=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3016/paper21
|storemode=property
|title=Exploring digitalisation in agriculture through socio-technical perspectives
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3016/paper21.pdf
|volume=Vol-3016
|authors=Chiara Cagnetti,Alessio Maria Braccini
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/stpis/CagnettiB21
}}
==Exploring digitalisation in agriculture through socio-technical perspectives==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3016/paper21.pdf
Exploring digitalisation in agriculture through socio-technical
perspectives
Chiara Cagnetti 1, Alessio Maria Braccini 1
1
University of Tuscia, Department of Economics Engineering, Society and Organisation – DEIM, Viterbo VT
01000, Italy
Abstract
The primary purpose is to explore the process of digitisation of agricultural industries from a
socio-technical perspective. From the literature, we can see that digitisation can change the
way agricultural industries operate and use a wide range of digital technologies. The use of
these affects the entire organisation, which must have the necessary skills to adopt them. The
literature analyses digital technologies in all their functional aspects and characteristics, but it
less emphasizes the organisational context. For this reason, it is essential to study the
digitisation process of agricultural enterprises from a socio-technical perspective. However,
the research is still ongoing, so we are exploring the topic. Future research will be necessary
to focus on a single technology and organize the focus on the organisational component.
Keywords 1
FMIS, Socio-technical perspective, Information System, Digitalisation
1. Introduction
The digital transformation uses digital technologies for improving the industry's business. The
change happens both from a technical, organisational, and strategical point of view [1]—digital
transformation targets all industries, including agriculture. However digital transformation, in
agriculture present specific challenges but also bears significant sustainable opportunities [2].
On one side digital, transformation in the agricultural sector presents challenges similar to other
industries. Part of the agricultural sector involves the collection, change, and delivery of products to the
market. Under this point of view organisation of the agricultural industry use both information systems
and digital technologies along with their operational and administrative processes.
Digital technologies collect data in real-time, which are processed and analysed to provide many
advantages to the agricultural industry [3]. Digital technologies can influence the agriculture production
process, improving the gap between farmers and suppliers. Digital technologies' main aim is to face
many challenges as climate changes and the creation of added value happen in the agricultural sector
[4]. Another aim is the reduction of input cost and yield improvement [5]. Managing in the real-time
agriculture industry allows improving productivity, supply chain efficiency, safety, and use of resources
[3].
On the other side, the agricultural sector is highly diversified and contains organisations that work
in different conditions. For part of them, the production and transformation process happens in nature,
in farms of various sizes, and depends on events of the natural environment. Digital technologies need
to be deployed in such contexts, which poses new challenges for IoT solutions.
Furthermore, digital transformation in the agricultural industry is preliminary since several
organisations are at a pre-digital phase, small size, not integrated into value chains, and lack staff with
good digital literacy [3].
7th International Workshop on Socio-Technical Perspective in IS development (STPIS 2021) 11-12 October 2021, Trento, Italy
EMAIL: chiara.cagnetti@unitus.it; abraccini@unitus.it
©️ 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
243
There are several studies on digital transformation in the agricultural industry [2]. Most of the studies
focus on the operational benefits of integrating single pieces of technology. In this exploratory paper,
we aim at exploring the literature on digital transformation from a socio-technical perspective to draw
avenues for future research in the industry. The paper is driven by the following research question:
What is the state of the art of literature on digital transformation in the agricultural industry from a
socio-technical point of view? We answer to research question through a literature review.
In this regard, the paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we present a theoretical framework
from a socio-technical perspective. In section 3, we show the material and method used in the literature
review. In section 4, we show the results of the literature review. In Section 5, we discuss the
preliminary results of the literature review, answering the research question. Finally, in section 6, we
conclude by identifying how to continue for future research.
2. Theoretical framework
The socio-technical perspective arose after World War II, along with the studies undertaken in the
British mining industry by the Tavistock Institute. A new way of thinking was born, and programmatic
moves developed to resolve the gap between organisational and technical approaches to problem-
solving. A unique way of studying the relationship between technological and social components was
born [6].
The socio-technical perspective considers a working system composed of two intertwined elements:
the social and the technical. The technical component evaluates the business processes and the
technologies used in the industry to perform the operations. The technical component transforms inputs
into outputs to improve the performance of the work system [7]. The technical component is a "human-
created tool whose raison d’être is to be used to solve a problem, achieve a goal or serve a purpose
that is human-defined, human perceived or human felt" [8].
On the other hand, the social component comprises individuals, knowledge, skills, attitudes, values,
and needs in the industry and the external environment [7]. The social component is a "relationships or
interactions between or among individuals (or collectives) through which an individual (or collective)
attempts to solve one of his or her (or their) problems, achieve one of his or her (or their goals or serve
on of his or her (or their) purposes relationships" [8].
The two components interact with each other, and both assume importance in generating satisfactory
results. The two components must work together to realize tasks to produce a physical product and
social/psychological effects. We consider the social and technical components together to produce
positive results, and this concept is called joint optimization. The technical feature designed in advance
of the social element is contrasted by this method [9]. The socio-technical perspective does not privilege
the technological or social features but sees results emerging from the interaction between the two
components.
3. Research design
We conducted the literature review following specific theories [25, 26], identifying ways,
techniques, and advice to follow to perform a good review. We identified information about the socio-
technical perspective in agriculture industries through the literature review, extracting the information
required to conduct our analysis. The literature review is a part of the systematic, which allows us to
identify, evaluate, and synthesize the research. We identified a research question, which we could
answer by collecting, extracting, and aggregating information. We conducted an iterative search; in
fact, we initially searched the literature for Farm Management Information system (FMIS) and Decision
Support System (DSS) and, as we drove the review, learned about new topics and concepts that led to
extending the initial search by accepting new work.
We use Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) to search for materials. We chose these two online
databases because they are the most relevant in our field of study and allow us to search through a
query. We use a search through a query to properly link topics together but, more importantly, to achieve
an exhaustive search. We formulate a research query to study the concept of FMIS and DSS in the
244
agricultural sector, intending to analyse these concepts according to a socio-technical perspective. Show
the query in Table 1 below.
"Title, keywords, Abstract" is the search criteria. We limited the results to "Papers," and we chose
only "Journal." Then we identify the topic areas, like Scopus and WoS. We use in Scopus: "agriculture
and biological sciences," "social sciences," and "business, management, and account.". We use these
research areas in WoS: "Agriculture," "Business Economics," and "Social Sciences topics."
We select only papers in English and perform the search in January and February 2021. We read the
obtained papers and tried to select only the most relevant to the research, excluding those that would
not add value to the study. We read the abstracts of all papers found and chosen only the most pertinent,
excluding any duplicates found. Next, we read the selected papers thoroughly and removed those that
would not benefit the search. The reports we obtained were able to satisfy our search. While reading
the papers, we conducted a back-and-forth search, through which we identified essential themes to our
research that were initial search found. To write the paper, we consider papers from the last ten years,
but to get a clearer view of the topics, we read all papers since 2000. We chose to select only this time
frame because the concept of Smart Farming was born in the last few years, and therefore in the past
years, we would not have found helpful information about this concept.
Table 1
Literature Review
Phases Description of actions N° of Papers
1 ((agriculture farm) AND ("decision support system" OR "agricultural 34 Scopus
decision support system" OR "business intelligence") AND ("farm* 11 WoS
management" OR "corporate performance measurement" OR
"performance management" OR "performance measurement"))
2 Duplicates papers 6
3 The final number of papers from the literature search 39
4 Abstract read selection 18
5 Full-texted selection 14
6 Relevant paper cited 19
Total Total number of Papers used in the literature review 33
4. Preliminary Results
The literature review identified various technologies that farmers use in agricultural industries and
contribute to agricultural sectors' digitalization. These include information systems (IS), which farmers
use in the agricultural industry. Information systems are technologies implemented in farms that have
started a digitalisation process, but their use in the agricultural industry is still limited. The information
systems used in agriculture and identified by the literature review are farm manager Information
Systems (FMIS). In addition to these IS, we also identified another technology used in agriculture:
decision support system (DSS). Below we identify the characteristics of these concepts, and we show
what they are specific features and their use.
4.1. The FMIS and its characteristics
The FMIS is an IS that collects and processes data to perform farm operations and keep track of data
and relationships with third parties. The FMIS is defined as "a planned system for the collecting,
processing, storing, and disseminating data in the form of information needed to carry out the
operations functions of the farm." The FMIS performs specific operations such as strategic, tactical,
and operational planning, implementation and documentation of data and evaluations, and work
optimization [10]. For these, the objectives of FMIS are to provide and collect information from
245
farmers, offer intelligent services, reduce production costs, respect agricultural standards, and maintain
a high quality and products safety [10, 11]. The use of FMIS has an impact on the whole organisation.
Indeed, the effects of FMIS are improving decision making, easy to use software through interaction
between end-user and developer, and finally, producing appropriate documentation to reduce time
management [11].
Like all the information systems (IS), FMIS has limitations such as lack of farmers' expertise,
problems to transfer data, lack of environmental events to make comparisons, lack of trust from farmers
to use this technology [10, 12].
From literature, we can see that more stakeholder is interesting to improve FMIS. Each stakeholder
plays a different role. For example, one of the primary stakeholders is the farmer, responsible for the
agricultural industry and the end-user of software. The developer creates software and FMIS, and the
agricultural consultant is the one who helps farmers make decisions, and the FMIS assisting him. There
are other stakeholders, for example, accountants, who use FMIS to verify information in accounting.
The FMIS contains information for the agricultural industry and stakeholders. For example, financial
management, traceability, accountability, data processing, and resource management [13]. FMIS is not
unique. Indeed, it changes according to the type of agricultural industry. However, there are eleven
generics functions that all FMIS must-have. These functions are field operations management, best
practices, finance, inventory, traceability, reporting, site-specific, sales, machinery management,
human resource management, and finally, quality assurance [11].
The FMIS is designed with various conceptual models, using specific software development
techniques such as Unified Modelling Language (UML). This language is an industry-standard to make
object-oriented analysis and realization of information systems. The UML describes the relationship
among various software components of the agricultural industry. There are other methodologies, such
as Relationship diagrams and data flow. There is no single standard architecture for developing an
FMIS. Indeed, there are several. We find that FMIS, with client-server architecture and others, is
standalone [13, 14].
This architecture can be formally or informally. When the design is informal, the plan does not
follow formal modeling techniques but uses line and box models. Formal structure uses defined
standards ISO/ISEC and Standard 42010 (ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 2011) [13, 14]. FMIS can be an
application or standalone application. A platform is software with a plug-in architecture that helps users
or the agricultural industry extend functions of FMIS. The Platform is a program for pc to perform an
activity. There are three types of platforms: Web FMIS, Mobile FMIS, and Desktop FMIS. The
Platform is usually computer-based [11].
Ultimately, however, FMIS based on the Internet of Things (IoT) is becoming essential. These
technologies are integrated with FMIS to create systems with different functional requirements, for
example, type of crop, sensors, communication protocols, and data processing capability. The
architecture is so complicated to achieve but can generate good results. FMIS based on IoT supports
objectives of smart farming, and it can use this technology jointly to create added value [15].
Using these technologies involves changes depending on the type of industry and its size from the
organisational side. Large agricultural industries use these digital technologies, which have a more
significant number of workers. The application of technologies also involves a change in the industry's
culture and mentality of the industry. Organisations play a crucial role in the use of digital technologies
and must be proactive. Organisations' attitudes influence the usage of digital technologies; in fact,
workers with positive attitudes can gain advantages over other industries.
4.2. DSS in agriculture
A DSS is a platform to support decision-making by facilitating the creation of situations from farm
data, which help farmers make decisions [16].
DSS in agriculture is a human-computer system that can use the collected data to provide farmers
with a list of recommendations that they can implement in their decision-making process. DSS does not
replace farmers' work but helps them make better decisions even though farmers often make decisions
independently [16]. According to a socio-technical perspective, DSS are digital technologies integrated
246
into the decision-making process of farmers. Agricultural industries use these digital technologies to
achieve their objectives and follow their strategies in the best possible way.
The main functions of DSS are [17]:
1) Collecting, organizing, and integrating different types of information needed to produce a crop
2) To Analyse and interpret the information
3) Using the analyses to recommend the most appropriate action and choices of action.
Today's decision-making process uses data sources that create opportunities for information and
drive a change from intuitive to data-driven, real-time decision-making. This change involves new ways
of working. DSSs usually result in a database or data model, a logic-based or logical model, and a user
interface. The logical model is a mathematical simulation model that describes how entities or a group
of entities react under certain circumstances, ground rules, or a combination of the two [18].
There are various types of DSS in agriculture, each with specific tasks. There are DSSs used for
field management, others for irrigation management, and still others for vineyard management. Each of
these has different characteristics and usefulness.
Organisations play a crucial role in the use of digital technologies and need to be proactive. The use
of digital technologies must be an increase in jobs in the organisation, but rather as elements that can
help workers. Digital technologies require specific knowledge and a reorganisation of roles according
to skills possessed. The use of DSS helps farmers make decisions and requires coordination and control
throughout the organisation.
5. Discussion
This paper is a "Work in progress paper" and represents a research question from a Ph.D. project.
We conduct a literature review in which the agricultural industry's digital transformation, digital
technologies, and digitalisation are the framework. We explore the concept of agricultural industries,
FMIS, and DSS from a socio-technical perspective
We research in collaboration with CREA, an Italian governmental research organisation dedicated
to agri-food supply chains. CREA operated as a legal entity and supervised of Ministry of Agricultural,
Food, Forestry, and Tourism Policies (Mipaaft). Their activities regard agriculture, crops, livestock,
forestry, food science- and socio-economics. CREA tries to respect the aim of sustainability through
circular economy standards and innovations.
The research focuses on DSS and FMIS, the creation of DSS to support decisions derived from data
collected by agricultural industries. The analog country is Italy, which is part of the European Union.
Italy is a developed country but adopts few digital technologies in agricultural industries, even though
agriculture is essential. In the primary phase, we use only a tiny part of the literature review to show
how the socio-technical perspective can influence the agricultural industry. The literature review
indicates that there are many studies about the application of digital technology and their feedback in
the organisation but on t. Still, there are few studies on how the organisation changes its functioning
with digital technologies.
So far, the research is at a very early stage, and we have no example concerning digital technologies
in agricultural industries. We only consider the literature review, and we cannot give a practical
example. We want to identify specific agricultural sectors for the following research to understand and
analyse how agricultural industries use digital technologies and impact the organisation. For now, we
recognize the following from the literature review.
The digitization process in agricultural industries is still ongoing. It transforms the way industries
work, moving from standardized to digital methods using digital technologies that improve industry
profitability and productivity. We used a part of the conducted literature review to show the state-of-
the-art digitalisation in agricultural industries from a socio-technical perspective to answer our research
question. The literature review offers a low adoption of digital technologies in agricultural sectors, and
indeed, the digitization process is still ongoing and has not taken place completely. The literature review
identified two digital technologies that contribute to the digitalisation process in agricultural industries,
namely FMIS e DSS. These digital technologies are essential because they help farmers to make
decisions based on data and not only on their knowledge and intentions. Agricultural industries do not
use them due to the lack of skills. From a socio-technical perspective, it is a necessary collaboration
247
between technical and organisational to solve these problems. These components are interconnected
and influence the digitalisation process of agricultural industries. The technical feature is the FMIS;
during the administrative element, the actors are the farmer. The FMIS collects and processes data to
perform farming operations and keep track of the data while people get the results and use them to make
the best decisions. To develop digital technology, necessary a collaborative process between the farmer
and the developer must be successful.
One of the limitations of using FMIS is the difficulty and complexity, so develop a simple
technology [10, 12, 13, 23, 24].
DSS is also digital technology that contributes to the digitization process of the agricultural industry.
DSS helps to make better decisions for the farmer without replacing his work. From the literature, we
notice that digital technologies focus their interest from a technical point of view without understanding
their role in the organisation. Many organisations adopt digital technologies when they are supported
by other organisations that can explain their benefits. Organisations that decide to use digital
technologies can improve their management capacity, but more importantly, many believe that
technologies improve business results. Organisations need to support the use of technologies to improve
their digital infrastructure, but above all, they need to use digital technologies that are usable by all
users [4]. According to a socio-technical perspective, digital technologies are the combination of
technologies that can influence the organisation and manage its business processes. Organisations need
to change their attitudes and be willing to apply digital technologies. Perspectives should not be
individual but collaborative between people working in industries and between people and technologies,
as digital technology should be necessary for their activities. Organisations adopt technologies when
they are willing to overcome the limitations of lack of skills, thus overcoming their technological
backwardness socio-technical [19]. In addition to these reasons, the organisation often has a pessimistic
attitude about its adoption because of data issues, environmental constraints, and a lack of value.
Digital technologies in agricultural industries aim to capture infinite amounts of data to be used to
make decisions. The absence of legislation contributes to the low adoption of these digital technologies,
which are not adopted because there is no control over the data. The development of digital technologies
by developers is not always easy. Often digital technologies are combinatorial, and agricultural
industries do not use these for considered too demanding. Creating a unique software developed by a
developer is a wrong solution. Users prefer to use customized software, consisting of standardized
components provided by various developers, who collaborate and compete through the development of
a platform. Creating such software requires a strong organisation willing to collaborate with
stakeholders to create programs that depend on the organisation's expertise [3, 5, 20].
The use of digital technologies requires changes within the organisation, as digital technologies
require specific skills and a working environment conducive to change. The organisation must be
interested in changing its activities, integrated with digital technologies to generate positive feedback.
The organisation will only use digital technologies if they can cause significant benefits for the
organisation. The application of digital technologies, which modify processes and make them digital,
requires an organisational redesign, which depends on the objectives set and the new organisational
structure. The use of technology also entails changes at the level of employees, whom digital
technologies can often replace. When this happens, companies must review their hierarchy but find new
solutions for their workers. Organisations also need to incentivize workers, in this case, farmers, to
boost and increase their skills.
They analyse the results obtained, and we see that the organisation's low adoption of digital
technologies could limit technology's improvement. Agricultural industries that do not adopt digital
technologies cannot even develop and improve. If digital technologies fail to build, it will not be
possible to implement a digitalisation process of agricultural industries. The organisation needs staff
with specific digital skills, and in their absence, it can resort to specific courses able to increase the
digital level of the organisation. If employees improve their skills, they will apply digital technologies,
and organisations could achieve benefits and high performance. Expanding a company's performance
enables it to achieve important goals. Of course, agricultural enterprises that decide to implement
digital technologies must have strategies to follow and plans and objectives to reach, considering any
issues.
The use of digital technologies such as DSS and FMIS for the digitisation process requires the co-
invocation of both technical and organisational aspects. Considering these two elements in the
248
digitisation process of agricultural industries will allow solving the problems that still exist related to
the poor implementation of these digital technologies.
Using digital technologies such as DSS and FMIS for the digitization process requires the co-
invocation of technical and organisational aspects. Considering these two elements in the digitization
process of agricultural industries will allow solving the problems that still exist related to the poor
implementation of these digital technologies.
6. Conclusion
The research shows that agricultural industries are in a transition phase towards the digitalisation
process. Digital technologies are studied individually and need to be integrated with the organisational
context to gather helpful information to apply the digitalisation process. As already mentioned, the
research is still ongoing. It is necessary to analyse the digitalisation process from a socio-technical
perspective, integrating the theoretical component with the organisational piece. This perspective
improves the digitalisation process that has advantages and limitations. The organisation must integrate
these digital technologies with their operations and activities, be aware of them and have the appropriate
knowledge to use them. To study the digitalisation process of agricultural industries in even greater
detail, it is essential to orient studies towards a socio-technical perspective. The latter, in the present
research, needs to be more investigated. Until now, we give importance to the role of technologies and
do not consider the organisational part.
7. References
1. Parra-López, C., Reina-Usuga, L., Carmona-Torres, C., Sayadi, S., Klerkx, L.: Digital
transformation of the agri-food system: Quantifying the conditioning factors to inform policy
planning in the olive sector. Land use policy. 108, (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105537.
2. Klerkx, L., Rose, D.: Dealing with the game-changing technologies of Agriculture 4.0: How do
we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition pathways? Glob. Food Sec. 24,
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100347.
3. Liu, Y., Ma, X., Shu, L., Hancke, G.P., Abu-Mahfouz, A.M.: From Industry 4.0 to Agriculture
4.0: Current Status, Enabling Technologies, and Research Challenges. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Informatics. 17, 4322–4334 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2020.3003910.
4. Hashem, N.M., Hassanein, E.M., Hocquette, J.-F., Gonzalez-Bulnes, A., Ahmed, F.A., Attia,
Y.A., Asiry, K.A.: Agro-Livestock Farming System Sustainability during the COVID-19 Era:
A Cross-Sectional Study on the Role of Information and Communication Technologies.
Sustainability. 13, 6521 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126521.
5. Fielke, S.J., Garrard, R., Jakku, E., Fleming, A., Wiseman, L., Taylor, B.M.: Conceptualising
the DAIS: Implications of the 'Digitalisation of Agricultural Innovation Systems' on technology
and policy at multiple levels. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci. 90–91, (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2019.04.002.
6. Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., Elbanna, A.: The sociotechnical axis of cohesion for the IS
discipline: Its historical legacy and its continued relevance. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 43, 695–
719 (2019). https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2019/13747.
7. Bostrom, R., Gupta, S., Thomas, D.: A meta-theory for understanding information systems
within sociotechnical systems. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 26, 17–48 (2009).
https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260102.
8. Lee, A.S., Thomas, M., Baskerville, R.L.: Going back to basics in design science: From the
information technology artifact to the information systems artifact. Inf. Syst. J. 25, 5–21 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12054.
9. Appelbaum, S.H.: Socio-technical systems theory: an intervention strategy for organisational
development, (1997). https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749710173823.
10. Kaloxylos, A., Eigenmann, R., Teye, F., Politopoulou, Z., Wolfert, S., Shrank, C., Dillinger, M.,
Lampropoulou, I., Antoniou, E., Pesonen, L., Nicole, H., Thomas, F., Alonistioti, N.,
249
Kormentzas, G.: Farm management systems and the Future Internet era. Comput. Electron.
Agric. 89, 130–144 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2012.09.002.
11. Fountas, S., Carli, G., Sørensen, C.G., Tsiropoulos, Z., Cavalaris, C., Vatsanidou, A., Liakos,
B., Canavari, M., Wiebensohn, J., Tisserye, B.: Farm management information systems: Current
situation and future perspectives. Comput. Electron. Agric. 115, 40–50 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.05.011.
12. Kaloxylos, A., Groumas, A., Sarris, V., Katsikas, L., Magdalinos, P., Antoniou, E.,
Politopoulou, Z., Wolfert, S., Brewster, C., Eigenmann, R., Maestre Terol, C.: A cloud-based
farm management system: Architecture and implementation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 100,
168–179 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.11.014.
13. Tummers, J., Kassahun, A., Tekinerdogan, B.: Reference architecture design for farm
management information systems: a multi-case study approach. Precis. Agric. 22, 22–50 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-020-09728-0.
14. Tummers, J., Kassahun, A., Tekinerdogan, B.: Obstacles and features of Farm Management
Information Systems: A systematic literature review, (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.12.044.
15. Köksal, Tekinerdogan, B.: Architecture design approach for IoT-based farm management
information systems. Precis. Agric. 20, 926–958 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-018-
09624-8.
16. Zhai, Z., Martínez, J.F., Beltran, V., Martínez, N.L.: Decision support systems for agriculture
4.0: Survey and challenges, (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105256.
17. Lindblom, J., Lundström, C., Ljung, M., Jonsson, A.: Promoting sustainable intensification in
precision agriculture: review of decision support systems development and strategies. Precis.
Agric. 18, 309–331 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-016-9491-4.
18. Parker, C., Sinclair, M.: User-centred design does make a difference. The case of decision
support systems in crop production. Behav. Inf. Technol. 20, 449–460 (2001).
https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290110089570.
19. Ulezko, A., Reimer, V., Ulezko, O.: Theoretical and methodological aspects of digitalisation in
agriculture. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 274, (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/274/1/012062.
20. Kruize, J.W., Wolfert, J., Scholten, H., Verdouw, C.N., Kassahun, A., Beulens, A.J.M.: A
reference architecture for Farm Software Ecosystems. Comput. Electron. Agric. 125, 12–28
(2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.04.011.
250