ࡱ> '` WbjbjLULU 4.?.?;O   LLL`'''8'x(<`Y((((()*T+,؝ڝڝڝڝڝڝ$hiL0))00((y2y2y20j8(L(؝y20؝y2y24L̗(( Ԓ}M'1vLH؝)0Y8Y1Y̗YL̗ =+,y2-.=+=+=+2^=+=+=+Y0000``d````` PERFORMANCE STORIES EVALUATION - A Monitoring Method to Enhance Evaluation Influence Riad Naji, Strategic Evaluation, DPI, Victoria, Australia Catriona King, Manager Strategic Evaluation, DPI, Victoria, Australia Richard Habgood, Richard Habgood Consulting, Victoria, Australia Background The Better Services to Farmers strategy (BSTF) is one component of the Victorian Governments Future Farming Strategy. Success for the BSTF is seen as: Farmers and rural communities will see public and private service providers working cooperatively to deliver better targeted, more accessible and relevant products and services. This will enable farm businesses to improve decision making, increase their adaptability and enhance their ability to capture opportunities and manage risks. (DPI, 2010b, P2) This statement guides how the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) is to deliver services to farmers and provides the key criteria by which success will be determined by the evaluation. The BSTF Strategy is seeking change at two levels. Firstly, change within DPI service design as it realigns project activities and service offerings in line with BSTF principles, which are: Target services to achieve greatest benefit for Victoria Focus on public benefit, with industry funding supporting industry benefits Consider who is best placed to deliver services Not compete with effective private providers or community groups Grow the capability of DPI staff and the Service Provider sector as a whole Manage risks to ensure the strategy is successful. Secondly, on ground changes in farm businesses, as a result of DPI project activities (i.e. with service providers and farm businesses targeted by the project). A comprehensive program of evaluation is being undertaken to guide the implementation of the BSTF and to assess its impact over the period 2009/10 to 2012/13. A range of approaches is being used in the evaluation including the use of longitudinal performance stories. The overarching purpose of the BSTF evaluation is for DPI to: Determine whether or not the new service model is effective and in which situations Assess progress being made against the success statement Determine whether the new service delivery model is an improvement on the previous approach (from both the perspective of DPI and end users) Determine the appropriateness of the model to specific situations Identify and understand what internal DPI mechanisms are enhancing or constraining the new strategy and therefore suggest actions for improvements. (DPI, 2010b, P7) Performance Stories Evaluation Overview The performance stories evaluation (PSE) is based on interviews with the project staff and reviews of publications and project reports supplied by project teams for this evaluation. The first round of PSE focussed on the project team only and subsequent rounds are including gathering information from next users (private agricultural service providers) and end users (farmers). A performance story enquiry generally describes the collection of detailed information about a specific or group of phenomenon within its real-life context, thus providing descriptions, understandings and interpretations of what is happening and why (DPI, 2010a). Eight performance stories have been developed as case studies in the first year of the BSTF evaluation. These case studies are not intended to be representative of all BSTF projects but rather cover a variety of issues such as: a mix of DPI functional activities, industry sectors and stages of implementing the BSTF approach. The specific purpose of the PSE is to provide timely feedback on the progress of the BSTF implementation to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. By gaining insights within projects on the progress and issues associated with the implementation of the BSTF, the PSE seeks to assess the role of the BSTF implementation in influencing and supporting project change, in addition to identifying opportunities to improve the activities and performance of the BSTF implementation. The Performance Story Evaluation draws on a framework for behaviour change that incorporates awareness, understanding, acceptance (i.e. attitude change) and behaviour change. This framework identifies three domains or broad areas of interest for the PSE: Precursors (or motivations) for change (within the case study project) awareness, understanding and acceptance for change. Implementation of change (within the case study project) problem analysis, information search, evaluation of alternatives, decisions, actions and review. Impacts from change (beyond the case study project) responses from service providers and farmers. Performance Story Evaluation Methodology A standard questionnaire has been developed to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. The questionnaire was structured around the key evaluation questions in the BSTF Evaluation and Monitoring Plan. For the quantitative assessment, all respondents were asked to rate fifteen statements using a scale from strongly disagree (scale 1) to strongly agree (scale 6) with the option of not relevant for all questions. Evaluation data is being collected from each case study project team to assess the implementation and impact of the BSTF. The first round of interviews was conducted in May 2010. It is planned to periodically revisit each project over the life of the BSTF evaluation. Interviews were conducted with the project leader and two senior project staff nominated by the project leader. All interviews were recorded and transcripted verbatim. The qualitative data was analysed using NVivo software. The performance stories evaluation project will monitor the selected case study projects and provide regular reports to primary DPI evaluation audiences. Specific information will be delivered to designated case study project leaders in the form of debriefing, recommendations and messages. For the next rounds, evaluation data will also be required from next users (i.e. Service Providers) and end users (i.e. farm businesses) targeted by each performance story project to assess the impact of the project. Data may also be required from other groups identified during the course of the evaluation. There are limitations in the use of longitudinal case studies. The conclusions are drawn from feedback and insights from eight DPI projects, and some care needs to be exercised in extrapolating the conclusions more broadly across DPI. The projects were purposefully selected from a cross-section of DPI program areas where it was thought that alignment with BSTF principles was evident (positive selection bias). A number of the projects were already aligned to the BSTF and so attributing change specifically to the BSTF is difficult. Findings A. Precursors (or motivations) for change. The awareness, understanding and acceptance of the BSTF approach by project staff seem to be generally good to very good. Almost all staff (95%) interviewed believed they understood the BSTF principles and 90% of project leaders agreed they had a clear understanding of what is expected in designing or modifying a project in line with the BSTF approach. Eighty two percent of project team respondents stated that the BSTF approach is relevant and that there are significant opportunities to align their project with the BSTF. An important driver of acceptance (and ultimately motivation to implement BSTF) was the perceived 'relevance of BSTF to me and my project'. It has been noticed, however, that when discussing the BSTF, respondents generally focused on the short term outcomes of cooperation and collaboration with Service Providers rather than the higher level outcomes of improved decision making by farmers based on delivery of more relevant, accessible and targeted services. Of all case study projects, there has been limited formal assessment by the project of farmers and Service Providers reactions to the BSTF service delivery. B. Implementation of Change There has been a diverse range of responses to the implementation of the BSTF described in this evaluation. For a number of projects, the BSTF was not seen as particularly relevant as project leaders and staff felt they were already using the BSTF principles of delivering services in collaboration with Service Providers. Some projects have made relatively modest changes to more traditional approaches of service delivery by including additional Service Providers in the project. A number of projects have taken quite innovative approaches to service provision, some driven by BSTF, while for other projects the change was already underway. Apart from three projects which had implemented a proactive approach to collaboration with Service Providers, there was not a strong sense of urgency for implementing BSTF. Service Providers and service provision options and opportunities The diverse range of project responses to implementing the BSTF reflects, in large part, the complexity of the contemporary service delivery environment in which DPI operates. Two key observations were made from the projects studied: firstly, the large variation in categories of Service Provider considered by projects; and secondly, the wide range of services that DPI projects sought to be delivered through or with collaborating Service Providers. In such a complex service delivery environment, it is important to appreciate that in using a BSTF approach to service delivery, one size doesnt fit all. In the project development phase, it is critical to ensure there is an alignment between the DPI goals (as stated in the BSTF success statement) and the goals of potential Service Provider(s) to provide mutual benefits for both groups. For those projects undertaking significant changes in service delivery a recurring theme was that it takes a great deal of time to engage Service Providers and gain their confidence for change. The Service Providers readiness to engage is often an issue. The assessment of the support provided by DPI to implement the BSTF varied. While only 50% of respondents felt the support was adequate, for project leaders this figure raised to almost 90%. The importance of continuity of funding support and/or resources from both DPI and external groups was raised in a number of projects with concerns being expressed on the potential impact on the project if support services were reduced or withdrawn. Relevant, targeted and accessible services to farm businesses Service Providers have played an important role for a number of the projects to improve the relevance of services delivered to farm businesses. For example, feedback from Service Providers is having an important role in developing and refining service delivery to farm businesses. Working through Service Provider groups and drawing on BSTF principles, has encouraged a number of the projects to target priority issues or areas or focus on the larger industry sectors. A common theme for greater service accessibility was that collaboration with Service Providers mobilised broader networks and more resources for service delivery resulting in greater coverage of farm businesses. C. Other findings More general findings from the performance stories evaluation have been categorised in this section as: Strengths of the BSTF model, Key Success Factors, Concerns (as expressed by the respondents); and Opportunities for improvement in project delivery (from a combination of respondents and the evaluators observations). Strengths of the BSTF model BSTF has provided the authority and support for DPI generally, and projects specifically, to make innovative and sometimes significant changes to service delivery. BSTF facilitates access to a diverse range of expertise outside DPI. Working with Service Providers is providing DPI staff with the opportunity to broaden their knowledge and skills. BSTF has the potential to substantially broaden DPIs access to farmers, using Service Provider networks. Key success factors for BSTF projects A number of key factors have emerged from this evaluation which appear to support the successful implementation of BSTF at the project level: Leadership (at project level and higher) committed to the BSTF Strategy. Strategic analysis, research and planning in the project development phase. Perceived relevance of BSTF to the area of work/project. A specific and clear focus for BSTF change plus a strategy with a plan at the project level. This is especially important where the proposed approach to service delivery was significantly different from the past way of doing things. Active and ongoing engagement and communication with potential Service Providers and farmer stakeholder groups. Concerns For some staff, the wholesaling approach (delivering DPI services to the end user/farmer through a private Service Provider) and reducing their contact with farmers is seen as a disadvantage. They cite issues such as: reduced job satisfaction, feeling less relevant and less valued by DPI; and potential loss of DPI technical expertise, capability and farmer networks. DPI wholesaling and associated business processes, such as contract management, imposes an additional administrative burden on projects and/or constrain flexibility in using external Service Providers. Not all Service Providers have the expertise or desire to extend DPI research or support the delivery of all DPI services. Private Service Providers may not always have desired outcomes which are aligned with Governments outcomes. BSTF may impose additional costs on some farmers and be perceived as cost shifting. Some farmers may not understand or agree with DPIs role in supporting other providers to deliver services. Opportunities for improvement in project delivery The PSE findings provide realistic opportunities to improve projects performance more specifically and BSTF implementation in general. These opportunities include: The complexity of the service delivery sector and the potential barriers, risks and challenges for DPI in collaborating with Service Providers, highlight the importance for projects to conduct a comprehensive strategic analysis of the operating environment and needs of the farmers and Service Providers as a part of the project development process. Within the projects reviewed there are some good examples of policy analysis, stakeholder needs analysis and market research that contributed to the improved understanding of the Service Provider operating environment being considered. However this approach was not evident in all projects. The time and resources needed to consult, negotiate, communicate and plan with the Service Providers varies with the complexity of the Service Provider environment and the proposed changes in service delivery. However, this can be significant and must be planned for and resourced. In other words, delivering DPI services using a BSTF model can require the development and maintenance of significant business systems and processes, infrastructure and resources both within and outside DPI. The need to establish and maintain systems and processes, and infrastructure and resources, reinforces the importance of strategic analysis and planning. It also highlights the importance for DPI to consider project support and resourcing beyond the immediate boundaries of the project. There was limited documentation provided by project leaders that clearly described the linkages between the project deliverables and outcomes, the role of the targeted Service Providers and the farmer practice change and farmer outcomes sought. There is scope to develop a generic program logic framework for use by all BSTF service delivery projects. This would provide a valuable tool for projects to use in the strategic analysis and development phase to more clearly identify and analyse the range of service delivery options that can most effectively contribute to the BSTF farm level outcomes. Increased evaluation and monitoring activity during the project operation will provide the project team with better information with which to make informed decisions about any need for changes to project delivery to improve performance and achievement of project outcomes. Improved project documentation to make the alignment with BSTF more explicit would facilitate this decision making. Substantial change in DPI service delivery will have a direct impact on existing users of DPI services such as farmers and potential Service Provider collaborators, and more broadly on other stakeholder groups representing the interests of farmers, industry and Service Providers. It is essential to engage these audiences in the proposed changes. Project staff need to be provided with increased support for the how to of implementing BSTF at the project level, including underlying business processes, such as contract and Service Provider relationship management. Performance Stories Evaluation as an Influential Tool The findings of this evaluation, including key success factors, concerns, and opportunities for improvement, provide the BSTF strategy and project leaders with evidence and feedback for timely responses. In particular the following findings should have a high priority: The need for a comprehensive strategic analysis of the operating environment and needs of both farmers and service providers as part of project development process. It is also critical at the project development phase to ensure there is an alignment between the DPI goals (as stated in the BSTF success statement) and the goals of potential Service Provider(s) to provide mutual benefits for both groups The need for an adequate capability building program to equip project staff with relevant knowledge and skills to handle BSTF requirements including dealing with Service Providers. The need to consider the adequacy of support and resourcing beyond the immediate boundaries and time frames of funded projects. Based on the results of the eight performance story projects, the appears to be a need for a stronger sense of urgency for implementing BSTF strategy. Performance Stories Evaluation Opportunities for Improvement Reviewing the first round Performance Stories Evaluation has highlighted some areas for improvement in the evaluation methodology and implementation including: Using five interviewers with different levels of experience, interviewing techniques and/or understanding of the BSTF strategy seems to have affected data consistency across different performance stories. This issue has been addressed by contracting one external provider to conduct the intended interviews of project. Information on actual and potential outcomes of the projects involved in the PSE was derived from the project team for this first round. For subsequent rounds, this information will be triangulated by collecting information directly from farmers and service providers as well as the project team. While the PSE provided valuable evaluation information for the 8 projects involved, the findings could have been disseminated and discussed more widely across the organisation and used to inform other projects delivering against the BSTF strategy. In subsequent rounds of the Performance Stories, a Summit workshop (Dart et al) methodology will be employed to engage a broad range of stakeholders in sense making of the findings, discussion of the implications for the success of otherwise of the BSTF strategy and development of recommendations. Conclusion Despite some limitations, this Performance Story Evaluation has provided timely insights into implementation of the BSTF strategy. The findings have provided project delivery teams and stakeholders responsible for strategy implementation with timely information with which to make informed decisions about any need for changes to improve performance and achievement of outcomes. References DPI 2010a Better Services to Farmers Strategy Evaluation Performance Stories Report 1, September 2010, DPI, Victoria, Australia DPI, 2010b Evaluation and Monitoring Plan for Better Services to Farmers, May 2010, DPI, Victoria, Australia Evaluation Summit Workshop Technique, Dr Jess Dart, Clear Horizon Consulting, Melbourne.  The paper was presented at the ؿ50Ȼ International Conference, Sydney, Australia, 29 August 2 September 2011.     !$-/45?AJLTUV_`bx}    % ) D E L M T W ӺӺ{sks{c[h(CJaJh2}CJaJhpJCJaJhPCJaJhh$CJaJh(Oh$5>* hjv5>*h 5>*CJaJhmOhh5CJaJh?45CJaJh5CJaJjh250J5CJUaJhmOh5CJaJhT75CJaJ h 5 hjv5 ha5h\h\5#UV  % ! " " R T & F gdIMgd 7$8$H$gdIM 7$8$H$gdgdIM;WWWWW o p   " < @ b e f , ; ? B I J .Aj׺팄팄yqe *hhXCJaJh?4CJaJhEu0hmOCJaJhmOCJaJhhXCJaJhh#zCJaJhH0CJaJh |CJaJhCJaJh:CJaJh:6CJaJhmh:6CJaJhmh:CJaJhh-.CJaJhPCJaJhh$CJaJ'jmrRS[\&]_Ǽ}rh^h^h(Ohl5>*h(Oh V5>*hEu0hCJaJhCJaJhEu0h#zCJaJhEu0h7KCJaJhEu0h}pCJaJhEu0hUCJaJhEu0hmCJaJhEu0hH0CJaJhH0CJaJhPCJaJhhmCJaJhh$CJaJhh-.CJaJhyCJaJ T^,\\] & F ^`gdIMgdIM 7$8$H$gdIMgdIM & F <^`*h(Oh V5>*h(Oh}p5>*h(Oh=5>*& /]abk$,2SWru갥|tlaYhX]bCJaJhSNhX]bCJaJhlCJaJhPCJaJh7KCJaJh=h VCJaJh#;CJaJhV%Uh V6>*CJaJhh VCJaJhh VCJh`^CJaJhUh2}CJaJhUhPCJaJhUhlCJaJhCJaJhUh VCJaJhUh7KCJaJ +/klm{\t "\]iݗݗݗsih(Oh485>*hl5>*OJQJaJh'h V6CJaJh'h#;CJaJh'h VCJaJhpJCJaJhSNh VCJaJhSNhDOJQJaJhX]bCJaJh`^CJaJhSNh7KCJaJh7KCJaJhDCJaJh#;CJaJhSNhDCJaJ&ijopz{15UV+,Yc'+789sfYh{ h OJQJaJh{ h-(OJQJaJh{ h-OJQJaJh{ hFOJQJaJh{ h'OJQJaJh{ hPOJQJaJh{ h7KOJQJaJh{ h48OJQJaJh'OJQJaJh!D>OJQJaJhh'OJQJaJh(Oh>>5>*h(Oh485>*h(Ohl5>*]+,>?u """"_%?'@'\'()***,"/gd15@&gdIMxxgdIM xx@&gdIM 7$8$H$gdIMgdIM 7$8$H$gd(O`j4>?s t u  !!!!!!!!!~tj`jSIhFOJQJaJhhFOJQJaJhyOJQJaJhHOJQJaJhre7OJQJaJhV%Uh486>*OJQJaJhh48OJQJaJhV%UOJQJaJh`h{ OJQJaJh`h-(OJQJaJh{ h!D>OJQJaJhZCJaJhV%UhV%UCJaJh{ hZCJaJh{ h7KCJaJh{ h!D>CJaJ!!!G"K"z"~""""""""# #<#=###%$$4%_%%&˿|qfZODhre7h#H"CJaJhre7h'CJaJh,]~h F6CJaJh)#h FCJaJh)#hCACJaJh@_bCJaJh)#h#H"CJaJhSNh FCJ h-QCJh)#h FCJh(Oh#H"5CJaJh(Oh5CJaJh(Oh%5CJaJh(Oh#H"5>*h.XOJQJaJh48OJQJaJhPOJQJaJhh48OJQJaJ&&&&&&&&&'-'?'@'C'\'8((())))*** +wlaVHVh|bhGuX56CJaJhLhGuXCJaJh15h FCJaJhSNh#R(CJaJhre7CJaJhaS/hbCJaJhaS/h#R(CJaJhbh#R(CJaJh|bhGuX5CJaJh|bh%5CJaJh 5CJaJhre7h)~CJaJh?4CJaJhre7h-QCJaJhre7h@_bCJaJhre7h'CJaJhre7h FCJaJ ++++,+-++++++,,,(,-,,,,,,,,,---V-W---W.X...... /"/ǼǴǩǴǞǓǴLjǴ}vkd hIMhXhIMhXCJaJ hhXhh@_bCJaJhM4hXCJaJhhJr+CJaJhhXxCJaJhh7QCJaJh@_bCJaJhhtCJaJhhXCJaJhJr+CJaJhLh7QCJaJh7QCJaJhLhGuXCJaJh|bCJaJ'"/n/u//////0001v11111z2{23 333333 44=4ɾ|pd\QIQhS9.CJaJhSNh{CJaJhCJaJhp9h{5CJaJhp9hqE5CJaJ hC5h7QCJaJh2CJaJh@_bCJaJhihP'l6CJaJhLhP'lCJaJhIMhP'l56CJaJhIMhqECJaJhIMh]CJaJhIMhtCJaJhh7QCJaJhh0@CJaJhh]CJaJ"/00142233355755666$77x^xgdIM & F e`gdIM & F exx`gdIM xx@&gd(OgdIM xx@&gdIM xx@&gdIMxxgdIM=4>4?4H4\4o4q4z4444444455575t5u5555566666$7]7Ŏ{pbWh]h0 ?CJaJh]h0 ?56CJaJh@h0 ?CJaJh@CJaJh@h@CJaJh@h@_bCJaJh@h{CJaJhCh{56CJaJhM%hCCJaJhS9.CJaJh@_bCJaJh?4CJaJh?4h?46CJaJh%h{6CJaJhSNh{CJaJhs7CJaJ]7^7777i9999 : :F:N:`:::::;; ;U;<l<<<<<=\===吅zoggoo\QhM%h@CJaJhh2CJaJh-CJaJhh{CJaJhhjCJaJhhIaCJaJhIaCJaJhtCJaJhSh)CJaJhSh@CJaJhh@CJaJhCh{56CJaJh{h{CJaJh@Fh0 ?CJaJhs7CJaJh]h0 ?CJaJh CJaJ77G88i9999U;<=\====>"A,DF HfIx^xgd) & Fxx`gd) xx@&gdIMx^xgdIM & F e`gdIM & Fxx`gdIM== >>>>?>@>L>M>^>>>>>>.?/?0?Y?q??AAAAAArBxBgChCkEpEqE꿴ujuuj_hre7h-tCJaJhre7hPCJaJhre7h@_bCJaJhre7hLCJaJhEu0h]CJaJhre7h]CJaJh9hh]CJaJhs7CJaJhb4h]CJaJhqEh]CJaJh-CJaJh@_bCJaJh dCJaJh0 ?CJaJh]CJaJhp9h]56CJaJ!qEE0G3GHHHHHHBIKInIsIIIIIEJFJeJgJhJiJ|JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJKKK껱yqqhmCJaJhre7CJaJhTh|CJaJh)~CJaJhSCJaJhTh\<CJaJh(OhJ 5>*(5>*5C?䴳䴳77䴳7-䴳7䴳7S䴳,ڱ'MNN3* ht5>*hp9h=:5>* h=:5h#LCJaJhoCJaJhtCJaJh)~CJaJhmCJaJhCJaJhSCJaJhJ hCJaJhJ hYTCJaJhCJaJ)OOOOOOO)P-P0PEPJPSP`PbPoPPPPQQQ`TaTlTtTxTyTTTTTTTҽ}uj_}ujujhlh}yCJaJhlhCJaJhtCJaJhlh]&CJaJhF hS5>*h9KhCJaJh=:CJaJhCJaJhSCJaJhCJaJh=:h=:CJaJhSOJQJaJh=:h=:OJQJaJhSh=:OJQJaJhEOJQJaJhtOJQJaJ!TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTUUU U%U1UZU_UeUUUUUUUUUUļļļĴ⬡ĉwmaXh |5CJaJhh:5CJaJh_%hS5>*h_%h:5>*hrsCJaJhCJaJh^CJaJh{tpCJaJhre7hX7CJaJh]CJaJhX7CJaJhtCJaJhlCJaJhlh]&CJaJhlh CJaJh9KCJaJhlh.CJaJhlhqCJaJ!UUUtVV;WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 7$8$H$gdIMxxgdIMUUIVJVYV^V_VhVsVtV}V~VVVVVVVVW:W;Wɷɩypg^RJBh5CJaJhjvCJaJhjvhjv5CJaJhCJ\aJhJdCJ\aJh5CJ\aJhJd6CJ\aJhJdh56CJ\aJh5h5CJ\aJh |5CJ\aJh5h55CJ\aJhu'CJ\aJhp9CJ\aJh:CJ\aJhJdh:CJ\aJhJdhJdCJ\aJhJdh:6CJ\aJh:CJaJ;W@R> 25 Footnote TextCJaJ@&@a@ 25Footnote ReferenceH*_OOO"R+GO@2 0<@2 0<@2 0<@2 0<@2 0<@2 0<@0 9@0-@0+@0+@0UV% !""RT ^   , \\]+,>?u_?@\ !"""$"'(()4**+++--7--...$///G00i1111U345\55556"9,<> @fAEBFB|BC'EE\FFF3GGI?u_?@\ !"""$"'(()4**+++--7--...$///G00i1111U345\55556"9,<> @fAEBFB|BC'EE\FFF3GG"/7ڱUW-16<?BGW.8@0(  B S  ?O _Toc275268020 _Toc275268023 _Toc275268024 _Toc275268025 _Toc275268033 _Toc275268034 _Toc275268035 _Toc275268048 _Toc275268036 _Toc275268037?\"(+-.15O [!")+6-#/15Ov1 T# w1 T# x1 $/ y1 \T# z1 [{1 K# |1 c) }1 " ~1 J# 1 \K# 1 K# 1 ,L# 1 ~# 1 3m1 |g1 Z1 tM[1 M[1 M[1 tO[1 N[1 \V# 1 V# 1 U# 1 [1 [1 [1  [}}aO %z,`N`NjNNNNN/O/OOOOO      fT %,hNsNsNNNNN8O8OOOOO B*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region*isiresearchsoft-com/cwywcitation9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState  ;OOOOOOOOOOOOOOON/j/FF;OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO33U% , @\-7-11668"9aLlL;O=OOOO;OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!U! :cT^  2z#(L1d^b"+fo #f:V0)ă>*$,t,\n1Q+2">,7ᾱ9Μ&:t*267!77789:=:;<h/<=+=#">!D>0 ?^;?0@0E@BBB FFlFF@FjF)G HVTI7K{EKXK#LeLMMIMSNOW@O^OL RjRS^TlTqTV%U VcUXGuXKY -ZK[@[\]+t]^)^_C_Cv`E`Ia bX]b@_b|bnfcIdJd$Ae-|gi*IijkklP'l(m*Rmn>_n$o{tpssLt-t uNuvjv x yTy}yz ||}2}j},]~= )#f/2\RG]`.& pG?#zi/ic9homOCR{=8J! 9Ph F|3)7xnCAYT d^rV (%H0M+X7iVYv25iDQmp(OULGy~H }0I%"{?XKt&Qxc> *7L#;W+(/P4F S XdrsHt@I\mXxZgL J ?45L]y1QU&:h_2o8D9Ke\<{g\v)n'@.X X(5V1/q{NGl- [pRj @RZ'P)~%w0-QR -b4qE&^L /j'/ $>>q mBVvl  y>G@%OP@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?& :Lucida Sans5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1hSZز hC( hC(!nnx4dOO 2qHX ? y2[The Government s Future Farming Strategy includes the modernisation of DPI service deliveryrn07rn07!                           Oh+'0 ,8L \h    \The Governments Future Farming Strategy includes the modernisation of DPI service deliveryrn07 Normal.dotrn074Microsoft Office Word@0@8H@JD|M@4}M hC՜.+,0H hp  (DSEDPI(O' \The Governments Future Farming Strategy includes the modernisation of DPI service delivery Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F}M1TableKWordDocument4SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q