Assessment of Cooperatives in the Poultry Industry - 2013.pdf - Seda
Assessment of Cooperatives in the Poultry Industry - 2013.pdf - Seda Assessment of Cooperatives in the Poultry Industry - 2013.pdf - Seda
Research Report: Addressing the Needs, Opportunities and Challenges of Cooperatives and Collectively Owned Enterprises in the Poultry and Related Industries who have these documents available (refer Table 4-2). This may illustrate one of two things; either that many cooperatives do not update and refer back to documents other than the business plan, or that business plans are sometimes created without support, while other documents are generally created when support is provided. The figure below shows the organisations that provided support, as a percentage of total responses. Due to the sources used to compile the database, it is not surprising that SEDA is prominent on this list, with 51% of documentation assistance being provided by SEDA. Figure 4-8: Organisations Providing Support with Business Documentation 60% 50% 51% 40% 30% 27% 20% 15% 10% 7% 0% SEDA NDA DTI CIS Other Source: Urban-Econ Survey, 2013 The National Department of Agriculture (NDA) also provided a large proportion of support to cooperatives with the creation of business documentation. The NDA assisted primarily with training programmes and business plans, while SEDA and the DTI CIS provided help across all four of the categories. 4.1.2.2. Membership and Management The information in the preceding sub-section indicates the level of business preparation and factors important in the initial phases of the cooperative. The current sub-section contains information on the membership numbers of the cooperatives, how the cooperatives rate the business skills within their business and where they perceive more skills to be required. Cooperative participation indicates the number of people that the particular business is serving. Indicative in this is the level of full-time participation in the cooperative. Results of the survey indicated that the majority of members also work in the cooperative. Only 7% of 61% of the cooperatives had full-time participation from all of their members 45 | P a g e U r b a n - E c o n : D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i s t s
Research Report: Addressing the Needs, Opportunities and Challenges of Cooperatives and Collectively Owned Enterprises in the Poultry and Related Industries cooperatives surveyed had 25% or less of their members working in the cooperative, while 61% had full-time participation from all of their members. The average cooperative comprises of six members. However, larger cooperatives push this average up; almost half of cooperatives have five members. Very few cooperative have additional nonmembers employed at the cooperative. Almost 60% of cooperatives do not hire any additional people to assist within the business. Where cooperatives do employ additional staff, they generally hire two additional people. This indicates that very few of the cooperatives surveyed are expanding enough to justify additional people and also that very few cooperatives are successful enough to require additional labour. One of the benefits of a cooperative is the ability to bring together the skills of a number of people. In order to understand where skills are lacking within the cooperative, questions were asked around the skills set of the collective group. The table below (Table 4-3) illustrates the percentage of responses within each skill category. For example, 43% of cooperatives stated that the cooperative’s management skills were ‘good’. The blocks highlighted in the table below represent the highest voting within each category. The majority of cooperatives placed a fairly high rating on their skills overall, with ‘good’ being the most voted category, with nine of the highest ratings being in this group. Cooperatives rated their skills lowest in computer literacy and applying for tenders Cooperatives rated themselves the lowest in applying for tenders and computer literacy, with the majority of respondents rating their skills in this category as ‘very poor’. Book keeping/budgeting had fairly even responses across the skills spectrum. Although 29% rated their bookkeeping skills as ‘good’, this was closely followed by the categories of ‘average’ and ‘poor’ with 21% and 25% respectively. Taken together this demonstrates that 64% of responses rated bookkeeping skills as average or below average. This is further supported by the fact that 32% of cooperatives reported financial management as their biggest concern in the management of their cooperative. The ability of managing the products and services of a cooperative received a relatively even number of responses across the skill rating, with a slightly higher number of people responding that their skills in this category are good. Negotiating discounts for bulk buying is a skill that had a lot of divergence across the categories. Some 48% of cooperatives rated their skills in bulk buying as good, while 22% rated their skills in this area as very poor. This may indicate that there is a large amount of variance in the ways in which cooperatives buy feed, with some of them simply buying from the nearest supplier while others make an effort to find cheaper suppliers and bargain for discounts. 32% of cooperatives reported financial management as their biggest concern in the management of their cooperative 46 | P a g e U r b a n - E c o n : D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i s t s
- Page 1 and 2: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 3 and 4: 2013 Research Report: Addressing th
- Page 5 and 6: 2013 Research Report: Addressing th
- Page 7 and 8: 2013 Research Report: Addressing th
- Page 9 and 10: 2013 Research Report: Addressing th
- Page 11 and 12: 2013 Research Report: Addressing th
- Page 13 and 14: 2013 Research Report: Addressing th
- Page 15 and 16: 2013 Research Report: Addressing th
- Page 17 and 18: 2013 Research Report: Addressing th
- Page 19 and 20: Broilers in Millions 2013 Research
- Page 21 and 22: 2013 Research Report: Addressing th
- Page 23 and 24: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 25 and 26: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 27 and 28: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 29 and 30: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 31 and 32: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 33 and 34: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 35 and 36: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 37 and 38: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 39 and 40: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 41 and 42: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 43 and 44: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 45 and 46: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 47 and 48: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 49 and 50: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 51: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 55 and 56: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 57 and 58: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 59 and 60: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 61 and 62: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 63 and 64: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 65 and 66: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 67 and 68: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 69 and 70: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 71 and 72: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 73 and 74: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 75 and 76: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 77 and 78: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 79 and 80: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 81 and 82: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 83 and 84: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 85 and 86: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 87 and 88: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 89 and 90: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 91 and 92: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 93 and 94: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 95 and 96: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 97 and 98: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 99 and 100: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
- Page 101 and 102: Research Report: Addressing the Nee
Research Report: Address<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Needs, Opportunities and Challenges <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cooperatives</strong><br />
and Collectively Owned Enterprises <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Poultry</strong> and Related Industries<br />
cooperatives surveyed had 25% or less <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir members work<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> cooperative, while 61% had<br />
full-time participation from all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir members.<br />
The average cooperative comprises <strong>of</strong> six members. However, larger cooperatives push this average<br />
up; almost half <strong>of</strong> cooperatives have five members. Very few cooperative have additional nonmembers<br />
employed at <strong>the</strong> cooperative. Almost 60% <strong>of</strong> cooperatives do not hire any additional<br />
people to assist with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess. Where cooperatives do employ additional staff, <strong>the</strong>y generally<br />
hire two additional people. This <strong>in</strong>dicates that very few <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cooperatives surveyed are expand<strong>in</strong>g<br />
enough to justify additional people and also that very few cooperatives are successful enough to<br />
require additional labour.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong> a cooperative is <strong>the</strong> ability to br<strong>in</strong>g toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> skills <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> people.<br />
In order to understand where skills are lack<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> cooperative, questions were asked around<br />
<strong>the</strong> skills set <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> collective group. The table below (Table 4-3) illustrates <strong>the</strong> percentage <strong>of</strong><br />
responses with<strong>in</strong> each skill category. For example, 43% <strong>of</strong> cooperatives stated that <strong>the</strong> cooperative’s<br />
management skills were ‘good’.<br />
The blocks highlighted <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> table below represent <strong>the</strong> highest vot<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> each category. The<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> cooperatives placed a fairly high rat<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>the</strong>ir skills overall, with ‘good’ be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> most<br />
voted category, with n<strong>in</strong>e <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> highest rat<strong>in</strong>gs be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> this group.<br />
<strong>Cooperatives</strong> rated <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
skills lowest <strong>in</strong> computer<br />
literacy and apply<strong>in</strong>g for<br />
tenders<br />
<strong>Cooperatives</strong> rated <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>the</strong> lowest <strong>in</strong> apply<strong>in</strong>g for<br />
tenders and computer literacy, with <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong><br />
respondents rat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>ir skills <strong>in</strong> this category as ‘very poor’.<br />
Book keep<strong>in</strong>g/budget<strong>in</strong>g had fairly even responses across <strong>the</strong><br />
skills spectrum. Although 29% rated <strong>the</strong>ir bookkeep<strong>in</strong>g skills<br />
as ‘good’, this was closely followed by <strong>the</strong> categories <strong>of</strong><br />
‘average’ and ‘poor’ with 21% and 25% respectively. Taken toge<strong>the</strong>r this demonstrates that 64% <strong>of</strong><br />
responses rated bookkeep<strong>in</strong>g skills as average or below average. This is fur<strong>the</strong>r supported by <strong>the</strong> fact<br />
that 32% <strong>of</strong> cooperatives reported f<strong>in</strong>ancial management as <strong>the</strong>ir biggest concern <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir cooperative.<br />
The ability <strong>of</strong> manag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> products and services <strong>of</strong> a cooperative<br />
received a relatively even number <strong>of</strong> responses across <strong>the</strong> skill rat<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
with a slightly higher number <strong>of</strong> people respond<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong>ir skills <strong>in</strong> this<br />
category are good. Negotiat<strong>in</strong>g discounts for bulk buy<strong>in</strong>g is a skill that<br />
had a lot <strong>of</strong> divergence across <strong>the</strong> categories. Some 48% <strong>of</strong> cooperatives<br />
rated <strong>the</strong>ir skills <strong>in</strong> bulk buy<strong>in</strong>g as good, while 22% rated <strong>the</strong>ir skills <strong>in</strong><br />
this area as very poor. This may <strong>in</strong>dicate that <strong>the</strong>re is a large amount <strong>of</strong><br />
variance <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> ways <strong>in</strong> which cooperatives buy feed, with some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m<br />
simply buy<strong>in</strong>g from <strong>the</strong> nearest supplier while o<strong>the</strong>rs make an effort to<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d cheaper suppliers and barga<strong>in</strong> for discounts.<br />
32% <strong>of</strong><br />
cooperatives<br />
reported f<strong>in</strong>ancial<br />
management as<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir biggest<br />
concern <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
management <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir cooperative<br />
46 | P a g e U r b a n - E c o n : D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i s t s