Bureaucracy is often something we have to navigate in delivery of agricultural programs, particularly when there are multiple funding bodies, including governments, universities, levy funds and private investment. Each funding body may have its own reporting and compliance requirements that also have to fit within an overarching governance arrangement. This can make project management, expectations, timelines, evaluation, reporting and accountability complex and time consumin

Agriculture and regional communities have always been built on people and relationships. When developing agricultural programs, we can have a sound template, a neat logic framework and a beautifully formatted plan, but if the people who are meant to benefit from the work do not feel connected to it, the plan will struggle. People are far more likely to back something when they believe in it, understand it and trust the way it has been developed. Shared ownership is not just a

Co‑design is one of those buzz words that is popping up everywhere. In agriculture, government, community programs, and funding conversations - and mostly with good intent. But sometimes when organisations say co‑design, what is really meant is consultation or feedback, not genuine co-design. Sometimes people are brought in once most of the decisions have already been made and asked to then help make the program land, rather than shaping it from the outset. That can still be

Agriculture has always had a strong foundation built on people, trust and shared knowledge. It is built on relationships between growers, industry bodies, researchers, government agencies, funding partners and the wider community. From my observations across Australian agriculture, unfortunately there can often be a disconnect develop between funding bodies and industry. In most cases, both are trying to achieve the same thing: a stronger, more resilient agricultural sector.

Understanding the true value and impact of agricultural and regional community programs is critical in determining the return on investment and in helping to shape future programs and investments. However, value and impact is not always easy to accurately measure and describe and is often not done as well as it could be. We can count attendance numbers, talk about outputs, collect feedback forms and write evaluation reports, and those things all have their place. But anyone w

Through my career, I've helped to develop, deliver and oversee many different programs and projects to support agriculture. Some of them have been hugely impactful - creating real and meaningful change. I've also seen many that haven't really delivered to their potential. In this blog, I share my thoughts on what are the key things that make a difference in the performance of a program. Australian agriculture’s research, development, extension and capability-building system i

I have been giving a lot of thought as to what makes my services and what I offer unique and different. I unashamedly describe myself as a “generalist”, with a broad range of skills and experiences. I don’t have one unique area of specialty that I can claim as my own – rather, I am extremely capable in many areas. What makes this unique and special to me, is how I pull all those different skills and experiences together and draw on that knowledge to provide insight and work w