New Zealand Beekeeping HistoryMarketing, people and beekeeping politics…

Industry Planning

The National Beekeepers’ Association (NBA) carried out an industry-wide, formal, strategic planning process for about a decade through the 1980s and 1990s.  It served the industry very well…

First Calls for Formal Planning

Through the early 1980s NBA President Paul Marshall tried to hold a meeting of all the sectors of the industry to conduct a “forward-planning exercise to identify the future direction and major needs of the industry”, in line with suggestions from the Minister of Agriculture.  The breakup of the Honey Marketing Authority (HMA) and the disposition of its funds over-shadowed his calls for planning, though he did conduct two “all industry” meetings that demonstrate the range of strongly-held attitudes and interests.

http://beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1979_HMA_dismantling.pdf

http://beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1980_HMA_dismantling.pdf

After the industry settled somewhat, with the HMA gone, the Honey Co-op established and the Honey Industry Trusts in place and functioning, the call for planning again was heard, and taken up with enthusiasm by Ian Berry, who was elected NBA President in 1983.

Developing a Plan

The Otago branch of the NBA put forward a remit to that same 1983 NBA conference:  “That this conference requests the National Executive to convene an industry planning forum such a forum to include a broad spectrum of industry membership to consider and outline the future direction and requirements of the industry in all its facets”.  

The methodology that the NBA used for planning was introduced by the MAF Apicultural Advisory Officers of the time.  Management by Objectives (MBO) was being used within MAF, and it was a natural fit for the NBA to pick it up.  Murray Reid, Andrew Matheson and Cliff Van Eaton were at the forefront of convincing the NBA of the value of planning, and they supported it intensively through the first 5 years or so.  They were able to manage the planning workshops, and provided consistency and purpose to those planning exercises in the early days.

There was to be one major workshop each year pretty much dedicated to industry planning.  It was held most times at Flock House (Bulls), and generally in the autumn.   Though organised by the NBA Executive, a range of other ‘industry players’ might be invited to participate, including those involved in research, apicultural education, the Honey Industry Trusts, and so on.  The intent was that once developed by that workshop, the current Industry Plan would indicate the projects and activities that the NBA wanted to further, and keep things ‘on track’.

Management by Objectives

MBO was quite straightforward.  When it was introduced by the MAF advisors to the NBA in May 1984, there was some resistance, and particularly when the method was exacting and specific enough to require such things as time bound activities, and assigned personal responsibility rather than simply saying “the Executive”.

An extensive Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats (SWOT) analysis was used to identify the nature of particularly good opportunities for the NBA to undertake, and the threats that needed to be planned for.

That resulted in a statement of the aims of the planning programme:

That “Better Beekeeping, Better Marketing” had been something of an industry ‘catch-cry’ since about 1930…

Next, the plan identified the major Goals for the next 5 to 10 years, the desired outcomes for the industry and the NBA.  These Goals, being longer-ranged, would remain relatively constant from year to year, but would always be re-visited:

  • Goal A: Improve beekeeping profitability
  • Goal B: Improve beekeeper education and training
  • Goal C: Improve beekeeper co-operation 
  • Goal D: Improve industry public relations
  • Goal E: Achieve more effective liaison with Government agencies
  • Goal F: Develop a long term industry plan

These goals appeared in the final Industry Plan as

  • Goal A: Improve beekeeping profitability
  • Goal B: Improve beekeeper education and training
  • Goal C: Improve industry co-operation and communication
  • Goal D: Improve industry public relations
  • Goal E: Improve the industry research policy
  • Goal F: Ensure adequate cost effective industry services
  • Goal G: Improve NBA effectiveness

Then there were Objectives, specific projects of work that fit ‘below’ a Goal,  And then, for each Objective, there would be a number of specific Action Plans.  Each would be a specific action to undertake, and it identified who would do it, and by when the action would happen.

At times, there was opposition.  MBO required an awareness of grammar to some extent, with a focus on verbs, not surprisingly – the object was to get things done…

The process was good at focussing on what could be done, what activities could the NBA realistically undertake to meet the stated Goals and Objectives, especially.  It made reporting somewhat easier, with a clear set of responsibilities for activities to consider, down to the action planning level.

The Early Industry Plans – and Bringing the Industry Along

The process and outcomes of that first planning meeting, in 1984, were reported in the NZ Beekeeper magazine, and were to become something of a regular feature in some form or other.  Following the development of the plan, the process was introduced into the overall industry as part of the NBA’s annual conference in 1984.

http://beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NBA_minutes/1984_Exec_minutes.pdf#page=16

http://beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1984_Industry_Planning_process.pdf

John Scott, Deputy Director of Advisory Services, MAF, described his attendance at part of that first workshop to the 1984 NBA conference:

“It was a heart-warming experience to join that band of grizzled individuals to see them working as a team, to hear them debating strengths, weaknesses and opportunities.  I was impressed by the way they accepted the discipline required by planning and their concern for the industry as a whole.

I believe, however, that this could all go for naught unless you too contribute.  I cannot see your Executive imposing their decisions on you without consultation, without feedback, without seeking your ideas, and your response will determine the effectiveness of the whole planning exercise.”

Physically, the plans that were prepared would cover from 4 to 6 A4 page sides.  It was distributed to NBA members through the NZ Beekeeper magazine as an insert, or included in with some other NBA mailing opportunity.  Ideally, it was distributed with the Annual Report, allowing members to consider both.

Here are notes taken at a planning meeting in 1988 at Flock House (Bulls), during a wide-ranging discussion about the nature of an organisation to adequately secure the beekeeping industry’s future.  The discussions were initiated by Allen McCaw’s proposal of an ‘industry council’ with representatives of the various specialty groups, rather than an NBA Executive.

http://beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1988_NBA_restructuring.pdf

Cyclone Bola was to strike the North Island as several of the planning meeting participants headed back to Waikato and BOP immediately following this 1988 meeting…

Branch and member awareness of the process was high, and through both seminar/conference activities and those organised by branches keeping participation and enthusiasm high.

https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/MAF_newsletters/1986_03_MAF_Tauranga.pdf#page=17

Ian Berry and Allen McCaw provided the leadership through those first years on the national level to ‘embed’ the idea of industry planning, even after it was continued without MAF direct involvement and coaching.  Dudley Ward and then Frances Trewby continued the process of developing an Industry Plan, though the process became increasingly less rigorous compared to the early plans.

https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1991_Industry_Plan.pdf

Opposition to the Planning Process

During the 1993 – 1995 period, there were changes to the NBA Executive that resulted in an expression that planning is not really required.  “We just need to decide what to do and then do it”.  “We don’t need a plan – we just need to say we want to make beekeeping enjoyable for a hobbyist and profitable for the commercial beekeepers”  Those few years were also marked by other significant changes

  • the loss of the services provided by the Pork Industry Board who did the NBA’s accounting/administration/Executive Secretary work
  • doing away with the popular monthly newsletter Buzzwords
  • changing the magazine from 4 issues to 11 a year
  • no longer contracting a specific magazine editor, as such, but rolled it into a wider contract.

All of this occurred while facing the impending losses of the Apiaries Act, the Hive Levy Act and much of what had been a world class apiary advisory service for NZ beekeepers.

By the time for the last effort at producing an Industry Plan in early 1995, the NBA lost the skills, experience and focus for developing effective Goals and Objectives.  The plan, never finalised, consisted mostly of wishes and ‘what if we  did this?’, with very few action plans resulting.

https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1995_Industry_Plan.pdf

So the industry process worked well for about a decade, and was critical for an important time in beekeeping, with the changes to user pays and reduced government funding of services generally.  It fell apart when just too many changes were thrown at the organisation at once, and with politics and personalities interfering in good decision making.  And planning…

The 1994 conference even did quite an exhaustive SWOT analysis and planning activity, led by Cliff Van Eaton.

https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1994_Planning_at_conference.pdf

The 1997 NBA conference, my last as President, saw the Southland branch introduce a remit: “That this conference recommends to the Executive that the Industry Plan be revisited and circulated to members.”  It was amended to say “that a new industry plan be developed with branch input”.  It was carried, 14-0.  So far as I know, no action was ever taken by the incoming Executive…

How Industry Planning Assisted the Industry

What were the attainments of this period of strategic planning for the beekeeping industry?  

If nothing else, it gave the NBA a sense of capability, knowing that it could ‘get things done’.  By doing the incremental steps, the objectives could be achieved.  It kept the NBA Executive ‘on track’ in its work, and kept it from focussing on too many topics that were simply not within the organisation’s capabilities or resources.  It kept key topics from being captured by individual Executive members, who might fail to act on them knowing that would allow for obstruction without so much objection.

The monthly newsletter Buzzwords was a direct result of Industry Planning.  Through the SWOT analysis it was clear that the quarterly NZ Beekeeper magazine simply could not communicate with a timeliness and ‘voice’ that the industry needed.  For just over 5 years, Buzzwords provided a more immediate means to communicate matters to the industry.  It came, in a sense, from the former MAF newsletters, but combined with NBA news, as the NBA faced massive challenges with the Biosecurity Act and the Commodity Levies Act.  The editors of Buzzwords, first Andrew Matheson, then later Cliff Van Eaton, were both MAF AAOs, and were able to provide knowledge and professionalism on topics that the NZ Beekeeper magazine could not.  

https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/Buzzwords/

The planning process led to a more formalised process for dealing with the apicultural research requirements of the future industry.  The Apicultural Research Advisory Committee of the NBA (ARAC) was set up in late 1989, providing valuable advice and opinion to the NBA Executive – the direction of one of the NBA’s objectives.  ARAC became important as well for the recommendations provided relating to applications to the Honey Industry Trusts.  Though the Trustees were independent in their decisions, the NBA handled the applications and made recommendations to the Trustees.

https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1989_ARAC.pdf

The concept of using an Executive Officer arose through the NBA’s planning.  Though the NBA could not afford more than a given number of hours, having such assistance was invaluable as the NBA dealt with MAF and other branches of the Government.  Ted Roberts (a MAF AAO) guided the industry through the early submissions on the Biosecurity Act, before the Disease Control Committee came to the fore.

The planning process identified the need for the NBA to achieve a more effective liaison with Government agencies, and out of that came the production of New Zealand Beekeeping – An Industry Profile in 1988.  The NBA used this document to promote itself to politicians, media and other related organisations.  It was revised in both 1990 and 1994, again involving MAF AAOs Andrew Matheson and Cliff Van Eaton.

http://beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1988_Profile.pdf

http://beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1990_Profile.pdf

http://beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1994_Profile.pdf

The profile document, incidentally, became the source material for NZ’s first beekeeping related website in about 1997.

Though the NBA’s Marketing Committee did not really provide the most value to the industry until the later half of the 1990s, it was through the planning process that the initial needs were identified, and ultimately accepted by the industry as a whole.  While the NBA had utilised such advisory honey marketing committees in the past, the planning process placed a more certain focus to the committee’s work, resulting in a widely distributed and discussed marketing plan.

https://www.beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/timeline/1993_Marketing_plan.pdf

The planning process supported and allowed the development of several significant educational and training opportunities.  Telford Polytechnic (previously a farm training institute similar to Flock House in earlier days) created full and part time training programmes with clear commercial focus.  As well, the Bay of Plenty Community College (later BOP Polytechnic) developed an ‘industry-owned’ distance education course, intended for sideline beekeepers and employees in beekeeping businesses.

One Last Effort at Strategic Planning

But strategic planning for the NBA did have a short resurgence in 2000, following the election of Richard Hatfield as NBA President.  The process for developing a 3 year strategic plan was identified and developed by the Executive within just weeks of him becoming NBA President.

http://beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2000_08.pdf#page=3 

http://beekeeping.nz/NZBDA/NZBkpr/2000_09.pdf#page=27

In a letter to the NZ Beekeeper magazine in December 2000, President Hatfield said that:

“On vision and direction, this is the first time that Strategic Planning and then IMPLEMENTATION has really taken place.  It is now instilled in the culture of the Executive and is measured.”

He apologised in the next issue of the magazine, in February 2001, for the inference of poor management, as he had not been aware of the industry planning that had guided the beekeeping industry through those earlier times.  

It does not seem that the Strategic Planning process continued beyond Richard Hatfield’s year as NBA President.  The agreement and participation by a wide-range of the industry is necessary for planning to be more than imposed, however well-meaning.