That builds on a prior posting: “We must do our homework. Our paradigm is not in sync with the demands of the century.
“As a recent Harvard Business Review (Jan-Feb issue) article points out, leadership today presupposes “cognitive development” – i.e., binary thinking will not cut it."
Let’s stay with the hypothesis that the North Star – i.e., our desired “outcome,” or our place in the sun – for Juan de la Cruz is “To traverse poverty to prosperity rapidly.” And to define its specific “output,” we will raise GDP by an incremental $200 billion to leapfrog the output of our neighbors, including Malaysia.
And the $200 billion will come from the three legs of the economy: services, industry, agriculture. Since agri is the lowest contributor, let’s focus on agriculture for this posting.
If we were a marketing-oriented enterprise, why shouldn’t we, when we are in a market economy, especially globally, think of Einstein and Jobs, who saw a world bigger than themselves? We must first have a product to market.
Recall that “we must define the portfolio of our agribusiness industry, focus on “produce” and manufactured products that will generate scale – in revenue and margin."
For example, rice, beyond being our staple, has an export market, as demonstrated by Thailand and Vietnam. And coconut is a significant export generator for the Philippines.
What else will meet the yardstick of generating scale revenue and margin-wise that we can and must pursue?
See above; we must do our homework.
In the meantime, let’s test where we are in agriculture versus the hypothesis of generating scale revenue and margin-wise?
“Although rice is the main staple in the country, it is a highly political commodity. The Philippine rice sector has always been the center of the government’s agricultural policies.
“The focal points of the policies revolve around promoting rice self-sufficiency and providing high income to farmers while making rice prices affordable to consumers.” [Source: FAO’s FAOSTAT database online and AQUASTAT database online, as of September 2012]
Again, from a recent posting: “It is clear that if [enterprises/economies/nations] are to thrive in the years ahead, they must build new forms of advantage rather than digitize what they are doing today.
“Accomplishing that means being ready to shed past belief systems and define new, bolder value propositions.
“Leaders must be willing to challenge every aspect of their enterprise: its purpose, its [economic] model, its operating model, its people, and themselves.
“And conventional ideas about managing have to be inverted.”
In other words, can we shed our instincts? We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.
Because of our inward-looking bias, our worldview shrank; and instead of addressing the needs of Juan de la Cruz, we are undermining them.
If we only learn to benchmark, we will know that Thailand, for example, has over twice the land we have for rice production. By sheer scale alone, we must not be surprised if they are a significant rice exporter while we are importers, i.e., we have failed miserably to meet our desire of self-sufficiency.
That is a classic double whammy. Thailand shows us the money, but we insist on our parochialism and insularity.
How do we turn our thinking upside down?
First, we want to double our land for rice production. We also want to consolidate what we have to attain economies of scale. And we want to focus on modern varieties with higher yields and differentiate and generate export revenues and healthy margins.
Recall the following: “We need an “iterative” approach to problem-solving that intentionally seeks out people with different perspectives, knowledge, skills, and experience and has them work together to create a practical solution for a real-world problem” – aka Design Thinking.”
What is “iterative”? We can easily google that: “In software development, iterative describes a planning and development process, i.e., in small sections called iterations. Each iteration is reviewed and critiqued by the software team and potential end-users; insights gained from the critique of an iteration will determine the next step in development.”
So, back to rice. We can start with a small section of the process: We want to double our land for rice production. We want to consolidate what we have to attain economies of scale. And we want to focus on modern varieties with higher yields and differentiate and generate export revenues and healthy margins.
To start small, we can focus on (1) Nueva Ecija, (2) Isabel, (3) Pangasinan, and (4) Cagayan for two reasons: They are close to each other region-wise and easier to consolidate. And they account for close to 30% of total Philippine rice production.
They represent a good pilot project. Think of Thailand as the benchmark. How much does Thailand’s model mirror the photosynthesis phenomenon that created the ecosystem that they have – to be a significant rice exporter?
Recall: “Think of the Theory of Change about defining a desired “outcome” and “outputs” and tracing or mapping backward the critical elements that will constitute the portfolio’s ecosystem.
“And to test that we don’t miss a beat, the mental model must be the photosynthesis phenomenon.
“For example, if an undertaking is ever to succeed, there are three dynamics to manage: (1) the marketing mix, (2) the resource mix, (3) the execution mix.
“We want to tap a marketing practitioner and an experienced project manager with an enviable execution track record to better handle the above dynamics.”
What about the farmers? They will become shareholders and employees at the same time. Their equity will be their farms. They can also operate the machinery that the enterprise requires.
We will also figure out how much milling operations are required and where they must be for the most outstanding efficiency and productivity. We can buy fertilizer in bulk and build the necessary irrigation system and other infrastructure.
Question: Is the above easier said than done?
Answer: Of course.
But that is why we must recognize that “binary thinking” will not cut it. We must learn from Einstein and Jobs and the Thais, the Asian Tigers, the Chinese, and the Vietnamese.
We can’t stay as Bondying or Juan Tamad – or Padre Damaso.
In other words, why did we craft a constitution that restricts foreign direct investment? Why did we kick out the US military? Why do we insist on food security despite our failings in agriculture? Why did the comprehensive agrarian reform and the tons of money we borrow for the 4Ps fail Juan de la Cruz?
We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.
Gising bayan!
No comments:
Post a Comment