; name, product on sell or purchase, price of good desired, location of user, mobile phone number of user and product code. The registration information and product advert information are linked in the summary. Each user’s product offer is treated independently. The user can post unlimited adverts.

The second part of the system is the query service. The user, either a seller or buyer, queries the system by typing in MATCH ME or MATCH ALL. The request aggregates all available adverts that match a specific user’s product or all available products matching a user’s products. An advert can be updated depending on changes in market conditions. Alternatively, an advert may be deleted or deactivated, if the sale in completed. Information is handled by a database. It is accessed by mobile phones and web. Users at the micro telecentres can print out or write on community market boards all the offers that are available.

Homogenous users by geography, type of product produced or purchased may constitute an SMS posting group. The list allows giving updates to the group that meet specific user needs. Updates are posted by the administrator and or authorized managers. Posting may be done via a mobile phone or via a web interface, which has ability to schedule messages that would be appearing more than once. The web generates progressive reports and supports massive user registration.

How the registration form devolved

The first form had 67 simple entries – even if this would be for good intentions – only three entries would trace into the SMS system. The 67 entries would have helped in matching users and in future evaluation of the system. That is why fields like; farmer’s name, phone number, district, village, sub county, parish, main 3 cash crops, main 3 food crops, main 3 commercial animals, type of inputs and throughputs and associated costs to the farmers, marketing chain, gender of user, age, highest education and many other were included in the first form. But the bigger the form the high the user would fork to use the system. So – entries had to be collapsed, leaving only relevant and necessary entries. The new form would thus only have; name of the farmer, district – listed for selection, and nearest town – listed for selection. The phone number would be captured automatically. Meaning that, users would register on the system in 3 steps – involving 3 SMSs and associated costs. But the first 3,112 users, all farmers, gave information to the 67 entries. The information was collected in a physical survey. So – some of this information may continue to be collected as long as it is not collected using SMS system e.g. if it is by email, groups, commissioned enumerators, web, etc, so as to firm M&E processes.

Product that will be offered via the system

One would think that food crops would be different from cash crops – and yet largely not, for small scale farmers. Implying that commercialization of small scale farms would have to be sensitive to nurture a balance between commerce and subsistence growth to avoid reducing poverty while hunger get on the rise, as a result. For the 3112 potential users talked to, a list of 31 cash crops was stated, and more than half of it, 16 crops, would be re-stated as food crops, in a proceeding entry. But the response counts were 8595 and 8284 for cash crops and food crops respectively. Meaning, rural people produce the same for food crops and diversify a little for cash crops. Evidently, 80.7% of the cash crops – coffee, 17.9%; mangoes, 2.2%; cassava, 6.3%; banana, 11.4%; beans, 10.8%; tomatoes, 9.4% and maize, 22.7% - come from 22% of the total crops grown for commerce i.e. 7/31 as stated by farmers. Meaning, the remaining 79.3% of commercial crops would be seen as pseudo. On contrary, the food crop sector was a little better. 92% of the food crops – banana, 20.9%; potatoes, 5%; cassava, 27.4%; G. nuts, 3%; maize, 5.5%; tomatoes, 2.6%; beans, 13.1%; and S. potatoes, 15.4% - came from 50% of the total food crops. Meaning, 50% of the food crops would be seen as pseudo.

By no doubt, the results are representative, but it would be bound to change by district – due to natural agricultural zonation and socio-cultural traditions of the people living in each area, as the system maps over a bigger national coverage. So – the comprehensive list of crops would be used, to include those agricultural products, outside the survey districts. Even then, all crops would not be added in the beta, database – as on-going lessons would inform future product additions and deletions.

Product categorizations would, thus, be adapted as a way of collapsing the long list. Crop product types, adapted would include: fruits with 12 products; vegetables with 15; grains with 11 and cash crops with 8 products. The animal sector would have 9 product types: animals with 7 products; animal meats with 7 products; animal milk with 3 products; Skin with 4; Eggs with 7; manure with 6; fish with 3 and bees with 5 products. Farmers said that they mainly rear cows (31.2%), goats (13.9%), and chicken (31.8%), representing 76% of the total, which would be coming from 37% of number of animal reared (3/8). The value though, is expected to be significantly affected, if scaled over a national coverage. Summing it – a total of 14 product types with a total of 93 products would be listed in the system.

Likely hiccups existing presently

It would be frustrating if it were stated that the system wouldn’t get hiccups. For, indeed farmers pointed out a number of them. The most significant challenges would be that of; unreliable electricity supply for charging phones (21.7%), high tarrifs (19.4%), unstable telecommunication network (13.2%), unavailability of airtime cards in the village (11.7%), battery wears out very fast (9.3%), lack of money to buy mobile phones (8.7%), failure to use phone applications or functions (5.7%), and unsupportive customer care service centres (3.3%). The responses come from 3120 farmers interviewed in Mukono, Mpigi, and Nakaseke. The percentages were based on 6308 counts.

Mukono district, which is next to Kampala, was least affected by unstable network at 4.5% while the other two districts were evenly affects 10.8% for Mpigi and 12.8% Nakaseke. Meaning, unstable telecommunication networks would extensively affect moMEALS rollout as it moves to far rural sites and users. High call tarrifs affects urban areas more than the rural parts – thus it is expected that as we move deeper in the villages, the problem will become less and less. The underlying reason may be that, rural people use to phones strictly for business transaction while the urban users have diversified the use of phone across every part of life. Also battery wear out is move of an urban problem than rural. However, the problem of unreliable power evenly affects semi rural and rural districts. Unavailability of airtimes is a major problem for the rural users – thus may be extensive as moMEALS moves far rural.

The social investor of moMEALS is CTA while the implementer is UgaBYTES.

New & Yet Linked to Yesterday's Minds: Telecentre Sustainability

2011-05-19T10:13:00.004+03:00

Michael Gurstein, aka MG – you wrote that telecentres can’t be sustainable. You pointed out that; first the location chosen – can’t support sustainability, funders never even thought about it, whatever ICT centre is sustainable - it is taken out of being a telecentre on the basis that it has no social angle – pointing out to cybercafés. As you wrap up, you note that people can’t pay therefore they can’t be penalized by asking them to pay or withdrawing support because they can’t pay, etc. I agree with most of your reasoning but I aver a little different for closing, and what needs to be done for the future, as I say in what follows:

Telecentres can be sustainable. But 'we' promoting them must change the way we see them first. We must also free ourselves from founding thinking – call it trap, for indeed times have changed and change is bound to continue anyway, so it is not for options that ‘we’ change with it or die. I would like to point out only one example, to explain myself out; that’s, people’s crack about content. It surprises me indeed; I fail to justify monies spent in so called - elusive - local content programs for the rural friends – even up now!

Hunger and poverty: finding the role of telecentres

2011-05-17T09:34:00.003+03:00

Bringing you to speed; the mint of the outcome of the first process, showed that farmers need to have a say in deciding the price of their produce. They need to be able to tell middlemen to buy or forfeit the produce to the next buyer whenever the middleman’s doesn’t make them happy – rather than the middleman telling them to let rot or sell low. For this to be achieved, the farmers had to have alternatives. Farmer had to have knowledge of the market. Farmers had to have the competence to market. And lastly farmers had to have alternative contacts of buyers. This was valuable knowledge; it meant that we would be able to start with the need to identify, select or design a plausible solutions. Some of the answers sought included those to questions like; what could be done to bring about these attributes, what could be the cost and can such means open unlimited access to markets?

Hunger and poverty: defining the place of telecentres

2011-05-17T08:40:00.004+03:00

Ending hunger and poverty – MDG No.1 – by 2015, is faced with many setbacks: the droughts, poor farming practices, post harvest losses, lack of quality inputs, the list is endless, as seen from expert knowledge. Yet the three groups of people – farmer, food vendors & consumers – affected by hunger and poverty identify the problem as being from a different source. First the farmers see it as coming from poor access to lack of access to market and market information. Second, the food vendors see it as coming from the long chain of middlemen in the food supply chain. And lastly, the poor consumers see it as originating from hiking food prices, which makes them to keep borrowing in order to have what to eat or else survive on nothing. But whose responsibility is it to end hunger and poverty? Whose realities count the most?

Food on the table and money in the pocket

Why not allow the plight, prospects and success of the poor and hungry guide our investment? As we surveyed 3000 farmers, 50 bulk buyers and 60 input sellers in Nakaseke, Mukono, Wakiso, Kampala, and Mpigi districts, it becomes evident that farmers are specific and aware of what keeps them penniless and unable to keep food on the table. Conclusions were overly centred on sentiments like:

We are tired of government handouts. How far the government does thinks it can go with this method? Let them provide us with markets and we shall take care of our needs. Currently whatever we produce rots in stores – the beans, maize etc. Farmers are discouraged to follow any one’s advice any more. Those who can are moving to the nearest towns for alternative sources of income....

It is frustrating for us, we sell our produce so low and we buy other necessities of life so high. Who is benefiting from our sweet? Can’t someone do something for us?

It is like no one cares for the farmers. The politicians just come when it is time for asking for votes with a bar of soap, a kilo of sugar etc. And thereafter they never think about us again. The middlemen only tell us what helps them pay the least for our produce.

Food vendors equally feel being held by the neck, in an economy where the biggest part of the population spends over 70% of their income on food. Vendors tell that, they receive the food at very high prices to get it to the last consumers any cheaper. Conclusions were overly centred on the sentiment below:

Walk2work or work2walk!!! Uganda's political tension

2011-04-11T22:07:00.001+03:00

Ulala, how disconnected from realities are governments in Africa. Now it turns out that walk2work is actually inciting violence and is unlawful assembly in Uganda. Yet for facts, in Uganda people first walk2work, walk2learn - due to under payment and later work2walk and learn2walk due to unemployment and underemployment..., if the government is not informed.

While it is innate and their right, to walk. Currently the act is only a necessarily evil, as most and their families have to decide to enjoy a ride to work or to learn on an empty stomach everyday passing by or the other way round. I personally, with no choice walked 20km to & fro Mon - Sat for 4 years while studying for high school in 1993 to 1996, yet my case is not peculiar at all, neither is it the extreme - esp with the current inflation into play and the increasing household expenditure on food.

President M7 read the yellow alerts rightly.

2010-10-12T15:08:00.002+03:00

Man has three worst energies; fear, anger and hate. They consume energy and govern motives and logic. He who manages to turn fear into courage, anger into calm and hate into love, he has won a great gift indeed.