Map the Transaction Before Naming the Bottleneck
A value-chain map follows a product and the money, services and information around it. Its purpose here is to locate a constraint worth checking before an NGO buys equipment or funds training. A line between two actors does not demonstrate bargaining power, causation or profitability.
Use problem analysis to separate observation from explanation, and a seasonal calendar to check when the map applies. This exercise concerns one crop, route and harvest period, not the entire local economy.
Follow a Fictional Vegetable Consignment
Every actor and amount is invented. In Cedar Plain, growers sell fresh vegetables during July-September. The initial map is: input supplier to grower to collector to town retailer to consumer. A transporter moves produce between collector and retailer. The supplier offers some growers short-term credit; a local extension service supplies advice. Direct farm-gate sales are reported but their volume is unknown, so the map marks a second channel rather than pretending the collector buys everything.
Physical goods move toward the consumer. Payment moves back toward sellers, sometimes later than delivery. Price, grade and demand information may travel differently: a retailer tells the collector a required grade, but growers say they receive no written specification. The map records who reports each flow and where confirmation is missing.
Examine Costs Without Calling a Margin Profit
One fictional consignment contains 100 kilograms purchased at 2 units per kilogram: 200 units paid to growers. The collector records 30 for transport and 10 for packaging. Only 90 kilograms are sold at 3 units each, producing 270 in revenue. Revenue minus these supplied costs is 270 - 200 - 30 - 10 = 30 units.
That 30 is a partial balance. Labor, storage, finance, fees and other costs are not supplied, so it is not verified profit or a recommended trading model. Ten kilograms not sold could reflect damage, grading, late arrival or another reason. Neither a 1-unit price spread nor this incomplete balance proves that a collector exploits growers or that producers would earn more by bypassing the collector.
Keep a Bottleneck Evidence Log
| Observation or Account | Competing Explanation | Evidence Still Needed | Responsible Check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ten kilograms were not sold in the example | Damage, quality mismatch or insufficient demand | Condition at dispatch/arrival, rejection reasons and comparable consignments | Market lead and appropriate produce-quality adviser |
| Growers report receiving prices late | Information withholding or prices changing quickly | Dated quotes, transaction terms and accounts from different channels | Assessment lead with growers and buyers |
| Collector reports transport is expensive | Low volume, road delays, fuel costs or limited competition | Current quotations, load size, season and service availability | Logistics/market colleagues |
| Some growers cannot use supplier credit | Terms, documentation, exclusion or a deliberate preference | Voluntary accounts and actual permitted terms | Appropriate finance and inclusion roles; no credit recommendation follows |
Keep transactions and sensitive business details in their authorized setting. Share an agreed aggregate map, not competitors' private price lists or borrowers' identities.
Choose a Next Check With a Consequential Exception
Staff initially propose crates. If losses occur during transport, suitable handling equipment might be worth examining. If the retailer rejects a variety because demand has changed, crates would leave the principal constraint intact. Verify where rejection occurs, the relevant quality requirements, users' preferences, complete costs and alternative buyers before choosing support.
The filled output is a provisional map plus four unresolved bottleneck questions. The program lead prioritizes the rejection evidence and alternative channels before recommending equipment. No buyer commitment, income gain or production expansion is established. Repeat the map when the product, route, season or trading rules change.
Source and Scope
FAO's Guidelines for Rapid Appraisals of Agrifood Chain Performance in Developing Countries, 2007, Chain Delimitation, Chain Mapping and Annex 4, provides the methodological reference. FAO/ILO's 2009 toolkit, Volume 1, printed pages 10-15, places assets and markets in a wider livelihood context. Neither supplies current Cedar Plain evidence. The figures and reasoning are original teaching material. Continue with the local-market fit check.