|
C IL | I'll throw out some ideas:
Cost: GIS licenses, mobile GIS licenses, and the major cost: acquiring the time and expertise to do this for non-digital natives.
Convenience: tablet-ready platforms and telemetry make it easy to show Grandpa a picture so we can spring some real money loose and 'get something done' to that wet spot, under-fertilized spot, what have you.
Actual and Perceived value: perceived expertise and convenience (i.e., clever marketing), benchmarking (a huge one). I think most big data solutions currently offer low fruit solutions (basic GIS functions) but with larger data sets some users assume future unspecified gains will accrue.
A huge issue I see in actionable business data quality is merging GIS and budget/accounting systems to get accurate site-specific cost data. How do you accurately show costs? LIFO, FIFO, average? What about prepay dollars and marginal costs for in-season products. Shortfalls? Interest costs to carry over? And who wants to share all of that in intimate detail, and I agree - how can you trust that compared to others? Yields and input amounts are one thing, checking account balances are way more personal. The coop integrators who know the exact nutrient composition and cost-of-gain are in a tremendously strong position to serve or sell out their members. Grains are currently a much less concentrated industry.
Finally, the divide and conquer paradox that a small sample set will contribute and will get some gains out, giving them an advantage over others that do not contribute, setting off the 'arms race' of data-sharing. Perpetuating the paradox/arms-race. Ask the small independent swine farrow-to-finish guy how holding the line is working.
Edited by sand85 7/16/2017 22:49
| |
|
Why are farmers so enamored with “Big Data”
