Overview
The Crop Planning Tool was designed to assist seed dealers in guiding their customers through field planning for upcoming growing seasons, utilizing data from previous years. Traditionally, dealers and growers relied on spreadsheets and in-person discussions, leading to redundant data entry. The tool aimed to streamline this process by integrating existing information into the dealer portals.
The Problem
Post-launch, the tool experienced low adoption rates and user complaints about its cumbersome workflow. It was imperative to identify user frustrations and implement improvements to enhance usability.
User Research
I conducted a qualitative, moderated user study with eight experienced dealers via UserZoom. I wanted to understand how easy the tool is to use, how long it takes a user to use the tool, what they like about it, what they don’t like about it, why they haven’t used it and what they actually need out of the final report.
Particpants were tasked with:
Creating a crop plan.
Allocation products to fields.
Adding field notes.
After each task users were asked to rate the experience using an ease-of-use scale and to then respond to a prompt asking what improvements could be made. I then presented them with a protoype of new solutions and asked them additional questions.
The Test Questions
How would you start to create a crop plan?
Is it faster to create a crop plan now?
Do the added features make creating a crop plan better?
Is it easier to find and add relevant field notes?
Would you use the report?
Would your clients use the report?
Would you like to be able to communicate with your clients via the portal?
Would you like to have our clients start a crop plan that you would then approve/and or complete?
Are there any other important features they feel are missing?
Key Findings
The most common issue the users had centered around selecting products and adding them to their fields. At release the application only allowed them to select one product to apply to one field at a time, making the process tedious for users managing multiple fields.
Design Iterations
To address this, the following changes were implemented:
Checkbox placement: I moved the selection checkboxes to the header of each product card for better visibility.
Product Allocation Flow: I reorganized the interface to list fields under each selected product, reflecting the common practice of assigning one or two products to multiple fields.
Mid-Fidelity Exploration
In Miro, I sketched the current flow to refine it while iterating new concepts. Users struggled to find checkboxes at the bottom of product cards, often below the fold, so I moved them to the card headers.
Next, I restructured the product allocation page. Previously, users assigned products to fields by clicking a field card, listing products beneath it. Since most users had many fields (up to 65+) but assigned few products per field, I reversed this, listing fields under each product to reduce scrolling.
To help users track product allocation, I moved the acreage counter from the contextual footer to field cards, aligning with the new product-focused layout.
I also improved the placement notes flow. Previously, users added notes at the final step, often losing their thought process. Now, notes are accessible directly within field cards, allowing immediate input.
The new field cards integrate selection checkboxes, editing/deleting functions, and direct access to placement notes, streamlining the process.
Final Version of Product Allocation
OUTCOME
Subsequent testing indicated that these modifications significantly improved user satisfaction and efficiency. The revised workflow was adopted nationally, leading to increased user engagement and streamlined crop planning processes.