Suiting the action to the word
Activity report 2008

• Prologue
• Introduction
• I Farmers Fighting Poverty: Funding & Expenditure
• II Projects: the building blocks
• III Advisory services
• IV Achievements
• V Agriterra in 2008
  • The year plan reviewed
  • Client satisfaction and quality
• VI Conclusions and recommendations
• Supplement
• Annexes
• Download Activity Report 2008

V Agriterra in 2008

The year plan reviewed

Within the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme, planning occurs in several ways. The monitoring protocol as such is a document that has been derived largely from the four-year aspirations stated in the programme and guides our monitoring activities. On a more general level, each year Agriterra elaborates a year plan that reflects some general expectations the programme should meet in that particular year and the measures to be taken within the organisation to comply to these expectations. It is in this chapter, devoted more to ‘internal’ aspects of Agriterra’s functioning in 2008, that we want to make a short comparison between some of the main targets and expectations as formulated in the year plan 2008, and what actually happened.

At the general level of the management of the programme, we wanted to shape further the work area management together with AgriCord. We think we can say that result analysis and policy-making have taken shape in the way we analyse what happens in work areas. The result of this was already part of chapter II in this report.

As we said we would do, we also have invested heavily in our important Dutch partnerships. In most cases with success; it is the membership of Partos, the Dutch association of development agencies, that has brought us more disappointment than joy, resulting in Agriterra’s resigning its membership in 2009.

One element that has yet to become more concrete, is the envisaged creation of an International Fund for the Development of Producer Organisations. The need for it remains as pressing as ever, but in the end, direct fundraising efforts for the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme received more attention seen their direct urgency. The different Agriterra departments and units in general reached their goals. A special mention should be made of the public event “10 years Agriterra”, in June 2008, realised by the communication unit. This was organised as part of the NRM (National Cattle Manifestation) in Utrecht. Many foreign visitors including the new IFAP president from Zambia participated in the event, as well as in the Farmers’ Tour (Toer de Boer).

Some other achievements can be found in the table below:

The main conclusion that can be drawn from this brief summary is that we have achieved much of what we intended. Future points of attention are:

1. Consolidation of activities and output, and utilisation of surplus personnel capacity to intensify efforts in, among others:
   • micro-projects
   • promotion and use of the Agriterra Solutions
   • story harvesting
   • customer satisfaction measurement
   • Strengthening AgriCord, and increasing IFAP’s orientation on achieving results that are pertinent to its mission
2. Coaching of personnel in order to attain a more result-oriented attitude and respect for deadlines

Client satisfaction and quality

Introduction

Another topic that received much attention within Agriterra during 2008, is the aspect of client satisfaction and of the quality of our work. The main services offered by Agriterra evolve around advisory and financing services. We aim to constantly optimise these services towards our clients.

To this end, Agriterra structurally monitors the quality of advisory and financial services and where possible improves the quality. That is why, from 2006 onwards, we set up a survey to measure the satisfaction of the Dutch experts who participated in missions organised by Agriterra. In 2008 the survey was extended to also inquire after the satisfaction of our clients (the producer organisations) with the services of our advisory department and the experts that visit them. In 2008 we also started to inquire after the satisfaction of clients with the handling of their project proposals and projects. The first results will be discussed in 2009. Several elements of the surveys carried out with the clients have been made part of a client satisfaction indicator on which we will also be able to report on next year.

This chapter now deals with:

• general satisfaction of clients with project and mission handling
• satisfaction of experts with mission handling
• update on the quality labels that Agriterra considers important

Satisfaction of clients

We have various ways in which we collect information about the satisfaction of our clients. Besides the survey, we also look at different sources. These will first be discussed, followed by a discussion of the results of the survey.

Direct complaints in the form of letters, e-mails etc.

In 2008 we saw that, in relation to internal complaints (which are rather proposals for improvement), the proportion of the external complaints rose from 11% to 13%. This increase is probably a result of internal directives to register critical comments as a complaint to be dealt with. Most external complaints have to do with (the pace of) transfer of project funding.

The project reporting format

For more than a year now our project reporting format explicitly asks the client organisation to comment on Agriterra’s performance in project handling. So far, no response worth mentioning has come in. This was one additional reason to develop the customer satisfaction questionnaire (see below).

The collaboration agreements

These include a stipulation that the producer organisation has to write a letter once a year with its impressions on Agriterra’s general performance in relation to them. No such letters have been received, so far.

Online questionnaire

An online questionnaire has been developed to measure the satisfaction of the client organisations with the way Agriterra has facilitated missions and handled projects. The mentioned questionnaire is operational since the beginning of 2009. The questionnaire was sent to organisations that received a contract in the second half of 2008. Some preliminary figures on customer satisfaction (that can range from 0 to 100%) received in the first quarter are available and give an indication: the average satisfaction of customers with Agriterra’s handling of rejected projects was 36,9%, and with the handling of approved projects 72,2%. See also the text below. Measurements on customer satisfaction with missions are not yet available, but some impressions are given in the last part of this section.

Satisfaction of clients with projects

The aim of the client inquiry on projects is threefold. We want to optimise the process around treatment of project proposals (phase 1). We also want to know what could be improved during the implementation and finalisation of the project (phase 2). Thirdly, we want to learn if and to what extent (possible) clients are satisfied with the services offered by the project department.

At two moments during the project cycle, clients are invited to take part in the online inquiry by e-mail. In 2008, we carried out a pilot inquiry among twenty English speaking relations that approached us with a project proposal in the period July – December 2008. These twenty inquiries comprised six rejected and fourteen approved projects. Fourteen questionnaires were completed and returned to us (representing 5 rejected and 9 approved project proposals). The output was mainly used to check whether questions were interpreted correctly, to get an idea of what response rate is realistic and to determine whether the questionnaire requires further improvement.

In general the participants were satisfied with the services provided. It was remarkable that only 35 % of the respondents were familiar with Agriterra’s online project database agro-info net. Furthermore 60 % of the respondents, whose project proposal was rejected, were not satisfied with the stated motivation for rejection. Some participants indicated that project officers sometimes could take the specific local situations into account more. The results, conclusions, recommendations and plans were discussed within the projects department.

Satisfaction of clients with missions

The missions inquiry was sent to 36 hosting organisations, of which 60% returned a completed questionnaire. Overall, the hosting organisations appear to be very satisfied during the whole mission process. Most remarkable results were that 45% of the respondents received the mission report already within four weeks after the mission took place. And that according to 80% of the respondents the conclusions in the report were in line with the conclusions discussed at the end of the mission. Furthermore, it seems contradictory that all respondents consider the recommendations made by the experts useful, while 26% of the experts question the willingness of the hosting organisation to act accordingly (see below).

Satisfaction of experts

The aim of the inquiry regarding the mission satisfaction is threefold. Firstly, we constantly want to optimise the process around missions as well as the content. Secondly, we want to know if and to what extent participants have been able to offer a relevant contribution to the issues at hand. Lastly, we want to know if the offered advice was considered useful by the hosting organisation.

Around four weeks after their return from the mission the participants and representative of the host organisation are invited to take part in the online inquiry by e-mail. The outcomes of the questionnaire are analysed and will be discussed with the persons involved, if the answers give cause to this.

In 2008 the evaluation among mission participants comprised of 44 North – South missions, leading to 68 questionnaires being sent to AgriPool experts or external consultants. This resulted in 54 completed questionnaires. This was a minor increase as compared to the inquiry in 2007 (respectively 79% of the questionnaires was completed in 2008, compared to 76% in 2007).

In general the participants were satisfied with the coaching before, during and after the mission. A comparison with the results of 2007 shows that the four issues with the lowest scores of 2007 have improved while three other issues scored considerably (8-15%) lower. Respondents were less positive about the clearness of the terms or reference, and the level to which the mission could be carried out in accordance with the terms of reference. Although we see some improvement, still 26% of the participants question the willingness of the hosting organisations to actually act on their recommendations.

Plans

In order to better understand negative answers, it is most important to contact the respondent personally in the future. It might also be insightful to take up fields where the participants can explain some answers.

The same goes for the follow-up by the host organisations: in addition to the standard follow-up done by Agriterra to any mission, it might be good to include questions in the experts’ questionnaire where the organisation has to show what they did with the recommendations.

In 2009 we want to improve the questionnaire for the experts / consultants and also include South – South advisory missions. We intend to include the assessment of the missions by the Agriterra liaison officers in the inquiry as well.

Quality labels

Agriterra attaches great importance to transparency and professionalism in its work and the way it is organised. Our database on internet (www.agro-info.net) is a case in point. Every visitor can view all the projects that have been submitted and realised in detail: objectives, activities, expected results, budget and yearly achieved results.

This transparency is also a way to ensure greater customer satisfaction and stakeholder satisfaction in general. Customer satisfaction was also the starting point for our quality system that we have set up from 2005 onwards, and that has obtained the ISO 9001:2000 certificate. The certificate was granted (by Lloyd’s Register - LQRA) for a period of three years that expired in December 2008. In an intensive ‘certification audit’, the auditor granted a new certificate for three years. Two so-called ‘minors’ (points for improvement) were duly noted: better monitoring (and corrective measures if necessary) of the handling time of projects, and more objective measurement of customer satisfaction. Both topics will be dealt with in Agriterra’s internal quality audit (July, 2009). The ambition is to get an ISO certification for the central AgriCord office as well, preferably before 2011.

In December 2008, Agriterra received the formal CBF fundraiser certificate: the official (Dutch) recognition as fundraiser and trustworthy organisation. We had already achieved this status informally in August 2007, but the certificate did not come forward till 2008. The certificate is important for Agriterra because it enables us to structurally raise more private donations and funds in the Netherlands, both within and beyond our ‘natural’ constituency (the Dutch agricultural producers).