Giving voice to the farmers, machine operators, local service providers ...

3 downloads 7761 Views 3MB Size Report
Giving voice to the farmers, machine operators, local service providers and small scale ... BP is a machine, which first ploughs the field, then applies seed and.
Giving  voice  to  the  farmers,  machine  operators,  local  service  providers  and  small  scale  manufacturers  in   designing  scale-­‐appropriate  agro-­‐machinery  for  Rural  Bangladesh:  A  Case  study   By  Sharmistha  Banerjee   Assistant  Professor,  Department  of  Design,  IIT  Guwahati,  Guwahati,  Assam,  India,  781039   [email protected]   This  case  study  describes  the  Human  Centered  Design  (HCD)  approach  adopted  to  re-­‐design  a  two-­‐wheeled  hand   held  and  operated  power  tiller  (2WT)  based  agro-­‐machinery,  Bed  Planter  (BP),  suitable  for  low-­‐income  farmers   possessing  small  farms,  which  are  typically  less  than  a  third  of  an  acre,  in  South  of  Bangladesh.  The  HCD  process   attempted  to  rope  in  the  voices  of  farmers,  machine  operators,  local  service  providers  (LSPs)  and  small-­‐scale   manufacturers  in  not  only  ascertaining  their  current  difficulties,  needs  and  aspirations  but  also  in  the  design  of  the   machine.  The  HCD  process  also  took  into  account  local  small-­‐scale  manufacturer’s  manufacturing  capabilities  and   ways  to  enhance  the  same  so  as  to  enable  local  manufacturing  of  the  product  and  create  employment   opportunities  thereby.  In  short,  it  describes  an  attempt  to  collaboratively  work  with  the  grassroots,  build  empathy   and  co-­‐design.  The  case  study  describes  the  semi-­‐structured  interviews,  contextual  inquiry,  co-­‐creation  workshops   and  mock-­‐training  sessions  conducted  with  all  the  involved  value  chain  actors  and  the  learning  made  in  the   process.     The  assignment  is  part  of  the  project  ‘Cereal  Systems  Initiative  for  South  Asia  –  Mechanization  and  Irrigation’   (CSISA-­‐MI).  [1]  CSISA  –  MI  is  a  project  partnered  between  International  Maize  and  Wheat  Improvement  Center   (CIMMYT)  Bangladesh  and  International  Development  Enterprise  Bangladesh  (iDE-­‐B)  and  is  funded  by  the  USAID   Mission  in  Bangladesh  under  President  Obama’s  Feed  the  Future  (FtF)  Initiative.  The  assignment  used  the  BP   developed  by  Bangladesh  Agricultural  Research  Institute  (BARI)  and  its  reverse  engineered  version  by  a  local   workshop  owner  as  the  starting  base.   Keywords:  Scale-­‐appropriate  agro-­‐machinery,  Human  Centered  Design  of  agro-­‐machinery,  Empathic  Design,  Co-­‐ design   1.  Background  of  the  Study   [2]  Bangladesh  has  adopted  scale-­‐appropriate  agricultural  machinery  to  a  good  extent.  The  penetration  of   mechanization  has  occurred  mostly  due  to  farm  labor  shortage  in  the  country.  The  country  has  many  farm   equipment  based  on  2  Wheeled  Power  Tillers  (2WT).  A  2WT-­‐based  BP  is  shown  in  figure  1.  The  cost  and  scale  of   operation  is  very  suitable  for  small  farms  in  the  country.  

                    Figure  1:  Sifang  2WT  based  BP  

 

  *

                   Figure  2:  Beds  made  by  BP  

BARI  has  done  pioneering  work  in  the  country  in  the  field  of  mechanization.  [3]  They  have  successfully  developed  a   Dongfang  make  2WT  based  BP  (D-­‐BP).    BP  is  a  machine,  which  first  ploughs  the  field,  then  applies  seed  and   fertilizer  in  furrows  and  finally  creates  the  bed  (Figure  2).  Bed  planting  is  a  method  of  crop  establishment  in  which   long  elevated  beds  are  made  and  seeds  are  planted  in  them.  The  beds  alternate  with  furrows,  which  are  used  for   irrigation  and  for  improved  field  access.  Figure  3  shows  the  various  parts  of  the  BP  and  their  functions.  

                                                                                                                *

 Center,  International  Maize  and  Wheat  Improvement.  2014.  Bed  Planter.  Photo.  https://www.flickr.com/photos/cimmyt/14152202358/.  

  Figure  3:  BP  parts  and  their  functions   The  case  study  is  initiated  under  the  auspices  of  iDE-­‐B  and  CIMMYT.  They  are  actively  working  in  the  field  of   mechanization  and  irrigation  in  South  Bangladesh  under  the  project  CSISA-­‐MI.  In  this  part  of  the  country,  Sifang   make  of  2WT  are  the  most  common.  A  very  ingenious  local  workshop  owner,  Mr.  Oli  Hujjur,  reverse  engineered   the  BARI  BP  (D-­‐BP)  and  converted  into  a  BP  for  the  Sifang  make  2WT  (S-­‐BP).  50  S-­‐BP  were  made  and  put  up  for  sale   through  distributors  by  iDE-­‐B  and  CIMMYT.  But  unfortunately  sales  could  not  be  materialized.     The  interesting  point  to  be  noted  here  is  that  bed  planting  as  an  agronomic  process  is  popular  in  the  country.  In   the  absence  of  commercially  available  machinery  to  perform  the  operation,  farmers  were  doing  bed  planting   manually.  Hence  it  was  anticipated  that  when  a  machine  is  introduced  in  the  market,  it  would  sell  pretty  well.   Further,  iDE-­‐B  and  CIMMYT  have  considerable  experience  in  this  field  in  the  country  and  have  been  quite   successful  in  their  endeavors.  Thus  the  aim  of  the  assignment  undertaken  was  to  understand  the  human  centered   aspects  as  well  as  technical  aspects  around  the  BP,  which  was  responsible  for  sales  failure.   [4]  The  study  was  based  on  principles  of  Empathic  Design,  ie.,  observing  customers  to  identify  their  latent  needs  so   as  to  be  able  to  create  products  and  services  that  they  don’t  even  know  they  desire  or,  in  some  cases,  solutions   that  customers  have  difficulty  envisioning  due  to  lack  of  familiarity  with  possibilities  offered  by  technology  or   because  they  are  locked  in  “business  as-­‐usual”  mindset.  Empathetic  design  relies  heavily  on  keen  observation  of   real  people  under  real-­‐life  usage  situation  to  identify  their  knowledge,  abilities,  needs,  aspirations,  desires,   frustrations  and  expectations.  Empathic  Design  approach,  in  this  project,  was  expected  to  be  able  to  capture  the   underlying  reasons  behind  the  failure  and  to  be  able  to  co-­‐design  with  the  stakeholders  an  innovative  solution  out   of  the  existing  design  in  a  short  span  of  time.   2.  Methodology   [5]  The  study  was  conducted  in  four  phases  as  per  empathic  design  framework  recommended  by  Kouprie  and   Visser  [2009].  The  phases  are:  1.  Discover:  entering  the  user’s  world  and  achieving  willingness;  2.  Immersion:   wandering  in  the  user’s  world  and  taking  on  user’s  point  of  reference;  3.  Connection:  Resonating  with  the  user;  4.   Detachment:  Leaving  the  user’s  world  and  designing  with  user’s  perspective.   The  investigation  was  initiated  with  two  pronged  focus:  one,  human  centered  aspects  covering  socio-­‐economic   conditions,  aspirations,  ergonomics,  knowledge  and  abilities;  two,  engineering  aspects  of  machine  design  and   manufacturing.  This  case  study  talks  about  the  first  aspect  in  greater  detail.  The  second  aspect  is  touched  upon   lightly  only  in  the  context  of  training  and  manpower  development.     3.  Discover:  entering  the  user’s  world  and  achieving  willingness   To  delve  into  the  scope  of  exploring  different  facets  of  the  human  centered  aspects  involved,  a  series  of  semi-­‐ structured  interviews  were  conducted.  The  aim  of  the  semi-­‐structured  interviews  was  to  understand  who  all  are   the  key  stakeholders,  their  strengths,  ambitions,  needs,  desires,  expectations,  pain  points  and  limitations.  The  role   of  the  researcher  was  to  act  as  patient  listener  and  encourage  the  stakeholders  to  speak  out.  All  the  interviews   were  conducted  in  the  native  language,  Bengali.  In  some  cases,  where  foreigners  were  involved,  the  conversation   was  conducted  in  English.  Whenever  the  conversations  involved  farmers,  LSPs,  operators,  workshop  workers  and  

owners,  the  dialogues  were  conducted  in  Bengali  so  as  to  rule  out  any  hesitance  in  speaking  out.  From  the  semi-­‐ structured  interviews,  a  stakeholder  picture  was  drawn  out  and  is  presented  below:   3.1  Insights  from  semi-­‐structured  interviews   This  phase  identified  the  following  most  important  stakeholders,  their  roles,  interests  and  concerns.     †

1.  [1]  CSISA  -­‐MI  aims  to  drive  conservation  agriculture  through  precision  equipment.  One  of  this  equipment  is  the   BP.  It  builds  on  lessons  learnt  and  opportunities  identified  by  the  existing  USAID-­‐funded  CSISA  project  in   Bangladesh.  While  CSISA  focuses  on  adaptive  technology  testing,  deploying  new  crop  varieties,  training  farmers,   and  facilitating  output  markets,  CSISA-­‐MI  goes  beyond  this  to  focus  on  upstream  market  interventions  to  ensure   that  technologies  needed  for  agricultural  intensification  are  sustainably  available  through  local  markets.  CSISA-­‐MI   is  implemented  by  CIMMYT  and  iDE-­‐B.   2.  [6]  IDE-­‐B  works  in  the  creation  of  income  and  livelihood  opportunities  for  poor  rural  households.  It  co-­‐ordinates   the  design,  development,  training,  manufacturing  and  marketing  of  the  BP  alongwith  CIMMYT.  It  is  concerned   about  the  low  quality  of  the  BP  and  its  lack  of  sales  in  the  market.  In  order  to  achieve  the  sales  target  in   collaboration  with  CIMMYT,  it  wants  to  quickly  develop  and  start  manufacturing  a  robust  BP.   3.  [7]  CIMMYT  is  a  non-­‐profit  research  and  training  center,  which  strives  to  improve  agricultural  yield  of  maize  and   wheat.  [8]  A  new  CIMMYT  book,  Made  in  Bangladesh:  Scale-­‐appropriate  machinery  for  agricultural  resource   conservation,  highlights  the  innovative  machinery  that  can  be  used  with  two-­‐wheeled  tractors  (2WT)  for   sustainable  farming  and  gives  detailed  technical  designs  to  help  standardize  production  quality,  making  the   machines  more  accessible  to  farmers.  It  co-­‐ordinates  the  design,  development,  training,  manufacturing  and   marketing  of  the  BP  alongwith  iDE-­‐B.  It  is  also  concerned  about  the  low  quality  of  the  BP  and  the  fact  that  it  is  not   selling  in  the  market.  In  order  to  achieve  the  sales  target  with  iDE-­‐B,  it  also  wants  to  quickly  develop  and  start   manufacturing  a  robust  BP.   4.  Janata  Engineering  (JE)  under  the  proprietorship  of  Mr.  Oli  Hujur  has  taken  the  initiative  to  replicate  the  BP   design  presented  to  them  with  the  help  of  CIMMYT  and  iDE  -­‐B.  In  future  he  might  be  one  of  the  key  manufacturing   partners  for  not  only  the  BP  but  also  other  agricultural  machinery  being  promoted  by  CIMMYT,  CSISA  -­‐MI  and  iDE  -­‐ B.  The  main  concerns  of  JE  were  to  make  the  BP  more  sturdy,  earn  profits  through  sale  of  BP  and  its  spare  parts,   gain  repeat  business  orders  for  this  and  other  agro-­‐machinery,  meeting  production  demands,  creating  dies  for   mass  manufacturing  and  ensuring  better  quality  of  production.  The  proprietor  is  strongly  motivated  towards   making  a  positive  impact  in  the  growth  of  his  motherland.   5.  The  farmers  are  being  encouraged  either  to  own  a  BP  themselves  (who  in  turn  can  offer  the  services  to  other   farmers)  or  to  hire  the  services  of  it  from  a  Local  Service  Provider  (LSP).  During  a  discussion  session  with  five   farmers  in  Chuadanga  and  five  in  Khulna,  it  was  noticed  that  overall  the  farmers  are  very  enthusiastic  about  the   method,  bed  plantation.  They  have  also  tried  making  beds  manually.  They  were  concerned  with  the  unreliable   seeding  happening  with  the  BP.  Thus  they  wanted  to  get  beds  made  but  plantation  was  being  done  manually.  They   were  happy  that  a  BP  can  make  their  entire  ploughing  and  plantation  activity  cheaper  and  independent  of  timely   availability  of  labor.   6.  The  operators  are  farmers,  LSPs  or  operators  employed  by  the  farmers  or  LSPs.  Three  operators  were   interviewed  in  Chuadanga  of  which  two  were  operators  only  while  one  was  a  farmer  as  well.  In  Khulna,  3  LSPs  who   were  operators  themselves  were  interviewed.  They  operate,  repair  and  maintain  the  BP.  Their  main  concern  was   the  heavy  weight  of  the  S-­‐BP,  which  made  it  physically  strenuous  to  operate  it.  Many  of  them  reported  contracting   fever  the  day  after  operating  the  machine  while  others  complained  of  shoulder  and  hand  pain.  Many  would   operate  the  machine  only  on  alternate  days.  They  found  the  machine  very  difficult  to  understand  due  to  the  large   number  of  adjustment  possibilities.  They  were  unable  to  understand  which  was  the  best-­‐suited  setting   combination.  They  were  also  unaware  of  agronomic  practices  and  hence  unable  to  make  out  relationships   between  soil  conditions,  seed  concerned  and  bed  planter  settings.  The  operators  were  also  not  very  extensively   trained  in  the  BP  usage  leading  to  operational  problems.  

                                                                                                                †

 Conservation  agriculture  is  a  set  of  principles  that  build  on  systems  agronomy  research  developed  by  CIMMYT  and  partners   around  the  world,  particularly  on  cropping  methods  that  simultaneously  boost  productivity  and  reduce  resource  degradation  in   cropping  systems  that  include  maize  or  wheat.  

7.  3  LSPs  were  interviewed  in  Khulna.  They  are  the  people  who  buy  the  machine  and  often  are  the  operators  too.   The  current  LSPs  have  not  bought  the  machine  but  have  been  provided  with  one  under  CSISA-­‐MI  project.  LSP  pays   for  the  machine  maintenance  and  the  running  cost  of  the  machine  and  hence  is  looking  for  more  robust   equipment  whose  spare  parts  are  locally  available.  His  interest  is  that  the  machine  should  be  seen  as  one  suitable   for  making  only  beds  as  well  as  for  bed  planting.  The  machine  should  be  capable  of  handling  sunflower  as  well  due   to  the  big  market  for  the  same  in  the  region.  At  this  moment  the  machine  can’t  handle  sunflower  beds  and  has  no   seed  meter  for  it.  One  operator  had  designed  his  own  wooden  seed  meter  for  sunflower.  He  is  concerned  about   the  low  quality  of  the  machine,  constant  breakdowns,  no  local  spare  part  availability  and  lack  of  farmers’  trust  in   the  machine.  These  contribute  to  his  hesitance  in  buying  the  BP.   8.  One  dealer  was  interviewed  in  Chuadanga.  The  dealer  serves  as  the  link  between  the  manufacturer  and  the  LSPs   (buyer).  He  promotes  the  machine  in  his  region.  His  interest  lies  in  selling  good  quality  machine  and  thereby  earn   credibility  amongst  the  buyers  so  that  he/  she  can  sell  more  agro-­‐machinery.  He  is  concerned  about  the  low   quality  and  reliability  of  the  current  machine  (2  S-­‐BP  were  sold  but  returned  soon  after)  due  to  which  his   reputation  in  the  market  has  suffered  as  well.  He  also  mentioned  that  the  BP  looks  more  like  a  test  rig  and  less  like   a  desirable  product.   Another  interesting  aspect  that  came  out  during  this  phase  of  the  study  was  that  the  D-­‐BP  was  more  robust  and   less  problematic  product  than  the  S-­‐BP.  It  was  so  due  to  the  iterative  technical  design  process  already  undertaken   by  BARI.  The  S-­‐BP  was  released  in  market  without  such  extensive  testing  and  design  iterations.  Also  the  operators   of  S-­‐BP  were  much  less  trained  and  hence  struggled  with  the  machine  more  (both  S-­‐BP  and  D-­‐BP).  The  operators  of   D-­‐BP  who  were  extensively  trained  by  BARI  and  had  considerable  years  of  experience  in  operating  the  D-­‐BP  were   better  at  handling  the  machine.  Thus  they  reported  much  better  performance  of  the  machine.  Also  certain  issues   arose  due  to  the  make  of  the  2WT  on  which  the  BP  was  built  on.  The  difference  between  the  Sifang  and  Dongfang   make  2WT  was  in  their  weight  distribution.  The  Sifang  is  heavier  on  the  rear  due  to  the  engine  being  little  behind.   Thus  the  ergonomic  difficulties  of  operating  the  S-­‐BP  are  much  higher.   Due  to  the  physical  difficulties  of  operating  the  BP,  which  even  made  the  male  operators  sick,  it  was  obvious  that   female  operators  would  hardly  turn  up  for  the  BP.  Thus  female  labor  that  dominates  the  manual  seed  sowing   market  will  be  out  of  job.  Various  researchers  have  reported  this  phenomenon  of  female  labor  disappearing  from   farms  due  to  mechanization  and  henceforth  causing  degradation  in  their  socio-­‐economic  status  [9].   It  was  also  observed  that  agro-­‐machine  ownership  was  seen  as  a  status  symbol.  The  farmers,  operators,  LSPs  and   the  dealers  all  aspired  for  tractors  and  the  performance  that  they  can  deliver.  The  2WT-­‐based  BP  was  looked  down   upon  in  terms  of  status  and  performance.     The  economics  of  bed  planting  was  worked  out  at  400  Taka  (~5  USD)  for  1  Bigha  (0.1338  ha)  of  land.  From  the   farmer’s  point  of  view,  this  is  very  attractive,  as  manual  labor  would  have  cost  him  much  more.  The  operator   usually  takes  his  sister  or  wife  to  help  him  in  the  operation.  Thus  400  Taka  for  diesel  (transporting  the  machine  to   the  farm  and  operation),  two  operators,  machine  maintenance  and  LSPs  return  on  investment  does  not  appear     economically  attractive  enough  for  the  LSPs  and  operators.  This  was  currently  not  recognized  as  a  problem  by  the   LSPs  as  the  machine  is  not  bought  by  them.  But  once  the  machines  are  bought,  operated  and  solely  maintained  by   them,  this  can  become  a  concern.   Some  of  the  farmers  also  mentioned  that  they  had  decided  to  buy  the  BP  but  had  subsequently  heard  that  the   Government  is  planning  a  subsidy  on  the  machine  and  hence  decided  to  wait  for  it.  Some  farmers  also  felt  that  lot   of  free  demonstration  of  the  machine  had  been  done  and  this  trend  will  continue.  Hence  they  did  not  want  to   purchase  it.  The  stakeholders  also  mentioned  word–of–mouth  spread  regarding  low  quality  of  the  machine,  which   had  made  the  market  skeptical  about  the  BP.   4.  Immersion:  wandering  in  the  user’s  world  and  taking  on  user’s  point  of  reference   Next,  on-­‐field  tests  of  the  machine  operation,  manufacturing,  assembly  and  disassembly  were  conducted  to   identify  the  technical  and  ergonomic  issues  surrounding  the  BP  and  bed  planting  as  a  process.  On-­‐field  structured   interviews  were  conducted  with  operators,  farmers  and  LSPs  while  the  machine  was  in  operation  to  understand   their  concerns  and  expectations.    

4.1  Insights  from  on-­‐field  BP  tests   An  initial  assessment  of  the  machine  shows  that  it  is  a  pretty  good  design  from  agronomic  requirement  fulfillment   point  of  view.  It  achieves  ploughing,  seeding  and  bed  making.  Some  manufacturing  and  material  specification   redesign  was  all  that  was  needed  to  set  right  the  few  technical  issues.  The  machine  also  allows  several  different   setting  possibilities  (figure  4  –  7),  which  are  very  essential  for  a  machine  to  be  used  by  agricultural  scientists.   Scientists  can  set  the  machine  at  multiple  parameters  and  test  its  performance.  But  the  same  machine  due  to  its   possibility  to  be  set  at  such  huge  number  of  variable  settings  becomes  confusing  and  difficult  for  an  illiterate  or   semi-­‐literate  operator.  They  need  straight  –  forward  instructions  and  simple  interfaces.   During  the  on-­‐field  tests,  it  was  observed  that  the  operator  kept  on  struggling  to  put  the  BP  on  the  right   combination  of  setting  (Figure  10).  Also  to  ease  lifting  of  the  machine  at  the  turns  (Figure  9),  one  would  tie  up  a   bag  full  of  sand  on  the  front  of  the  machine  (Figure  8).  The  visual  impact  of  these  aspects  on  the  on-­‐lookers  was  a   less  reliable  and  machine  full  of  hassles.  There  were  other  technical  issues,  for  instance,  the  seed  dispensing  was   inconsistent,  which  led  to  the  seeds  not  falling  at  the  recommended  20  cm  ±  5  cm  gap;  use    of  poor  quality   materials  and  inappropriate  manufacturing  techniques  led  to  the    frequent  breakdown  of  the  components,    parts   and  the  machine  itself.  These  further  reduced  the  sense  of  reliance  on  the  machine.  On-­‐lookers  felt  it  might  be   ‡ very  difficult  to  operate  the  machine  or  may  be  the  machine  is  broken  or  is  just  a  piece  of  local  Jugaad .  Thus  the   machine  was  perceived  inferior.  The  farmers  and  operators  kept  on  comparing  its  performance  to  those  of  tractors   and  wishing  for  one.    

  Figure  4:  The  difficult  to  comprehend  number  of  possible  combinations  for  setting  the  ploughing  depth  of  the   rotary  blades  and  on  the  basis  of  that  adjusting  the  seed  box  inclination.  Then  the  chain  tensions  need  to  be   adjusted  appropriately.  

 

                   

   

                                       

 

Figure  5:  The  bed  shaper  cone   Figure  6:  The  furrow  opener  can            Figure  7:  Depending  on  ploughing  depth,   can  be  set  for  different  bed  sizes   be  set  anywhere  in  the  given  slot            the  furrow  opener  depth  hole  needs  to                                                                  be  selected   The  BP,  at  the  end  of  each  line  on  the  field,  needs  to  be  lifted  up  from  the  rear,  rested  on  the  front  wheels  and   0 given  an  180  turn  by  holding  one  cutch  (Figure  9).  Because  of  small  field  size,  this  lifting  is  to  be  repeated  very   frequently  causing  fatigue  and  pain  to  the  operator.  Hence  it  was  difficult  to  find  operators.  Also  it  was  observed   during  operations,  that  lot  of  soil  dust  is  generated.  More  dust  is  generated  because  operators  remove  the   mudguard  to  see  if  the  seeds  are  dispensing  or  stuck  in  the  delivery  pipe.  Dust  was  being  inhaled  by  them  and  was   also  getting  into  their  eyes.  This  might  be  another  reason  behind  operators’  feeling  of  physical  discomfort  at  the   end  of  the  day.  But  during  on-­‐field  interviews  and  co-­‐design  sessions  (discussed  in  next  section),  mostly  they  said   that  they  are  hardy  people  and  not  bothered  much  about  dust.  None  found  reduction  of  dust  as  very  important  in   the  new  design.  During  the  interviews  and  co-­‐design  sessions,  some  of  the  operators  wanted  the  weight  to  be  

                                                                                                                ‡

 Jugaad  Innovation  Definition  from  Financial  Times  Lexicon  -­‐  Jugaad  (a  word  taken  from  Hindi  which  captures  the  meaning  of  finding  a  low-­‐cost   solution  to  any  problem  in  an  intelligent  way)  is  a  new  way  to  think  constructively  and  differently  about  innovation  and  strategy.  

lifted  be  reduced  as  a  priority  design  feature.  But  there  was  also  one  operator  who  described  the  weight  as  not  a   major  issue.  He  had  already  developed  tactics  to  lift  up  the  BP  more  efficiently  than  the  first  group.  He  also  works   at  JE.  Due  to  his  daily  heavy  manual  metal  work,  he  might  have  developed  stronger  hand  and  shoulder  muscles   than  the  other  operators.  

  Figure  8:  Counter-­‐weight  in  the  front  to            Figure  9:  Turning  the  BP  at  the  end  of  one  line  on  the  field   ease  lifting  the  BP  

                     

  Figure  10:  Lot  of  adjustments  and  awkward  postures  needed  to  achieve  the  same   It  was  also  observed  that  the  operator  needed  to  take  awkward  postures  (Figure  10)  to  do  all  the  setting  changes   on  the  BP  as  well  as  during  on-­‐field  repair  of  components.  Again  the  operator  himself  did  not  report  this  as  a   problem  as  he  was  used  to  such  awkward  postures  during  his  daily  work  routine  at  JE  and  thought  of  it  as  normal.     It  was  also  noted  that  the  BP  does  not  have  rear  wheels.  Thus  it  needs  to  be  transported  on  a  pick-­‐up  truck  from   one  village  to  another.  This  implies  additional  cost  and  labor.  The  earlier  BP  versions  had  a  fertilizer  metering  and   dispensing  sub-­‐assembly,  which  however  was  not  performing  the  task  appropriately  and  hence  had  to  be  removed.   The  stakeholders  expressed  that  having  the  subassembly  will  make  the  BP  usage  more  cost  effective  and  they  can   save  fertilizer  if  local  application  around  seed  is  done  rather  than  their  current  hand  broadcast  methods.   During  the  assembling  and  disassembling  processes,  it  was  observed  that  the  BP  has  not  been  designed  from   manufacturing  and  assembly  point  of  view.  Also  the  components  were  not  optimally  designed  from  strength  and   weight  point  of  view.  The  owner  of  JE  was  keenly  interested  in  getting  guidance  on  the  right  material  selection,  jigs,   fixture  and  die  development  and  a  design,  which  is  easier  and  faster  to  manufacture  and  assemble.  Limitations  of   his  manufacturing  capabilities  and  raw  material  availability  in  the  market  were  noted  so  as  to  be  able  to  design   accordingly.  Also  other  manufacturing  setups  in  the  country  were  visited  to  make  an  assessment  of  how  best  to   combine  the  manufacturing  and  assembling  capabilities  of  different  parties  and  obtain  a  low  cost  BP.      

5.  Connection:  Resonating  with  the  user   5.1  Part  A:  Co-­‐creation  Workshop   With  the  insight  drawn  from  on-­‐field  study,  two  co-­‐creation  workshops  were  conducted  wherein  farmers,   operators,  LSPs,  manufacturer,  field  technical  staff,  agricultural  scientists  and  experts  participated.  The  group   together  participated  in  prioritizing  the  concerns  and  problems  and  ideated  on  possibilities.  Also  during  this   collaborative  approach,  each  person  learned  more  about  the  BP  and  bed  planting  and  many  misconceptions  and   doubts  were  also  cleared.   To  begin  with,  all  participants  were  asked  to  write  down  difficulties,  problems  and  positive  aspects  of  the  BP  on   sticky  notes.  Each  sticky  note  carried  one  aspect.  Next  all  sticky  notes  were  put  up  on  a  white  board.  The   researcher  had  also  prepared  a  checklist  and  missing  points  were  added  onto  fresh  sticky  notes  on  the  white  board.   Next  the  group  started  discussion.  Each  sticky  note  was  picked  up  and  the  person  who  wrote  it  was  asked  to   elaborate  on  to  it  and  show  pictures  or  drawings  if  he  had  any.  Mostly  they  had  clicked  photographs  using  their   mobile  phones  whenever  they  had  faced  a  problem  or  made  a  solution  themselves.  Next  others  in  the  group  could   contribute  by  either  adding  on  the  aspect  or  if  it  were  a  misconception  on  part  of  the  writer,  they  would  provide  a   clarification.  Next  the  group  would  agree  upon  whether  to  classify  the  issue  for  the  future  design  as  “must-­‐be   quality  (basic)”,  “one-­‐dimensional  quality  (performance)”,  “attractive  quality”  or  “indifferent  quality”.  [10]  These   qualities  are  drawn  from  Kano  Model  and  were  defined  with  example  to  the  group  as:     1.  Must-­‐be  Quality  (Basic)  -­‐  These  attributes  are  taken  for  granted  when  fulfilled  but  result  in  dissatisfaction  when   not  fulfilled.   2.  One-­‐dimensional  Quality  (Performance)  -­‐  These  attributes  result  in  satisfaction  when  fulfilled  and  dissatisfaction   when  not  fulfilled.  These  are  attributes  on  which  companies  compete  for.   3.  Attractive  Quality  (Attractive)  -­‐  These  attributes  provide  satisfaction  when  achieved  fully,  but  do  not  cause   dissatisfaction  when  not  fulfilled.   4.  Indifferent  Quality  -­‐  These  attributes  refer  to  aspects  that  are  neither  good  nor  bad,  and  they  do  not  result  in   either  customer  satisfaction  or  customer  dissatisfaction.   At  times  when  the  group  would  say  a  problem  mentioned  in  the  sticky  note  is  not  important  or  “indifferent  quality”   while  the  researcher  felt  it  was  important,  the  researcher  would  suggest  alternate  ways  of  thinking  to  probe  the   group’s  thinking.  For  example,  the  group  thought  having  a  seat  for  the  operator  is  not  very  important.  At  this   instant  the  researcher  introduced  scenarios  like:     1.  Imagine  you  are  taking  the  BP  from  one  village  to  another,  which  is  10km  away.  Now  the  BP  has  rear  wheels  but   you  can’t  sit.  Will  you  be  comfortable  walking  10km?  Will  that  not  mean  loss  of  time  and  money?     2.  Imagine  you  are  on  the  fields  and  in  a  village  you  have  to  do  10  acres  in  a  day.  Will  you  be  able  to  walk  to  and  fro   with  the  BP  making  beds  on  the  fields?   When  presented  with  such  probes,  the  participants  thought  deeper  into  the  human  centered  aspects  of  operation.   Therefore,  the  situation  was  put  as  a  “one-­‐dimensional  quality  (performance)”  for  the  design  process.  Also  later   some  stakeholders  argued  that  it  might  increase  the  cost  of  the  BP,  which  might  be  a  deterrent  to  some.  Hence  it   was  decided  to  have  a  provision  to  sell  the  seat  plus  rear  wheel  arrangement  as  an  add-­‐on  component.   Another  situation  was  when  the  participants  strongly  argued  that  a  counter-­‐weight  like  sand  bag  should  be  tied  in   the  front  of  the  BP  to  make  it  easier  to  lift  from  behind.  So  in  the  future  design  a  cage  kind  of  arrangement  should   be  present  in  the  front  where  the  sand  bags  can  be  put.  In  this  situation,  the  researcher  suggested  that  sand  bag  is   dead  weight.  What  if  we  place  a  storage  box  for  seeds  and  fertilizers  in  the  front  from  which  seeds  and  fertilizers   can  drop  automatically  into  the  metering  box?  The  advantage  will  be:  useful  weight,  no  need  to  constantly  refill   the  small  seed  and  fertilizer  metering  boxes,  the  additional  weight  is  gone  automatically  at  the  end  of  bed  planting   and  while  transporting,  the  vehicle  is  light,  saving  fuel.  The  participants  thus  agreed  to  the  idea  and  placed  it  as  a   “could  have”  feature.  Hence  a  seed  cum  fertilizer  storage  box  was  also  decided  to  be  sold  as  an  add-­‐on  component   for  the  BP.  

5.1.1  Insights  from  the  Co-­‐design  Sessions  with  Farmers,  Operators,  LSPs,  Manufacturers,  Field  Engineers,   CIMMYT  Hub  Managers  (Agricultural  Scientists)   All  the  participants  wanted  the  seeding  effectiveness,  soil  pulverization,  soil  compaction  around  seed,  robust  and   easy  to  operate  interface  to  be  taken  on  priority  1,  ie.,  “must-­‐be  quality  (basic)”.  Fertilizer  application  using  the   current  BP  is  not  successful  due  to  the  hygroscopic  nature  of  fertilizers  used.  But  the  stakeholders  thought  it  would   be  nice  to  have  an  option  for  applying  fertilizers  as  well  using  the  BP.  Thus  this  feature  was  listed  in  “attractive   quality”.  It  was  also  decided  to  have  this  option  as  an  add-­‐on  component  on  the  BP.  Improving  the  maneuverability   of  the  machine  was  also  listed  as  “must-­‐be  quality”.  The  operators  also  demanded  visual  guides  to  know  which   setting  hole  is  meant  for  a  given  soil  or  seed  type.  Thus  it  was  decided  to  incorporate  visual  operational  manual  or   guide  on  the  BP.  The  manufacturer  was  concerned  about  the  low-­‐tech  manufacturing  facility  that  he  has  alongwith   the  lesser-­‐trained  work  force.  It  was  proposed  to  build  a  detailed  manufacturing  guidebook  so  as  to  help  train  his   workers  in  achieving  the  desired  quality  in  the  product.   In  this  session,  all  stakeholders  together  decided  that  a  modular  BP  consisting  of  a  core  machine  plus  add-­‐ons,   which  can  be  bought  separately,  would  be  a  good  design  approach.  This  will  help  the  LSPs  to  buy  as  per  their   financial  status  and  upgrade  slowly.  The  core  machine  will  consist  of  the  soil  pulverization  unit,  the  seed  metering   and  dispensing  unit  and  the  bed-­‐shaping  unit.  The  add-­‐on  options  will  be  the  seed  cum  fertilizer  storage  unit,  the   fertilizer  metering  and  dispensing  unit  and  the  seat  plus  rear  wheel  unit.   The  LSPs  and  operators  demanded  easy  availability  of  spare  parts  in  the  market.  It  was  discussed  and  decided  to   offer  the  most  easily  damaged  parts  of  the  BP  as  extra  while  selling  the  BP  till  the  product  is  well  established  in  the   market  with  good  supply  of  spare  parts.  It  was  also  decided  to  use  as  far  as  possible  only  standard  components  in   the  design  so  as  to  ensure  lesser  spare  parts  related  issue.  Also  contact  details  of  the  manufacturer  was  agreed  to   be  put  on  the  BP  so  that  LSP  can  contact  him  for  spare  parts.     During  the  discussions,  it  was  realized  that  the  operators,  farmers,  LSPs  and  the  manufacturer  have  lot  of   misconceptions  around  the  BP.  For  example,  the  manufacturer  had  eliminated  certain  components  from  the  BP   designed  by  BARI  without  understanding  their  use.  This  reduced  performance  in  bed  formation.  The  operators   thought  the  BP  is  slow.  They  have  used  the  2WT  for  ploughing  where  the  operation  can  happen  faster.  A  large  part   of  the  problem  in  the  BP  operation  was  thus  arising  due  to  lack  of  proper  training.  The  operators  were  mostly   found  to  be  unaware  of  agronomic  practices.  They  had  no  idea  regarding  under  what  soil  conditions  (example  soil   clay  content,  soil  moisture  content),  how  many  times  the  land  should  be  ploughed  before  using  the  BP.  Only  some   knew  the  depth  at  which  each  seed  should  be  planted  in  the  soil.  They  were  unaware  that  the  bed  shaper  cone  is   offset  to  the  BP  center  as  the  rotary  blade  shaft  is  offset  (Figure  11).  The  operators  would  invariably  end  up  setting   the  bed  shaper  cones  outside  the  cutting  width  of  the  rotary  blades.  Thus  due  to  friction  caused  while  moving  in   uncut  soil,  the  cone  would  get  damaged.  Also  the  scrapper  used  to  scrap  pulverized  soil  and  bring  it  towards  the   center  of  the  bed  was  set  outside  cutting  width  of  the  rotary  blades.  These  would  also  get  damaged  due  to  friction   caused  while  being  dragged  on  uncut  soil.  It  was  also  observed  that  the  operators  were  not  trained  in  repairing  the   machine.  Even  a  small  part  like  chain  link  damage  would  make  the  BP  unusable  till  the  operator  finds  someone  to   fix  it.     (a)  

(b)  

 

 

Figure  11:  (a)  Cutting  width  of  the  rotary  blade  (b)  Bed  shaper  cone  can  be  moved  to  change  bed  width   5.2.  Part  B:  Mock  training  session   From  the  insights  obtained  in  the  co-­‐creation  session,  a  mock-­‐training  session  was  also  organized  to  understand   the  training  dynamics  and  identify  what  can  be  the  content  of  a  BP  -­‐  training  program.      

6.  Detachment:  Leaving  the  user’s  world  and  designing  with  user’s  perspective   From  the  above-­‐mentioned  research,  it  was  obvious  to  shift  the  attention  from  designing  a  BP  to  designing  the  Bed   Planting  as  a  system.  This  system  involved  the  BP,  the  product  strategy,  the  training  of  operator  and  manufacturer   and  a  supporting  marketing  strategy.  Thus  a  third  co-­‐creation  workshop  was  conducted  with  Hub  Managers  of   CIMMYT  who  are  agricultural  scientists  and  domain  experts.  In  this  workshop,  the  above-­‐mentioned  prioritized  list   was  presented  to  the  group  for  further  discussion.  They  were  also  presented  with  prospective  design  ideas  and   directions  for  solving  the  issues.  The  aim  of  the  session  was  to  discuss  prospective  ideas  and  their  priority  and  have   an  early  check  of  design  concept  in  the  block  diagram  phase  itself.   6.1.  Insights  from  the  Co-­‐design  Sessions  with  CIMMYT  Hub  Managers  (Agricultural  Scientists)   The  final  feature  list  is  as  follows:   1.  Must-­‐be  Quality  (Basic)   1. 2.

Modular  BP  with  add-­‐ons   As  far  as  possible  using  standard  components  to  manufacture  the  BP  and  providing  essential  spare  part   inventory  to  be  sold  alongwith  the  BP   3. Adequate  soil  pulverization  and  compaction  around  seed   4. Accurate  seeding   5. Reliable  and  robust  machine   6. Easy  to  maneuver  (lift  and  turn)  in  the  field  and  while  transporting  from  village  to  village   7. Transporting  with  ease  from  one  village  to  another   8. Cognitively  easy  and  intuitive  operation  with  easy  adjustment  possibilities   9. Visual  operation  guide  for  operator   10. Training  module  guidelines  for  operator  training   11. Manufacturer’s  manual  detailing  material  and  manufacturing  specifications  and  assembly  process   2.  One-­‐dimensional  Quality  (Performance)     1. 2.

Fertilizer  metering  and  dispensing  possibility   Seating  possibility  

3.  Attractive  Quality       1. 2. 3.

Aspire  -­‐  able  product   Less  dust   Less  fuel  consumption  

Features  to  be  sold  as  add-­‐on  to  reduce  cost  of  base  model  and  provide  LSP  with  options   1. 2. 3.

Seating  plus  rear  wheel   Fertilizer  metering  and  dispensing  unit   Seed  and  fertilizer  storage  unit  

7.  Conclusion   The  current  BP  designed  by  BARI  is  a  pretty  good  machine  when  considered  from  agronomic  requirement   fulfillment  point  of  view.  It  achieves  soil  pulverization,  seeding  and  bed  making.  The  machine  also  allows  tons  of   setting  possibilities,  which  are  very  essential  for  a  machine  to  be  used  by  agricultural  scientists.  Scientists  can  set   the  machine  at  multiple  parameters  and  test  its  performance.  But  the  same  machine  due  to  its  possibility  to  be  set   at  such  huge  number  of  variable  settings  becomes  confusing  and  difficult  for  an  illiterate  or  semi-­‐literate  operator.   They  need  straight  –  forward  instructions  and  simple  interfaces.  The  other  major  issues  were  inadequate  level  of   engineering  refinement  of  the  S-­‐BP,  inadequate  training  of  operators,  lack  of  ergonomic  considerations  and   introduction  of  the  machine  as  a  product  when  it  still  has  a  test  rig  look.  Certain  marketing  issues  like  word-­‐of-­‐ mouth  message  propagation  regarding  low  quality  of  machine,  conflicting  pricing  and  too  many  free   demonstrations  of  the  product  were  also  identified  in  the  study.  

The  advantage  of  using  a  HCD  approach  and  involving  all  stakeholders  starting  from  promoters,  manufacturers,   users  to  maintenance  personnel  was  that  everyone’s  aspirations  and  needs  could  be  mapped  and  understood  in   the  system  and  the  new  product  could  be  designed,  prototyped  and  field-­‐tested  within  a  short  span  of  4  months.   Another  advantage  of  the  process  was  rather  than  concentrating  on  designing  a  machine  for  Bed  Planting,  the   focus  was  shifted  on  to  Bed  Planting  as  a  system  and  how  to  introduce  mechanization  in  the  system.   8.  Acknowledgement   I  would  like  to  express  gratitude  to  the  following  experts  for  their  valuable  inputs:  Engr.  Md.  Shoeb  Hassan,  Chief   Scientific  Officer  &  Head,  FMP  Engineering  Division,  BARI,  Gazipur;  Dr.  Engr.  Md.  Ayub  Hossain,  Principal  Scientific   Officer,  BARI,  Gazipur;  Engr.  Muhammad  Arshadul  Hoque,  Senior  Scientific  Officer,  BARI,  Gazipur;  Engr.  Kowshik   Kumar  Saha,  Scientific  Officer,  BARI,  Gazipur;  Dr.  Timothy  J.  Krupnik,  Cropping  Systems  Agronomist,  CIMMYT;  Dr.   Mahesh  Kumar  Gathala,  Scientist  –  Cropping  Systems  Agronomist,  CIMMYT;  Dr.  Md.  Abdul  Momin,  Cropping   Systems  Agronomist,  CIMMYT;  Dr.  Md.  Shahjahan,  Cropping  Systems  Agronomist,  GCAP,  (Ex.  Seed  Specialist,  FAO),   CIMMYT;  Dr.  Md.  Mohi  Uddin,  Cropping  Systems  Agronomist,  CIMMYT-­‐Bangladesh;  Dr.  Md.  Enamul  Haque,   Adjunct  Associate  Professor  -­‐  Murdoch  University,  Australia  &  Team  Leader,  Conservation  Agriculture  Project,  iDE   Bangladesh;    Subrata  Kumar  Chakrabarty,  Program  Manager  (CSISA-­‐MI),  CIMMYT;  Md.  Shahidull  Islam,  Technical   Officer,  Global  Conservation  Agriculture  Program,  CIMMYT;  Mr.  Oli  Hujur  and  his  team,  Janata  Engineering;  all   farmers,  LSPs,  operators  and  dealers  involved;  the  iDE  team  comprising  of  Boudewijn  Sterk,  Conor  Riggs,  Md.   Badrul  Alam,  Asma  Khan,  Imran  Nizami,  Ranjan  Das,  Samar  Singh,  Chetan  Kannadaka  Shivarama,  Kevin  Robbins,   Ahad  Abdullah  and  other  support  staff.   9.  References   [1] “Cereal  Systems  Initiative  for  South  Asia  (CSISA) »  CSISA  Mechanization  and  Irrigation.”  [Online].  Available:   http://csisa.org/csisa-­‐mi/.  [Accessed:  27-­‐Dec-­‐2014].   [2] “Final  report:  Development  of  conservation  farming  implements  for  two-­‐wheel  tractors  (power  tillers)  in   Cambodia,  Lao  PDR  and  Bangladesh,”  ACIAR.  [Online].  Available:  http://aciar.gov.au/publication/fr2010-­‐20.   [Accessed:  29-­‐Dec-­‐2014].   [3] M.  I.  Hossain,  M.  S.  Islam,  I.  Hossain,  and  M.  S.  Rahman,  “Seeding  performance  of  two  wheel  tractor  operated   bed  planter  for  cereal  crop  establishment,”  International  Journal  of  Energy  Machinery,  2010,  vol.  3,  pp.  63–69.   [4] D.  Leonard  and  J.  F.  Rayport,  “Spark  Innovation  Through  Empathic  Design  -­‐  HBR,”  Harvard  Business  Review,   Nov-­‐1997.  [Online].  Available:  https://hbr.org/1997/11/spark-­‐innovation-­‐through-­‐empathic-­‐design.   [Accessed:  24-­‐Dec-­‐2014].   [5] M.  Kouprie  and  F.  S.  Visser,  “A  framework  for  empathy  in  design:  stepping  into  and  out  of  the  user’s  life,”   Journal  of  Engineering  Design,  2009,  vol.  20,  no.  5,  pp.  437–448.   [6]  “Mission,  Vision  &  Values.”  [Online].  Available:  http://ide-­‐bangladesh.org/main/our-­‐misson-­‐vision/1.   [Accessed:  29-­‐Dec-­‐2014].   [7]  “CIMMYT.  About  us.”  [Online].  Available:  http://intranet.cimmyt.org/en/about-­‐us.  [Accessed:  19-­‐Apr-­‐2014]   [8] T.  J.  Krupnik,  S.  Santos  Valle,  A.  McDonald,  S.  Justice,  I.  Hossain,  and  M.  K.  Gathala,  Made  in  Bangladesh:  Scale-­‐ appropriate  machinery  for  agricultural  resource  conservation.  CIMMYT,  2013.   [9] R.  Balakrishnan,  Rural  Women  and  Food  Security  in  Asia  and  the  Pacific,  December  2005.  RAP  PUBLICATION   2005/30  Rural  women  and  food  security  in  Asia  and  the  Pacific:  Prospects  and  paradoxes  Food  and  Agriculture   Organization  of  the  United  Nations  Regional  Office  for  Asia  and  the  Pacific  Bangkok,  Thailand.   [10] E.  Sauerwein,  F.  Bailom,  K.  Matzler,  and  H.  H.  Hinterhuber,  “The  Kano  Model:  How  to  delight  your  customers,”   no.  Preprints  Volume  I  of  the  IX.  International  Working  Seminar  on  Production  Economics,  Inns   bruck/Igls/Austria,  February  19–23  1996,  pp.  313–327.