PROTOCOLO DEL MANEJO DE DUELO EN LA UNIDAD DE RECIÉN NACIDOS

105

The process of payment is quick and stress free 0.396 0.759 0.043 Farmers’ complaints receive immediate attention 0.108 0.844 0.110 The language of communication through the Mobile Telephony

System is easy to understand

0.381 0.690 -.126

Factor 1 = Ease of Use & Usefulness of Mobile Telephony System Factor Factor 2 = Timely & Ease of Fertilizer Delivery Factor

106 Table 4.16: Distribution of responses showing constraints to farmers’ utilization of mobile telephony system in accessing fertilizer in South-East Nigeria

Variables SA A D SD U Mean St.D

Cost of sending the code / text messages 113 138 61 11 8 4.02 0.937 Inability to compose and send text messages 31 146 141 9 4 3.58 0.748 Difficulty in understanding language of

communication through the Mobile Telephony System

34 156 124 16 1 3.62 0.746

Failure in code response 72 102 114 18 25 3.54 1.118

Congestion on the network of the Mobile Telephony System

59 179 55 10 28 3.70 1.067

Receiving wrong text messages 25 88 181 17 20 3.24 0.896

Receiving unsolicited text messages 74 118 112 6 21 3.66 1.045 Poor training during the E-wallet program 58 100 153 4 16 3.54 0.957 Inadequate manpower for the training 76 151 75 6 23 3.76 1.048 Mix-up in responses to codes sent 52 125 118 5 31 3.49 1.077 Inconsistency of government policies and

programmes

112 149 55 6 9 4.05 0.906

Poor monitoring of the process 56 122 120 12 21 3.54 1.021

Theft of mobile phone 90 130 84 11 16 3.81 1.029

Difficulty in repairing faulty mobile phone 48 142 117 22 2 3.64 0.832 Difficulty in recovering lost mobile phone 69 153 88 16 5 3.80 0.875 Poor knowledge of fertilizer request codes 73 132 90 8 28 3.65 1.109 Request of incentives at redemption centres 89 145 58 5 34 3.76 1.172

107 Here, the limit of real numbers was also used to determine the decisions for each of the responses. All but one of the listed responses in Table 4.16 had mean scores within the limit of real numbers for “Agree” decision (i.e. 4.44 – 3.45) which gives 94% affirmation to the listed constraints (i.e. 16 out of 17 responses).

For details, the responses that ranked highest (top 6 responses) are: “Cost of sending the code/text messages” (4.02); “Inconsistency of government policies and programmes”; (4.05);

“Theft of mobile phone” (3.81); “Difficulty in recovering lost mobile phone” (3.80);

“Inadequate manpower for the training” (3.76); “Request of incentives at redemption centres”

(3.76)

Respondents affirm that “Inconsistency in government policies and programmes” is the greatest constraints to the use of MTS. This ranked highest as affirmed by 261 (79%) respondents (i.e. adding SA+A), followed by “Cost of sending the code/text messages” which was also affirmed 251 (76%) respondents (i.e. adding SA+A)

Conversely, the only response that was not perceived as a constraint was “Receiving wrong text messages” (mean = 3.24, St.D = 0.896). This response falls within the limit of real number for “Disagree” decision (i.e. 3.44 – 2.45) as shown in Table 17 above.

108 Table 4.17: Distribution of responses (from ADP staff) on the constraints to mobile telephony system utilization among rural farmers in South-East Nigeria

Variables SA A D SD U Mean St.D

Lack of office facilities 3 23 26 3 - 3.47 0.690

Remuneration problem 9 37 6 3 - 3.89 0.875

Poor response from farmers - 9 35 11 - 2.96 0.607

Poor response from cellular agents 8 6 30 11 - 3.20 0.931

Bureaucracy in the entire process 27 19 6 3 - 4.27 0.870

Mobility problem 38 11 6 - - 4.58 0.686

Inconsistency in government policy 33 19 - - 3 4.44 0.958

Poor response from national office (i.e. Abuja) 3 14 32 3 3 3.20 0.848

Too many farmers 15 - 28 12 - 3.33 1.106

Poor funding 18 18 13 3 3 3.82 1.124

Poor response from service providers 3 15 26 8 3 3.13 0.924

Delay / late payment by farmers 5 18 21 9 2 3.27 0.971

Duplication of responsibilities between state and federal desk officers

3 9 16 24 3 2.73 0.990

Change of government 43 6 - - 6 4.45 1.259

Inability to initially disaggregate farmers into commodity of interest

12 11 23 9 - 3.47 1.016

Power supply 23 17 6 9 - 3.98 1.097

High cost of redeeming farm input 8 18 16 10 3 3.33 1.106

Wrong entries (especially during registration of farmers)

15 14 17 9 - 3.64 1.060

109 There is a greater affirmation from the ADP staff (10 out of 18) (representing 56%) from the list of constraints to mobile telephony system utilization among rural farmers in south –east Nigeria.

The limit of real numbers benchmark was also used here for the decisions on the responses within the scale of measurement they fall in: From the result in Table 4.17, two (2) out of the ten (10) affirmative responses to the constraints listed fall within the limit of real numbers for

“Strongly Agree” decision (i.e. 5.00 – 4.45). They are:

 Mobility problem (Mean = 4.48, St.D = 0.686)

 Change of government (Mean = 4.45, St.D = 1.259)

The remaining 8 responses fall within the limit of real numbers for “Agree” decision (4.44 – 3.45). They include:

 Inconsistency in government policy = (Mean = 4.44, St.D = 0.958)

 Power supply (Mean = 3.98, St.D = 1.097)

 Remuneration problem (Mean =3.89, St.D = 0.875)

 Bureaucracy in the entire process (Mean = 4.27, St. D = 0.870)

 Poor funding (Mean = 3.82, St.D = 1.124)

 Wrong entries (especially during registration of farmers (Mean = 3.64, St.D = 1.060)

 Lack of office facilities (Mean = 3.47, St.D = 0.690)

 Inability to initially disaggregate farmers into commodity of interest (Mean = 3.47, St.D = 1.076)

On the other hand, there were 8 responses with negative affirmation which is an indication that the ADP staff did not consider them as constraints to mobile telephony system utilization among rural farmers in South-East Nigeria.

These responses fall within the limit of real numbers for “Disagree” decision (i.e. 3.44 – 2.45). They include:

110

 Poor response from farmers (Mean = 2.96, St. D = 0.607)

 Poor responses from cellular agents (Mean = 3.20, St. D = 0.934)

 Poor response from service providers (Mean = 3.13, St. D = 0.924)

 Delay/late payment by farmers (Mean = 3.27, St. D = 0.970)

 Duplication of responsibilities between state and federal desk officers (Mean = 2.73, St. D = 0.990)

 High cost of redeeming farm input (Mean = 3.33, St.D = 1.100)

From the list of responses from the ADP staff, top among the list of responses that were found not to have constituted any constraint is “poor responses from farmers” as confirmed by 46 (84%) respondents (i.e. adding D+SD).

Table 4.18: Distribution of responses showing the extent to which constraints to mobile telephony system utilization affected farmers’ participation in the program

S/N VARIABLE VLE LE SE N AA

F % F % F % F %

1 To what extent do you think these challenges affected farmer’s participation in the program?

24 44 20 36 8 14 3 6

From the result in table 4.18, the ADP staff think that the challenges encountered in farmers’

utilization of the mobile telephony system affected their participation. This is affirmed by 52 (out of 55) respondents (representing 94%) (i.e. adding VLE + LE + SE).

More specifically, 24 (44%) respondents say it affected farmers’ participation to a “Very Large Extent” (VLE), 20(36%) respondents say it affected their participation to a “Large

111 Extent” (LE) while 8(14%) respondents say it affected their participation to “Some Extent”

(SE).

At the bottom of the table are respondents (3 representing 6%), that say it did not affect farmers” participation in the program.

Table 4.19: Distribution of responses showing the extent to which constraints to MTS utilization among rural farmers affected ADP staffs’ commitment to the program

S/N VARIABLE VLE LE SE N AA

F % F % F % F %

1 To what extent do you think the challenges affected your commitment to the program negatively?

9 17 23 42 17 31 6 11

A total of 49 respondents (out of 55) (representing 89%) said the constraints or challenges encountered during farmers’ use of the mobile telephony system to access fertilizer in South-East Nigeria affected their commitment to the program one way or the other (i.e. adding VLE, LE and SE).

In more specific terms, 9(17%) respondents said it affected their commitment to the program to a “Very Large Extent” (VLE), 23 (42%) respondents to a “Large Extent” (LE) and 17 (31%) respondents to “Some Extent” (SE) respectively.

112 Table 4.20: Factor Analysis on constraints to mobile telephony system utilization among rural farmers in South East Nigeria

Rotated Component Matrix^a

Variables Factors

1 2 3 4

Cost of sending the code / text messages 0.248 0.619 0.189 -0.080 Inability to compose and send text messages 0.099 0.725 -0.104 0.099 Difficulty in understanding language of communication

through the Mobile Telephony System

0.078 0.109 0.117 0.899

Failure in code response 0.313 0.736 0.314 0.075

Congestion on the network of the Mobile Telephony System

0.505 0.385 0.409 0.208

Receiving wrong text messages 0.830 0.175 -0.089 0.180

Receiving unsolicited text messages 0.199 0.743 0.229 0.220

Poor training during the E-wallet program 0.709 0.286 0.173 -0.129

Inadequate manpower for the training 0.555 0.157 0.470 -0.010

Mix-up in responses to codes sent 0.225 0.704 -0.063 -0.008

Inconsistency of government policies and programmes 0.585 0.262 0.226 0.246

Poor monitoring of the process 0.807 0.217 0.216 -0.014

Theft of mobile phone 0.278 0.349 0.625 0.015

Difficulty in repairing faulty mobile phone 0.139 -0.065 0.667 -0.011 Difficulty in recovering lost mobile phone 0.003 0.044 0.823 0.185 Poor knowledge of fertilizer request codes 0.510 0.501 0.162 -0.238 Request of incentives at redemption centres 0.445 0.361 0.470 -0.255

113 Factor 1 = Implementation and Process related problems

Factor 2 = Technical and Cost related Constraints