The Road to Farming Softwareis Paved with Good Intentions

Alicia M. GrubbUniversity of TorontoToronto, Ontario, Canadaamgrubb@cs.toronto.edu

Steve M. EasterbrookUniversity of TorontoToronto, Ontario, Canadasme@cs.toronto.edu

Figure 1: Harvesting Wheat

AbstractWe have looked at ways in which family farmers havebecome marginalized within the software ecosystem.

KeywordsMarginalized Users; User Interface Design

ACM Classification KeywordsH.5.m [Information Interfaces and Presentation]:Miscellaneous.

General TermsHuman Factors

IntroductionInnovation on it’s own does not result in adoption. Usersupport is required to prevent the marginalization of usergroups. In this paper, we investigate why rural familyfarmers who were once strong users of innovativetechnologies have set them aside in favour of moretraditional methods. We started by asking the question,‘Why do farmers use pencil and paper when they own andhave used efficient analytical software systems in thepast?’ We specifically look at the effect of thedevelopment of a commercial farm mapping technology(herein anonymously known as FarmMap).

FarmMap allows farmers to identify localized issues in

their fields to determine where better irrigation and localpesticide could be used. FarmMap is specially targeted atcash crop farmers (with or without animals). FarmMaphas a large barrier to entry, because it requires farmers topurchase one or more FarmMap GPS units, theaggregation software, and GPS service contract (a coststarting at $12,000). Farmers must renew their servicecontract every five years, to have continued access to theGPS 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 of2011. We are using a local industrial farm as acomparison.

Farming ContextAs a results of globalization and global agriculturalmarkets, farmers are under increasing pressure to remaincompetitive and reach economies of scale. Theindustrialization of agriculture has forced many smallfarmers to retire, either selling their land or renting theirproperty to industrial agricultural companies. As a resultof this process, farms can now be categorized into threetypes: industrial farms, family farms, and hobby farms.

Industrial farms are run like corporations, typicallyinvolving a collection of farms that are centrally managed.These operations hire drivers and labourer to plant andharvest their crops, and maintain their equipment. In theoffice, they have accountants and analysts to improve theefficiency and marketability of the farm.

Family farms, on their other hand, are usually run by afew individuals of kinship relationship (e.g. brothers,spouse) with additional family members working on thefarm (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, andmanagement of the farm.

Hobby farms, like the family farm, are often run by agroup of people within kinship networks, but are usuallysmaller. The main distinguishing feature is that on thefamily farm, the majority of labour (either in hours orincome) is devoted to the farm, whereas the hobby farmerhas external income.

FarmMapA decade ago, the basic concept of FarmMap was toapply Global Positioning System (GPS) to agriculture,allowing farmers to have accurate position data of theirfields. When combined with sensors from equipmentmanufacturers, the farmer could have reasonably accuratedata for their inputs (seed, fertilizer) and outputs (harvestcrop) on an acre-by-acre basis. FarmMap consists of adata collection and a data analysis component. Thecollection component makes use of a GPS transponderprecisely mounted on the roof of the farm equipment, andan embedded, in-cab unit that collects data from the GPSunit, the tractor equipment, and operator input. Theembedded cab unit (see Figure 2) stores its data on aremovable PCMCIA Card. The analysis unit consists ofthe FarmMap software that receives data from thePCMCIA Card and run on a Microsoft Windows PC.

Supporting Early Users in First ReleaseFarmMap was primarily sold through machinery dealers.During the innovation and early adoption phase ofFarmMap[1], the aggregation software was prototyped andwent through several releases. As part of their contract,farmers received telephone support.

Figure 2: Insert a caption below each figure. Images can ”float” around body text, likethis example.

The software developer’s daily support line was used byfarmers with questions about navigation of the userinterface and functionality of the software. The supportteam also provided general information about thesupported operating systems, as it pertained to the use of

FarmMap, and details on how to install the many softwareupdates that were provided. Over time, with the help ofthe remote phone support team, farmers gainedcompetency in the program operation. As a side effect,the positive interactions of the phone support team gavefarmers a better awareness of computer terminology anddata storage.

Insufficient Support for Users in Second ReleaseAbout 4 years ago, when the software was reaching awider adoption phase[1], a new major release of FarmMapoccurred. Users of FarmMap were told that they wouldneed to buy the new version, FarmMap2.0, and that theold version of FarmMap would no longer be supported.

Farmers thought they were getting another update likethe many that they had received previously. However,FarmMap2.0 was a complete re-write of the originalsoftware, and the user interface had changed. With thesoftware purchase, users were give limited time access toan online support database (similar to a discussionforum). But with limited internet access in rural areas,this was more frustration than reward. FarmMap2.0 alsooffered a one-day course in centrally located areas.Farmers registered for the course believing it wouldprovide them with an introduction to the basic operations,similar to the previous phone support. It was, in fact, amuch more advanced course that mainly focussed on themany use cases that FarmMap2.0 offered over the oldversion, and it did not cover how to perform basic usecases using the new interface.

Case StudyWe investigated how family farmers and industrialoperations are using FarmMap2.0.

Family FarmJohn describes himself as a mature farmer, not born in theage of technology. He has six hundred acres insouthwestern Ontario, and runs his farm with the help ofhis wife and sons. He started using FarmMap during thefirst release and has been collecting data about his farmfor just under 10 years (originally just from his combineharvester, but now from all his equipment). Like manyfarmers, John used the software phone support to learnFarmMap, but since the release of FarmMap2.0 he hasnot used it to the same degree. John describes his use ofFarmMap2.0 as “Gathering the knowledge before it comesinto the computer”. John’s experience with the analysisunit has been only frustration, and instead of strugglingwith it, he keeps detailed paper and pencil notes of thedata that comes out of the embedded cab unit.

Explaining how he collects data he said,

“Yesterday, I was combining, I was filling thegranary. I manually wrote down my acres,how much I had taken off the day before, asin bushels (wet weight, dry weight). Then Ido my day’s production and I write it downagain. I can be physically watching what Iproduce. Yesterday when I started, I wasworking in the not-so-great part of the field. Ihave been working at 100 bushels to the acre.My field average was 100. Then I did anotherarea, my average moved to 125, then to 155.Yesterday, my field average was 168, then170. Meanwhile, I am watching what my spotaverage is on a continuous basis. So I have ageneral idea. But I should be able to comeinto the house and print a yield map off andsee 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 thesoftware is time. He wants FarmMap2.0 to give himresults...

“...on a consistent basis, in a timely manner. Iused to be able to do this with the oldprogram. One day they said, ok you have tobuy the new program, assuming that the oldprogram was the same as the new program,but it wasn’t.”

John believes his lack of computer knowledge is partly toblame for his frustration:

“I am not computer literate enough to figureit out. It’s a winter time project I haven’t gotto. I would like to know what my farm isdoing on an acre by acre business. I would liketo narrow my cost down. Unless you’re sittingin a office all day, or unless you have acomputer savvy person, you get frustrated andyou go back to the old pencil system.”

Industrial FarmA neighbouring farm to John’s is owned by a corporatefarm, TLF. The TLF operation is composed of acollection of non-adjacent farms. It is centrally run withthe management and operations being made at theheadquarters. TLF hires operators to plant, spray, andharvest the crops. We stopped to talk to one of the farmsoperators, Fred. Fred is removed from information aboutthe farm management. He is paid primarily to operate thefarm machinery.

Figure 3: Insert a caption below each figure. Images can ”float” around body text, likethis example.

TLF management pre-programs all the farm informationinto Fred’s embedded cab unit. Fred operates thecombine, and the unit collects the data. He doesn’t knowhow the data is used, but must take the memory card tothe farm headquarters where the office staff processes it.We were unable to find out the exact size of TLF butFred thinks that the farm operation is between nine andeighteen thousand acres, a stark comparison to John’s sixhundred acres.

Industrial farms, like TLF, own several in-cab units andwould centrally organize their farm data. This allows themto focus on weak areas, plan large crop rotations and alsotrack their operators. There is a strong division of labourat industrial farms which is simply not possible on the

family farm.

DiscussionNeglected Beta TestersThe first phase of use of FarmMap, with extensive usersupport, appears to be a successful beta testing process,with both industrial users and small scale farmers givingfeedback, through which the design and user interfacewere improved. Farmers expressed, and developersdiscovered, many use cases, both simple and complex.Both the developer and the farmers benefited from thisprocess, gaining information and feedback. Thesediscoveries were reflected in the many sub-version releasesof the FarmMap software.

When the new version was released, the change infunctionality and user interface was sufficiently large thatre-training was necessary for existing users. The failure toconserve familiarity from one version to the next, coupledwith a lack of user support for the new version, has meantthat a significant new investment of time is needed tomake the switch to the new version. The small scalefamily farmer, for whom there is no opportunity to makeuse of specialist staff, has, in effect, become amarginalised user.

Erosion of Value of Data AssetsThe marginalization of farmers in software development isfurther exacerbated by a dependency on the softwarecompany to provide the software for continued accesstheir data. During the support period of FarmMap,farmers trusted the developers for continued support.Now these farmers are continuing to collect data, hopingthat someday they will be able to use it again.

The data collected through FarmMap has become abusiness asset. Every year of collected data increases the

value of that data. Now that family farmers havecollected 10 years of data, to not have access to it is abusiness loss. Farmers are heavily dependent on FarmMapto continue giving them access to their farm data. Thedata format is proprietary and encrypted, so it would bedifficult for others to use the data.

Do we, as interface developers, assume that our end usersneed to know about storage systems and maintainingproper backups? Now that many farmers have collectedbetween 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 formarginalized users? Future work could explore techniquesfor automatic version control and user driven backupprotocols.

ConclusionsWe found small farmers do not use crop managementsystems because of cost, frustration, and time. Farmerswho have difficulty with interface changes have resortedto keeping detailed notes, to manually aggregate theirdata. How do we get small operations to benefit fromtechnology in a useable way? John’s solution of writingdown periodic information is faster than learning thesoftware, but does not provide precise analysis.

Family farmers are marginalized because FarmMap did notcontinue to provide adequate support for the familyfarmers to learn FarmMap2.0. They are not supported inthe particular way they require. We in the softwareindustry take as a given the overhead in time to install,setup and learn a new piece of software. But when ourusers are trying to run a business, is it a fair expectationthat we ask them to work through complicated software?

For family farmers, the opportunity cost associated withthe learning curve of many software applications is toohigh. However, in larger, industrialized operations, ananalyst would be hired for the sole purpose of learning andoperating the software. They would be subjected to asimilar learning curve but the opportunity cost ismitigated because of the operation’s division of labour.

We suspect that FarmMap chose to focus on thefunctionality needed by the more complex and largerfarming operations, with the trade-off of ease of usabilitywhich made their software inaccessible to the familyfarmer. This trade-off is further exacerbated because localexpertise is not available. Unlike accounting software,where farmers can hire a local accountant, there are nolocal user interface specialist for hire. The company mayor may not be aware of how they are marginalizing familyfarmers, but the farmers incur the cost of keeping theiroperations going.

More generally, what happens when a group of usersprefers to continue with a legacy version of the software?Even if they have significant capital and expertise in theoriginal version, but become marginalized, they may beforced to upgrade.

We have looked at ways in which family farmers havebecome marginalized within the software ecosystem.Future work should look at the FarmMap software vendorto understand their perspective and understanding ofthese issues.

References[1] E. M. Rogers. Diffusion of Innovations, Fourth

Edition. Simon and Schuster, 1995.