User-Centred Design and Multi-Actor Approach in Agricultural Innovations – Case: Combi Drill Design

Abstract.The author has shown that modern technologies do not always meet the expectations of farmers, and this may adversely affect the pace of innovation. It has been confirmed that the developers of agricultural equipment do not clearly understand the context of the use of products and identified the need to use a multi-factor approach: therefore, partners possessing specific knowledge in different areas should join efforts in project activities at all stages of innovation. (Research purpose) To prove that a user-centered design and a multi-factor approach in the development of agricultural machinery increase their efficiency and accelerate the introduction of innovations. (Materials and methods) It is shown that Finnish research and development projects of agricultural machinery design involve numerous participants and end users. For example, the seven-metre-wide combi drill ‘Junkkari W700’ was designed by the Finnish manufacturer Junkkari Oy in close cooperation with end-users and researchers. As a result of the innovation process several benefits have been realized. The drill is easy to operate and service. The users appreciate the straight-forward construction and moderate cost of the drill as compared to competing pneumatic drills. The need for hydraulics is minimized and the row spacing and coulter design has been optimized so that economical tractors with moderate drawbar power can be used. The ISOBUS-based control electronics was designed to be fitted either in the existing tractor or, if ISOBUS is missing, with an optional cable-set and terminal. That enables the users to easily integrate the drill in existing machine chains, having either modern or older tractors, without extra tractor investments. Much attention was put on quality, e.g. individual feeders for every coulter give accurate dosage of seed and fertilizer. The prototyping together with end-users and researchers enabled Junkkari to speed up the innovation process. (Results and discussion) Several benefits proved to have been realized. First of all, the drill is easy to operate and service. The users appreciate the straight-forward construction and moderate cost of the drill as compared to competing pneumatic drills. The need for hydraulics is minimized and the row spacing and coulter design has been optimized so that economical tractors with moderate drawbar power can be used. The ISOBUS-based control electronics as well as an optional cable-set and terminal were designed to be fitted either in the existing tractor. That enables the users to easily integrate the drill in existing machine types, having either modern or older tractors, without extra tractor investments. The design quality was approved, e.g. individual feeders for every coulter give accurate metering of seeds and fertilizers. (Conclusions) The author proves that user-centered design and multi-factor approach methodologies have benefits both for the users and manufacturers. Swift innovation process saves resources and minimizes the need for excess iterations in the innovation process.

1. McCraw T. 2010. Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 719 (In English).

2. OECD. Oslo Manual. The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data. European Commission. 3rd ed. 2005. 163. 8 (In English).

3. Knierim A., Koutsouris A., Mathe S., Ndah H.T., Temple L., Tromphe B., Wielinga E. Support to innovation processes: a theoretical point of departure: WP1 deliverable 1.1: report of the AgriSpin project. University of Hohenheim, Germany. 2015. http://agrispin.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Theoretical-Framework-of-AgriSpin.pdf. Last accessed 08.04.2019 (In English).

4. Wielinga E. AgriSpin cross visit manual: Space for innovations in Agriculture. 10th ed. 2016. http://agrispin.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Cross-Visits_ImprovedMethodology-1.pdf. Lastaccessed 08.04.2019 (In English).

5. Haapala H., Nurkka P. Usability as a Challenge in Precision Agriculture – case study: an ISOBUS VRT. Agric. Eng. International: the CIGR Ejournal. 2006. 9 (In English).

6. Haapala H. The potential of User-Centred Design (UCD) to make radical agricultural innovations. In: Proc. International Conference of Agricultural Engineering – CIGR-AgEng 2012: Agriculture and Engineering for a Healthier Life. Valencia, Spain, 8-12 July 2012. C-0094 (In English).

7. Diekmann F., Batte M. Ohio Farming Practices Survey: Adoption and Use of Precision Farming Technology in Ohio. Experimentation report AEDE-RP-0129-10. 2010. 21 (In English).

8. Haapala H. How to speed up innovation in agriculture? Book of Abstracts. The 3rd Agromek-EurAgEng joint seminar. Advances and Innovations in Agricultural Engineering. Nov. 27-28 2018. Herning, Denmark. NJF sektion Technology. 2018. 31 (In English).

9. Haapala H. Speeding up innovation in agricultural IT. Journal of Agricultural Engineering. 2013. Vol. XLIV. 137-139 (In English).

10. Winstead A., Norwood S., Griffin T., Runge M., Adrian A., Fulton J., Kelton J. Adoption and Use of Precision Agriculture Technologies by Practitioners. In: Proc. 10th International Conference on Precision Agriculture, 18-21 July 2010. Denver, Colorado (In English).

11. Nielsen J. Usability Engineering. 1993. Academic Press Inc. 362 (In English).

12. Li W., Hess T., Valacich J. Why do we trust new technology? A study of initial trust formation with organizational information systems. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2008.01.001.2008. Elsevier. Vol. 17. N1. 39-71 (In English).

13. Anon. Junkkari W700. Genious Giant. ppt-presentation by Junkkari Oy. 2019. 29 (In English).

14. Wielinga E., Robijn S. 2018. Stories from All Corners, To Continue With. SEGES, Aarhus, Denmark. https://agrispin.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/D3.2-End-user-book-002.pdf. Last accessed 08.04.2019. 228 (In English).