Interoperability key as farmers take a pick ‘n’ mix approach to technology

Are you Apple or Android? Vodafone or O2? Playstation or X-Box? John Deere or New Holland? Lack of interoperability has been an obstacle to the digitisation of agriculture but things are changing. 

Brand allegiance – and how this links to a vertically integrated business model in agriculture – has been occupying our thoughts this month, inspired by some feedback from our Ag101 event. At REAP we’re also going to be considering the numerous platforms, devices and systems that exist, all competing for space on the farmers’ smartphone and market share.

Pick ‘n’ mix approach

It’s tempting as an innovator to aim to aspire towards a unified end-to-end solution to build customer loyalty and retention, locking users into a single integrated system for the long-term.

While this might work in the telecoms and ICT industries, farmers have always taken a more “pick ‘n’ mix” approach, selecting different manufacturers and technology systems across their business.

It is not uncommon to find machinery from different suppliers on a farm, despite ambitions by some of these businesses to offer an entirely integrated service.

Stimulating or stifling innovation?

Yet the emergence of the numerous technology solutions from on-farm connectivity to sensors, monitoring solutions and data dashboards means that there is a plethora of choice for farmers to select the products and services that work for them, but crucially also with the need to integrate across the other systems.

So what does this mean for innovation? Users can end up either adopting multiple systems to get the full complement of services they want (how many TV streaming services are you subscribed to, for example?) or risk becoming “locked in” to companies where the rate of innovation dictates the pace of development on the farm.

Arguably this stifles innovation as the big companies don’t keep pushing forward to attract new customers, and it becomes more of a challenge for new entrants to gain market share.

Farming as a service

We have talked about the need for interoperability across agri-tech before, and it remains a Holy Grail for many. But there is a growing realisation among technology providers that a modular sales approach may be just as lucrative – and offer even more sales opportunities that enable trials, purchases and implementation on an “as needed” basis, rather than commit to an entire system.

For this to work of course, there need to be agreed standards and a unified approach to how machinery, devices and platforms can integrate and communicated.

We’re still a long way from that.

Despite the introduction of standards such as ISOBUS to help with interoperability with farm machinery, and a call for a standardised approach to data collection and management via the newly-formed British Farm Data Council, plus tens of millions of euros invested via the European Horizon 2020 programme, the unified data platform connecting disparate devices from different suppliers remains frustratingly elusive on a commercial basis.

Competition drives inspiration

So a call to arms to tech developers, if we may. Farmers like choice and mixing brands and systems on their farm – and the clarion call remains loud and clear for different systems to work seamlessly together. If business models are to be flexible enough to all farmers to pick ‘n’ mix, then the tools need to be equally flexible.

Competition drives inspiration and innovation, with more room for more players to gain market share.

And on the spectrum between world domination by a handful of players or a thriving ecosystem that includes independent smaller ventures, there is a happy balance that would give farmers choice and ensures a constantly innovating technology community to bring the best to the farm.