Improving Institutional Capacity:
Strengthening Farmer Organizations in the OIC Member Countries
52
Table 16: The SPI’s performance on important dimensions77
Organizational Setup
(68 points)
Aggregate Score Impact capacity
(51 points)
Aggregate score
0.65 0.35
Governance (27 points) 0.52 Strategic Potential (6 points) 1.00
Organizational structure 0.60 Overall Strategy 1.00
General Assembly 0.42 TA and Other Services (41 pts) 0.34
Business Fundamentals
(27 points)
0.67 Market Access 0.38
Financial Planning and
Management
0.58
Access to Inputs, Equipment, &
Infrastructure
0.20
Resource & Revenue
Generation
0.50 Transportation and Storage 0
Human Resource
Management
1.00
Financial Services 0
Meeting Member Needs 0.50
Systems and Infrastructure 1.00
Advisory and Knowledge
Services
1.00
Advocacy, Policy & Collaboration 1.00
Representation (14
points)
0.86 Economic Gains (4 points) 0.50
Accountability 0.86 Productivity 1.00
Quality & Value Addition 0
Figure 11: SPI’s relative performance on key dimensions
The organization has been quite successful in business fundamentals, preparing a budget
annually, which is reviewed at the annual meeting between the National Council and the
Executive Committee (Secretariat). The SPI also has a qualified person specifically responsible
for budget management and engages an independent auditor to conduct internal and external
financial audits each year. While SPI lacks a diversified funding base (most capital comes from
members’ annual Rp. 10,000 fee), it supplements this by sharing resources with similar donor-
77 Communication performance was not able to be assessed for SPI or KPA and is not included in the final score. This table is
calculated based on the answers to and scoring system of the Profiling Tool shown in Annex 2, as given to the authors by SPI
leadership during an in-country visit to Indonesia in October 2014.