 |
|
|
|
|
RIRDC Completed Projects in 2006-2007 & Research in Progress as at June 2007
To Human Capital, Communications and Information Systems Research in Progress
3.7 Human Capital, Communications and Information Systems
– Completed ProjectsProject No Project Title Researcher Phone Organisation 1. Information and communication systems
DAQ-325A Can farm management software improve the performance of farm business? JoAnn M Resing (07) 4722 2662 Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries 2. Extension, education and training
CSL-25A Bridging the gap between theory and practice; a commercialisation case study Dr Richard Stirzaker (02) 6246 5570 CSIRO Land and Water 3. Rural communities and social issues
FRO-1J The impact of water trade in the Murray Valley David Appels and Mike Woolston (03) 9920 4488 Frontier Economics 5. Farm health and safety
AGT-12A Developing an RDE plan for potential co-investment by partners in a Collaborative Partnership for Health and Safety in Primary Industries Peter Chudleigh and Sarah Simpson (07) 3870 4047 Agtrans Research UMO-32A In-depth investigations of farm machinery injury Wayne Baker and Dr Lesley Day (03) 9905 4371 Monash University, Accident Research Centre WDH-1A Sustainable farm families: the human resource in the triple bottom line Susan Brumby (03) 5551 8464 Western District Health Service 9. Program development
AGT-11A Developing a five year plan for HCC (Part 1); Evaluation of benefits delivered by the FH&S Joint Venture (Part 2) Peter Chudleigh and Sarah Simpson (07) 3870 4047 Agtrans Research 10. Capacity Building for innovation in rural industries – Cooperative Venture
AIA-12A National accreditation and professional development program (NAPDP) for agriculture, natural resources and related sectors Cameron Archer (02) 4939 8800 Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology Completed Projects – 1. Information and communication systems
Project Title: Can farm management software improve the performance of farm businesses? Stage One: an audit of Australia’s farm software industry RIRDC Project No.: DAQ-325A Researcher: JoAnn M Resing Organisation: Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Phone: 07 4722 2662 Fax: 07 4778 2970 Email: Joann.resign@dpi.qld.gov.au Strategies ·1 Source and identify the farm management software currently used in Australia. ·2 Describe and compare the key components of farm management software packages.
·3 To profile, as case studies, a range of farmers who successfully use farm management software systems to improve the performance of their farm businesses/
·4 Design an interactive web platform that facilitates the process farmers use to evaluate, review and choose software.
Background The last comprehensive audit of farm software in Australia was produced in 1999 and described 175 software applications. Since then, there have been no comprehensive audits and/or regularly updated descriptive lists of the software tools available for use by the Australian primary producer. Research Better agribusiness decisions play a vital role in the success of Australia’s agroeconomics. Informing and automating these decisions through the incorporation of innovative digital technologies is the only way for Australia to remain competitive in a global field that has become increasingly high-tech. The core of incorporating a successful digital technology solution into an agricultural enterprise, from the tractor and weather station to the office computer, is the selection and use of appropriate software tools. This project addresses innovations in the field of agricultural computer software and identifies over 650 software products currently used by Australia’s primary producers. Produced by over 200 Australian software developers, the agricultural software industry is an untapped goldmine of agricultural technology solutions and a potential export industry in itself.
Outcomes The 2007 Australian Farm Software Directory was created to provide product descriptions on software relevant to Australia’s primary production sector. The software included in the directory aims to assist producers in meeting and exceeding their business requirements by offering digital solutions designed to reduce costs, improve quality and save time. Implications Due to the short-shelf life of the data included in the 2007 Australian Farm Software Directory, there is a need to get the information out to Australian producers as quickly as possible. It would suite production as rural magazine, an option which exists with one of our project partners. Digital technology is constantly changing. A one-off audit will not service the agricultural sector’s information needs unless it is regularly updated and continually expanded to include the latest innovations in agriculturally relevant digital technology products and services.
An interactive online platform would be the best method to support farmers in sourcing and evaluating the ever increasing range of digital agricultural tools.
Publications The 2007 Australian Farm Software Directory (in prep).
Completed Projects – 2. Extension, education and training
Project Title: Bridging the gap between theory and practise; a commercialisation case study RIRDC Project No.: CSL-25A Researcher: Dr Richard Stirzaker Organisation: CSIRO Land and Water Phone: 02 6246 5570 Fax: 02 6246 5565 Email: richard.stirzaker@csiro.au Strategies To demonstrate and document a "Public Good Commercialisation Venture" built around a Wetting Front Detector – a new tool that can improve the management of water, salt and nutrients in irrigated agriculture. Background To go from a scientific concept to a commercial product that is widely available, takes most scientists across uncharted waters. Prior to the commencement of this project, we had walked the minefield from getting patents to securing a manufacturer for the product. This project was about building the public good component around the commercialisation of the FullStop Wetting Front Detector. Research We used our networks, workshops and field days to promote the potential of the WFD and invited key players to evaluate it under their own conditions. Then we built a comprehensive website at www.fullstop.com.au to support the growing number of users. We encouraged irrigators to be explicit about what they were attempting to do and to test their conceptualization in ‘learning-by-doing’ approach. By showing irrigators how salt and nitrate were accumulating and leaching in their soil, we demonstrated how solute monitoring could provide new insights into irrigation management.
Outcomes As an interactive monitoring and learning tool, the WFD is the first of its type in the market. It is a simple device that brings together water, salt and nitrate management and helps growers to assess and reevaluate their practices. As a commercial product, the WFD has had a very promising start, with over ten thousand units sold around the world. Implications There has recently been a concerted push to get scientists to take their research all the way through to commercial products. Although this particular commercialization venture has been successful, we found the support and advice provided to scientists to be inadequate for the task. The general culture of ‘short-termism’ is the antithesis of what is required. The journey is being fully documented in an attempt to help other researchers learn from our experience. Publications www.fullstop.com.au The website covers the basics of installing and using the WFD, how it works, visualization games, how to interpret salt and nitrate readings, troubleshooting and a range of publications. A report documenting the entire commercialization process is forthcoming from RIRDC.
Completed Projects – 3. Rural communities and social issues
Project Title: The impact of water trade in the Murray Valley RIRDC Project No.: FRO-1J Researcher: David Appels and Mike Woolston of Frontier Economics,
Elaine Barclay and Ian Reeve of Institute for Rural Futures (University of New ngland),
Tim Cummins of Tim Cummins and Associates, and Alistair Watson.Organisation: Frontier Economics
395 Collins Street
Melbourne VICPhone: 03 9920 4488 Fax: 03 9620 4499 Email: dave.appels@frontier-economics.com Strategies The purpose of this study is to understand the economic and social impacts (both positive and negative) of the permanent and temporary water trade on those who trade, local industries and communities. Background Water trading in Australia has developed as a response to ‘the return of scarcity’. Competition from other water users and the environment became apparent in the early 1980s at the end of a century-long drive to build dams and distribute entitlements to use water for irrigation. With all the easy to construct and cost-effective dams in south eastern Australia already built, increased water harvesting had run its race as a means of enabling new irrigation developments. The implementation of a cap on diversions in 1997 then limited the amount of water available for irrigated agricultural use in the Murray-Darling Basin. Water trading was intended to facilitate more efficient use of an increasingly scarce resource by enabling water to move to more productive uses. An open and robust water market was expected to provide numerous benefits to individuals, communities and the economy broadly. Nonetheless, from the beginning, a number of concerns were expressed about the economic and social impacts of water trade.
Research The social information examined in the study was collected through interviews in selected regions, involving irrigators and the broader community. Participants included 33 farmers and 112 community residents. The economic information was drawn from publicly available information and our own analysis. Regional case studies are presented as stand-alone attachments to this report: Sunraysia; Pyramid-Boort; Rochester, Central Goulburn and Kerang-Cohuna.
Outcomes This report provides valuable information for policymakers that address the question whether there might be alternative measures to address any social, economic and financial impacts on local communities without imposing major constraints on the ability for water to trade to its most productive use. It seeks to contribute to the understanding of the impacts of water trading on all stakeholders across regional economies and communities. Implications When considering the impacts of water trade, it is important to include both temporary and permanent water trading and to acknowledge the context of the observed changes in water use—which is a background of rural change and structural adjustment. Publications A report has been submitted to RIRDC.
Completed Projects – 5. Farm health and safety
Project Title: Developing an RDE plan for potential co-investment by partners in a collaborative partnership for health and safety in primary industries RIRDC Project No.: AGT-12A Researcher: Peter Chudleigh and Sarah Simpson Organisation: Agtrans Research Phone: 07 3870 4047 Fax: 07 3371 3381 Email: info@agtrans.com.au Strategies The consultancy is aimed at collating and analysing information to support the development of a five-year plan for the proposed Collaborative Partnership. The report can also be used as a prospectus to attract additional funding partners to the Partnership. Background The Joint Venture for Farm Health and Safety was established in 2001 and ends in June 2007. In preparation for the end of the first phase of the program, an economic evaluation was carried out. In carrying out that evaluation, there were difficulties in identifying the impact of the program’s outputs. It was thought that identifying key players in the primary industries health and safety field, together with research and extension programs other than the Joint Venture, would help in terms of setting priorities and identifying an appropriate monitoring and evaluation strategy for the new Collaborative Partnership. The consultancy was aimed at collating and analysing information to support the development of a five year plan for the proposed Collaborative Partnership.
Research A five year R&D plan was developed through consideration of material from a number of sources and processes including: ·1 The previous five year plans for the joint research venture and the September 2006 workshop report on priorities ·2 Web and other materials were searched to identify key players in research, compliance, extension and end users in the area of health and safety.
·3 Possible partners in the prospective new program were contacted to obtain further input to priorities.
·4 Information on current and emerging issues, current research priorities from research organisations, and the activities of organisations involved in health and safety initiatives was assembled. This was compared with the refined priority set and gaps and overlaps identified. Further refinement of priorities was then carried out.
·5 Information on key players was organised into a number of adoption pathways illustrating the existing pathways for health and safety messages to reach farmers and fishers.
·6 Exploratory cost-benefit analyses were undertaken.
·7 A monitoring and evaluation framework was developed for individual projects and the overall program.
Outcomes Commencing with the priorities emanating from the September 2006 workshop held by the current Research Joint Venture, the project produced a set of Strategies and strategies for a new collaborative program in the health and safety area for farming and fishing. The Strategies and strategies reflect a refinement of the original priorities and take into account consultation with the prospective partners in the new arrangement as well as a gap analysis. The gap analysis subjected the priorities to research and other initiatives that are occurring through other avenues. The gap analysis also included taking note of what recent principal reports on health and safety had advocated. The project also identified key players in both research and intervention in health and safety for farming and fishing, including research funders, research providers, industry, regulatory authorities and health and safety training and promotion organisations. This allowed adoption pathways for knowledge to be defined.
The project also developed a framework for considering the return on investment in different priority areas; and an evaluation framework and costing that would apply to the investment in the collaborative program given that the Strategies and strategies are adopted as stated.
A draft five year plan for the proposed program was also developed.
Implications The report has been the basis for seeking reinvestment in a collaborative partnership for Farm Health and Safety. Publications Final report submitted to RIRDC.
Completed Projects – 5. Farm health and safety
Project Title: In-depth investigations of farm machinery injury RIRDC Project No.: UMO-32A Researcher: Mr Wayne Baker, Dr Lesley Day Organisation: Monash University, Accident Research Centre Phone: 03 9905 4371 Fax: 02 9905 1809 Email: Wayne.Baker@muarc.monash.edu.au; Lesley.Day@muarc.monash.edu.au Strategies To identify machine factors associated with farm machinery injury, and to explore the interaction of machinery factors with human factors. Background Farm machinery related injury has been identified as a priority in Farmsafe Australia’s National Goals, Targets and Strategies, as this type of injury accounts for just over 20% of injury related deaths in agriculture. A unique opportunity to specifically examine risk factors for serious farm machinery injury arose several years ago within the context of a study of all types of unintentional farm injury among men (the FIRM study). This opportunity arose at a time when the National Farm Machinery Safety Strategy had identified that research was needed in the areas of defining the injury problem and its causal factors, and improving machinery design. Research The study had a case-control design. Farmers and farm workers who sustained a serious farm work related machinery injury (cases) were recruited via hospital emergency departments. Information was collected about themselves, their working life and the property on which they worked (Stage 1). Where the participant agreed, an on-site inspection of the machine was conducted, to collect information about the characteristics of the machine (Stage 2). A group of randomly selected farmers and farm workers who were not seriously injured (controls) were also recruited and comparable information was collected about them and a similar type of machinery to that involved in the case injury event. The study was restricted to men who comprise substantial proportions of farmers who are fatally and seriously injured. Outcomes A number of factors independently associated with an increased odds of farm machinery injury were identified, including having had a previous hospital stay for a farm work related injury, being an employee or contractor, being engaged in seasonal farm work, using a machine that had not been purchased new. The odds of injury increased by 4% for each year increase in the age of the machine. Farmers with asthma or back pain in the previous 12 months were less likely to be involved in a machinery related injury. A range of design changes were identified which would reduce the potential for injury, and a number of systematic safety issues were presented, with suggested design solutions that satisfy an incident prevention context. Implications This report aims to inform change at various levels of the agricultural and agricultural machinery industries, advocating a combined effort amongst stakeholders to enhance the state of knowledge by innovation, discussion, and implementation of solutions to key machinery design and machinery management issues. Machinery manufacturers, importers and suppliers will be encouraged that some of the injuries in this study resulted from design aspects that no longer exist on newer machines, and can learn from the many for which the design features are similar on new machines.
There are specific actions recommended for occupational health and safety regulatory authorities, and there are implications for both the regulatory and prevention programs of these agencies. The work of Farmsafe Australia, and the National Farm Machinery Reference Group will be supported and enhanced by the findings and recommendations of this report. There are implications for this work on farmers and farm families regarding the ongoing utilisation of older farm machinery, and the associated risk management.
Publications A report has been submitted to RIRDC. Completed Projects – 5. Farm health and safety
Project Title: Sustainable farm families: the human resource in the triple bottom line RIRDC Project No.: WDH-1A Researcher: Susan Brumby Organisation: Western District Health Service – Community Services Phone: (02) 5551 8464 Fax: (02) 5572 5371 Email: susan.brumby@wdhs.net Internet: www.sustainablefarmfamilies.org.au Strategies 1. Identify and track farming family health indicators for inclusion in Farm Management quality assurance processes. 2. Design and deliver a training program for farming families to identify strategies to enhance individual, family health and relevant OH&S practices.
3. Communicate project findings to agricultural sectors.
4. Provide information on the relationship between family health, health as a social issue in rural communities and farm productivity.
Background The project was structured initially around a specific target group of farming families and covered many health issues including cardiovascular, diabetes, stress, gender specific issues, cancers, injury, safety and mental health. The program content reflected the primary health factors known to affect farmers and rural communities more generally. The program was also planned to recognise the complex environment of farms as workplaces, homes and businesses. Given this complexity, farming families were key players in the shaping, feedback and further development of the program through discussion of shared issues and common problems. Research The project’s research and education activities included: ·1 Literature search based on farmer health (health promotion, extension and farmer education workshops) ·2 Focus group discussion regarding attitudes to health wellbeing and safety
·3 Structured annual workshops over 3 years using established learning models and theories
·4 Pre and post knowledge questionnaires
·5 Program process evaluation
·6 Physical assessment process and data collation of health indicators
·7 Demographic and self reported surveys
·8 Data analysis using SPSS
·9 Action planning to address behaviour and lifestyle decisions
·10 Case studies
Outcomes The significant outcomes include: ·1 High retention rates of participants over three years ·2 Retention of new knowledge gained over three years by participants;
·3 Separate economic evaluation has demonstrated the viability of SFF intervention on health and well being of participants and its overall value for money;
·4 Statistically significant reduction of clinical indicators which correlate to major diseases including, for example cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes.
·5 Increased use of protective aids and equipment on farms and positive lifestyle changes consistent with action planning by participants to commit to family holidays, and other stress reduction activities.
·6 Generation of further research into the health, wellbeing and safety of farming families across Australia
·7 Three fully refereed conference papers published highlighting the positive health outcomes of the research with additional abstracts presented at numerous conferences; and
·8 All participants would recommend the program to other farming families
Implications ·1 Farming families and industry share the success of the SFF research and is now using this success to foster additional programs for key faming communities. ·2 Positive community response has seen the program receive major awards in 2005 and 2006 and international recognition.
·3 Initiation of work safe programs, additional funds for health and wellbeing grants and supermarkets changing the foods they stock for healthier choices all constitute benefits for particular rural communities.
·4 The SFF research has seen emerging interest from government and policy makers in gaining more understanding about farming health, well being and the future of the family farm enterprise. This has resulted in some additional funding to expand the action research, number of participants and training opportunities
Publications Brumby, S, Martin, J & Willder, S 2006, ‘The Sustainable Farm Families Project: the human resource in the triple bottom line’, Presentation to NRHA 2006 International Conference, Conference Centre, Alice Springs, NT, Australia. Brumby, S, Martin, J & Willder, S 2006, ‘The Sustainable Farm Families Project: Changing Farmer Attitudes to Health’, Presentation to APEN 2006 International Conference, La Trobe University, Beechworth, Victoria, Australia. Published online at regional.org.au/au/apen/2006.
Brumby, S, Martin, J & Willder, S 2007, ‘Early intervention in farming family health: making informed life choices for sustainable family farming’, Presentation to NRHA 2007 International Conference, Albury, Australia.
Completed Projects – 9. Program development
Project Title: Developing a five-year plan for HCC (including an evaluation of benefits delivered by the FH&S Joint Venture) RIRDC Project No.: AGT-11A Researcher: Peter Chudleigh and Sarah Simpson Organisation: Agtrans Research Phone: 07 3870 4047 Fax: 07 3371 3381 Email: info@agtrans.com.au Strategies ·1 To identify the issues and knowledge gaps where the HCC program’s relatively limited R&D investment can be optimally focused, both in terms of its leverage and potential outcomes. ·2 To assess the impact of the benefits derived from the investment by the Farm Health & Safety Joint Venture managed by RIRDC. The assessment refers to projects completed in the five-year period 2001/02 to 2005/06.
Background RIRDC requires all programs to develop five year plans that identify the Strategies and priorities of the program, together with strategies and activities to ensure those Strategies are met. In developing the five year plan, it is timely to review whether the existing Strategies and priorities will remain relevant for the next five years, or whether other issues should take priority. Part of this process involved looking back at how well the Strategies were being met by the existing activities, as well as looking at other programs whose Strategies overlap with those of HCC. Specific attention was given to assessing the impacts of the Joint Venture for Farm Health and Safety, which was managed by RIRDC through the HCC program. Research The Five Year R&D Plan was developed through consideration of material from a number of sources and processes including consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. Key material and processes included: ·1 a description of a previous evaluation of past investment in this area by RIRDC up to 2001 Consultation processes included phone and email contact with over 20 stakeholders. Stakeholders were asked questions about future priorities and strategies for the funding of research and capacity building in the area of interest of the HCC. In addition, a half day workshop with selected stakeholders was held in Canberra in November 2006. The workshop identified important multi-industry issues facing the agricultural sector that were relevant to the HCC Program and developed research priorities that the Program might address in the future. Material from the workshop together with that from the individual consultations was used to develop this five year plan. A draft of the plan was prepared by the consultants (Agtrans Research). The draft was discussed with RIRDC staff and subsequently modified and then endorsed by the RIRDC Board.·2 a description of the investment over the past five years by RIRDC and identification of some of the implications of and benefits arising from that investment
·3 identification of past and future intended directions of other R&D funders and providers covering similar areas of interest to that of the HCC.
With respect to the FH&S Joint Venture, the completed projects funded by the program over the five year period 2001/02 to 2005/06 were identified and their Strategies and outputs scanned in a cost-benefit framework. An initial attempt was made to identify the intended outcomes and benefits of the projects. Projects whose activities and outcomes were linked were identified in order that they could be assessed together. After this initial scanning, three projects/groups of projects were identified (five projects in all) where costs and benefits could be quantified. Valuation of the benefits then took place. Principal investigators for each project were contacted in order to assist with identifying outcomes and benefits. The remaining fifteen projects were analysed in a qualitative manner only.
Outcomes Part 1 of the study found that the past investment in the HCC program has been innovative and has produced significant outcomes and impacts. However, in the future a more strategic approach should be taken to support for education, training and leadership programs. It was recommended that the program should consider developing a leadership role in the area of rural social research. Part 2 of the study found that the program has largely met the Strategies identified in its Strategic Plan, but that the impact of many of the individual projects funded were difficult to assess due to a lack of data on how and where the outputs of the research have been used and their impact on behaviour. Given the assumptions made, the projects for which benefits were valued showed that the potential returns to research in this are likely to be significant. Reducing the probability of death or injury by only a small amount can result in extremely high benefits.
Implications This project has resulted in the development of a new five year plan for the HCC, which has been renamed the Rural People and Learning Systems Program. The second part of the project demonstrated the potential value of investment in farm health and safety research. It also demonstrated the lack of data and information available on the impact of research in this field. This resulted in the funding of a more detailed study to develop a prospectus and five year plan for a new collaborative program in this area (see RIRDC Project AGT-12A).
Publications In press. Completed Projects – 10. Capacity Building for Innovation in Rural Industries – Cooperative Venture
Project Title: National accreditation and professional development program (NAPDP) for agriculture, natural resources and related sectors RIRDC Project No.: AIA-12A Researcher: Mr Cameron Archer Organisation: Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology Phone: 02 4939 8800 Fax: 02 4939 8919 Email: cameron.archer@dpi.nsw.gov.au Strategies To evaluate, by means of a pilot, a national competency-based scheme for accrediting practitioners in agriculture, natural resource management (NRM) and related sectors. The specific Strategies of this stage of our research project are to: 1. establish agreement on the competencies needed by agricultural practitioners for sustainable Australian, broad-acre cropping, wool and production horticulture sectors. These will be achieved by means of a pilot program to be conducted in late 2006 and early 2007, involving 60 participants from the broad-acre cropping, wool and production horticulture sectors.2. assemble and trial such competencies and assess their various levels of performance.
3. assess the benefits, processes and costs of a competency-based accreditation process.
4. evaluate the issues involved in implementing a competency-based accreditation program nationally.
5. develop and evaluate the procedures and processes necessary for accredited professionals to maintain currency of technology and best practice, and therefore accreditation, in their respective fields.
Background This research project seeks to build upon the 2002 Practitioner Workshop and the 2003 AAAC-APEN accreditation project. Practitioner numbers are rising as are the fields within which they operate from servicing governments, industry and farmers. Accreditation enables a more systematic national approach for assessing/guiding the performance of practitioners and enhances development of common accreditation, training packages and their mutual recognition across the sectors of agriculture and NRM. Research Pilot accreditation program representing a national cross-section of practitioners in both public and private employment in the agriculture and natural resource management sectors. Competency based assessment process of individuals with specialist competencies mapped against existing Vocation Education and Training packages. Outcomes ·1 Evidence based assessment against national competency standards is suitable for those working as professionals in industry for more than three years ·2 The individual skills based assessment and recognition process provides the rigor and transparency necessary to maintain a credible industry based accreditation scheme which can be audited against the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF)
·3 Candidates in the Pilot program were interested in building on the nominated skills set to take up further units to complete a nationally recognized Diploma in either Agriculture or Conservation and Land Management, even though this came at greater cost
·4 Skills recognition by workplace interview was seen as simpler and more efficient than the desk-top audit approach by those in the NRM cohort who were offered both pathways
·5 Individual case management and follow up of candidates by experienced Education Officers was critical in assisting candidates in the pilot to collect and submit appropriate evidence for assessment.
Implications A national rigorous and credible accreditation scheme based on competency assessment is achievable with the continued support of industry groups. Publications AgCredited – Pilot program handbook. September 2006 AgCredited – Pilot program handbook for NRM professionals. January 2007
Site map Contact us Feedback Links Disclaimer Privacy Statement Last updated: October 2007 Copyright © RIRDC 2007
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/comp07/hcc1.html
