5) Description of housing product/service offering: The services introduced included housing cooperative society. It contributed to providing homeownership for members by providing a common forum for building critical mass, dissemination of information on the strategies of group dynamics, setting objectives, planning and coordinating the inputs of the group to realise set objectives. The group involved mostly university lecturers and members of the society, who at the time, received meagre incomes. It was often held that "our take home pay cannot take us home!" Homeownership was out of the question then. The aspect of housing shortage addressed was primarily homeownership. This should be next to food and clothing as man's basic needs that provide building blocks to the realisation of higher order needs, according to Maslow's Hiearchy of Needs; yet the majority of our crop of most educated, intelligent and hardworking lecturers could not boast of a decent shelter of their own. This was a sign of failure in life, given all the hard work and training. The activities involved for our organisation was planning, strategising, coordinating, motivating and leading the members to leverage their group efforts to acquire land from traditional sectional heads at rock bottom prices (drawing on the economies of scale), receiving prompt attention to processing of group Certificate of Occupancy using the group lobbying power directed at the very heads of government departments; using the same lobbying power to get the government and heads of parastatals to provide services to the communal plot - including electricity, water, telecommunication, roading, drainage, etc. Materials were procured for the whole group leveraging the economy of scale; skills and expertise of individuals in and out of the group were made available free of charge to members thereby avoiding costly professional fees. E.g. designs and construction supervisions were provided by architects and builders in our midst. University staff were primary beneficiaries.

6) Description of innovation: By doing everything as a group. Drawing on the adage, "united we stand; divided we fall", we were able to overcome the barriers to individual homeownership efforts by leveraging critical mass, lobbying power of the group, economy of scale. We supported one another by providing group strength in areas of individual weakness as well as free expertise and skills that eliminated costly professional fees. Novel components of our initiative included the use of group lobbying power to procure communal land at the cheapest source, processing group certificate of ownership and later convert to individual ownership at the end after individual payment of debts. The other components included bulk purchasing of materials from the cheapest source, group support and encouragement of 'sweat equities contributions or D-I-Y that eliminated professional costs. Using group lobbying efforts, services were attracted to the site at minimal costs, involving individuals in gradual development strategy, encouraging savings and reducing inaction by motivating others on seeing progress of others in developing their own plots. The group stood in the gap for members in financial difficulty by holding their property in trust until their fortunes improved. Experts on sustainable design and development provided advice and supervision free of charge to members. Lawyers in our midst were involved in the legal advice side of things. Doctors in our midst provided free medical advice; builders provided supervision of individual household efforts. The whole thing worked as a family - transcending beyond the initial homeownership focus to collective support and camaraderie. Financing was made possible using group financial contributions to help members in financial distress; though few members whose cases were hopeless were a burden to others. Overall, members were able to achieve their homeownership dreams which could not have been possible through individual efforts.

7) Benefits to clients: The homeownership initiative eventually reached the target benefit population of university staff by implementing the strategies and plans and coordinating the efforts of the members and the group towards achieving set objectives. At first, the planning, purchases and communal infrastructure provisions were made on group basis. Afterwards, the development of the plots were by individual efforts. For instance, the group purchased the land that would be enough to meet current and anticipated number of members' needs, obtained the certificate of occupancy under the group name, lobbied government departments and parastatals for the infrastructure provisions, purchased materials needed for the first phase of development in bulk by leving individual members, supervised the individual construction efforts, including encouraging saving, 'do-it- yourself' and gradual development strategies. It should be noted that through the collective strengths and lobbying efforts, savings were made in the following instances: land acquisition costs were reduced by about 40%; processing time for the certificate of occupancy was reduced by about 70%, cost of communal infrastructure provision was reduced by about 50%, material components costs were reduced by about 40% (through bulk purchases from the cheapest sources), professional fees were reduced by about 90%; rate of household savings for the project was increased by about 200%, especially through group motivation, contracting costs were reduced by about 70%, especially through do-it-yourself approach. Overall, the the average reduction in the cost of homeownership was in the range of 40-65% depending on individual circumstances. Completion time was halved for the strongly motivated and committed individuals who were role models for others. The mechanism we had in place to reach out to the majority of the members was essentially marketing - involving selling the idea, action, passion and commitment, trust and sacrifice.

8) Key operational partnerships: There were virtually no key partnerships we established to make our model possible or efficient. The group relied solely on group strength, skill, economic and socio- cultural diversity and lobbying potentials to get the 'powers that be' to listen to us and make things happen faster than an individual would have achieved. However, the partnership could be in the form of the directors of some companies that provided some materials free of charge for the group or at heavy discounts. Others could be the top government functionaries that directed speed processing of our applications for certificates of land ownership, infrastructure provisions such as water, electricity, roads, telecommunication, etc. In addition, there were the heads of the local communities who provided land to the group at the cheapest costs possible. The roles of these entities made the cost savings in (7) above possible.

9) Financial model: There were no financial mechanisms in place to ensure that beneficiaries could afford the products or services, other than the huge savings made by group acquisitions and approaches to things. Recognising that individuals differ in their financial strengths and commitment to their dreams, minimum standards were set. For instance, the payment for the group land through individual payment of their subscribed number of plots had a deadline in order for the progress not to be hampered. By the deadline, meetings were convened to decide on possible extension or not. In the meetings, the outcomes included asking those who had made initial deposits for 3 plots to give up extra plots they could not afford. Those with one plot who could not pay up were reserved for the next phase of the development

          • Costs as percentage of income: 100

          • Financing: The initiative was self-sustainable and profitable. Beneficiaries contributed to the expenses of the program in proportion to the number of plots subscribed. Sources of funding were entirely from staff income sources. Savings scheme was established to encourage households to save solely for the development of their projects. By not taking on financial credits, the problem of debt management was removed from the scheme making it self sustainable. The overarching motivation was the huge savings made by buying things in bulk as a group, provision of sweat equities and group lobbying for facilities and government processes.

10) Effectiveness

          • Project outcomes: The outcome of the project was a huge success. 70% (about 55) of the members were able to realise their housing dreams within 2 years of gradual development effort. Many more benefited in the subsequent phases of the project after I left the group to pursue further studies.

          • Number of clients in past year: About 77 members of the housing cooperative society benefited from the program over the last year. This figure may not be accurate as I am currently not 'on ground'.

          • Percentage of clients that are poor or marginalized: 60%

          • Potential demand: Order of magnitude of the potential demand for homeownership speaks for itself, given the increasing difficulty to afford home personal homes, especially in the underdeveloped and developing countries of the world. I could estimate the overall size of the market to be in the region of 1-5 million people worldwide

11) Scaling up strategy

          • Stage of the initiative: Mature stage.

          • Expansion plan: To replicate the strategies to similar communal formations.

12) Origin of the initiative: Staff of the Department of Building, University of Jos, Nigeria, were behind the idea. It originated from the marginalised conditions of university staff, who, in spite of their education, intellect, and hard work had nothing to show for it as at the time. Recognising the potentials of group strength and lobbying potentials, we put down strong proposals and were able to convince staff on the workability of the program. Practical illustrations of the inherent benefits were self evident. The motivation of the heroes was just to see their pet project affect and change lives.

Contact Information:
Jasper  Mbachu
Program Manager, Department of Construction
Institute of Technology and Engineering, College of Sciences, Massey University, New Zealand
(Tertiary Education Provider)
11 Hinau Road, Hataitai, Wellington, New Zealand
New Zealand
Tel: +64 21 023 91300
Fax: +64 4 801 2694
Email: J.I.Mbachu@massey.ac.nz
Website: http://ite.massey.ac.nz/index2.html