5503 Research Methods – Summer 2016
Final Research Report
Small Commercial Greenhouse Mobile App Monitor and Control Water Usage
July 04, 2016 Prepared by Kathy Loughlin
Table of Contents Executive Summary
1
Project Overview Procedures
1-6 7-22
Participant Profiles
23-25
Research Outcomes
26-28
Recommendations/Limitations
29
Conclusion
29
Appendix
30
i
Executive Summary Background The research for this report was conducted to help validate if there is a business case for a new mobile application targeted to the small commercial greenhouse industry to help greenhouse owners and managers monitor and control water usage and water costs associated with greenhouse operation. Mobile applications are used by this target audience for a range of information such as integrated pest management, greenhouse diseases and diagnostic tools, greenhouse trial activities, fertilizer and pesticide management along with plant identification tools. Initially, a feature of this application was to help the target audience control water costs. This may not be as important if the main water source is on the property and not provided through a source such as a public utility. The other features of monitor and control may be the main selling points and having the app seamlessly connect to the greenhouse control system. Overall the user research included extensive online research, site visit to a small commercial greenhouse, a survey and three rounds of usability testing (2 participants). The findings indicate that more research is needed with the target audience (growers) to determine if there is a business case for this application.
Project Overview Usability tests were conducted to determine if there is a business case for the greenhouse mobile app and then what the user interface should look like. The primary research goals were to:  
Evaluate the business case Gain insights to help build a user interface that provides a good user experience
1
The research helped to uncover something not considered in the project brief about other sources of water other than public utilities, well water and rainwater harvesting. This insight helped to rethink the key features offered by the application. Prototype testing helped uncover design issues, which is all part of the iterative design process.
Market Analysis Key points: 
 
Understanding the make-up of the operations is key to understanding who to target. From the data below about 50% of the operations are family/sole proprietor. If these businesses are well established, they may be using their skills and knowledge more to run the operation rather than emerging technology. The size of the potential market (small to midsized commercial greenhouse owners/managers) can be observed from the data. Understanding if corporation means an LLC too is necessary and how maybe how many people are employed will help identify the size of the operation. Sales volumes are another indicator of the market potential for the target market. Lastly the expenses associated with utilities will help define the target population. Since more than water is factored in and the source of the water is key to a portion of the utilities cost.
2
Personas Personas for the app market part of the 53% operations and they are willing to look to new technology for a solution rather than just reliance on “the way we have always done it. We have 50 years’ experience so we do not need to change our approach.”
3
Demographics 68% of adults own a smartphone. Since the delivery of the product is through a smartphone, understanding the smartphone demographics is necessary to determine if this delivery method is viable. Basically an assumption is that 68% of U.S. adults own a smartphone, and that commercial greenhouse operators and owners are considered in the analysis too or better said they have not been excluded. Hard demographic data could not be found on the target population so it is assumed the information contained in the infographic below is also true of the target population.
4
Demographics Not only is there smartphone ownership, but actual usage by downloading and accessing applications on the smartphone. This continues to rise year over year. The charts below provide the data to support the delivery method for the product concept.
5
Demographics The personas used represent a generation in a family-owned business rather than new entrants. Case studies provide later in the paper will help validate that assumption.
6
Procedures Overview This section is comprised of the following:
Competitive analysis Key components Needed Detailed analysis of the competitive landscape SWOT analysis Usability research methods used Paper prototype usability testing
Competitive Analysis The competitive analysis was performed to help analyze the opportunities and competitors for a product concept. The idea is to design a mobile app that addresses the need in the small-mid size commercial greenhouse market for remote monitoring and controlling of water usage in the greenhouses. As part of the process to identify competitors it became apparent that online searches were required using any one of the following keywords:
Smart irrigation systems Remote monitoring of greenhouse irrigation systems Irrigation system controllers Smart irrigation controllers
There are really three types of competitors associated with this product concept: 1. Direct competitors: This includes companies that have developed a mobile app solution with like functionality. I was only able to locate two. Really one of them is bordering on consumer use and the other does not seem to have features being offered in the concept. 2. Indirect competitors: This category includes mobile apps that are targeted to the consumer for lawn care and home garden sprinkling. There are several in this category. Searching Amazon.com alone netted 11 results. Other online research found two additional apps through the app store. 3. Future competitors: This is a real opportunity for the manufacturers of the controllers used in the greenhouse. The controller is the brain controlling the sensors that help control the water
7
usage. Connecting to the controller either with a proprietary or open-source app is where I think the greatest potential is. Perhaps even partnering with them is an opportunity. 4. Future competitors: Smart irrigation system manufacturers/distributors Competitive analysis was performed with several competitors in the consumer space for home usage with irrigating lawns and gardens. There are also solutions for more hobby greenhouse production. There is one direct competitor in commercial operations and a few that offer only a big browser solution. It was difficult to identify the competitors at first. The key is the controller of the irrigation system. This is the brain and being able to interface to this system allows for the capability. The other factor is soil-moisture sensors that connect to the controller. Water is such an important component of successful greenhouse operation. Having the tools to remotely monitor and control water usage is the driving force behind the product offering.
8
Detailed analysis of Direct Competitors Two were determined to be direct competitors with OpenSprinkler bordering on consumer home use. The have created a mobile app for commercial use. OpenSprinkler is built on open-source hardware and software which is nice feature and works with both drip irrigation and hydroponics. It does have expansion capabilities up to 56 zones and supports up to 28 programs, which depending upon the size of the commercial operation may be suitable. Another positive is that the mobile app is currently free. What I did not see in the literature is the use of soil-moisture sensors. This product seems more geared towards the watering of lawns either home or commercial use, with the control aspect based upon weather data (especially rain). PlantControl CX seems more of a commercial solution for perhaps the mid-sized commercial greenhouse operations. This does connect to soil-moisture sensors to help monitor usage of water in the greenhouse. The available literature makes me believe that the remote monitoring is really big browser with proprietary software and the mobile component is SMS alerts only.
9
Indirect Competitors As mentioned above, there are several competitors in this category and perhaps this is where the interface design with the different products can be leveraged for commercial use. What they each do is provide the user with control over water usage, but they are designed more for home use for watering lawns and gardens.
10
Future Competitors (1) These are the companies with the greatest potential to be true direct competitors of the concept in the future. If they have the technology to interface with the irrigation system, soil-moisture sensors to detect dryness of the soil, and then an intuitive mobile app with water monitoring and control functions, they will become the new competitors.
11
Future Competitors (2) It is possible that the smart irrigation manufactures/distributors will offer a mobile app solution in the future.
12
SWOT Analysis The analysis below outlines the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the product concept. The threat outlined for the relevancy could be one reason for the number of direct competitors that were identified. In addition, depending upon the source of the water (pond, well, rainwater) versus utility, the cost of the water may not be as important to monitor. Further research is needed to confirm this point. • • • •
Strengths – Gives the owner control Weakness – Three dependencies - smart Irrigation system, controller and smart sensors Opportunity – Being green and smartphone usage demographics support the delivery method Threat – Not convinced relevant for the target audience
13
Usability Research Methods Used Site Visit A site visit to a small local family-owned commercial greenhouse was performed in June 2016. This audience was in keeping with the personas that were developed. The family has owned the business for 50 years. After a walk through all the greenhouses to examine the irrigation system, one of the owners was interviewed to gain more insights around the water controls. Responses to the questions were captured in notes after the interview and pictures were taken in the different greenhouses. Key findings:
The water source is contained on the property via rain harvesting through a greenhouse gutter system and then a pond on the property. The fish in the pond also serve as a source for nitrogen which is pumped back the greenhouse and nourishes the plants. The owner does not use smart sensor technology with the irrigation system because their “50 years’ experience” tells them when to water.
Survey In June 2016 a friends/family survey was sent out to gain insights around the concept of the mobile app. Seven responses were received. All the recipients had bought or generally buy plants at small commercial greenhouses or garden centers. Responses to the survey were captured in email and reviewed. Here are the details: I am developing a mobile app for small commercial greenhouse owners to monitor and control their water usage in the greenhouse. This allows the owner to be away from the property, but still have insight into what is happening with water. Many of you have bought plants from a greenhouse or big box store. Obviously control of water is huge component of the success of the greenhouse owner - too much, the impact is disease and poor plant growth, too little...slow death. Too much is also wasteful and expensive.
Q1: General question -- Do you think this is a good idea? Q2: If yes to Q1, why (in a sentence or two) Q3: If no to Q1, why (in a sentence or two)
14
Summary of responses: Everyone thought it was a good idea. Additional insights –
Convenience for the owner to be able to control remotely (especially one-man operations) Control for the owner Water conservation as a market advantage – buzzword “Green Technology”, environmentally friendly by controlling overwatering and leaching Add another feature for video streaming to confirm any flooding (first look at usage to determine anomaly and having the ability to turn of the water at different levels in the greenhouse is part of the current concept). By controlling water expenses (if through utility), provides the smaller business with more ability to compete with larger entities – competitive pricing by controlling expenses
Usability Testing with Paper Prototypes In June 2016 usability testing on a prototype of the mobile app was performed by two participants. Responses to the prototype testing were captured in notes and modifications to the design were made. There were three rounds of testing: -
Paper prototype of sketches/low- fidelity wireframes Paper prototype of medium fidelity wireframes Paper prototype of medium fidelity wireframes (additional round)
Round 1 - Low Fidelity Wireframes with 2 Participants
(Examples of some of the screens)
15
Rounds 2 and 3 – Medium Fidelity Wireframes with 2 participants for each round
(Examples of some of the screens)
Paper Prototype Usability Testing Overview This usability testing was considered more exploratory in nature by testing a concept; design a mobile app that addresses the need for remote access to monitor and control water usage and provide the estimated cost associated with water usage in the greenhouse. The target audience for this concept is the small to mid-size commercial greenhouse owner who uses a smart irrigation system and sensor technology. The primary research goals were to evaluate the user flow and user interface design of the mobile app. The usability test objective was to determine if there are issues with the design causing a poor user experience. -
Ease of completing the tasks Time to complete the tasks
16
Three rounds of usability testing were executed in a residential home environment, not an actual usability testing lab. One round of testing was with sketches (close to low-fidelity wireframes); a second and third round of testing was executed with medium-fidelity wireframes. All three rounds of testing took place in June 2016. The participants who were available to perform the testing are not in the target audience; rather users who are familiar with using mobile applications on their smartphone will be performing the tests. Summary This usability tests were used to test the following functions:
Access to water usage and cost for a particular period Ability to turn off or adjust water at different places in the greenhouse Ability to modify information about the zones and benches in the greenhouse
Usability goals for the mobile app included:
Time: This category includes the time for the user to complete the designated task which will be covered later in the plan under usability tasks. Accuracy: This category is more around being able to get to the information in a clear path the first time and understanding the use of gestures like swiping and tapping to navigate in a mobile application. Success: This category is a result of performing the task successfully. Satisfaction: Rating of the user experience, prefer this to be high.
Methodology Participants The participants of this usability test were recruited because they fit the following criteria: regular users of mobile apps on smartphones. This testing provided feedback on the information architecture, clarity and interface design rather than subject matter expertise. Time constraints prevented recruitment of the target audience, “growers” - small to mid-size commercial greenhouse owners.
The recruitment of “the growers” would have been more extensive: -
Owners of small to mid-size commercial greenhouses Users of smartphones and apps on smartphones
17
-
Use a smart irrigation system with sensor technology in the greenhouse Believe technology can help improve greenhouse operations and manage expenses Environmentally conscious Has contained water resources on the property (some of the participants) Pay for water through a utility source (some of the participants)
Ideally, testing would have been with at least ten growers with a mix of the type of smart irrigation system and source of water. This would help validate if the proposed features are applicable across different systems and necessary for the grower. Planned testing was with two participants for each round. Again, this is only due to time constraints. This is recognized as being a limitation in the testing feedback. Training An overview of the concept was explained to the participants prior to the testing and an explanation of the sketches for Round 1 and the medium-fidelity wireframes for Round 2 and 3 was done. Procedure The usability testing took place in a residential home environment, not a usability testing facility. Participants were observed walking through the user flows of the sketches and the medium-fidelity wireframes as they performed a list of tasks given to them. They were asked to think out loud and describe where they thought they should go to perform the task by pointing to it on the paper prototype. They were also asked to describe what action they need to take on the phone (i.e. tap or swipe). In addition, they were asked to tell the moderator what they think may be contained in a certain section (i.e. from the Home page, if you tapped on “Greenhouse” what do you think you would find there?). There will be one more type of question to gauge satisfaction by asking “How easy was that” or “Did you find that confusing” or “What was confusing” after they have completed a task.
18
Features Identification and Prioritization Importance (1 – 5) (5 is most important)
Design Doubts (1 – 5) (5 is least comfortable)
Particular Day
4
1
4
1.2
Particular Week
4
1
4
1.3
Particular Month
4
1
4
1.4
Particular Year
3
1
3
2.0
Ability to turn off water at different places in the greenhouse
2.1
All Greenhouse
5
1
5
2.2
Particular Zone
4
1
4
2.3
Particular Bench
3
1
3
3.0
Ability to adjust water at different places in the greenhouse
3.1
Particular Zone
5
1
5
3.2
Particular Bench
5
1
5
4.0
Ability to modify information about the zones in the greenhouse
4.1
Add new zone
2
1
2
4.2
Edit existing zone
5
1
5
4.3
Delete existing zone
2
1
2
5.0
Ability to modify information about benches in the greenhouse
5.1
Add new bench
2
1
2
#
Feature Description
1.0
Access to water usage and cost for a particular period
1.1
Total
19
5.2
Edit existing bench
4
1
4
5.3
Delete existing bench
2
1
3
Usability Tasks Record the following for each of the tasks so that some quantitative metrics can be captured. (1) How fast was the task performed? (2) What were the issues in performing the task? (3) Were they able to recover from the issues? (4) How many completed the task successfully
The following tests were performed: Test Scenario 1 (1.1) The amount of rain in the last month has been minimal (less water in the rainwater harvester) and you want to monitor the usage of water for today. How would you do that? Test Scenario 2 (1.2) Now you want to monitor the water usage in the last week. How would you do that? Test Scenario 3 (1.2) Now you want to monitor the water usage in the last month. How would you do that? Test Scenario 4 (2.1) You were outside talking to a customer and returned to the greenhouse to find water all over the floor of the greenhouse. You cannot reach the controller, but you have your phone with you. How would you turn off the water in the greenhouse quickly? Test Scenario 5 (2.2)
20
You are moving around plants in Zone 2 and do not want the irrigation system to turn on until you are done. How would you turn off the water only in Zone 2? Test Scenario 6 (3.1) The weather forecast was wrong for today. A cold front just moved through and lowered the temperature. How would you adjust the soil-moisture percentage to account for the change in temperature in Zone 2? Test Scenario 7 (3.2) Same scenario as #6, but you only have to adjust the soil-moisture for Bench 1 in Zone 2. How would you do that? Test Scenario 8 (4.2) You changed plants in Zone 2 and need to rename the zone to reflect begonias. How would you make that change? Test Scenario 9 (5.2) You have removed the plants that are in Zone 2, Bench 1. How would you delete that bench? Overall Findings Round 1
This round of testing was not as organized in the approach. Basically the moderator asked more opinions on what the participants were seeing to get feedback on the flow from one screen to another. If is sometimes difficult with the low fidelity wireframes to articulate enough of the design for clarity. At his point the overall approach of what could be done in the greenhouse versus the zones versus the benches was understood after a little education about setup of greenhouses.
Overall findings Round 2 and 3
Round 2 showed more of the design to participants. I think part of the task completion timing was more related to understanding the greenhouse. One participant was more familiar than the other. Conceptually a paper prototype is hard for some people. They like to interact with something to provide feedback. Round 3 was the best round. After a few iterations in-between rounds 2 and 3, one of the participants saw a design flaw in the user flow. Basically the Zone connects to the Bench areas and it is only through this flow that actions around the bench can be done. The feedback allowed for a more simplified flow.
21
Outcome As a result of the three rounds of usability testing using a paper prototype, the hope is that the information architecture, the use of progressive disclosure and known patterns for interacting with a mobile app helped validate the user interface. As mentioned above, only the user experience interacting with the app is being testing, not the relevancy to the target audience and the preferred feature list for them. This is a concept requiring a lot more user research.
22
Participant Profiles Site Visit http://www.mini-earth.com/index.html
Note: The pond on the property located to the left of the greenhouse area.
23
Photos taken at the site visit to show the irrigation system.
24
Survey Participants The participants in the survey were ones who were familiar with purchasing plants at greenhouses or garden center.
Usability Testing Participants  
20 year-old female very savvy with apps on smartphones 48 year-old male who thinks he is savvy with apps on smartphones
25
Research Outcomes Case studies about technology and water within family-owned greenhouses These examples show forward thinking growers. Case 1: http://leider.us/ “The greenhouse underwent a massive renovation and installed the moveable Dutch tray system. This system included the installation of a sub irrigation growing system. To be more environmentally friendly, all water and fertilizer is re-circulated within the property. “
Note: The pond on the property located in the back of the greenhouse area.
26
Case 2: http://www.metrolinagreenhouses.com/ Metrolina Greenhouses is a family-owned wholesale plant and services company started in 1972 Over the years, Metrolina Greenhouses has implemented a variety of industry-leading technologies. The company uses recycled/recaptured water, courtesy of a roof and pond system that allows it to collect and store 3 million gallons of water in 25 acres of retention ponds. The recycled/reclaimed water from our retention ponds (no public water sources are utilized in the production of our plants) is run through an extensive filtering system and then re-used throughout the greenhouse. We use up to 1 million gallons of water per day. -We use up to 1,500,000 gallons of water every day. -For every 1 inch of rain that falls on the greenhouse, our roof and pond system allow us to collect and store 3 million gallons of water in 25 acres of retention ponds. This allows us to use recycled/recaptured water on all of our crops.
Note: The pond on the property located in the back of the greenhouse area.
27
http://www.greenhousegrower.com/technology/equipment/recycling-rainwater/ Metrolina has three ponds on its property that can hold up to 250 million gallons of water. The 162acre greenhouse operation gets 98 percent of its water from the ponds, which store harvested rainwater exclusively. Metrolina has never used city water and only uses well water in a few specific cases, relying on rain to supply the more than 1.5 million gallons of water it uses daily. Metrolina’s rainwater catchment system yields 5 million gallons of water from one inch of rainfall. Water is collected from barn roofs, greenhouse roofs, flood floors, the adjacent parking lot, which is constructed with pervious concrete, and drains in the yard. All harvested water drains through a series of connecting pipes to the retention ponds. From there, it is filtered through a complex system and cleaned before it touches the crops.
Key findings from the research
Water cost is not in the equation for growers who do not need to paid for the water Need more research – findings are not really conclusive there is a need for this app from the perspective of the target audience
28
Recommendations/Limitations Since the usability testing on the prototype was not done with the target audience, it is still necessary to have validation from them that this is a viable concept.
Conclusion I am not convinced that there is or there is not a market for this product. There are a couple of research techniques I would have pursued given more time. They include the following: (1) Talk to the Cooperative Extension Service to gain insights into the needs of the commercial greenhouse owners/managers (2) Interview the commercial greenhouse owners/managers (understand their business, costs, sources of water and general needs assessment) (3) Survey the commercial greenhouse owners/managers (this would be a needs assessment information gathering on a larger scale after the initial interviews)
29
Appendix Prototype
New features list: -
Camera to view issues like flooding Alerts for such as changes in the soil-moisture or some other measurement like the warning on the home page but this will build awareness sooner without the need to access the app. The ability to change other features the controller uses relative to water management Perhaps weather data
30