A new survey on data security and usage identifies challenges for producers looking to use farm management data without compromising the security of their operations. A simple misunderstanding of user agreement terms can suggest a level of security that producers might not actually have.
Conducted by BR Research, the survey of producer attitudes and opinions about data usage was sponsored by Case IH. Conducted in January 2015, the survey includes responses from 331 producers with 1,000 acres or more in production. Of those surveyed, 76 percent said they currently use a data system.
“There is definitely confusion about data in the marketplace,” said Trevor Mecham, director of precision solutions and telematics for Case IH.
The survey shows 21 percent of the respondents either believe their supplier owns the data from their system or they don’t know who owns the data. Less than half of respondents claim to have agreements limiting the amount of data providers can share. The responses confirm a lack of understanding about user agreement terminology and how those agreements define the rights of each producer.
For example, when asked to provide definitions for terms such as “personal data,” “machine data” and “agronomic data,” nearly 40 percent of the respondents said they did not know. Yet these are key terms in most user agreements.
“While these terms are not always defined consistently throughout the industry, we believe producers need to have a clear understanding of our intentions,” Mecham said. “The terms of use from Case IH define ‘agronomic data’ (yield, planting) as separate from ‘machine data’ (engine performance), whereas other manufacturers label both of these categories as ‘machine data,’ adding to confusion.” For example, when it comes to agronomic data, no one at Case IH or the dealership has access to specific details about the customer’s acreage, crops, yields, cropping practices, etc.
The survey also revealed producer concerns about their ability to share data among brands of equipment. While 39 percent said they could transfer data among brands of equipment, 36 percent said they didn’t know whether they could, and 25 percent said they could not transfer the data. This issue represents challenges for diverse operations that want to expand their data management capabilities.
Open Ag Data Alliance standards make it easy to analyze and share mixed-fleet data and to keep fleet and maintenance management systems up to date and interconnected as fleets change.
The survey also suggested there is a lack of understanding among growers regarding the impact of not sharing data with their present provider. Nearly half of respondents said they did not know the impact of no longer sharing the data, 9 percent said they would not be able to use their system if they stopped sharing, and 7 percent said they didn’t have the option of not sharing data with their system provider.
“We believe in transparency and readily encourage producers to review and ask questions about the user agreement before they sign up with any provider,” Mecham said. “Producers need to understand all aspects, limitations and provisions for data usage and sharing.”