d2.3: report on co-creation of services -...

D2.3 Report on co-creation of services

1 / 42

D2.3: Report on co-creation of services WP2 – Users’ needs analysis and specifications

Anna Osann, Andrés Cuesta, Francisco Jara, Mari-Llanos López with contributions from pilot area teams (ACP, UPOR, AgriSat)

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 687412.


2 / 42

Disclaimer

Any dissemination of results reflects only the author's view and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Copyright message

© APOLLO Consortium, 2016 This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation or both. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.


3 / 42

Document Information

Grant Agreement Number 687412 Acronym APOLLO

Full Title Advisory platform for small farms based on earth observation

Horizon 2020 Call EO-1-2015: Bringing EO applications to the market

Type of Action Research and innovation Action

Start Date 1 May 2016 Duration 34 months

Project URL -

Document URL -

EU Project Officer Ioulia SIMION

Project Coordinator Polimachi Simeonidou

Deliverable D2.3 Report on co-creation of services

Work Package WP2 – Users’ needs analysis and specifications

Date of Delivery Contractual M16 Actual M19

Nature R – Report Dissemination Level CO- consortium only

Lead Beneficiary AgriSat

Lead Author Anna Osann Email [email protected]

AgriSat Phone +34 607 200 404

Other authors Andrés Cuesta, Francisco Jara, Mari-Llanos López (AgriSat)

with contributions from pilot area teams (ACP, UPOR, AgriSat)

Reviewer(s) Dragutin Protic (UBFCE)

Keywords User requirements, co-creation

Document History

Version Issue Date Stage Changes Contributor v00 23/10/2017 Draft AgriSat v03 2/12/2017 Final for review Annexes added AgriSat v04 12/01/2018 Final Reviewer’s comments included AgriSat


4 / 42

Table&of&Contents&Executive summary .............................................................................................................................. 5!1! Introduction and scope .................................................................................................................. 7!

1.1! Background and context ...................................................................................................... 7!1.2! Purpose and scope of this document .................................................................................... 7!

2! The APOLLO co-creation process framework ............................................................................. 7!2.1! Definition of main actors in the co-creation process ........................................................... 8!2.2! The alpha-user concept ........................................................................................................ 9!2.3! Roadmap for the co-creation process ................................................................................... 9!2.4! “Lonely Planet Travel Guide” ........................................................................................... 10!

3! Implementing the APOLLO co-creation process ....................................................................... 10!4! Feedback from co-creation meetings .......................................................................................... 12!

4.1! First meetings ..................................................................................................................... 12!4.2! Second meetings and in-between contacts ......................................................................... 12!4.3! Shadow observation reports ............................................................................................... 12!

5! References .................................................................................................................................. 13!6! Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 14!

Annex I: Details of co-creation process and roadmap ................................................................... 14!Annex II: Lonely Planet Travel Guide ........................................................................................... 21!Annex III: APOLLO Farm Management Activities logs ............................................................... 24!Annex IV: APOLLO co-creation – platform description slides for 1st co-creation meetings ........ 29!Annex V: APOLLO co-creation – user feedback from 1st co-creation meetings ........................... 31!Annex VI: APOLLO co-creation – questions for 2nd co-creation meetings ................................... 34!Annex VII: APOLLO co-creation – feedback from 2nd co-creation meetings and intermediate one-on-one sessions with alpha-users ................................................................................................... 39!

Tables&and&figures&Table 1– Definitions of roles (some only apply in the context of this process) .................................. 8!Table 2– Overview (all steps to be performed in all pilots in parallel) ............................................. 10!Table 3– Implementation sites and co-creation meeting dates. ......................................................... 11!Table 4– APOLLO platform and service status in co-creation meetings .......................................... 11!Table 5– Alpha-users in pilot areas. .................................................................................................. 11!


5 / 42

Executive&summary&Users and other stakeholders are at the heart of APOLLO. It is with them and for them that we create the APOLLO services, products, and tools. The primary goal is to provide users with tools that help them fulfill their mission and perform their daily routine operations more easily and better. Developing affordable, accessible, and efficient agricultural services is about understanding current farming methods and how new technologies can support, enrich, and enhance them. With this vision in mind, a co-creation process has been implemented to guide the development of APOLLO services. This process provides end users with the opportunity to contribute to the creation of the services and to their evaluation. In the overall context of WP2 (“User needs analysis and specification”), the Task 2.3 (“Co-creation of services”) has been defined with the objective of co-creating APOLLO services based on principles of participatory design. This task builds upon T2.1 (“Users’ needs analysis”) and T2.2 (“Service specifications”). The most significant outcomes of T2.3 are

1-! A dynamic framework and an adaptive roadmap for the co-creation process; 2-! A committed group of alpha-users (see definition below) in each of the three pilot areas; 3-! Several important modifications and fine-tuning of services to better adapt them to users’

needs. This document describes the framework for the co-creation process and the details of the implementation of its first two phases. It also describes the evolution of the process from the initial blueprint to the current status, always in tune with the pace of the development of the APOLLO platform and services. A dynamic framework and an adaptive roadmap have been developed that structure the co-creation process into a sequence of nine steps to be followed by the three core categories of actors (users, APOLLO teams, local collaborators serving as shadows, see below). The framework has been designed to launch a seeding process that starts with and relies on “Local champions”: one or several core user(s) of APOLLO tools in each pilot area, who are early adapters, often collaborating in the development, curious and/or convinced of the added value, APOLLO ambassadors in their world and ready to share their experiences with their neighbors and other members of the multi-actor community. The framework then introduces the concept of Alpha-users (selected local champions) and their Shadows, as well as other actors in the process, see definitions below. It proceeds to define a dynamic, adaptive roadmap for the co-creation process, based on a series of collaborative meetings. Alpha-users receive the very first (alpha) versions of each tool/service, plus personalized advice on implementation, use, and validation from APOLLO developers and local APOLLO team. They receive every available update of each tool/service as soon as available. They work closely with a “Shadow” assigned to each, offer their Shadow the opportunity to accompany them in the field


6 / 42

occasionally and to document their work routines in an excel sheet (“farm management activities log”) of current practice (completed with desired and future practices supported by APOLLO). And they are given free use of APOLLO tools during the lifetime of the services.

The framework guides the actors through a series of collaborative workshops (“co-creation meetings”) in each pilot area, held before and during the agricultural season (starting March 2017). These meetings bring together representatives of the three APOLLO user categories (local farmers, agricultural consultants, and technicians operating at farmers and/or water users’ associations) on one hand and APOLLO developers on the other hand.

The participants have been invited to contribute, evaluate, and refine ideas and concepts related to the APOLLO services. Together, developers and farmers have started discussing current practices, evaluating the preliminary APOLLO service designs and generating solutions together, taking into account their different approaches, needs, and points of view.

During its implementation phase, the framework has evolved according to the outcome of each co-creation meeting, always in tune with the pace of APOLLO services development. The pilot area teams (ACP, UPOR, AgriSat) have had a key role in implementing and evolving the framework (selection of alpha-users and shadows, translation of material, organization of meetings).

The first series of co-creation meetings was held in the three pilot areas (Greece, Serbia, Spain) in February-March 2017. The most significant outcomes are on one hand a number of modifications to the design of the services to better adapt them to the users’ needs and on the other hand a committed group of registered alpha-users in each pilot areas.

The experience with user feedback in the co-creation group meetings has led to

a)! Adjust the timing more to the state of platform development; and b)! Continue the process by conducting one-on-one user meetings.

Consequently, adapted to the pace of development of the APOLLO platform, the second co-creation meetings were held between July (after a basic demo version of the platform became available) and November 2017 (after release of a more advanced platform version). The third and final phase of the process is being extended even more,

1-! giving more priority and time to the interaction of Shadows with Alpha-users, with gradually moving from an observing role into coaching users in the use of the services;

2-! maintaining the small group of Alpha-users until a platform beta version is released; and 3-! merging the co-creation process with the evaluation process.

The outcome of this final phase will be reported in the evaluation report (D6.6)


7 / 42

1&Introduction&and&scope&

1.1& Background&and&context& Users and other stakeholders are at the heart of APOLLO. It is with them and for them that we create the APOLLO services, products, and tools. The primary goal is to provide users with tools that help them fulfill their mission and perform their daily routine operations more easily and better. Developing affordable, accessible, and efficient agricultural services is about understanding current farming methods and how new technologies can support, enrich, and enhance them. With this vision in mind, a co-creation process has been implemented to guide the development of APOLLO services. This process provides end users with the opportunity to contribute to the creation of the services and to their evaluation. In the overall context of WP2 (“User needs analysis and specification”), the Task 2.3 (“Co-creation of services”) has been defined with the objective of co-creating APOLLO services based on principles of participatory design. This task builds upon T2.1 (“Users’ needs analysis”) and T2.2 (“Service specifications”). The most significant outcomes of T2.3 are

4-! A dynamic framework and an adaptive roadmap for the co-creation process; 5-! A committed group of alpha-users (see definition below) in each of the three pilot areas; 6-! Several important modifications and fine-tuning of services to better adapt them to users’

needs.

1.2& Purpose&and&scope&of&this&document&This document describes the framework for the co-creation process and the details of the implementation of its first two phases. It also describes the evolution of the process from the initial blueprint to the current status, always in tune with the pace of the development of the APOLLO platform and services.

2&The&APOLLO&coDcreation&process&framework&

A dynamic framework and an adaptive roadmap have been developed that structure the co-creation process into a sequence of nine steps to be followed by the three core categories of actors (users, APOLLO teams, local collaborators serving as shadows, see below). The framework combines ideas of visioning (e.g., Kensing and Madsen, 1991), scenario construction (e.g., Buchenau and Suri, 2000), exploratory design games (e.g., Brandt, 2006), and some of the general methodology of participatory design (e.g., Kensing and Blomberg, 1998) with


8 / 42

our own practical experience from various previous and ongoing projects (e.g., extended ppgis1 in www.sirius-gmes.es and www.fatima-h2020.eu). The framework has been designed to launch a seeding process that starts with and relies on “Local champions”: one or several core user(s) of APOLLO tools in each pilot area, who are early adapters, often collaborating in the development, curious and/or convinced of the added value, APOLLO ambassadors in their world and ready to share their experiences with their neighbors and other members of the multi-actor community. The framework then introduces the concept of Alpha-users (selected local champions) and their Shadows, as well as other actors in the process, see definitions below. It proceeds to define a dynamic, adaptive roadmap for the co-creation process, based on a series of collaborative meetings (“co-creation meetings”). During its implementation phase, the framework has evolved according to the outcome of each co-creation meeting, always in tune with the pace of APOLLO services development.

2.1& Definition&of&main&actors&in&the&coDcreation&process&The main actors in the co-creation process are defined in Table 1. It is important to notice that some of these definitions of roles only apply in the context of this co-creation process.

Table&1–&Definitions&of&roles&(some&only&apply&in&the&context&of&this&process)&

term definition who?

Local champions

Potential users of APOLLO services in each pilot area, who are early adapters, often

collaborating in the development, curious and/or convinced of the added value,

APOLLO ambassadors in their world and ready to share their experiences with their neighbors and other members of the multi-

actor community.

Farmer or consultant or WUA technician in pilot

area

Alpha-users

receive the very first (alpha) versions of each tool/service, plus personalized advice on implementation, use, and validation from APOLLO developers and local APOLLO

team.

APOLLO developers Those consortium members who are developing parts of the APOLLO services

DRAXIS, AUA, UBFCE, Starlab, TUW

Facilitator A person from local (pilot area) team with some facilitation skills

GR: someone from ACP or DRAXIS or AUA;

RS: someone from UPOR or UBFCE;

ES: someone from AgriSat Scribe A person from local team who takes notes

1 Public participatory GIS (e.g., Rambaldi et al., 2006)


9 / 42

Shadows

Local people tasked with direct observation of local champions (a reduced version of

“participant observation”), i.e., participates in routine farm management activities (e.g. accompanies farmer in field activities) &

records their observations (in “farm management log”).

either from local team or from people who conducted

interviews (but NOT any of the local

champions)

2.2& The&alphaDuser&concept&Alpha-users receive the very first (alpha) versions of each tool/service, plus personalized advice on implementation, use, and validation from APOLLO developers and local APOLLO team. They receive every available update of each tool/service as soon as available. They work closely with a “Shadow” assigned to each, offer their Shadow the opportunity to accompany them in the field occasionally and to document their work routines in an excel sheet (“farm management activities log”) of current practice (completed with desired and future practices supported by APOLLO). And they are given free use of APOLLO tools during the lifetime of the services.

Box 1–The alpha-user concept What does it entail for a user (farmer or consultant) to collaborate in co-creation? !! Become an “APOLLO alpha user”. !! Receive very first (alpha) versions of each tool/service, plus personalized advice on

implementation and use and validation from APOLLO developers and local APOLLO team. !! Receive every available update of each tool/service as soon as available. !! Work closely with a “Shadow” assigned to each (one of the people who did the interviews

during the user requirements survey), offer the Shadow the opportunity to accompany them in the field occasionally and to document their work routines in an excel sheet (“farm management activities log”) of current practice (see excel example in Annex XX, to be completed with desired & future practices)

!! Free use of APOLLO tools for life. & & &

2.3& Roadmap&for&the&coDcreation&process&The framework guides the actors through a series of collaborative workshops (“co-creation meetings”) in each pilot area, to be held before and during the agricultural season (starting March 2017). These meetings bring together representatives of the three APOLLO user categories (local


10 / 42

farmers, agricultural consultants, and technicians operating at farmers and/or water users’ associations) on one hand and APOLLO developers on the other hand.

The participants have been invited to contribute, evaluate, and refine ideas and concepts related to the APOLLO services. Together, developers and farmers have started discussing current practices, evaluating the preliminary APOLLO service designs and generating solutions together, taking into account their different approaches, needs, and points of view.

Table 2 shows the overview of the roadmap (all steps to be performed in all pilots in parallel). The column “initial timing” reflects the planning stage at the start of the co-creation process (November 2016). The column “Final timing” shows the actual timing, which resulted from adapting the flow of the co-creation process to the pace of the APOLLO services development. The detailed guidelines for each step are given in Annex I.

Table&2–&Overview&(all&steps&to&be&performed&in&all&pilots&in&parallel)&

Steps Action(s) Initial timing (all 2017) Final timing

Step 1 Prepare first co-creation meeting Dec 2016 - January Jan-March Step 2 Hold first co-creation meeting January Feb-March Step 3 Follow-up from first meeting February-March March-May Step 4 Prepare 2nd co-creation meeting March June-Oct Step 5 Hold 2nd co-creation meeting end March July-November Step 6 Follow-up from 2nd meeting April-May Sept-Feb 2018 Step 7 Prepare 3rd co-creation meeting May Feb 2018 Step 8 Hold 3rd co-creation meeting June March 2018 Step 9 Follow-up & conclusions July March 2018

2.4& “Lonely&Planet&Travel&Guide”&In order to facilitate the implementation of the co-creation process in each pilot area, a template has been provided to local teams, where they could fill in details of each step performed. This template is given in Annex II.

3&Implementing&the&APOLLO&coDcreation&process&

During its implementation phase, the framework has evolved according to the outcome of each co-creation meeting, always in tune with the pace of APOLLO services development.


11 / 42

The pilot area teams (ACP, UPOR, AgriSat) have had a key role in implementing and evolving the framework (selection of alpha-users and shadows, translation of material, organization of meetings).

The first series of co-creation meetings was held in the three pilot areas in February-March 2017 (see Table 3). The most significant outcomes are on one hand a number of modifications to the design of the services to better adapt them to the users’ needs and on the other hand a committed group of registered alpha-users in each pilot areas.

The experience with user feedback in the co-creation group meetings has led to

a)! Adjust the timing more to the state of platform development; and b)! Continue the process by conducting one-on-one user meetings.

Consequently, adapted to the pace of development of the APOLLO platform (Table 4), the second co-creation meetings were held between July (after a basic demo version of the platform became available) and November 2017 (after release of a more advanced platform version). The third and final phase of the process is being extended in time even more,

1-! giving more priority and time to the interaction of Shadows with Alpha-users, with gradually moving from an observing role into coaching users in the use of the services;

2-! maintaining the small group of Alpha-users (Table 5) until a platform beta version is released; and

3-! merging the co-creation process with the evaluation process. The outcome of this final phase will be reported in the evaluation report (D6.6)

Table&3–&Implementation&sites&and&co@creation&meeting&dates.&

Pella (GR) Ruma (SR) La Mancha (ES) 1st co-creation meeting 16 Feb 3 Feb & 31 March 2 March 2017

Shadows follow-up with alpha-users

2 farmers, 1 technician 1 shadow

4 farmers, 1 consultant 1 shadow

3 farmers, 1 consultant, 1 shadow

2nd co-creation meeting 12 July 2017 17 July 2017 9 November 2017 Shadows follow-up with

alpha-users

3rd co-creation meeting (March 2018) (March 2018) (March 2018)

Table&4–&APOLLO&platform&and&service&status&in&co@creation&meetings&

Date (all 2017) Available info/status platform and services Feb/March ppt describing design (see Annex IV)

July Basic demo October Platform access with demo data

Table&5–&Alpha@users&in&pilot&areas.&

Pella (GR) RUMA (SR) La Mancha (ES) Giannis!Ioannou!(farmer) Djordje Sivoljski (farmer) Juan José Puertas (farmer) Traianos!Terzis!(consultant) Djuro Paic (consultant) Victor García (farmer)

Panagiotis!Malamatidis!(farmer) Miroslav Uzelac (farmer) Antonio Socota (farmer & consultant) Panos!Kaliotakis!(farmer) Zeljko Pil (farmer) Vicente Bodas (consultant)

Nikola Paunovic (farmer)


12 / 42

4&Feedback&from&coDcreation&meetings&&4.1& First&meetings&The first co-creation meetings were held with at least 4-5 Local Champions present in each pilot area (one of them a consultant or Water User Association technician). Users in all pilot areas expressed interest in APOLLO platform and services, which were presented to them on slides (Annex IV). All of them signed up as Alpha-users. They gave detailed feedback on the information presented by APOLLO developers, see table in Annex V. This table was presented at the project meeting in Belgrade 5-6 May 2017 and discussed with the developers’ team, who integrated the suggestions they considered feasible into the development planning, while leaving several other suggestions in the bucket list for future evaluation.

4.2& Second&meetings&and&inDbetween&contacts&For the series of second co-creation meetings, an extended list of questions was provided from the developers (see Annex VI). Also, as stated above, the experience with user feedback in the first co-creation group meetings and from individual user interactions has led us to adjust the timing better to the state of platform development, to continue the process by conducting one-on-one user meetings, and to maintain the small group of Alpha-users (Table 5) until a platform beta version is released. Consequently, during the second co-creation meetings the Alpha-users in Greece and Serbia could experience a basic demo version of the platform (in July 2017), while Alpha-users in Spain had access to a more advanced platform version (in early November 2017). Their feedback from these sessions is given in Annex VII.

4.3& Shadow&observation&reports&In all pilot areas, shadows have been working with alpha-users, accompanying them to the field and filling out the “farm management logs” (Annex III). As an intermediate result, detailed Alpha-user profiles (farm characteristics, crops, production systems, and infrastructure) are now available, as well as detailed records of their routine (daily and/or weekly) practices. The completion of these records is ongoing until the final co-creation meeting. Already at the intermediate stage (between 2nd and 3rd co-creation meeting) they are being merged with evaluation questionnaires and records (to be reported in D6.6).


13 / 42

5&& References&

•! Brandt, E., 2006: Designing Exploratory Design Games: A Framework for Participation in Participatory Design? PDC 2006 - Proceedings of the ninth Participatory Design Conference 2006, ACM Press, 57-66.

•! Buchenau, M. and J. F. Suri, 2000: Experience Prototyping. Proc. Designing Interactive Systems, ACM Press.

•! Kensing, F. and J. Blomberg, 1998: Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7 (3-4).

•! Kensing, F. and K. Madsen, 1991: Generating Visions:Future Workshops and Metaphorical Design. In Designat Work. Edited by Greenbaum and Kyng. Hillsdale,Lawrence Elbaum Associates Inc. Publishers,155-168.

•! Rambaldi G, Chambers R., McCall M, And Fox J. 2006. Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners, facilitators, technology intermediaries and researchers. PLA 54:106–113, IIED, London, UK


14 / 42

6&Annexes&Annex&I:&Details&of&coDcreation&process&and&roadmap& Step 1 – preparation of first co-creation meeting: *! assemble seed-user-group in each pilot (around 3 people, not more than 5, at least one farmer &

at least one consultant or WUA* technician) Members of seed-user-group: local champions (see definition above) &/or WUA* technicians/consultants, who were either part of focus group or among interviewed *! decide who from APOLLO developers will participate in first co-creation meeting (their task is

to show users the state of development & receive users’ feedback) *! set date for first co-creation meeting, select venue (a place familiar to & easy to reach for

farmers), send out invitation with agenda (ask for confirmation) *! APOLLO developers prepare a zero-version demo or mock-up, plus a one-sheet of D2.1 & D2.2

& translate to local language (for presentation at first co-creation meeting) *! Prepare to explain what it entails for member of seed-user-group to participate in co-creation

(see separate box below &/or excel with actions) *! Decide who will be the facilitator & the scribe at the first co-creation meeting *! Select shadows (one for each member of the seed-user-group, the same shadow can observe

more than one user) & invite them to the first meeting *) WUA = Water Users Association

Step 2 – Hold first co-creation meeting Purpose of meeting: to lay the foundations for the co-creation process by assembling a seed-user-group, by getting confirmation &/or redirection of achieved development steps from them, & by finding users (farmers or consultants/WUA technicians) who commit to collaborating in the co-creation process. Participants: seed-user-group (minimum 3 people, maximum 5 people, at least 1 farmer, at least 1 consultant or WUA technician) + APOLLO developers representative(s) + Facilitator + Scribe + Shadows. Venue: a place familiar to & easy to reach for members of seed-user-group Duration: 2-4 hours


15 / 42

Agenda: (1)!Introductions & quick round in seed-user-group (how many ha, which crops, major challenge;

their interest); (2)!Purpose of meeting; (3)!Mirror back to seed-user-group the outcomes of interviews/focus groups (D2.1, D2.2) in easy-

to-understand way (“This is what we/the APOLLO team have concluded from interviews & focus group”).

(4)!Ask seed-user-group for feedback on D2.1: -do you understand & recognize your input/requirements? -do you want to ask questions/need clarifications? -does it (D2.1) reflect your reality? How? -what is missing in D2.1? (if anything) -what is not needed? (if anything) (5)!Present D2.2 one-sheet & show demo or mock-up (if possible, use example of seed-user-group

parcels). (6)!Ask seed-user-group (about D2.2 & demo/mock-up):

-do you need something like this? -do you want something like this? -exactly as it is described or different (how)?

-one crucial modification (if any)? -do you need/want something totally different? (7)!Describe what it entails (for a farmer or consultant/WUA technician) to collaborate in co-

creation. (8)!Ask who in seed-user-group is interested in / willing to /available to collaborate in co-creation.

If yes, promote to “alpha-user” & assign shadow (decide together with user); If no, ask what are reasons (e.g. no time, don’t think it’s good use of their time, etc) & if interested/willing to attend in further meetings; If yes, invite to next meeting; If no, look behind their reasons & then decide what to do (if nobody says yes, repeat the exercise with carefully selected local champions) (9)!Next steps: -ask each member of seed-user-group to tell 3 more people & get them interested (APOLLO team to give them hand-outs/one-sheets) -ask WUA (if present) to propose people to invite to next meeting (10)! Agree on notes/conclusions from meeting.


16 / 42

Step 3 - Follow-up from first meeting *! Scribe edits minutes from meeting, sends to all attendees for approval; *! Facilitators/scribes report back to all APOLLO developers (not only those present at meeting) &

task leader (AgriSat) (possibly in a Skype meeting); *! Shadows collaborate with alpha-users (observing their farm management routines & practices,

produce the “farm management activities log first stage” (see Excel template); *! Train shadows in alpha version (or mock-up) as soon as available. *! Shadows (if more than 1 person in a given pilot area) meet every 2-3 weeks, compare notes/logs,

update each other. Step 4 – Prepare 2nd co-creation meeting *! assemble a larger user group in each pilot (not more than 20, at least one farmer & at least one

consultant or WUA technician), including alpha-users & interested members of seed-user-group (who did not volunteer as alpha-users, but expressed interest in further meetings). Also invite all those who were either part of focus group or among interviewed.

*! decide who from APOLLO developers will participate in 2nd co-creation meeting (their task is

to show users the state of development & receive users’ feedback) *! set date for 2nd co-creation meeting, select venue (a place familiar to & easy to reach for

farmers), send out invitation with agenda (ask for RSVP) *! APOLLO developers prepare an alpha-version demo, plus the one-sheets of D2.1 & D2.2

(modified from first meeting if applicable) (for demo presentation at 2nd co-creation meeting) *! Update explanation what it entails for member of seed-user-group to participate in co-creation

(based on feedback during follow-up period, if applicable) *! Decide who will be the facilitator & the scribe at the 2nd co-creation meeting (ideally the same

as in first meeting) *! Ask alpha-users & shadows to prepare together their activity report (based on “farm management

activities log”) *! Select several additional shadows & invite to meeting (in case more users volunteer to become

alpha-users)


17 / 42

Step 5 – Hold 2nd co-creation meeting Purpose of meeting: to strengthen the foundations for the co-creation process by extending the alpha-users community & by sharing with them a more mature alpha version. Participants: All alpha-users + larger user group (maximum 20 people) + APOLLO developers representative(s) + Facilitator + Scribe + Shadows (current & new). Venue: a place familiar to & easy to reach for invitees. Duration: 3-4 hours Agenda: (1)!Introductions & quick round in larger user group (how many ha, which crops, major challenge;

their interest); (2)!Purpose of meeting; (3)!Report from alpha-users (jointly with shadows); (4)!Information about status of development & how users feedback from first meeting has been

taken into account; (5)!Developers representative(s) present alpha version & show demo (using alpha-users’ parcels); (6)!go through “farm management activities logs” (alpha-users with shadows & developers in role

play or similar), explore potential advantages of new practice / cost / implications… (7)!perform a short visioning exercise (“from current routine/practices to desired new practices”) (8)!collect more feedback; (9)!ask if more people interested / willing / available to volunteer as alpha-users

(same procedure as at first meeting for dealing with yes/no) (10)! agree on notes/conclusions from meeting.


18 / 42

Step 6 - Follow-up from 2nd meeting *! Scribe edits minutes from meeting, sends to all attendees for approval; *! Facilitators/scribes report back to all APOLLO developers (not only those present at meeting) &

task leader (AgriSat) (possibly in a Skype meeting); *! Task leader (AgriSat) together with facilitators/scribes present state of co-creation process &

intermediate outcomes at APOLLO Project meeting (5-6 April), & in breakout session (including all developers) at same meeting decide on details for further steps;

*! Task leader discuss with WP6 leader (& possibly WP7) how to transition from co-creation into

evaluation (& further into commercial services); *! Shadows continue collaborating with alpha-users from seed-user-group (observing their farm

management routines & practices, produce the “farm management activities log 2nd stage” (see Excel template);

*! Shadows (some new) collaborate with new alpha-users (same as above); *! Train (old & new) alpha-user and shadows (old & new) in alpha version (& any other new

version) as soon as available. *! Shadows (if more than 1 person in a given pilot area) meet every 2-3 weeks, compare notes/logs,

update each other; *! Task leader together with facilitator/scribe create illustrated texts for use on website, Newsletter,

social media.


19 / 42

Step 7 – Prepare 3rd co-creation meeting *! Invite all alpha-users (those who signed up at first meeting & those who signed up at 2nd

meeting) *! decide who from APOLLO developers will participate in 3rd co-creation meeting (their task is to

show users the state of development & receive users’ feedback) *! set date for 3rd co-creation meeting, select venue (a place familiar to & easy to reach for

farmers), send out invitation with agenda (ask for confirmation) *! APOLLO developers prepare a mature demo (advanced alpha- or beta-version) demo *! Decide who will be the facilitator & the scribe at the 3rd co-creation meeting (ideally the same as

in first & 2nd meeting) *! Ask all alpha-users & shadows to prepare together their activity report (based on “farm

management activities log 2nd stage”) *! Task leader & WP6 leader (& possibly WP7 leader) together prepare (interactive) presentation of

roadmap for transition from co-creation to evaluation (& further to commercial services)


20 / 42

Step 8 – Hold 3rd co-creation meeting Purpose of meeting: to take stock on the development & on the co-creation process, identify pending activities & define roadmap for them. Participants: All alpha-users (from first & 2nd meeting) + APOLLO developers representative(s) + Facilitator + Scribe + Shadows. Possibly also observers from WUA? Venue: a place familiar to & easy to reach for all alpha-users. Duration: 3-4 hours Agenda: (1)!Quick round of “check-in” (all); (2)!Purpose of meeting; (3)!Report from alpha-users (jointly with shadows); (4)!Information about progress of development & how users feedback from 2nd meeting has been

taken into account; (5)!Developers representative(s) present mature versión (advanced alpha or early beta) & show

demo (using alpha-users’ parcels); (6)!go through “farm management activities logs” (alpha-users with shadows & developers in role

play or similar), explore potential advantages of new practice / cost / implications… (7)!quick check-in if new elements for visioning have come up (“from current routine/practices to

desired new practices”) (8)!collect more feedback; (9)!ask who is interested / willing / available to further collaborate in evaluation & in creating

commercial services (similar procedure as at first meeting for dealing with yes/no)

(10)! agree on notes/conclusions from meeting.


21 / 42

Step 9 - Follow-up from 3rd meeting, from entire process, conclusions *! Scribe edits minutes from 3rd meeting, sends to all attendees for approval; *! Facilitators/scribes report back to all APOLLO developers (not only those present at meeting) &

task leader (AgriSat) (possibly in a Skype meeting); *! Task leader (AgriSat) together with facilitators/scribes write draft report (D2.3) & circulate with

all involved (alpha-users, developers, shadows); *! Task leader follow up with WP6 leader (& possibly WP7) on any agreement about transition

from co-creation into evaluation (& further into commercial services); *! Task leader sends mature draft D2.3 to reviewer (UBFCE); *! Task leader submits final version of D2.3 by 31 August 2017; *! Task leader creates illustrated texts for use on website, Newsletter, social media. !

Annex&II:&Lonely&Planet&Travel&Guide&!

Step%1%–%Preparation%of%first%co1creation%meeting%

! what% who%in%charge% when%completed%

1.1! Translate!documents! ! !

1.2! Define!participants!for!1st!co@creation!meeting!

! !

1.3! Define!date!and!venue! ! !

1.4! Translate!material!for!meeting!(ppts!&!handouts)!

! !

1.5! Preparefolder!with!handouts! ! !

1.6! Train!shadows!in!observation!task! ! !

!


22 / 42

Participants%1st%co1creation%meeting%

function% name% cell%phone% email% comments%

Local!champion!1!(farmer)!

! ! ! !

Local!champion!2!(consultant!or!WUA!technician)!

! ! ! !

Local!champion!3! ! ! ! !Local!champion!4!(optional)!

! ! ! !

Local!champion!5!(optional)!

! ! ! !

Facilitator! ! ! ! !Scribe!! ! ! ! !APOLLO!developer!(s)!

! ! ! !

Shadow!1! ! ! ! !Shadow!2! ! ! ! !Shadow!3!(optional)! ! ! ! !!

Step%2%–%First%co1creation%meeting%

see!agenda!in!companion!document!(APOLLO!co@creation!process!roadmap)!

!

!

Step%3%–%Follow1up%from%first%co1creation%meeting%

! what% who%in%charge% when%completed%

3.1! Scribe!edits!meeting!minutes!(in!local!language),!send!to!all!attendees!

! !

3.2! Translate!minutes!to!English! ! !

3.3! Facilitator/scribe!report!back!to!APOLLO!developers!&!task@leader!(who!organizes!skype!meeting!for!this)!

! !

3.4! Shadows+alpha@users!fill!out!“farm!management!activities!log”,!one!sheet!per!alpha@user!

! !

3.5! Shadows!in!each!pilot!meet!every!2@3!weeks!

! !

3.6! Train!shadows!in!alpha!version!as!soon! ! !


23 / 42

as!available!(organized!by!developers)!

3.7! Translate!logs!to!English! ! !

3.8! Shadows!(or!facilitator/scribe)!report!back!to!APOLLO!developers!&!task@leader!(who!organizes!skype!meeting!for!this)!

! !

3.9! Fine@tune!steps!for!next!phase! AgriSat!with!feedback!from!all!

!

!

!

&


24 / 42

Annex%III:%APOLLO%Farm%Management%Activities%logs%

Order% Operation%

APOLLO%Service% What%to%observe%

Tillage%Irrigation%Schedule%

Crop%Monitorin

g%Yield%

Estimation% %

0""Previous"considerations" %% %% %% %%

Do"you"practice"special"forms"of"agriculture?"What"kind"of"agriculture:"organic,"integrated"production,"conservation"agriculture,"permaculture?"Do"you"practice"crop"rotation?"Any"other"questions"related"to"GFP"(Good"Farming"Practices)"

1%

PreCmachining"(subsoiling"or"unzipping)"

x" x"

%% %%

Does"he/she"take"into"account"the"moisture"content"of"the"soil"at"the"time"of"the"work?"Measure"the"moisture"content"in"the"soil"by"means"of"moisture"probes?"Do"you"use"the"irrigation"system"to"put"the"soil"in"adequate"moisture"conditions"to"perform"the"tasks?"What"kind"of"tillage"do"you"do"and"what"tools"do"you"use?"Does"it"take"into"account"the"depth"of"work?"Do"you"estimate"the"depth"of"tillage"depending"on"the"crop?"How"often"do"you"perform"these"tasks?"

2""Primary"tillage"

x" x" "" ""

Does"he/she"take"into"account"the"soil"moisture"content"at"the"time"of"the"work?"Has"soil"analysis"available"that"allows"you"to"know"the"texture,"plasticity,"etc.?"Does"he/she"use"the"irrigation"system"to"put"the"soil"in"adequate"moisture"conditions"to"perform"the"tasks?"What"tools"do"you"use,"from"tillage"with"turning"or"vertical?"Does"he/she"take"into"account"the"depth"of"work?"Do"you"estimate"the"depth"of"tillage"depending"on"the"crop?"

3"Secondary"tillage"(seedbed"preparation)"

x" x" "" ""

Does"he/she"take"into"account"the"soil"moisture"content"at"the"time"of"the"work?"Does"he/she"use"the"irrigation"system"to"put"the"soil"in"adequate"moisture"conditions"to"perform"the"tasks?"Does"he/she"estimate"the"depth"of"tillage"depending"on"the"crop?"

4"Herbicide"treatment"before"sowing"

x" x" x" x"Does"he/she"consider"the"economic"viability"of"the"treatment?"How"does"he/she"determine"it?"Does"he/she"do"preventive"treatment?"Does"he/she"practice"conservation"agriculture?"


25 / 42

5" Fertilizer"

x" x" x" x"

Does"he/she"perform"soil"analysis"routinely"to"estimate"the"amount"of"fertilizer"to"apply?"Does"he/she"take"into"account"the"soil"moisture"content"at"the"time"of"the"work?"Does"he/she"use"the"irrigation"system"to"put"the"soil"in"adequate"conditions"of"humidity"to"perform"the"tasks?"Does"he/she"consider"the"crop"forecast"when"setting"the"input"dose?"Would"it"be"appropriate"to"carry"out"variable"dose"of"input"if"it"were"possible"to"do"it?"

6" Sowing"/"Planting"x" x" x" x"

Does"he/she"take"into"account"the"soil"moisture"content"at"the"time"of"the"sowing/planting?"Does"he/she"use"the"irrigation"system"to"put"the"soil"in"adequate"moisture"conditions"to"perform"the"tasks?"

7" Fertilization"(N)"

x" x" x" x"

Is"fertirrigation"used?"Is"soil"moisture"taken"into"account"at"the"time"of"labor?"Consider"the"crop"forecast"to"determine"the"N?"Does"it"take"into"account"the"actual"state"of"the"crop"to"determine"the"time"and"dose"of"inputs?"Would"it"be"appropriate"to"carry"out"variable"rate"of"inputs"if"it"were"possible"to"do"it?"

8"Plant"protection"treatments"

x" x" x" x"

Does"he/she"consider"the"economic"viability"of"the"treatment?"How"does"he/she"determine"it?"Does"he/she"do"preventive"treatment?"Does"he/she"practice"conservation"agriculture?"Does"he/she"use"plant"protection"products"of"chemical"origin"or"does"he/she"practice"biological"control?"How"does"he/she"estimate"the"possible"yield"losses"that"the"affected"pest"may"have?"How"does"he/she"evaluate"the"effectiveness"of"the"treatment?"Does"he/she"consider"crop"rotation"as"a"method"to"combat"pests"(especially"weed"resistances)?"Does"he/she"estimate"potential"performance"losses"once"the"effectiveness"of"the"treatment"is"proven?"What"method"of"weed"removal"does"plant"weed"use"in"woody"crops?"How"is"the"treatment"integrated"into"the"irrigation"schedule?"

9" Pruning"

"" "" x" x"

Does"he/she"practice"green"pruning?"Does"he/she"practice"conventional"pruning?"How"does"he/she"estimate"the"possible"loss"of"performance"that"may"mean"doing"or"not"pruning?"Does"he/she"consider"possible"yield"losses"once"the"effectiveness"of"pruning"has"been"proven?"


26 / 42

10" Irrigation"

"" x" x" x"

Water"source:"underground"or"surface?"Know"the"price"of"water"(€"/"m3)?"Does"he/she"know"the"rainfall"of"your"irrigation"system"(mm"/"hour)?"How"does"he/she"determine"the"amount"of"water"to"apply"at"any"time?"Consider"the"state"of"the"crop"when"determining"the"amount"of"water"to"apply?"Does"he/she"consider"the"conditions"or"weather"forecast"when"determining"the"amount"of"water"to"apply?"How"does"he/she"measure"parameters"related"to"atmospheric"demand"(ETo)?"Measure"the"soil"moisture"content"by"means"of"moisture"probes?"What"is"the"frequency"of"irrigation?"Does"he/she"take"into"account"the"texture"of"the"soil"when"determining"the"frequency"of"irrigation?"Does"he/she"have"water"analysis?"Does"he/she"have"an"automated"irrigation"system?"Does"he/she"evaluate"the"efficiency"of"the"irrigation"system"periodically,"i.e."by"performing"regular"maintenance"work?"

11" Harvest"

"" "" x" x"

Does"he/she"consider"the"possible"expected"yield"to"forecast"the"time"of"harvest?"Does"he/she"usually"know"the"yield"in"different"areas"within"the"plots?"What"does"he/she"do"with"the"residue,"spread"it"on"the"plot"(conservation"agriculture)"or"ensilage"it?"Does"he/she"usually"know"the"harvest"index?"Does"he/she"usually"know"the"waste"yield?"

"" "" "" "" "" ""Which"mobile"phone"do"they"use"(we"don't"care"about"the"brand,"we"want"to"see"if"they"are"using"low"budget/specs"phones)?"

"" "" "" "" "" ""Do"they"use"a"tablet?"Which"tablet"(we"don't"care"about"the"brand,"we"want"to"see"if"they"are"using"low"budget/specs"phones)?"

"" "" "" "" "" ""For"how"long"do"you"own"the"device"you"will"mostly"use"for"Apollo"and"what"its"resolution"is?"

"" "" "" "" "" "" Can"you"name"3"apps"and"3"sites"related"to"farming"that"you"use"daily?"

"" "" "" "" "" ""If"they"have"seen/used"other"similar"application/software"do"they"have"a"preference"in"any"one"in"terms"of"design?"

"" "" "" "" "" ""Do"they"usually"have"GPS"turned"on"on"their"tablet?"(Always/sometimes/"I"don't"bother)"

"" "" "" "" "" "" Do"you"have"internet"access"when"on"the"fields?"(3g/4g"always/sometimes)"

"" "" "" "" "" ""If"they"have"no"4g,"do"they"have"internet"access"before"going"to"their"fields"or"while"on"a"break?"


27 / 42

"" "" "" "" "" "" Do"you"usually"attribute"names"to"your"fields?"

"" "" "" "" "" ""Do"you"have"your"fields"in"a"shapefile?"Do"you"own"these"files"or"do"you"have"to"request"them"from"a"public"authority?"

"" "" "" "" "" "" Can"you"easily"spot"and"draw"your"fields"on"google"maps?"

"" "" "" "" "" ""

Would"you"like"to"be"able"to"group"your"fields?"In"what"way?"(per"crop"type/"per"management"zone/your"own"way"which"means"free"text"fields"to"name"the"groups"the"way"they"like)"

"" "" "" "" "" ""

Do"you"separate"your"fields"in"high"and"low"priority"fields?"Would"you"like"to"have"favorite"fields"in"the"application?"Would"you"like"notifications"for"some"fields"to"be"of"higher"priority?"

"" "" "" "" "" ""Which"Is"the"main"statistical"parameter"you"would"like"to"see"for"each"field?"(maybe"rephrase"in"order"to"make"it"more"understandable"to"them?)"

"" "" "" "" "" "" How"many"different"crop"types?""" "" "" "" "" "" How"many"fields"do"you"own"per"crop"type?""" "" "" "" "" "" Are"your"fields"close"to"each"other?""" "" "" "" "" "" How"much"would"you"be"willing"to"pay"monthly/yearly"for"such"a"platform?"

"" "" "" "" "" ""Is"there"any"sort"of"information"you"wouldn't"like"to"share"with"Agricultural"Consultants?"

"" "" "" "" "" "" Is"there"any"sort"of"information"you"would"like"to"share"with"other"farmers?"

" " " " " "

Do"you"have"any"eye"related"problem"that"would"prevent"you"from"using"such"an"app?"

Order% Date% Task%performed% Basis%of% Relevant%APOLLO%Service% New%practices%(decision% Benefits%


28 / 42

(weekly)% (current%Practices)%

decision%

Tillage%Irrigation%Schedule%

Crop%Monitoring%

Yield%Estimation%

based%on%which%information%provided%by%APOLLO)%

0" "" "" "" %% %% %% %% "" ""1% %% %% "" "" "" %% %% "" ""2" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""3" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""4" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""5" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""6" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""7" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""8" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""9" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""

10" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""11" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" "" ""


29 / 42

Annex%IV:%APOLLO%co.creation%–%platform%description%slides%for%1st%co.creation%meetings%


30 / 42

% %


31 / 42

Annex%V:%APOLLO%co.creation%–%user%feedback%from%1st%co.creation%meetings%

pilot& requested&by&users&

&

SR#

•Parcel#digitalization#using#VHR#imagery#as#background#(Google#Maps)#can#be#problematic#as#image#parcel#boundaries#change#during#time"

SR#Visual#representation#of#parcels#in#their#service#account#more#useful#for#parcel#identification#then#parcel#number#(image#or#name)#

SR#

•Info#from#tillage#scheduling#service#should#be#presented#for#all#parcels#one#a#single#map#so#they#can#optimize#tillage#plan"

SR#

•Current#temperature#very#important#(e.g.#for#tillage,#if#soil#is#frozen)E#every#hour?"

SR# •Wind#speed#is#useful#information#for#spraying"

SR# •Humidity#is#important#during#harvest##"

SR# •Account#security#is#important#(data#protection)"

SR#•Yield#estimation#should#be#500kg#and#better#–#important#for#planning#

of#mechanization#(e.g.#number#of#trailers)"

SR# What#for#is#biomass#useful?#(fertilizers#application#planning,#silage)#

SR#•BBCH#scale#is#useful#(phenological#stages)"

SR#

TIMING!#–when#data#is#available.#For#example,#they#needed#to#see#the#variations#of#crop#development#within#field#to#optimize#fertilizers#application#END#OF#MARCH#

ES#

Soil"moisture"status"at"the"pixel"level."Importance+for+dissolving+the++applied+nitrogen"

ES#Irrigation#Scheduling#Service:#Additional#motivation#due#to#the#high#energy#cost#for#pumping#water###

ES#How"the"crop"residues"affect"the"value"of"the"vegetation"index?""


32 / 42

ES# How"does"the"vegetation"cover"in"woody"crops?"

ES#Yield#Estimation#Service:#interest#for#estimating#the#size#of#the#truck#according#to#the#tons#to#be######transported,#as#it#affects#the#costs.#

ES#they"would"like"to"know"if"is"it"possible"to"obtain"protein"content"maps"in"some"crops"(e.g."Wheat"

ES#They"want"to"know"pixel"values"and"even"be"able"to"parameterize"alerts"and"alarms"

##the#farmer#would#like#to#adapt#the#software#environment#to#his#particular#condition#

ES#Farmers"referred"that"they"want"agronomists"to"have"the"ability"to"receive"alerts"from"their"fields"also"

ES#They"want"additional"information"on"weather"conditions"for"field"operations"

ES#

•They"want"to"pay"on"annual"basis"because"they"are"paid"only"once"or"twice"per"year.""

GR# irrigation#dose#&#time#also#for#consultants#&#coop#technicians#

GR# SMS#also#for#consultants#&#coop#technicians#

GR# be#able#to#send#information#to#more#than#one#people##

GR#have#interoperability#with#the#national#integrated#system#of#field#management#(OSDE).#

GR#

the"farmers"referred"that"there"is"no"specific"need"for"quality"prediction"product"since"the"industry"doesn’t"differentiate"their"prices"in"terms"of"quality"for"wheat"and"cotton."

GR#The"agronomists"want"to"receive"information"regarding"the"operations"that"farmers"conduct"to"their"fields."

GR#They"want"additional"information"on"weather"conditions"for"spraying"operations."

GR# The"farmers"want"agronomists"to"be"able"to"receive"alerts"for"their"fields.""

GR#Farmers"and"agronomists"indicated"the"importance"of"having"precision"weather"forecast"

GR#Farmers"want"the"platform"to"be"able"to"send"information"to"more"than"one"people."

GR# The"farmers"mainly"classify"fields"according"to"their"location."

GR#The"farmers"want"to"pay"on"annual"basis"because"they"are"paid"only"one"or"two"times"per"year."

GR#The"farmers"need"to"provide"access"of"their"data"to"agronomists"for"better"advises.""


33 / 42

GR#Both"farmers"and"agronomists"highlighted"the"importance"of"using"historical"data"for"taking"decisions.""""

GR#Both"farmers"and"agronomists"indicated"the"importance"of"interaction"between"APOLLO"end"users."

%


34 / 42

Annex%VI:%APOLLO%co.creation%–%questions%for%2nd%co.creation%meetings% Questions for design of training material: 1. What kind of training tools would you like to have for learning APOLLO platform (tutorials, manuals, video tutorial)? 2. Should it be more graphical or more textual? 3. What should be particularly explained? 4. Preference of the ways the training material is provided (the users should rate) - Explanations are integrated in the interface (e.g. "i" tool next to an action button generates short explanation). Rate 1-5 - Section within the platform with all training materials. Rate 1-5 - Separated sections related to the services. Rate 1-5 5. Would you like to be provided with success stories from using APOLLO services or the benefits of using APOLLO services explained? Rate 1-5 Questions for platform:

1.! Dashboard Can you think of another way to import your field in the APOLLO platform apart from: i) draw on a map; ii) enter parcel coordinates; iii) import from a file I already have? Do you understand the information that you see on the dashboard? Would you rather see something different? For the facilitator: Do they find the grouping per crop type useful? Then open the question to whatever else they want to discuss Do you find the information on the square boxes on top of the page useful? Is there some more important information that you would rather see instead?

Do you find that it is clear to understand the notifications - indications and where these come from?

Do you find it easy to navigate to a specific field?

Do you want to have the ability to arrange fields using another level (e.g. field area)?

2.! Service results

Do you understand soil workability map? Classes? Colors?


35 / 42

Are the weather info on the upper half of the page helpful? Would you also like to see soil moisture evolution for the next seven days?

When would you like to have the ability to see crop yield estimations (from the early stage crops, a month before harvest)?

How many classes do you want to see in the map? Do you want to set the number of classes by yourself?

Do you find the information offered on the service results page clear? Do you understand what the results of each service mean? Would you rather see them in a different way?

Do you find the graph next to map useful for displaying information of each variable for the pixel of the map you have chosen? How would you like this information been plotted?

Do you want to compare your fields for each service by crop type (e.g. yield estimation, crop status, soil moisture)? Do you want to compare fields of different years or only the same year?

3.! Notifications What do you think about the idea of receiving an email notification containing a summary of all the service results for all the fields (show mock up). Would you like to see such information on the web and/or mobile app too?


36 / 42

How often would you like to receive email/sms notifications from APOLLO? Daily, weekly, define something else.

If Apollo contained a map showing all your fields with the service results being obvious on the map as a layer, how would you use this information?


37 / 42

How would you use data that you export from APOLLO? (Do you need to export them in specific format?) Raw data? Results from services?

4.! Mobile app

(Given they know the Apollo functionality) - what is it that they would like to see in the mobile app? Facilitotors can refer to the following features

Add new field (by adding coordinates) Edit/Delete farm Service results – Statistics -Weather prediction Share with consultants Notification settings/alerts preferences

5.! Consultants only Would you be interested in comparing fields of your clients? We will offer the option to compare the crop growth chart and the yield estimation between two of your clients?

Do you want to have the ability to insert your logo in the reports?

Which visualisation idea do you prefer?


38 / 42

6.% Generic

Do you find the application easy to be used?

%


39 / 42

Annex%VII:%APOLLO%co.creation%–%feedback%from%2nd%co.creation%meetings%and%intermediate%one.on.one%sessions%with%alpha.users% GREECE A. Design of Training Material •" Alpha-users prefer all training material to be in their native language. They want to have the

training material both in video and text. Regarding the preference of the ways the training material is provided (the users should rate) the alpha-users:

•" - prefer (rated with 5) the explanations to be integrated in the interface (e.g. "i" tool next to an action button generates short explanation)

•" - prefer (rated with 5) to have a section within the platform with all training materials. •" - prefer (rated with 5) to have separated sections related to the services. •" Finally, the alpha-users stated that success stories play an integral role in persuading

potential customers (rated with 5) and thus they want APOLLO platform to include success stories of their services.

B. Platform

1." Dashboard Results The alpha users stated that by drawing your field you may have low accuracy. -> New ways of inserting field boundaries will be developed. The farmers also stated that the way the field information required for inputting a new field, though clear and well defined, entail a field asking them to input the harvest date, which they can only estimate, meaning that the date provided will not be accurate. They found easy to detect and draw their field boundaries in the map, because this is also something that they do in order to get subsidies. However, they prefer the boundaries to be imported by crop consultants. They stated that the usability of some features will be proven after testing the APOLLO platform (e.g. the tillage scheduling and irrigation time notifications). they stated that they also want to have the ability to see the results by area of cultivation.

2." Service Results The alpha users stated that the map needs to be bigger, while the graph is helpful. The alpha-users stated that the APOLLO platform needs to present basic information to the farmers in order to decide and not to be too complicated. They declared that they want small number of classes and the colors not to confuse. the weather info is something that will help them in scheduling better their field practices, while they also want to have wind speed in beaufort scale. the information on management zones will help them a lot to make their decisions in terms of irrigation and fertilization dose. Crop consultants stated that they want to receive information on field level, management zone level and pixel level, while they proposed that the farmers want to receive the information in field level and in management zones level. Crop-consultants and farmers want to have the ability to compare fields by crop type and year.

3." Notification Results Alpha-users found really helpful to receive alerts through SMS.


40 / 42

The alpha-users answered that they want to decide when to receive email notifications, while crop-consultants stated that they want to receive them due to the large number of farmers that they have to consult. Alpha users mentioned that they want to receive all relevant information via SMS as well, because they don’t know how to use smartphones and/or they don’t have connectivity in the field. The SMS notification needs to be simple and understand able by the farmers when there is need. The notifications need to warn at least 2 days previously the time they need to take action. Crop-consultants want to have the ability to export APOLLO platform data while the farmers stated that they don’t need this because they don’t know how to use it.

4." Mobile-app Results Alpha-users want to have basic information in a simple format meaning that they are not interested in detailed information, but rather on short text notifications, weather and maps of each service. They also want to insert field boundaries through the app.

5." Consultants Only Results Crop-consultants stated that they want to have the ability to compare fields of their clients and they want to have the ability to insert their logo in the platform.

6." Generic Results The alpha-users found the platform easy to be used, however they will need to test it first by themselves and get used to it in order to define the usability of the functionalities.

SERBIA

•" Historical data should be able to see (for the whole growing season)

•" Date of the presented data should be presented clearly

•" Real-time meteorological data (temperature, precipitation)

•" Data retrieval: when pick on a point within a parcel to get the value of the parameter

•" Dashboard: icons for more efficient search/identification,

•" (big) icons for more efficient search/identification,

•" Search based on parcels and crops types (now it is classified based on crop types only)- a kind of double menu

•" Standardized intuitive colors applied in maps (cartographic representation), better explained

•" Initial map with all the parcels shown - to have a general overview (parcels colored according to the agricultural parameter/advise). Example: parcels colored based on suitability for tillage so they can make an optimal plan.

•" To include humidity

•" Precipitation alert (through mobile app or sms) - when there is a rain on a parcel, the farmer receive the info

•" Small/medium farmers in Serbia don’t care a lot for management zones so the information when tillage is optimal for all zones within the field would be beneficial


41 / 42

•" When adding new parcel, it will be good to include recent Sentinel RGB cloudfree because BING could be outdated and is hard to recognize parcel boundaries

•" Functionalities needed for comparison of crops between parcels and between different parts within a parcel

•" Units for Crop Yield, Crop residues, Biomass, Chlorophyll should be shown in the legend

•" When adding a parcel, search by geographic name to localize the parcel area more precisely (integration with OSM?)

SPAIN

Suggestions about dashboard:

-" Possibility to filter or group plots not only by crops, but also by parcels, farm, etc.

-" Possibility to choose the units in which the different parameters are shown (km/h <-> m/s).

-" Include the date in the images (NDVI, LAI) & possibility of navigate between images.

-" Within the editing (modifying) options of a existing plot in the database, keep the current data on the screen while they are not modified.

-" Buttons that show information about the tool or service.

-" Reduce the number of classes in some services such as those related to tillage.

-" Adaptation of the colors in the legends of the services (High needs- dark color, low needs-light color)

-" Local language is a MUST

Suggestions about services:

-" The boundaries of the plots may not be precise, so users advise to facilitate this task

-" Alpha-users want to consult historical data (at least whole growing season).

-" Alpha-user would like the dates appear in the navigational elements.

-" Possibility of introducing parameters that are difficult to observe from the surface such as the soil depth.

-" Other meteorological-climatic parameters such as thermal inversion or dew (useful for phytosanitary treatments).

-" Considerate negative temperatures in graphics.

-" In the irrigation tools (irrigation dose) offering unique values of doses instead of ranges.

Alerts & outcomes:

-" Differential alerts for each of the plots under monitoring, at the decision of the farmer or consultant.


42 / 42

-" Possibility of choosing to receive information on irrigation doses grouped as weekly data, although the prognosis is calculated daily.

-" Implement the possibility of consulting the forecasts of the previous week (as much time as possible towards the past).

-" Possibility of exporting the data grouped in the same pdf document with the filtered/selected plots and not by independent plots.

-" Possibility of establishing by the farmers and consultants the conditions of the alerts.

END OF DOCUMENT

d2.3: report on co-creation of services -...

Documents