6.Conclusions
6.1 Outputs and participants
From commencement of the programme pilot in April 2005 to June 30, 2006 a total of 84 businesses have been enrolled in this programme. This exceeds the target of 80 enrolments in the programme by June 30, 2006. However, 14 of the clients have withdrawn from the programme, leaving a total of 70 clients currently in the programme.
Most of the businesses participating in the MTFS are small and relatively young businesses – i.e. less than five years old, have fewer than 5 employees, and annual turnover of less than $100,000.
Most (i.e. 79%) of the MTFS participants have had a Business Development Plan prepared and signed-off. However, only 28 (i.e. 40%) have only been assigned Mentors as of June 30, 2006. It is estimated that at least 50% of clients will still be in the mentoring phase in June with most completing July or August.
The delay in the mentoring phase resulted mainly from programme implementation and start-up taking longer than anticipated (e.g. in terms of recruiting and training Assessors and Mentors) and the limited availability of clients to engage with the programme during the peak tourist season from November 2005 through March 2006.
6.2 Outcomes
The majority of MTFS participants appeared to be satisfied with the programme as a whole (80%) and with the extent to which they perceive their Business Development Plans address the needs of their businesses (76%). These satisfaction rates are a good result for the programme's start-up year. Given that many of the teething problems associated with start-up have been ironed out, the programme management expect this satisfaction rate to improve in the programme's second full year.
Over 60% of MTFS participants interviewed for this evaluation indicated they had already experienced improvements in the intended intermediate outcomes of the programme (i.e. market knowledge and development, strategic planning, and product development) between the time they started the programme (June to October 2005) and when they were interviewed in April 2006. The participants expect further improvements in these outcomes by the time they complete implementing the recommendations in their Business Development Plans.
Over a quarter of MTFS participants indicated they have already experienced improvements in the various intended ultimate outcomes of the programme, i.e. revenue, product reputation and quality, and business sustainability, between the time they started the programme (June to October 2005) and when they were interviewed in April 2006. Over 40% expected further improvements in these outcomes by the time they have completed implementing the recommendations in their Business Development Plans.
6.3 Implementation and delivery
6.3.1 Programme cost
The 2005/06 budget for the MTFS programme is $650,000 consisting of $390,000 funded by Vote Tourism for assessment and mentoring services, and $260,000 in TPK resources for salaries and overheads for two FTE Account Managers. This works out to an average budget of $8,125 per client (based on 80 clients enrolled and assessed). It is recommended that TPK continue to monitor the cost of this programme and to look for opportunities for efficiency improvements.
6.3.2 Eligibility criteria
Some MTFS participants did not appear to meet one of the necessary criteria for programme eligibility i.e. willingness to participate fully in the programme. Between a quarter and a third of the MTFS participants did not meet some of the discretionary eligibility criteria of having turnover in the previous year of greater than $30,000, the business being the business operator's primary source of income, and the business having growth potential.
Although Account Managers are provided with some discretion to grant exemptions from the discretionary criteria, the number of MTFS participants who were granted these exemptions appears too high. These criteria are important for ensuring that the MTFS programme complements rather than duplicates other programme and services, by serving its target audience of developing and established Maori tourism businesses focused more on product development issues, rather than start-up or part-time businesses that tend to be focused more on basic business capability issues.
6.3.3 Coordination and complementarity with other programmes and services
The MTFS appears to be playing an important role in helping Maori tourism businesses access the services they need to improve business capability. The programme appears to be well coordinated with and complement the role of key stakeholders and related service providers in three key aspects:
- Participant selection- businesses participating in the MTFS were selected by TPK based on recommendations from the New Zealand Maori Tourism Council, Poutama and Maori Experience NZ.
- Assessment and mentoring– most of the assessors and mentors engaged to work with MTFS clients have experience with other business assistance providers such as Poutama, Maori Business Facilitation Service, Qualmark, and New Zealand Trade & Enterprise. They are also actively involved with Maori Regional Tourism Organisations and/or are known within the tourism industry as tourism consultants.
- Referrals – In addition to providing direct assistance to Maori tourism businesses, one of the key aims of the MTFS is to increase the ability of these businesses to access mainstream business assistance programmes as needed. Among the 21 clients in the interview sample, client feedback and reviews of their BDP indicated that the over 60% received referrals for assistance with more generic business issues from other government and/or private programmes such as the Enterprise Training Programme by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE), TPK's generic Maori Business Facilitation Service, and Poutama Maori Business Trust. The MTFS is intended to serve as a stepping stone which helps prepare businesses to access more advanced programmes when needed, such as NZTE's business assistance grants.
6.3.4 Overall conclusion
The MTFS programme appears to be well designed and the client engagement and assessment components seem to be delivered well with majority of clients reporting satisfaction and improved capability from the programme. This present evaluation, however, was not able to fully assess the effectiveness of the programme as most of the participants have only started the mentoring phase of the programme in May or June 2006. This early evaluation therefore recommends that this programme be continued, with some minor policy and operational improvements, until a full impact evaluation is conducted in 2008.
Back to Top