2022-07-26 Implementation and Quick Connect Meet Up

• Update on capability and capacity chart
• Video participants update

Brent: four action items/activities from the last call.

1. Work on outreach to perspective attendees at the QC meeting in November and interested trading partners for the roadshows in Jan/Feb. Ann and Natasha said they would assist, don’t know that they’ve had an opportunity to dive deep into the list and have a report back. If there’s an update Ann or Leslie would like to share at this point, please do. If not, we will have a more formal update later.

Ann: Let’s defer; due to vacation I haven’t had much time to make progress on my side.

Leslie: Agree; I’ve left some messages.

Brent:

2. Update on case studies/interviews/video content: Paul, anything for us?

Paul: Yes, thanks to Ann and Uriah for conversations on updating their case studies; I think have most of the information I need for those, and will be looking for some updated photos as well. I’ve connected with Syngenta on a couple new case studies, I’m speaking with someone later this week. I had one for Co-Alliance that we’ve had to postpone a couple times because folks are extremely busy. That’s all moving apace, we will have some good updates in the next month or so leading up to annual. I have information together for the videos; the question on that is, it was originally pushing toward more of a general message to who was coming to annual. The audience changed a bit in my mind as far as what it is and who it’s for, we have content that could be used for members looking toward the annual, and use it to push people to engage with QC at the annual as opposed to the roadshow which is a different vision/different group and we still have to put together what that marketing is going to look like. I think I have what we need as far as content, just have to put it together. One other sideline, I did talk with Iowa agribusiness on Friday, he’s ready to help promote to his Iowa constituency and excited to help.

Brent:

3. A request for those on the list for those to review the current binder. I don’t believe we’ve gotten any feedback about updates at this point, so this is a continuing item for the group. If you need a copy or link to that document, let us know and we will get it out to you (email Member Services).

Ann: I think the book looks good; just need to make sure we update and include any new products. As Leslie, Natasha, and I are working through the listings on who has updated, we need to make sure we check them off.

Brent:

4. Review AIDC value calculator: In addition to this we also have a seed value calculator. One of the questions that came out of that was, do we think there is a need to produce similar value calculators for CP/CN, and do we have enough material/collateral from the various feed and grain projects to put something together for them as well? That’s a question for the group. Have folks have the opportunity to review them as they are, or should we take time and do that as a group? For those who are familiar with the seed/AIDC value calculators, would a similar value calculator be helpful in spurring discussions about implementation for CN/CP? What about feed and grain?

Mike Ball: I think a review of the calculator would be the best place to start so everyone understands what the value of the value calculator is; it’s been a few years since I’ve used it. Maybe then we can answer if we need to create one for the rest of the scope.

Uriah: I think for CP it would be helpful but it would be almost identical to seed. We are starting to connect with Winfield, and see the same value.

Brent: I think that’s a fair observation; we could build something off these others as templates. Here’s a sample of the seed connectivity value calculator (shared screen). It lays out a couple of inputs and variables, and you can get into “what are my time savings?” Here’s the basic metrics that go into the calculator. These were averaged off of a couple of inputs from around the seed segment (manufacturers, distributors, retailers providing their estimates) and we share this as perspective savings in general; your organization is welcome to come in and adjust as needed. We’ve also provided generically for a retailer, what are the potential savings in size. For CN/CP we would swap some of this out for sales reporting, ordered invoice, etc.

Ann: Based off Uriah’s comment, do we just remove the word “seed” from this calculator and add in some CN/CP messages and make an all-encompassing retail value calculator? That way we aren’t promoting four different value calculators, we are providing one all-inclusive one.

Uriah: I would agree; I don’t know if you have to break it out. I think there would be more value in one calculator.

Ann: What additional messages from the other segments do we need to add for them? What messages are we missing?

Brent: It may just be terminology, it may not be. Your order response, inventory management/reporting I don’t see in here, but maybe that gets wrapped up into GPOS or sales reporting bucket where you have a couple messages managing that project. I think there’s some value in having an all-inclusive calculator but are there variations in what a particular organization might or might not use? Is that the point of an education session? Here’s a tool, and for your specific organization here’s what may or may not be in scope to find value in,  helping folks understand how to use it.

Mike Glidden: I agree a universal savings, if you give it to a company you can go over what documents you’re talking about. I think the overall approach is much better.

Brent: Are there folks who would be willing to work as a small group to update that and bring us a draft of what that might look like? Maybe we shoot for presenting it to a small QC roadshow working group in November.

Mike Glidden: CP has it’s own and it’s in an excel spreadsheet. I’ll look to see where it is.

Mike Ball: I think we created it out of the seed one and shied away from publicizing it. I can help since I helped on the original ones.

Ann: The other statement I would make in this small group, y ou also talk about value proposition statements, but do we add working on an overall value proposition? Just like with each one of these segments, I think the value propositions are going to be the same too, those overall encompassing efficiencies of reduced labor, etc.

Uriah: I’ve always thought we should add the accuracy of the data/error correction process, the time that it takes to fix errors that are keyed in manually. I don’t have the answer of how to do that, but I would think there would be 1 or 2% that are in error, and we would be able to show how this can correct the data entry problems.

Brent: I think that’s an absolutely important observation. When Ann, Randy Fry, and I presented for ARA that was something that was shared as the presentation. Here was our observed shrink, product goes missing situation before we made this investment, and here’s what the actual savings were as a result.

Brent: I know our new working group process tries to determine up front what’s driving the creation of the working group and we document that as part of the charter. For something like this where we’ve developed the resource and trying to get to implementation, something I thought might be helpful is from your perspective as member companies who have made the decision to implement, what is it you have to provide to get the project into your pipelines? Is what we’ve developed in line with that, or is there something else you need to get those projects approved and budgeted? Maybe consider your own prioritization and development process and let us know; are there things that can be tweaked, are there things that need to be provided up front? Or is it, we’ve got these self-help tools and it’s up to the implementer to use them, we’ve taken this as far as we can.

• Space needs - tables, a/v, etc.
• Partner window sign ups 
• Collateral
• Company outreach

Brent:

Discussion of QC or partner meetings at annual conference: We are in the process of configuring signup genius for appointment confirmations between manufacturer and potential implementers/trading partners. One of the things folks want to know is who’s going to be there when? Before I share this, this is very much a draft/work in progress for the annual conference agenda. Don’t take any of this as gospel; what we’re looking for is here’s the current thinking on partner meetings. What are the things do you want to make sure we are not scheduling those against, is this kind of thing helpful in making your travel plans? We are looking for feedback/insight, does it look like it has enough time for folks to meet? One of the things we discovered was that a half hour block was too short, an hour and a half too long, looking at a 50-minute to an hour window, if you only use half an hour that’s fine, but that’s the current thinking. (Brent shared agenda)

Brent: As you can see, Monday is QC partner meetings through the day. Some of the educational sessions that are parallel probably geared more toward new members or member volunteers who have not participated in an AgGateway meeting/activity before, so we felt safe plugging in QC sessions starting Monday morning through the rest of the day. Tuesday we do have some opposite the field boundaries working group; we do have some additional educational sessions we are looking to add in, and again an opportunity for the afternoon on Tuesday. We wanted to stay away from conflicting with Seed, CN, CP, etc. meetings. As of Wednesday we have the QC task force session, and then wrap up by lunchtime.

Stephanie: That Tuesday 10:30-11:30 time slot looks really good, I think there will be a lot of participants there.

Ann: One of the biggest things I think we need to determine is, if we can get each of the manufacturer to send us a commitment stating they will be here from this time to this time, that way meetings can only get scheduled when they’re there. How do we reach out to them, can we get a commitment for meetings to be set up?

Brent: I think our thought is, if the group is generally agreeable that these time slots work, then we can do the outreach to the manufacturer to tell them here’s what we’ve got that is available, does it work with your travel plans.

Darlene: I think this looks good, I think we can have a rep in the sessions.

Stephanie: Unless they fill in the blocks under session two and session four, that’s probably going to be the best time.

Brent: We will go ahead with that; the agenda is still in progress to a certain degree, so things may fluctuate and you may see some new sessions pop up. At this point we can go out and take those time blocks and reach out to folks who haven’t been on the call or not here today and confirm availability for a table.

ACTION: Brent to coordinate outreach

Connecting Ag Business - a proposal for moving forward (Ann Vande Lune and Brent Kemp) 25 minutes

The group reviews proposed path forward for the work to move connectivity forward for members, and non-member connectivity prospects. 

• • Deliverables (Ann)
    • Updated cast studies
    • Segment champions for educational sessions in January, February 2023
      • Crop Nutrition
      • Crop Protection
      • Grain and Feed
      • Seed
    • Content and collateral
      • AIDC value calculator - https://aggateway.atlassian.net/l/cp/4j0BSNJ1
      • Updated content for the Digital Resource/Message Book
    • Outreach plan for 2023
  • Schedule of milestones
    • Announcements and invitations
    • Speakers
    • Agenda
    • Facility needs - a/v, internet, f&b ...

Brent:

Roadshows: we are working up invitation content; Paul and Ann have been going back and forth on branding and putting a logo together for the roadshow. If there’s any immediate feedback, I am happy to take that now. If the group is generally agreeable, we will start putting this logo in communications and announcements as we move forward.

Paul: Ann and I have talked about the agenda, but the idea is trying to convert some folks/get folks on board who should be, and try to get others to understand what AgGateway does so we can have the next conversation about inviting them to MYM and getting them excited about what we have to offer.

Brent: One of the things we talked about on our last call, how many and where do we want to have these educational forums? ¾ day with a lunch; we talked originally about IA, IL, and IN. Feedback was maybe that was too close and we should look at another geography, perhaps looking at KS/NE instead of IL. We are committed to Prairie Meadows for a Des Moines area education session. Are there any facilities/members who have good training or open space who might be willing to host a session in the IN or KS/NE areas? Are there locations that make more sense, given that it’s not too far from Des Moines?

Stephanie: Brent you were here recently for a meeting?

Brent: Co-Alliance set up a meeting at the Hilton Garden Inn at the airport. The lunch spread was pretty good; the room could probably fit 60 people, it was a pretty good space for a meeting. Uriah, what was your thought?

Uriah: I think there was actually an extra room over too if it needed to be expanded a little. They had 3 people per table.

Brent: One of the questions Ann and I were throwing around was, do we need to look at a place like that, or talk with one of our university partners? Looking for a location that is “neutral” as opposed to having a member host it at their location? We want to be able to control costs, and if someone has good meeting space they are willing to make available, we don’t want to turn that away, but at the same time it may be that we need to look at investing in a meeting room or two at a hotel or another off-site location for that neutrality.

Stephanie: I can’t think of a space here that would be big enough to host that.

Kay: If you’re looking at something like NE, do we have contacts of UNL-Lincoln?

Brent: I don’t but I believe we do have someone who does, like Ben Craker, who has contacts we can reach out to.

Stephanie: Our major university is Purdue (West Lafayette).

Ann: Is there anywhere we need to stay away from as a group? If we used a retailer or manufacturer, do we need to stay away from those?

Brent: That may be a question you want to noodle on and provide some feedback. You can reach out to me or Ann. We are looking at some locations and hopefully we can get some dates nailed down shortly. Fortunately the hotel spaces don’t seem to be booking very fast

ACTION: Brent talk to Ben about a connection to UNL Lincoln 

Paul: I have a contact at K-State as well, probably some other folks I can dig up. Both the CARTA and NITA events are at the end of January, as you think about KS/NE, those two are ones we want to avoid conflicting with.

Brent: We were looking at Prairie Meadows on 1/11, maybe the week of the 23^rd or 30^th for one, then the week of 2/13 or 20^th for the third. If we can shoot for Wednesdays, so 1/25, 2/1, 2/15, or 2/22. Once we have locations/dates, we need to make sure invitations are going out. Paul already talked a bit about the IA Agribusiness association and working with Bill to get joint communications out; are there others we should be working with? Could we coordinate something with ARA on that? I’ve had a quick conversation with Darren on that and I think they’re open but he’s been in the field so we haven’t had the long sit-down to dive into details.

• Ann and Natasha will assist Leslie in making calls
• Paul is updating case studies and getting interviews scheduled showing value
• Everyone look at the current binder and see what needs updated
• Everyone look at the AIDC excel document to see what needs updated