CASE (7b): MANAGING MOMENTUM FOR DESIRED SYSTEMIC CHANGE AND IMPROVED PERFORMANCE

To manage the larger number of participating agro-vets the project changed it’s offer to make it more standard across all partners, lowered it’s cost share and raised the bar for entry into the program. With this new, standardised offer, the project was more confident that it could widen its support to more firms without stretching too thinly it resources of staff time and money. Within six months after these changes took effect another 10 agro-vets had requested support to change their strategy to being more customer-oriented.

Unfortunately, as 10 new agro-vets entered the program, 3 current firms slowed down and eventually dropped out: in one firm the store’s owner had become ill and was not able to drive the process of changes; in the other two stores they faced severe working capital shortages which prevented them to keeping up with ever increasing orders. Both agro-vets made the calculation that the added stress associated with business growth was not worth it so they have stopped new investments and have rolled back some investments in agents and systems.

The “churning” of agro-vet partners continued over the next three months. The previously mentioned firm slowed by financial difficulties solved this problem by hiring a trained bookkeeper who, as a first step, separated the owner’s business and personal finances. He then redirected substantial working capital back into the business allowing the firm to proactively re-engage its investments in agent networks, customer service/promotional efforts, and better financial management of its inventory. The previously mentioned owner who had taken ill began to feel better and convinced his son to become more active in the store. Bought in to his father’s vision, he restarted investments and efforts to move the new strategy forward.

So, two firms who had dropped out re-engaged with the program and now you learn that three of the newer firms are showing signs of dropping out . One firm just stopped implementing altogether, while the other two firms were allowing their agent network to crumble through delayed payments of commissions. While these changes are taking place four new firms have requested MAP support.

By the end of this period, there were two firms that remained inactive, two that have slowed down substantially, and 23 firms who are actively engaged. There are around 30 firms that have not engaged the project at all.

TASK

Should the project adjust any of its management practices to deal with the larger number of participating firms, but also the churning of firms coming on board, slowing down, dropping out, and reengaging?

Are there specific considerations that the project should apply for firms that drop out?