Elogio de la moral estoica y epicúrea de los americanos

This would involve implementing the plan above (IPA 1.2) to achieve the outcome of more farmers and their advisers having the capability to respond appropriately to the challenges and opportunities that arise from the operating environment.

Activities invested in could include:

› farmer training (vocational, informal, formal/tertiary),

› adviser training (informal, formal/tertiary)

› FBM researchers (informal, formal/tertiary, post- graduate research projects)

› Coaching and mentoring would be important for all segments.

To maximize the return on the funds invested it will be important to ensure strong links between all activities and organizations.

Qualitative ranking of impact and likelihood of success

IPA 1.1 Understanding current FBM capability in the advisory and farmer sector (in terms of skills) This would be a relatively small investment over a short period of time and have a high likelihood of successfully achieving the objective of understanding current FBM capability and skill levels in the advisory and farmer sector. Investment in this area will make an important contribution towards achieving an industry impact by providing underpinning knowledge to inform directions. However, without IPA 1.2 and 1.3 this would be expected to achieve only a small industry impact.

IPA 1.2 Develop a plan to deliver co-ordinated FBM capability building across Australia with clear pathways between activities.

This would be a relatively small investment over a short period of time and have a high likelihood of successfully achieving the desired objective. Investment in this area will make an important contribution towards achieving an industry impact, but without being implemented (IPA 1.3) would be expected to achieve only a small industry impact.

IPA 1.3 Build FBM capability for farmers, advisers and FBM researchers ie implement the plan above. This would be a relatively large investment over a long period of time. It has a high likelihood of successfully achieving the desired outcome, and probably numerous other benefits to industry. Investment in this area would also be expected to achieve a substantial industry impact.

The rankings of these investments are represented in Figure 3 on the following page.

Timing of Investment Priority

IPA 1.1 and 1.2 should be completed within the next 12 months. IPA 1.3 should begin within the next 1–2 years and build over the next 2–3 years.

2.5. Capabilities available and required

The capability available and required has been discussed in the above sections.

Figure 4. Likelihood of success: Judgement based on experience and review of route to market checklist below. Industry impact: Relative potential ability of the investment to create measurable change within the industry.

Industr

y impac

t

Likelihood of success

Legend

1.1: Stock take of capability 1.2: Develop plan to build

capability

1.3: Building capability

1.1 1.2 1.3

* Estimations of impact, likelihood and scale of project are qualitative only and reflect the opinion of the Dairy Moving Forward expert working group

Question Assessment Comment

Is there a clear group of relevant organisations and people available to collaborate around this space? Do these people and organisations represent the majority of prior learning in this area?

Is it clear that an investment in this area will provide benefits and outcomes for the co investors? Would the collaborators be able to provide diverse avenues for change?

Is the capability present (funds, people and infrastructure) in the collaboration to deliver the specified outcome?

Not at all Completed

Not at all Completed

Not at all Completed

Not at all Completed

Not at all Completed

2.6. Route to market considerations

In this area the route to market is direct, with the investment focused on the end users.

177 ■

Farm busines

s management

3. Strategy 2. ‘Good Tools’—To ensure good quality ‘tools’ are used effectively

and appropriately

3.1. Statement of need

In this document the term ‘tools’ – is referring to more than software, it includes approaches. The development of ‘Good Tools’ is often seen as the solution for FBM challenges. However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that effective and appropriate use of the tools is more important than the tool itself (Black 2005, McCown 2002, Woodward et al. 2008, Cox 1996). Hence, the high priority investments in this strategy relate mainly to promoting effective and appropriate use of existing tools, which is strongly linked to Strategy 1 ‘Good Capability’. (Some of the discussion in the following section relates to outlining what is not a high priority investment). To provide some structure to this area of ‘tools’ we have divided it into the following 4 sections:

1. Tools to assess the current situation for a farm business 2. Tools to assess the current situation for the industry. 3. Tools to assess options for the future: at the

industry level

4. Tools to assess options for the future: at the individual farm

Tools to assess the current situation for an individual farm business

Analysis of data on the past performance of a farm business is unlikely to be an appropriate tool for making farm management decisions (Ferris and Malcolm 1999), but can contribute to creating demand for FBM services. Farm management decision making is about deciding on the most effective use of resources on a farm to achieve the objectives of the farm business in the future (Dillon 1980, Makeham and Malcolm 1993, Ferris and Malcolm 1999). Analysis of the current situation can be useful in indicating potential areas for improvement of the farm business. However, such data needs to be interpreted with an excellent understanding of farm systems and the unique resources of the individual farm. The development of tools in this area is currently well serviced through programs, such as Taking Stock and Red Sky. Training in appropriate use of these tools is a much higher investment priority than further development. Tools to assess the current situation at the industry level

A substantial amount of the investment in the dairy industry has been in benchmarking programs, which are unlikely to result in farmers making better FBM decisions if the program is operating in isolation. Investment in

this area is unlikely to directly lead to an outcome of increased profitability and it is not consistent with the definition of FBM outlined earlier in this document. However, if it can impact on improving capability and demand for FBM services it could have an indirect impact on farm profitability. (Add evaluation of DairyBase findings). Industry benchmarking data can be effective in developing a broad understanding of the industry issues (Burns 1966). Hence, investment in this area will also be of value in informing policy development.

Tools to assess options for the future: at the industry level

Some of the whole farm systems analysis approaches in this area form a key plank in the FBM research. When whole farm systems analysis is combined with elements, such as expert panels and case study farms, it can provide a unique opportunity to integrate knowledge from a range of sources (farmers, researchers, advisers, policy). Investment in this area makes a number of important contributions that are not directly linked to the FBM outcome. There is a need to invest in approaches that set the ‘Rolls Royce’ standard for analysis and raise the standard and professionalism of the FBM profession. Principles can be extrapolated from more sophisticated approaches to inform the use of simpler approaches at a farm level.

Some of the whole farm systems analysis approaches have a key role in informing research priorities (Black 2005) and in integrating knowledge from a range of sources. While this does not directly link to the FBM outcome, it forms a vital role in contributing to the overall effectiveness of the DMF strategy by to increasing return on investment from across the various areas of DMF. This type of work also has an important role in informing policy development. This area is reasonably well serviced in Victoria through the Dairy Directions project, but does not appear to be so well serviced in other States. Tools to assess options for the future at the individual farm level

It may seem reasonable to expect that a decision support system may be useful to a farmer considering options to improve profit. However, use of DSS by farm managers has generally been low across a range of agricultural industries in Australia and New Zealand (McCown 2002, Woodward et al. 2008). The complexity of farm management decisions are actually best served by relatively simple tools and very sophisticated thinking (Ferris and Malcolm 1999) so that the assumptions

are clear to all of the farm management team. For this reason most advisers prefer to construct their own tools (Black 2005) and often prefer to custom build them in consultation with the client to provide transparency, understanding and ownership. This highlights the importance of investing in the development of capability of service providers if the quality of tools and services are to be maintained and improved.

While decision support systems are unlikely to be widely used by dairy farmers, and thus there are risks associated in investing in the development of such tools, investment in this area may still deliver substantial benefits to the dairy industry, providing the process for developing it is sensible.

What would such a process consist of? It would need to include the following features:

› Involvement of end users in the development (McCown 2002, Woodward et al. 2008)

› Recognise that the learning that occurs during the developing is likely to be as useful as the tools themselves (Cox 1996). Hence, the involvement of end users in the development is critical in ensuring the learning often reserved for the developer is shared with end users

› Multidisciplinary involvement in development from across RDE and farmer sectors

› A focus on getting the questioning right (Gibb 2001)

› Adequate transparency so that assumptions can be challenged

› Give consideration to the diversity between farms in resources, skills and objectives.

3.2. Rationale

Investment in ensuring sound FBM approaches to analyses and good ‘tools’ are recognized, disseminated, and used effectively will increase the number of farmers who respond appropriately to the challenges and opportunities that arise from the volatile environment and achieve more of their goals.

3.3. Existing investment activities

& key past investments

IPA 2.1 Conduct a ‘stocktake’ of FBM tools