Agricultural operations are not taking advantage of the Information Technology (IT) tools that exist today. As the agricultural industry continues to evolve, IT utilization is critical to the continued competitiveness/survival of individual operations. A progression path for IT adoption is defined that takes into account IT tools utilized along with impacts to operational processes. This path can be used as a tool to ease farmers into the IT world without introducing excessive change all at once. Application of this path in Extension educational programs could increase IT adoption and retention in agricultural operations

Callahan, Dale W

Thomas, Daniel C

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 40 Number 6 Article 14 12-1-2002 Information Technology Adoption in Agricultural Operations: A Progression Path Daniel C. Thomas University of Alabama at Birmingham, thomad92@eng.uab.edu Dale W. Callahan University of Alabama at Birmingham, dcallahan@uab.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Thomas, D. C., & Callahan, D. W. (2002). Information Technology Adoption in Agricultural Operations: A Progression Path. The Journal of Extension, 40(6), Article 14. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol40/iss6/14 This Ideas at Work is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. 	 JOEHOME JOURNAL GUIDELINES ABOUT	JOE CONTACT NATIONAL	JOB	BANKCurrent	Issues Back	IssuesDecember	2002	//	Volume	40	//	Number	6	//	Ideas	at	Work	//	6IAW1Information	Technology	Adoption	in	Agricultural	Operations:	AProgression	PathAbstractAgricultural	operations	are	not	taking	advantage	of	the	Information	Technology	(IT)	tools	thatexist	today.	As	the	agricultural	industry	continues	to	evolve,	IT	utilization	is	critical	to	thecontinued	competitiveness/survival	of	individual	operations.	A	progression	path	for	IT	adoption	isdefined	that	takes	into	account	IT	tools	utilized	along	with	impacts	to	operational	processes.	Thispath	can	be	used	as	a	tool	to	ease	farmers	into	the	IT	world	without	introducing	excessivechange	all	at	once.	Application	of	this	path	in	Extension	educational	programs	could	increase	ITadoption	and	retention	in	agricultural	operations.	Technology	Utilization:	Current	State	and	Future	NeedThe	U.S.	Agriculture	Industry	has	not	been	left	out	of	the	"information	revolution"	that	has	beentaking	place	over	the	past	20	years.	For	example,	a	cursory	search	of	the	Internet	yields	a	long	listof	software	companies	that	produce	sophisticated	software	to	assist	agricultural	producers	inmanaging	the	farm	(e.g.,	herd	management,	financial/accounting).	Research	(Findlay,	Zabawa,Morris,	&	Oben,	1993:	Schmidt,	Rockwell,	Bitney,	&	Sarno,	1994)	indicates	that	during	the	1980sand	early	1990s,	farmers	largely	were	not	taking	advantage	of	information	technology	(IT).Blezinger's	(2001)	experience	with	cattle	operations	showed	that	many	operations	are	not	keepinggood	records,	which	suggests	the	operations	are	not	utilizing	IT.Discussions	at	the	1999	EFITA	(European	Federation	for	Information	Technology	in	Agriculture)Conference	(Gelb,	Schiefer,	Parker,	&	Rosskopf,	2000),	suggest	that,	while	many	factors	impact	ITadoption,	it	is	critical,	both	now	and	in	the	future,	that	IT	be	utilized	in	agricultural	operations.	Onespeaker	at	the	conference	used	the	word	"dictate"	to	indicate	the	criticality	of	IT	adoption.While	the	concept	of	IT	can	represent	many	different	functions,	most	agricultural	operators	will,arguably,	maximize	utility	from	record-keeping	functionality	to	support	strategic,	tactical,	andoperational	management	of	the	farm.A	Progression	Path	for	Technology	AdoptionThe	fact	is	that	many	agricultural	operations	are	short	on	information	technology.	Leaping	into	newtechnologies	can	have	substantial	impact	on	productivity,	both	positive	and	negative.	The	rightchoices	taken	at	the	right	time	are	crucial.	So	a	question	is	raised:	How	can	we	help	a	farmer	adoptIT	tools	that	will	assist	in	the	management	of	the	agricultural	operation?Progression	Path	DefinitionDaniel	C.	ThomasGraduate	StudentInformation	Engineering	and	ManagementInternet	Address:	thomad92@eng.uab.eduDale	W.	CallahanAssistant	ProfessorElectrical	and	Computer	EngineeringInternet	Address:	dcallahan@uab.eduUniversity	of	Alabama	at	BirminghamBirmingham,	AlabamaThis	article	proposes	that	a	"Progression	Path"	framework	can	be	defined	as	an	evaluation	tool	toassist	with	IT	adoption	in	agricultural	operations.	This	framework	could	be	used	to:Determine	the	current	level	of	IT	utilization	for	a	particular	farmer,Determine	the	next	step	on	the	path,	andDevelop	a	specific	"step	migration	plan"	that	addresses	operational	processes	along	with	ITcomponents.The	basic	stepping	stones	for	this	path	cover	a	wide	spectrum,	ranging	from	no	IT	to	a	networked,multi-user	IT	environment.	The	five	steps	are	defined	as	follows.I.	 "Intra-Cranial"	("I-C").	This	step	is	the	absence	of	IT,	with	"record	keeping"	done	in	thefarmer's	memory	and	perceptions;II.	 Paper/Pencil.	Capturing	farm	data	in	a	notebook,	journal,	or	accounting-type	ledger	is	a	vastIT	improvement	over	"I-C";III.	 Single	Machine/Generic	Tools.	This	includes	Personal	Computers	(PCs)	or	Personal	DigitalAssistants	(PDAs)	using	"standard-load"	tools	such	as	word-processing,	spreadsheet,	databaseapplications,	and	Internet	browsers;IV.	 Single	Machine/Specific	Tools.	This	includes	PCs	or	PDAs	using	specific	tools	such	as	herd-management,	accounting/financial	or	Internet-based	applications;V.	 Networked	Machines.	This	includes	client/sever	implementations	of	either	generic	or	specifictools.	This	step	would	likely	only	be	taken	by	large	operations	that	need	concurrent	supportfor	multiple	system	users.	This	step	will	likely	require	an	IT	management	function.Why	a	Progression	Path?There	are	at	least	three	reasons	why	this	concept	of	a	"Progression	Path"	can	be	used	to	assist	afarmer	in	realizing	the	benefits	of	IT.Incremental	ChangeGiven	that	humans	resist	change,	especially	when	the	level	of	change	is	significant,	thisprogression	path	allows	for	small	steps	as	opposed	to	giant	leaps.	For	example,	it	is	unlikely	that	aStep	I	farmer	with	no	PC	experience	will	purchase	a	PC	with	herd-management	software	and	use	itto	manage	the	herd.	It	is	more	likely	that	such	a	farmer	would	begin	the	record-keeping	journey	bywriting	information	on	paper.Incremental	ExpendituresEach	step	along	the	path	requires	expenditures	for	equipment	and	tools.	Skipping	steps	will	stackexpenditures	all	at	once.The	expenditures	at	the	lower	steps	will	likely	focus	on	operational	equipment	and	tools	that	willbe	needed	to	produce	the	data	required	at	later	steps.	For	example,	the	Step	I	farmer	likely	doesnot	weigh	calves	or	yearlings	because	he	is	not	keeping	up	with	that	data.	Knowing	that	Step	IVtools	can	maintain	such	information,	the	farmer	can	purchase	scales	at	Step	II,	where	ITexpenditures	are	virtually	nonexistent,	to	allow	for	weighing	animals	and	institute	that	process	onhis	farm.Expenditures	at	the	higher	steps	will	shift	towards	IT	equipment	and	tools.	For	example,	Step	IIIcalls	for	a	PC	to	be	purchased	while	Step	IV	calls	for	extra	software.Incremental	BuildMost	of	the	expenditures	and	operational	processes	adopted	at	a	given	step	will	not	be	lost	withmigration	to	the	next	step.	In	fact,	most	of	the	operational	processes	adopted	in	a	particular	stepare	actually	in	preparation	for	the	next	step.	Similarly,	records	kept	at	a	given	step	can	beexpanded	upon	in	later	steps.Migration	ProcessWhen	using	the	Progression	Path	framework	to	assist	with	IT	adoption,	a	migration	process	isneeded	to	guide	the	development	and	execution	of	the	farmer-specific	"step	migration	plan."	Asintimated	above,	the	basic	migration	process	would	be:Determine	current	step	using	the	Progression	Path	definitions;Maximize	IT	utilization	at	the	current	step;Learn	about	available	IT	and	necessary	operational	change	at	the	next	step;Develop	and	institute	appropriate	operational	changes;	andPurchase,	install,	and	use	new	IT.During	the	migration	process,	time	spent	in	a	given	step	should	be	long	enough	to	ensure	thatboth	operational	processes	and	IT	tools	are	used	consistently	and	effectively.	It	is	suggested	that	afarmer	stay	in	each	step	for	at	least	2	years.	This	allows	a	year	for	adoption	of	the	current	step'stechnology	and	operations,	followed	by	a	year	of	planning	to	take	the	next	step.	That	means	thatat	least	a	5-year	commitment	is	needed	to	move	from	Step	I	to	Step	IV.Implications	for	ExtensionExtension	professionals	can	use	this	Progression	Path	in	at	least	two	ways,	as	an	evaluation	tooland	in	program	development.Individual	agents	can	use	an	understanding	of	this	framework	when	working	with	a	farmer	toquickly	assess	the	step	on	the	path	that	best	represents	his/her	IT	utilization	and	associatedoperational	processes.	The	agent	can	then	counsel	the	producer	on	preparing	to	move	to	the	nextstep	in	the	path.	The	agent	can	also	target	producers	for	the	appropriate	level	of	step-basedtraining	or	educational	sessions.The	aforementioned	training	or	educational	programs	can	be	developed	based	on	the	framework.These	programs	would	seek	to	increase	both	IT	adoption	and	retention.	Alternatively,	theframework	could	be	used	as	supplemental	information	in	existing	programs	that	deal	withoperational	processes	and	technologies.It	should	be	noted	that,	while	this	research	was	focused	specifically	on	beef	cattle	operations,	thestepping-stones	of	the	"Path"	represent	a	framework	that	could	easily	be	applied	to	otheragricultural	operations,	including	crop	production	operations.	Obviously,	the	details	could	varygreatly	between	particular	operations'	migration	paths	in	terms	of	software	tools	and	supportingoperational	process	but	the	framework	would	still	apply.ReferencesBlezinger,	S.	(2001).	Many	tools	are	available	to	help	build	a	quality	herd.	Cattle	Today	Online	[On-line].	May	2001.	Available	at:	http://cattletoday.com/archive/2001/May/CT147.shtmlFindlay,	H.	J.,	Zabawa,	R.,	Morris,	C.	E.,	&	Oben,	M.	(1993).	Computer	awareness	among	limited-resource	farmers.	Journal	of	Extension	[On-line].	31(1).	Available	at:http://www.joe.org/joe/1993spring/a8.htmlGelb,	E.,	Schiefer,	G.,	Parker,	C.,	&	Rosskopf,	K.	(2000).	Why	is	the	IT	adoption	rate	by	farmers	soslow?	1999	EFITA	Conference.	Retrieved	at:	http://www.efita.dk/papers/ep4/EfitaPaper-4.aspSchmidt,	D.,	Rockwell,	S.	K.,	Bitney,	L.,	&	Sarno,	E.	A.	(1994).	Farmers	adopt	microcomputers	in	the1980s:	Educational	needs	surface	for	the	1990s.	Journal	of	Extension	[On-line].	32(1).	Available	at:http://www.joe.org/joe/1994june/a9.htmlCopyright	©	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Articles	appearing	in	the	Journal	become	the	property	of	theJournal.	 Single	 copies	 of	 articles	 may	 be	 reproduced	 in	 electronic	 or	 print	 form	 for	 use	 in	 educational	 or	 trainingactivities.	Inclusion	of	articles	in	other	publications,	electronic	sources,	or	systematic	large-scale	distribution	may	bedone	only	with	prior	electronic	or	written	permission	of	the	Journal	Editorial	Office,	joe-ed@joe.org.If	you	have	difficulties	viewing	or	printing	this	page,	please	contact	JOE	Technical	Support©	Copyright	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Copyright	Policy

Information Technology Adoption in Agricultural Operations: A Progression Path

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5226&context=joe

Information Technology Adoption in Agricultural Operations: A Progression Path

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints