SFTW Convo with Doug Sauder of John Deere
Welcome to another edition of SFTW Convos with Doug Sauder, Vice President of Product Management and User Experience, John Deere.
Doug and I were colleagues at The Climate Corporation before Doug joined Deere about 6 and half years ago. He worked in homebuilding and land development prior to his entry into the world of agriculture.
Doug spent a few years at Precision Planting as their product development and R&D lead. Doug then led the product management team for The Climate Corporation’s flagship product FieldView for a few years, especially during the high growth phase for FieldView in particular and digital agriculture in general. Doug has spent the last few years at Deere leading various product management and user experience teams. His teams are responsible for products like the Deere in-cab experience, the John Deere Operations Center, and also some technology products in non-agriculture business like construction.
Doug and I would often take the same train together in San Francisco in the evening after work. If there were a few minutes left for the train to arrive, Doug would read some user research document or refine some product requirement, while yours truly would be mindlessly scrolling dog and cat videos!
Doug is a passionate and deep thinker when it comes to solving customer problems. He shows up with a strong sense of customer empathy, a desire to provide the best possible user experience, and to build cross functional teams which can ship products and deliver value.
This is a conversation with one of the precision farming and digital agriculture OGs you don’t want to miss!
Summary of the Conversation
In this conversation, Doug Sauder discusses the evolution of technology in agriculture, focusing on how farmers' expectations have changed and the role of digital tools like the Operations Center. He emphasizes the importance of creating customer value, understanding different user personas, and the integration of hardware and software. Doug also addresses the challenges of innovation, talent management, and the future of farming with advancements in automation and AI.
Doug Sauder, John Deere (Image provided by John Deere - Art Work by EI)
Evolving farmer expectations and technology changes
Rhishi Pethe (RP): Doug. Thanks for joining the conversation. I'm super excited about this one, given your long history in this space. And maybe that's where I want to start. You worked at Climate/Monsanto, where you've been at Deere for a long time. Even before that, you've been involved with Ag. I just want to get your perspective on how you think things are evolving when you think about technology products or digital products. How has the thought process changed in the last 10, 15 years?
Doug Sauder (DS): First of all, thanks for having me, Rhishi. It's great to be here. You know, I have worked in technology and agriculture for about 15 years. Over that time, I have witnessed significant transformations in how technology impacts farmers. Increasing ubiquitous connectivity has played a crucial role, along with advancements in machine learning, robotics, and AI-driven automation. Improvements in digital tools for decision-making, particularly on mobile platforms, have further accelerated this change. I truly believe many farmers now experience measurable value from these technologies — value we have discussed for years but are now actually delivering on the farm. Being part of this exciting development has been incredibly rewarding.
RP: How have farmers' expectations changed in terms of what they expect from their technology provider, whether it is FieldView or John Deere Operations Center?
DS: I think, first and foremost, farmers expect value they can tangibly perceive. For many years, whether large incumbents or startups introduced it, companies often promised technologies that would make a big impact. Over time, that constant stream of promises can make farmers weary. At the end of the day, if a technology doesn’t boost productivity, reduce input costs, meaningfully increase yields, or improve quality of life, farmers simply won’t bother with it. They are busy and have too much going on to waste time on an unclear value proposition. However, I believe this dynamic has shifted significantly over the last six years, as expectations have evolved.
RP: When a company like Bayer or John Deere integrates a tool like an Operations Center or FieldView, or when a seed company like Syngenta or Corteva introduces digital tools, they can argue that these tools might help increase a customer's lifetime value or drive more seed or chemical sales.
How do you view the Operations Center within Deere? What data or evidence do you analyze to determine its success and decide whether to continue investing in it?
DS: I’d say the primary focus of the Operations Center is to create customer value, particularly by helping farmers increase productivity with their equipment. We invest heavily in leveraging connectivity for real-time features and forward-looking capabilities. Instead of just reviewing past performance, like how a field did last year, we focus on the present and future. For example, the system shows where equipment is right now and predicts where it needs to be in the next 15 minutes. It uses data science models to predict when a field will be completed, offering forward-looking insights that help farmers stay productive.
That’s the core value proposition of the Operations Center. Additionally, it serves as the digital interface between the farm manager and the equipment. Take See & Spray as an example—when it saves herbicide in the field, the Operations Center displays that information to the farm manager. Digital tools play a critical role in attributing value to the equipment and technology we build. By measuring metrics like tons per hour on a combine, bushels per hour, or acres per hour with a tractor and implement, the Operations Center acts as a performance scorecard for our equipment and technology.
Ultimately, when a farmer invests in equipment and technology, they want clear visibility into the outcomes of that purchase. The Operations Center provides that visibility, enabling them to measure and understand the impact on their farm.
Out-of-cab and in-cab experience (Artwork by EI)
User personas
RP: I think that’s an interesting perspective because many farm management systems emphasize helping farmers make better decisions and providing insights. You clearly do that as well, especially with the forward-looking features you mentioned. But beyond that, it’s also a way for farmers to validate that they made the right decision when they purchased an expensive piece of equipment. That’s a unique and valuable way to think about it.
Building on that, you mentioned significant investments in this area. How do you determine the right amount to invest? No matter how big a company is or how much money it has, allocation decisions are always necessary. What factors or data do you evaluate to decide how much to invest in the Operations Center, technology, or software this year versus next year? I imagine you face competing priorities in that space.
DS: That’s obviously a big challenge. We manage a diverse equipment portfolio with countless opportunities across various types of technology. Ultimately, we prioritize investments where we believe we can create the greatest impact for our customers. This might mean focusing on machine forms, production steps, or systems with the most accessible opportunities for improvement. Synergies with other equipment programs also play a significant role.
For example, in 2024, we are launched our brand-new ground speed and harvest settings automation solutions for Model Year 2025 combines. Because this new tech is coming to combines, it makes sense to enhance it with substantial digital enablement to deliver a more comprehensive solution for the customer.
It’s always about balancing multiple factors, but at the core, all our capital allocation decisions come down to delivering maximum customer value in the most efficient way possible.
RP: You mentioned a farm manager and a grower. When you think about the customer and the user of the Operations Center, could you elaborate on that? What different user personas do you consider, and do any conflicting priorities exist between them? If conflicts arise, how do you work to resolve them?
DS: In traditional row crop agriculture, we primarily focus on two key personas: the operator in the cab and the remote manager outside the cab. The Operations Center is optimized for the remote manager who is not in the seat at that moment. Of course, some individuals play both roles, but those are the primary personas.
Additionally, we design tools for other personas, such as agricultural retailers, where things become more complex. For example, a dispatcher may manage work orders for custom application equipment, a location manager may focus on optimizing the machines at a specific site, and regional or national leadership may oversee an entire fleet. In these more complex customer segments, we account for multiple personas. However, the operator and remote manager remain the core personas in agriculture.
Some operators are also owner-operators, so we aim to meet their needs through displays and automation. We ensure they can use the Operations Center from the seat of their equipment since they often wear two hats simultaneously.
My team oversees not only digital solutions but also onboard systems and automation. That responsibility includes managing the entire operator experience within the cab.
Is Deere the Apple of agriculture?
RP: From the outside, it feels like Deere follows a unified brand approach—building both hardware and software in-house, much like the Apple model. I’m not sure if that’s an accurate characterization, but that’s the impression. Meanwhile, other companies emphasize flexibility, marketing their products as compatible with aftermarket devices as part of their go-to-market strategy.
I recently read Tractor Wars, a book by one of your employees about Deere’s history in the 1920s. It highlighted a similar philosophy, showing that even back then, Deere prioritized owning the entire customer experience. Today, that extends to both software and hardware.
Is that characterization of Deere’s approach accurate? If so, is it a key decision-making criterion when you think about how to build your products?
DS: I would characterize it this way: we focus on creating the best customer experience and delivering value across the entire farm. The approach depends on the specific solution. In some cases, deep vertical integration of our technology allows us to provide the most customer value and the best experience. For example, with solutions like See & Spray or autonomy, integrating our Operations Center mobile app as the remote manager's tool for controlling autonomous equipment enables us to make the experience more seamless and satisfying.
However, we also take other approaches. For instance, we sell universal hardware, such as displays, modems, and receivers, that can be installed on non-Deere equipment. Through our Precision Essentials program, we actively support the aftermarket and retrofit markets, helping farmers equip all their machines with hardware and software. Our modems provide connectivity not only for Deere equipment but also for other agricultural machinery, semis, and trucks, ensuring whole-farm value.
Onboard compatibility is another example. ISOBUS compatibility between a Deere tractor and a non-Deere implement allows for smooth data exchange, which is essential, especially in regions like Europe, where farmers often use mixed fleets.
Additionally, many advisors rely on third-party software tools. To support this, we have built an extensive API platform and developed integrations with other tools. We know we cannot build every tool ourselves, so we prioritize creating an ecosystem where customers can use our solutions alongside others effectively.
Ultimately, our primary criterion is delivering an experience that customers find valuable, efficient, and easy to use, no matter the approach.
RP: That makes sense. A follow-up question to that: you mentioned you’re not going to build everything, which is logical. But how do you decide where to draw the boundary between what you want to build and what’s better left to others?
For example, you likely won’t get into agronomic recommendations, yet you acquired Harvest Profit a few years ago, which focuses on the financial side. How do you determine what fits within your scope and what is better handled by others?
DS: That’s a great question. When making these decisions, we often think about the three key types of decisions farmers face: operational, agronomic, and economic. The reality is that we engage in all three to some extent because they are deeply interconnected.
Take See & Spray, for example. It makes agronomic decisions, such as whether to spray a weed or not. In cases like this, our technology inherently touches on agronomic decisions as part of its functionality.
With Harvest Profit, we focused on enhancing the Operations Center, which already provides insights into operational productivity. However, we recognized that farmers ultimately think in terms of dollars and cents. By integrating data from the Operations Center and equipment with a financial lens, we enable farmers to see P&L statements for each field or even profit maps at the subfield level. This complements our focus on economic decision-making and adds value for customers.
In the agronomics space, we provide basic tools, such as insights into which varieties perform well. However, when it comes to creating prescriptions, we often focus on seamless integration with advisors and the tools they use. Our goal is to ensure recommendations are implemented efficiently.
A persistent challenge in precision agriculture has been the low execution rate of prescriptions. While companies have been creating prescriptions for years, barriers like manual data transfers (e.g., USB sticks in Ziploc bags handed from agronomists to farmers) create friction. This slows progress toward achieving plant-by-plant management.
We are working toward optimizing plant-by-plant management by reducing these barriers. For example, variable rate execution is one technology that minimizes friction in the process. Our partnership with Corteva illustrates this well. Corteva excels at making seed recommendations, and we enable seamless execution of those recommendations directly from the cab. This approach aligns with our vision of removing friction and optimizing decision-making processes across all three areas.
Ecosystem relationships
RP: The concept of plant-by-plant management is fascinating, especially with technologies like See & Spray, which already operate at that level. By deciding in real time whether something is a weed or not, See & Spray inherently makes agronomic decisions.
Do you foresee making more of these agronomic decisions as you push further toward plant-by-plant management, especially with real-time technologies like See & Spray? If that’s the trend, how might it impact your relationship with input companies? For example, See & Spray reduces herbicide use by up to 50%, which isn’t necessarily ideal for companies selling inputs. How do you navigate that dynamic?
DS: To me, it always comes back to customer value. Our goal is to help customers become more profitable and sustainable. See & Spray is a great example of that. We maintain strong relationships with industry players and partners to ensure this value is delivered collaboratively. For instance, we hosted an online summit focused on See & Spray, engaging the agronomy community. As we advance in the agronomics of execution, other stakeholders and advisors play important roles, and we aim to bring value to customers while working alongside the industry.
Another product we’re excited about is Furrow Vision. This tool uses a laser and camera to analyze the furrow created by a planter. It’s a unique, industry-exclusive solution that helps farmers execute planting jobs with precision—ensuring proper and stable depth, minimal residue in the furrow, and consistent furrow formation. Beyond that, it also provides interesting agronomic insights derived from the data.
Similarly, we are equipping combines with cameras that capture valuable information as they move through the field. These cameras can detect things like downed crops or weeds.
While we are undoubtedly stepping into the realm of agronomics, our primary focus remains on job execution. We aim to help equipment perform at its absolute best to make farming operations more profitable and sustainable.
RP: When I talk to input companies, they often express concerns about technologies like these because they depend on volume-based business models. While it’s great that these technologies help farmers use fewer inputs—making their operations more profitable—it does raise challenges for input providers.
You mentioned earlier that the Operations Center serves as proof for farmers that their decisions are working. When it comes to plant-by-plant operations, what proof points does Deere plan to provide or already offer to demonstrate the effectiveness of these technologies? For example, how do you show a farmer that using See & Spray actually worked and why they can trust it?
DS: Today, when a See & Spray machine operates in the field, it provides near real-time feedback on herbicide savings, which is quantified for the customer in the Operations Center. Additionally, it generates high-resolution weed pressure maps, which not only show where spraying occurred but also precisely where the weeds were in the field" (because the as-applied map includes the larger buffer zone around each weed that was sprayed).
Currently, the primary focus of measurement is on herbicide savings. However, as we move forward, we envision leveraging multiple years of data, including yield and weed pressure maps. For example, imagine capturing a comprehensive view of the field, not just from the sprayer but also from the combine. Over time, this would allow us to provide a holistic assessment of the long-term benefits and impact of the technology.
When our machines go into the field, our main priority is to execute the job with the highest precision. At the same time, we use the technology and sensors onboard to capture as much information as possible about the environment and crop conditions. This enables us to deliver even greater value to farmers and their advisors over the long term.
The in-cab or Operations Center experience is optimized to ensure operations are as efficient as possible. At the same time, we either collect or plan to collect additional data during those operations. The goal is that the sum of these parts—when combined—provides insights and value greater than each individual piece, ultimately painting a richer picture for the farmer. That’s the underlying thought process, though we recognize it takes time to fully realize.
RP: Startups often claim that big companies move slowly, and to some extent, that’s true. However, in your role and within Deere as a whole, how do you approach innovation? How do you balance the need to move quickly with the understanding that some initiatives inherently take longer? Could you share insights into how Deere thinks about bringing products to market, even though it’s a broad question?
DS: I think anyone at Deere—or at any company—would say we want to move faster. At the same time, we have a long history and legacy of quality, and our brand stands for something we take pride in. When we put our name on a product, we ensure it’s thoroughly tested, validated, and delivers the customer value our brand promises.
That being said, the speed at which we can move depends on the type of technology. For instance, developing a new equipment program, like a combine, might take five years. The combine automation I mentioned earlier is something I began working on during my first year at John Deere, and we’re just now bringing it to market. That timeline was largely dictated by the vehicle development program itself.
On the other end of the spectrum, some of our digital features can move much faster. For example, we’ve concepted and delivered certain features within six months. While that might not match startup speed, we think it’s quite fast considering the scale of our users and the global nature of our products.
Our goal is to continually shorten the development cycle to deliver value to customers more quickly. However, the speed of delivery depends on the nature of the technology and the scope of what we’re building.
Deere’s Silicon Valley outpost and talent management
RP: That leads to my next question. Here we are in Silicon Valley, and Deere was one of the first—if not the first—to open an outpost in San Francisco. Why did Deere choose to establish an outpost here? What benefits does having a presence in Silicon Valley provide? And how do you evaluate its success? What proof points do you look for to determine if the investment here is delivering results?
DS: Deere has had a presence in the Bay Area since before I joined the company. That presence has contributed to significant outcomes, such as the acquisitions of Blue River Technologies and Bear Flag Robotics, and has since grown.
One key reason for having a presence in Silicon Valley is access to unique talent. Specifically, we gain access to robotics and machine learning expertise that is crucial to our autonomy efforts and technologies like See & Spray. Another reason is proximity to the ag tech community, allowing us to build valuable relationships.
Additionally, our presence here fosters exposure and engagement with broader networks and thought leaders in Silicon Valley. For example, just this past week, leaders from our technology group and our production systems and ag engineering team visited the Bay Area. They engaged with venture capitalists and experienced product developers from tech companies, gaining exposure to new ways of thinking and innovative ideas.
We also held a highly productive summit during this visit, which highlights how our West Coast presence provides opportunities for collaboration, learning, and inspiration. These are just a few of the benefits we’ve seen from maintaining a presence in Silicon Valley.
RP: That makes sense—it’s about expanding your surface area for sourcing diverse ideas and perspectives. Using that logic, does attending CES follow the same reasoning? While there’s clearly a significant marketing component, what’s the deeper rationale behind Deere’s participation in CES? Why is it important for Deere to have a presence there?
DS: There are some similarities, but CES serves a slightly different purpose. The people attending CES aren’t in the market to buy a combine, but the event offers opportunities for talent acquisition and raising awareness about the types of problems we’re solving with technology. There’s definitely a talent awareness aspect to it.
Another significant reason for participating in CES is to increase public understanding of where our food comes from and the technology that supports it. We’re passionate about advocating for farmers, highlighting the hard work they do, and showcasing the technology that helps them perform their jobs more efficiently.
We also see CES as an outlet to tell our story about using technology to address some of the world’s biggest challenges, such as ensuring a sustainable food supply. Additionally, it provides opportunities to meet with suppliers and connect with others tackling similar problems in different industries.
RP: Has the Silicon Valley outpost influenced Deere’s overall culture? I remember when you first joined Deere—we had coffee, and you told me a story about putting a document on the cloud at a previous company and having people immediately jump in to critique or comment. You found it interesting at Deere that this wasn’t as common at the time.
That was six years ago, and I’m sure things have changed since then. Could you share your thoughts on how Deere’s culture—particularly in the product team—has evolved over the years? How has having a Silicon Valley presence shaped how you bring in new ideas, foster experimentation, and think about innovation? I’m especially curious about the impact on the product development process.
DS: Things have changed significantly, especially during the pandemic. Having a distributed product team across multiple time zones—not just Pacific and Central but also Europe and India—forced us to adopt a different style of collaboration. That shift has been a major evolution.
What I’ve appreciated most is how we’ve been able to integrate the startup mentality from Silicon Valley with the deep expertise in our customer domain and the realities of building hardware and equipment products at scale. Both perspectives are crucial. In a software-only world, you can adopt an operating model that moves fast and breaks things. But in our context, where farmers depend on the equipment to perform mission-critical tasks in rugged environments, the stakes are much higher. The technology isn’t just delivering interesting insights—it’s essential to the machine’s performance. That requires a level of rigor, testing, and validation that is non-negotiable.
When reflecting on having our colleagues from the Midwest visit Silicon Valley, it’s clear we’ve learned a lot from each other. Over the past five years, we’ve seen how valuable these different perspectives can be, especially in the collaboration between Blue River and John Deere. This partnership has allowed us to tackle big challenges together, leveraging complementary strengths from multiple teams and locations.
The track record for large companies acquiring startups and successfully integrating them isn’t great—across industries. But we’re proud of the success we’ve achieved, like bringing See & Spray and autonomy to market. These milestones showcase the value of blending the strengths of our teams in Silicon Valley, the Midwest, and beyond.
RP: You bring up a great point about talent management. Labor shortages are a significant driver of automation needs, both in California, where labor is scarce and expensive, and in the Midwest, where I frequently hear complaints about the lack of workers for critical tasks. This presents not only a human resource challenge but also a talent acquisition and retention challenge as Deere evolves technologically.
With your reliance on talent from Silicon Valley, the Midwest, and beyond, how do you approach talent management within Deere? How do you ensure you’re finding the right talent, keeping them engaged, and motivating them to deliver exceptional products? While it’s a tactical question, it’s also critical for maintaining momentum and driving innovation.
DS: It all starts with a connection to the mission. When we recruit and attract talent, the approach varies depending on the audience. For instance, in a small town in the Midwest, many people grow up aspiring to work for John Deere—that’s one end of the spectrum. On the other hand, when we recruit machine learning engineers who may not even know Deere uses advanced technology, the challenge is different.
What unites both groups is a shared sense of mission. We focus on tackling big, impactful problems that affect everyone on the planet. When we share that story with prospective employees, it resonates deeply. Add to that the fact that we’re using cutting-edge technology to solve these challenges, and the opportunity to work hands-on with some of the coolest equipment in the world, and you’ve got a compelling recruiting story.
This connection to the mission also plays a key role in retention. People stay when they feel aligned with the purpose behind their work. That’s why we’re focused on attracting and retaining a more diverse workforce with varied skills, backgrounds, and experiences—particularly in software, technology, and robotics. By connecting everyone to our singular mission on behalf of our customers, we create an environment where talent feels both valued and inspired.
RP: You’ve got a strong one-two-three punch for attracting and hopefully retaining talent. Something you mentioned earlier is having a global team, which means you’re not only recruiting talent globally but also serving customers worldwide. This introduces another layer of complexity because the needs of these customers can vary dramatically.
For example, a smallholder farmer in India with a one-acre plot has vastly different requirements than someone managing a 50,000-acre operation in Brazil. How do you approach equipment design to address such diverse needs? How do you segment your customers to ensure you’re meeting those needs effectively? And as autonomy becomes more widespread, how do you see equipment design and segmentation evolving in the future?
DS: Certainly, different types of tractors are designed to meet the needs of different customer segments. For example, a tractor used on a smallholder farm in India will differ significantly from one used on a row crop farm in the Midwest.
What’s fascinating, though, is how some technologies bridge these differences. Take the Operations Center, for instance. The same Operations Center mobile app supports smallholder farms and small tractor contractors in India while also enabling operations on farms spanning hundreds of thousands of hectares in Brazil. That’s incredible when you think about the vast range of scales and contexts it serves.
RP: Yes. I almost don't believe you, but continue. 😀
DS: The ability to tailor these experiences to different segments highlights that there’s often more in common than we might initially imagine. Whether someone is monitoring a single small tractor working on a smallholder farm or a fleet of vehicles operating on a massive farm, the fundamental need to track location, performance, and logistics remains remarkably similar.
What this requires, however, is a clear understanding of key personas and their needs. That clarity ensures our common tech stack can still meet the unique demands of different production systems or regional customer segments.
For example, consider the operator persona. In North America, we often focus on the owner-operator, whose needs—whether related to the seat design, the mobile office role within the cab, or in-cab decision-making tools—are distinct. These needs differ significantly from operators in regions like India, Brazil, or other parts of North America, where their roles, responsibilities, and expectations vary widely.
Segmenting these operator personas and designing tools that address their specific requirements is a critical part of how we approach product development and customer experience.
AI and the future of farming
RP: In that same vein, with all the advancements in AI, particularly generative AI, how is it influencing the way you build products and take them to market? That’s my first question.
I also have a couple of more tactical, product management-related questions for a big company like yours. For example, when we worked at Climate, we discussed retiring FieldViewPlus.com every year. I’m not sure if they’ve retired it now, but it represented technical debt and other customer acquisition-related debt, which was difficult to eliminate.
So, my second question is twofold: How do you use AI to shape product development, particularly in software and its integration with hardware? And tactically, since you are a large company with distributed teams and frequent acquisitions, do you take on technical debt that slows you down later? If so, how do you allocate resources between new product development, sustaining work, and maintaining or improving backend technology?
DS: During our smart industrial redesign about five years ago, one of the key pillars was creating a global technology stack that we could leverage across segments and business units. You saw that approach in action last week at CES when we showcased the extension of autonomy beyond large agriculture into orchards, landscaping, and construction. Consolidating our tech stack has been a major priority.
When I joined John Deere, we had over 30 mobile apps. Each equipment product line had built its own app during the "there's an app for that" era, and while there were good reasons for it at the time, customers didn’t want to manage so many apps. We’ve since invested significantly in consolidating those apps. Today, Operations Center Mobile and Equipment Mobile are our two key customer-facing applications, and we’ve unified around them.
Another example of reducing technical debt is how we streamlined the connection between the in-cab display and the Operations Center. Previously, these systems functioned as separate software platforms, and a setup file served as the primary method of data exchange. Now, we’ve created a seamless onboard and off-board experience. Connectivity and data synchronization happen in near real-time, and our data models are unified.
Looking ahead, we’ve built the foundation for displays in the cab to call cloud APIs directly, as connectivity becomes ubiquitous. These efforts allow us to deliver consistent experiences and features across various form factors and user interfaces.
Of course, like any company, we have technical debt. But we actively work to reduce it because if we don’t, we can’t respond as quickly as we need to or solve the problems we want to tackle.
RP: What are the things that you've learned that you brought to your Deere job?
DS: One of the lessons I took from working at Climate was how challenging it can be to marry Silicon Valley culture with that of a more established industry player. Navigating this dynamic can be difficult due to cultural differences on both sides.
At Deere, I wanted to contribute positively to bridging that gap. On the West Coast, it’s easy to develop a sense of arrogance about Silicon Valley, but that mindset doesn’t always align with reality. At the same time, people who didn’t grow up on a farm or in agriculture may lack the foundational knowledge that comes naturally to those who did.
My goal has been to become someone who brings people together. At the end of the day, great products come from great teams, and building teams is a skill I’ve been working to improve. Creating that collaboration between different perspectives is something I’ve strived to do better than I have in the past.
RP: How do you see farming evolving over the next 10 to 15 years? If we were to visit a farm today and then again 15 years from now, what big changes would we notice?
With all the advancements in technology, the unified experiences you’ve discussed, and the various forms of innovation, how do you think farming, agriculture, and the jobs in this sector will change over that time horizon? You can choose the timeframe that feels most relevant.
DS: I see farming evolving in two major areas. First, the push toward highly automated and autonomous machines is inevitable. While there’s still a lot of work to make full autonomy a reality, we are well on our way and deeply committed to this journey. We believe in it passionately because it’s a way to realize the vision of plant-by-plant management, especially in a world constrained by a lack of qualified labor. The equipment experience will continue to become increasingly intelligent and automated.
Second, I believe we’re still in the early stages of applying the same automation and AI to the digital and decision-making processes. Today, too many decisions rely on manual comparisons, like placing a yield map next to another map and using our eyes and brains to make sense of them.
Over the next five years—or perhaps a bit more or less—we’ll likely see the promise of precision agriculture truly come to life. The data we’ve collected and unified will finally drive meaningful insights and decisions in ways that are more efficient, intuitive, and impactful.
Key takeaways
- Farmers expect tangible value from technology.
- The Operations Center enhances productivity and decision-making.
- Understanding customer personas is crucial for product development.
- Integration of hardware and software is key to customer experience.
- Technical debt can slow down innovation and product development.
- Talent acquisition is essential for driving technological advancements.
- Cultural integration between tech and agriculture is important.
- Automation and AI will shape the future of farming.
References to some relevant SFTW editions
- Deere's Software as a Service Model, SFTW Convo with Matt Percy, VP Solution As a Service, John Deere (Jan 15, 2025)
- Autonomous equipment: Subsidies and Labor (Nov 10, 2024)
- The Labor Dilemma (Mar 17, 2024) - guest post by Austin Lyons
- Augmentation is on the road to automation (Sep 18, 2023)
- The {variable} of agriculture (July 17, 2022)