Why digital agricultural technology fails in everyday use, and what questions manufacturers should be asking
Produkt + Markt highlights where digital agricultural technology loses its utility in everyday farm life
Over the past years, we have accompanied digitalisation in agriculture through many studies, interviews, concept tests and conversations with farmers, manufacturers and other market actors. One pattern has become increasingly clear: the technical equipment on many farms has advanced quickly. GPS steering, modern terminals, machine data, farm management systems, digital documentation and connected services are now widely available.
At the same time, actual usage often does not develop at the same speed. This is also in line with what we see in scientific publications, industry feedback and many manufacturer conversations: technically, a lot is possible, but in everyday farm work, not every feature is used, understood or experienced as helpful.
This question came up again in our conversations at the DLG Feldtage. Several manufacturers described the same frustration: from their perspective, they offer strong digital features with clear potential value, but these features do not always arrive in farm practice as expected.
That is exactly the gap we explored in recent qualitative interviews with German farmers in July 2026.
The interviews show: the problem is rarely one single missing feature. It is about workflows, routines, handovers, data control, support, farm logic and the small moments where digital tools either become useful or remain outside daily practice.
Digital agricultural technology has found its way onto many farms
Yet what runs precisely and automatically in the field often hits a snag in farmers’ day-to-day office work.
The majority of professional farmers in Germany use digital agricultural solutions. Particularly when it comes to controlling and managing work processes, much of the work is automated and data-driven. At the same time, our data shows that farms are not making full use of existing features. Data remains trapped in individual systems. The expected benefits are not being realised everywhere in everyday practice.
The key question is therefore no longer only whether farms have access to digital technology. Increasingly, the relevant question is whether digital technology becomes part of the actual workflow: between field and office, machine and software, planning and documentation, data and decision-making.
Areas of application for digital solutions
Digital solutions are used across different areas of farm work, for example:
- Production management in the office
- Automation and precision in field work
- Barn work and animal monitoring
- Documentation and compliance
- Farm management and decision support
- Data transfer between machines, people and systems
Digital agriculture: when a lack of benefits leads to frustration and a loss of trust
When digital solutions do not fit seamlessly into everyday life, there are consequences. Farmers lose time. Drivers search for settings. Farm managers double-check data. Teams enter information twice.
The result: extra work instead of efficiency gains.
Farmers are well aware of this. In our case study, a quarter of farms say they do not use digital process control and management at all. Furthermore, 40 per cent consider their skills in work-related digital tasks to be too low. At the same time, almost all plan to significantly increase their use over the next three years.
This is crucial for manufacturers. If digital solutions fail in everyday use, it is not just the use of individual features that suffers. Confidence in digitalisation, service and the brand can also decline. The next digital innovation will then not be driven by curiosity. It will be driven by scepticism.
Recent qualitative farmer interviews confirm this point, but also make it more tangible. In several cases, digital technology was available on the farm, but the decisive question was whether it fitted into existing routines, responsibilities and handovers. Where it did not, the technology remained underused even when the farm was technically well equipped.
Five reasons why data and features are not being used
- Systems do not communicate well enough with one another
Data is generated on the machine. It needs to go into the farm management system. And from there, it needs to feed into documentation, planning or the next decision. It is precisely at these junctures that things often go wrong. This is more than just a technical problem. It is an everyday problem. Every additional export, import or manual intermediate step costs time. For manufacturers, this means that interoperability is not just a technical requirement. It is part of the user experience. If the connection between field, machine and office does not feel reliable, the whole digital workflow becomes fragile. - Data does not reach where it is needed
An application map is planned. The job is in the office. But it doesn’t appear on the tractor, or only after several intermediate steps. Then no digital workflow begins. Then a search begins. It is at moments like these that it is decided whether a digital solution acts as a help or as yet another item on the to-do list. - Changing equipment and roles disrupts workflows
On many farms, machines, equipment and personnel change. The driver switches from the tractor to the forage harvester. The sprayer is hitched to a different tractor. The farm manager plans. Someone else carries it out. If settings, jobs or field data are lost in the process, the farm has to do the work again. What should be running digitally ends up back in the heads of individuals, on scraps of paper or in extra phone calls. This is why digital adoption cannot be understood by looking only at individual features. The decisive question is often what happens between people, machines and steps in the process. - The learning curve is too steep
Many farmers try out new technology themselves at first. They test, tinker, ask questions and look for solutions. Some things work. Some things are left by the wayside. This is not due to a lack of interest. Often, there is a lack of an introduction that fits into the daily work routine. Getting started is too complex. In our sample study, 38% of farms would like training, support and assistance from manufacturers or competent consultants — in person, tailored to their needs and on an individual basis. This presents a major opportunity for manufacturers. Good training, clear support and simple onboarding can turn unused features into real time-savers. Our recent interviews suggest that this is not only a training issue. It is also a change process. On farms where routines have developed over many years, digital tools need to be introduced in a way that makes the practical benefit visible to the people who actually use them. - The benefits become apparent too late
Farmers do not just compare digital agricultural technology with other agricultural technology. They also compare it with digital applications from their everyday lives. Messaging apps, online shops or banking apps work quickly and intuitively. This experience shapes expectations. If agricultural software seems complicated, the impression quickly arises that it is not worth the effort. Then features remain unused. Not because they have no value, but because their value is not felt quickly enough in everyday life. For digital farming tools, perceived value must arrive early. If the first experience is dominated by searching, correcting, transferring or calling support, the promised efficiency gain remains abstract.
What recent qualitative interviews added
Recent qualitative interviews with German farmers in July 2026 confirm the central point: the digital adoption gap is not mainly about whether technology is available. It is about whether it becomes part of everyday workflows.
The interviews also add important nuance. They show where the adoption gap becomes visible in real farm situations.
- Modern equipment does not guarantee digital workflows
One interviewed farm works with very modern tractors and extensive digital capabilities. Yet many processes remain largely analogue. Data is available, but it is still often written down, transferred manually or handled outside a fully digital workflow. This shows that digital maturity is not defined by what is installed on the farm. It is defined by what is actually used in daily work. - Digital workflows can break at very ordinary handovers
In one interview, the morning work planning became a telling example. The field list exists digitally, but it is printed out, discussed verbally and then used as the basis for work allocation. The software exists. The machines are modern. The data is available. But the workflow remains analogue at a critical point. This is why digital adoption often becomes visible in small handovers: between office and field, manager and driver, planning and execution, software and daily routine. A digital workflow does not always fail in the software. Sometimes it fails on a clipboard. - Data sovereignty can decide whether a feature is used at all
One advanced digital user deliberately stopped using a sensor functionality because it required a cloud connection that did not fit the farm’s expectations around data control. This is an important signal for manufacturers. For advanced users, data sovereignty is not an abstract concern. It can decide whether a feature is used at all. Trust in digital farming is therefore not only about functionality. It is also about transparency, control, choice and the feeling that the farm remains in charge of its own data. - Small frictions can damage trust
A support issue, a confusing error message or a minor but recurring technical problem may look small from the outside. In daily farm work, however, these moments can shape whether digital tools are seen as helpful or as additional work. One interview showed how a seemingly small technical issue in an operational process can become a daily frustration when support cannot solve it. These moments matter because they influence trust — not only in the tool, but also in the provider behind it. Trust in digital agriculture is often lost in very small moments. - Digital tools need to reflect farm logic
Farmers do not reject decision support in principle. But if a tool simplifies agricultural reality too much, it may lose credibility. One interview showed this clearly in relation to farm management and economic evaluation. If software looks only at the direct contribution margin of a crop but does not reflect crop rotation effects, internal feed use or longer-term agronomic value, the output may be technically calculated — but still feel wrong from the farmer’s perspective. A digital recommendation can be technically correct and still not be accepted if it does not reflect the farm’s logic.
Farmer reality snapshots from recent interviews
The printed digital workflow
The field list is available digitally — but in the morning, it is printed, discussed verbally and used for work allocation. The digital system exists, but the practical workflow remains analogue.
The unused capability
Modern tractors with extensive digital functionality are available on the farm. Yet many functions remain underused because routines, training and internal processes have not caught up with the technology.
The cloud boundary
An advanced user is willing to give up a sensor functionality if using it means losing control over farm data. For this farmer, data sovereignty is not theoretical — it directly affects usage.
What manufacturers of digital agricultural technology should ask their customers
Digital agricultural technology does not win over users solely through new features. It wins over users when farms use it confidently, share data in a way they trust and feel the benefits in their daily work.
This requires a deep understanding of the working world of farmers. Only by observing how they actually work, where they struggle, where they take detours, and where the benefits are lost, can one ask the right questions and develop suitable solutions.
For example:
• Where do farmers find digital solutions make their work easier, and where do they see them as an extra burden?
• At what points do digital services lose their usefulness in day-to-day work?
• Which features do farmers not use, even though they could help them?
• What support do farms need to ensure that features are actually put to use?
• What measures boost usage, satisfaction and trust in the brand, retailer and manufacturer?
Based on recent qualitative farmer interviews, manufacturers should also ask:
• Where do digital workflows break between field, machine, office and decision-making?
• Which parts of the workflow are still handled on paper, verbally or through workarounds?
• Where do farmers feel they lose control over their own data?
• Which support situations create confidence — and which create frustration?
• How well do digital tools reflect the agronomic and economic logic of the farm?
• What kind of onboarding helps different farm roles actually change their routines?
• Which features are technically available but practically invisible in everyday work?
Using market research and UX research to create digital agricultural solutions that are better received in everyday life
Quantitative analyses provide valuable insights into which solutions farmers use, which features are left unused and where the benefits break down.
UX research and qualitative farmer interviews go one step further. They show how people actually work on the farm, on the machinery and in the office. They reveal the detours, routines and minor annoyances that arise in everyday life.
This is important because farmers, too, do not make decisions based solely on rationality. Of course, cost, time, efficiency and technical performance matter. But frustration, uncertainty, pride, trust and control also shape whether digital solutions are used or not.
Understanding these factors enables the development of more suitable solutions. And manufacturers can avoid expensive features that look good in presentations but are rarely used in everyday life.
This is also where qualitative methods add particular value. In our recent interviews, we did not only ask farmers which tools they use. We explored how they experience digital workflows, where they see friction and what an ideal solution would feel like in practice. Methods such as projective exercises can help farmers express perceptions that are otherwise difficult to put into words. For example, whether technology feels like a reliable partner, a complicated outsider or something that creates extra work.
Would you like to understand where digital farming gets stuck in everyday use?
Recent qualitative interviews show: the digital adoption gap is real and it is more specific than a survey alone can reveal.
It appears in morning work planning, in data handovers, in support situations, in cloud decisions and in the way farm teams actually organise their day.
With the P+M Submarine, we help manufacturers go below the surface of digital adoption. We speak directly with farmers, explore where workflows break down and translate these insights into concrete implications for product development, communication, onboarding and service.
Would you like to understand why your digital features are used, ignored or worked around in practice?
Let’s define the right questions for the next Submarine dive.
For me, the most interesting part of these recent interviews was not that farmers confirmed familiar barriers. It was how concretely they described them.
A printed field list. A sensor not used because of cloud requirements. A modern tractor whose digital potential remains only partly integrated into daily routines.
These are small examples, but they point to a larger issue: digital farming does not fail in theory. It succeeds or fails in everyday workflows.
That is why we believe manufacturers should not only ask whether farmers have access to digital technology. They should ask where the technology actually enters the workflow and where it still stays outside.
Which workflow break would you like to understand next?
