The Road to Farming Software is Paved with Good Intentions

Transcription

1 The Road to Farming Software is Paved with Good Intentions Alicia M. Grubb University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada Steve M. Easterbrook University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada Abstract We have looked at ways in which family farmers have become marginalized within the software ecosystem. Keywords Marginalized Users; User Interface Design ACM Classification Keywords H.5.m [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Miscellaneous. General Terms Human Factors Introduction Figure 1: Harvesting Wheat Innovation on it s own does not result in adoption. User support is required to prevent the marginalization of user groups. In this paper, we investigate why rural family farmers who were once strong users of innovative technologies have set them aside in favour of more traditional methods. We started by asking the question, Why do farmers use pencil and paper when they own and have used efficient analytical software systems in the past? We specifically look at the effect of the development of a commercial farm mapping technology (herein anonymously known as FarmMap). FarmMap allows farmers to identify localized issues in

2 their fields to determine where better irrigation and local pesticide could be used. FarmMap is specially targeted at cash crop farmers (with or without animals). FarmMap has a large barrier to entry, because it requires farmers to purchase one or more FarmMap GPS units, the aggregation software, and GPS service contract (a cost starting at $12,000). Farmers must renew their service contract every five years, to have continued access to the GPS satellites. FarmMap was first released a decade ago, and was updated with a major new release 4 years ago. To future understand how family farms use FarmMap2.0, we performed a farm visit and interviews in the summer of We are using a local industrial farm as a comparison. Farming Context As a results of globalization and global agricultural markets, farmers are under increasing pressure to remain competitive and reach economies of scale. The industrialization of agriculture has forced many small farmers to retire, either selling their land or renting their property to industrial agricultural companies. As a result of this process, farms can now be categorized into three types: industrial farms, family farms, and hobby farms. Industrial farms are run like corporations, typically involving a collection of farms that are centrally managed. These operations hire drivers and labourer to plant and harvest their crops, and maintain their equipment. In the office, they have accountants and analysts to improve the efficiency and marketability of the farm. Family farms, on their other hand, are usually run by a few individuals of kinship relationship (e.g. brothers, spouse) with additional family members working on the farm (including children). As is common in small, family businesses, the farmer (along with other family members) must be a jack of all trades doing the maintenance, planting, harvesting, accounting, marketing, and management of the farm. Hobby farms, like the family farm, are often run by a group of people within kinship networks, but are usually smaller. The main distinguishing feature is that on the family farm, the majority of labour (either in hours or income) is devoted to the farm, whereas the hobby farmer has external income. FarmMap A decade ago, the basic concept of FarmMap was to apply Global Positioning System (GPS) to agriculture, allowing farmers to have accurate position data of their fields. When combined with sensors from equipment manufacturers, the farmer could have reasonably accurate data for their inputs (seed, fertilizer) and outputs (harvest crop) on an acre-by-acre basis. FarmMap consists of a data collection and a data analysis component. The collection component makes use of a GPS transponder precisely mounted on the roof of the farm equipment, and an embedded, in-cab unit that collects data from the GPS unit, the tractor equipment, and operator input. The embedded cab unit (see Figure 2) stores its data on a removable PCMCIA Card. The analysis unit consists of the FarmMap software that receives data from the PCMCIA Card and run on a Microsoft Windows PC. Supporting Early Users in First Release FarmMap was primarily sold through machinery dealers. During the innovation and early adoption phase of FarmMap[1], the aggregation software was prototyped and went through several releases. As part of their contract, farmers received telephone support.

3 FarmMap, and details on how to install the many software updates that were provided. Over time, with the help of the remote phone support team, farmers gained competency in the program operation. As a side effect, the positive interactions of the phone support team gave farmers a better awareness of computer terminology and data storage. Insufficient Support for Users in Second Release About 4 years ago, when the software was reaching a wider adoption phase[1], a new major release of FarmMap occurred. Users of FarmMap were told that they would need to buy the new version, FarmMap2.0, and that the old version of FarmMap would no longer be supported. Figure 2: Insert a caption below each figure. Images can float around body text, like this example. The software developer s daily support line was used by farmers with questions about navigation of the user interface and functionality of the software. The support team also provided general information about the supported operating systems, as it pertained to the use of Farmers thought they were getting another update like the many that they had received previously. However, FarmMap2.0 was a complete re-write of the original software, and the user interface had changed. With the software purchase, users were give limited time access to an online support database (similar to a discussion forum). But with limited internet access in rural areas, this was more frustration than reward. FarmMap2.0 also offered a one-day course in centrally located areas. Farmers registered for the course believing it would provide them with an introduction to the basic operations, similar to the previous phone support. It was, in fact, a much more advanced course that mainly focussed on the many use cases that FarmMap2.0 offered over the old version, and it did not cover how to perform basic use cases using the new interface. Case Study We investigated how family farmers and industrial operations are using FarmMap2.0.

4 Family Farm John describes himself as a mature farmer, not born in the age of technology. He has six hundred acres in southwestern Ontario, and runs his farm with the help of his wife and sons. He started using FarmMap during the first release and has been collecting data about his farm for just under 10 years (originally just from his combine harvester, but now from all his equipment). Like many farmers, John used the software phone support to learn FarmMap, but since the release of FarmMap2.0 he has not used it to the same degree. John describes his use of FarmMap2.0 as Gathering the knowledge before it comes into the computer. John s experience with the analysis unit has been only frustration, and instead of struggling with it, he keeps detailed paper and pencil notes of the data that comes out of the embedded cab unit. Explaining how he collects data he said, Yesterday, I was combining, I was filling the granary. I manually wrote down my acres, how much I had taken off the day before, as in bushels (wet weight, dry weight). Then I do my day s production and I write it down again. I can be physically watching what I produce. Yesterday when I started, I was working in the not-so-great part of the field. I have been working at 100 bushels to the acre. My field average was 100. Then I did another area, my average moved to 125, then to 155. Yesterday, my field average was 168, then 170. Meanwhile, I am watching what my spot average is on a continuous basis. So I have a general idea. But I should be able to come into the house and print a yield map off and see how each area is doing. Figure 3 shows an example of John s daily recordings. John says the biggest thing that stops him from using the software is time. He wants FarmMap2.0 to give him results......on a consistent basis, in a timely manner. I used to be able to do this with the old program. One day they said, ok you have to buy the new program, assuming that the old program was the same as the new program, but it wasn t. John believes his lack of computer knowledge is partly to blame for his frustration: I am not computer literate enough to figure it out. It s a winter time project I haven t got to. I would like to know what my farm is doing on an acre by acre business. I would like to narrow my cost down. Unless you re sitting in a office all day, or unless you have a computer savvy person, you get frustrated and you go back to the old pencil system. Industrial Farm A neighbouring farm to John s is owned by a corporate farm, TLF. The TLF operation is composed of a collection of non-adjacent farms. It is centrally run with the management and operations being made at the headquarters. TLF hires operators to plant, spray, and harvest the crops. We stopped to talk to one of the farms operators, Fred. Fred is removed from information about the farm management. He is paid primarily to operate the farm machinery.

5 family farm. Discussion Neglected Beta Testers The first phase of use of FarmMap, with extensive user support, appears to be a successful beta testing process, with both industrial users and small scale farmers giving feedback, through which the design and user interface were improved. Farmers expressed, and developers discovered, many use cases, both simple and complex. Both the developer and the farmers benefited from this process, gaining information and feedback. These discoveries were reflected in the many sub-version releases of the FarmMap software. Figure 3: Insert a caption below each figure. Images can float around body text, like this example. TLF management pre-programs all the farm information into Fred s embedded cab unit. Fred operates the combine, and the unit collects the data. He doesn t know how the data is used, but must take the memory card to the farm headquarters where the office staff processes it. We were unable to find out the exact size of TLF but Fred thinks that the farm operation is between nine and eighteen thousand acres, a stark comparison to John s six hundred acres. Industrial farms, like TLF, own several in-cab units and would centrally organize their farm data. This allows them to focus on weak areas, plan large crop rotations and also track their operators. There is a strong division of labour at industrial farms which is simply not possible on the When the new version was released, the change in functionality and user interface was sufficiently large that re-training was necessary for existing users. The failure to conserve familiarity from one version to the next, coupled with a lack of user support for the new version, has meant that a significant new investment of time is needed to make the switch to the new version. The small scale family farmer, for whom there is no opportunity to make use of specialist staff, has, in effect, become a marginalised user. Erosion of Value of Data Assets The marginalization of farmers in software development is further exacerbated by a dependency on the software company to provide the software for continued access their data. During the support period of FarmMap, farmers trusted the developers for continued support. Now these farmers are continuing to collect data, hoping that someday they will be able to use it again. The data collected through FarmMap has become a business asset. Every year of collected data increases the

6 value of that data. Now that family farmers have collected 10 years of data, to not have access to it is a business loss. Farmers are heavily dependent on FarmMap to continue giving them access to their farm data. The data format is proprietary and encrypted, so it would be difficult for others to use the data. Do we, as interface developers, assume that our end users need to know about storage systems and maintaining proper backups? Now that many farmers have collected between 5-10 years of data about their farming practises, they have a valuable assets that should be taken care of. Whose responsibility is it to provide backup solutions for marginalized users? Future work could explore techniques for automatic version control and user driven backup protocols. Conclusions We found small farmers do not use crop management systems because of cost, frustration, and time. Farmers who have difficulty with interface changes have resorted to keeping detailed notes, to manually aggregate their data. How do we get small operations to benefit from technology in a useable way? John s solution of writing down periodic information is faster than learning the software, but does not provide precise analysis. Family farmers are marginalized because FarmMap did not continue to provide adequate support for the family farmers to learn FarmMap2.0. They are not supported in the particular way they require. We in the software industry take as a given the overhead in time to install, setup and learn a new piece of software. But when our users are trying to run a business, is it a fair expectation that we ask them to work through complicated software? For family farmers, the opportunity cost associated with the learning curve of many software applications is too high. However, in larger, industrialized operations, an analyst would be hired for the sole purpose of learning and operating the software. They would be subjected to a similar learning curve but the opportunity cost is mitigated because of the operation s division of labour. We suspect that FarmMap chose to focus on the functionality needed by the more complex and larger farming operations, with the trade-off of ease of usability which made their software inaccessible to the family farmer. This trade-off is further exacerbated because local expertise is not available. Unlike accounting software, where farmers can hire a local accountant, there are no local user interface specialist for hire. The company may or may not be aware of how they are marginalizing family farmers, but the farmers incur the cost of keeping their operations going. More generally, what happens when a group of users prefers to continue with a legacy version of the software? Even if they have significant capital and expertise in the original version, but become marginalized, they may be forced to upgrade. We have looked at ways in which family farmers have become marginalized within the software ecosystem. Future work should look at the FarmMap software vendor to understand their perspective and understanding of these issues. References [1] E. M. Rogers. Diffusion of Innovations, Fourth Edition. Simon and Schuster, 1995.