Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems
Identifieur interne : 000B77 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000B76; suivant : 000B78Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems
Auteurs : P. G. CoxSource :
- Agricultural Systems [ 0308-521X ] ; 1996.
Abstract
The development of crop and soil process models, and their incorporation into decision support systems (DSSs) for the practical management of agricultural production, have made a significant contribution to the focus and integration of research by agricultural scientists. However, such DSSs should not necessarily be used as vehicles for communicating with other groups, such as farmers, with a view to effecting directed change in their behaviour. Other, sometimes more effective and efficient (and often more enjoyable and elegant) models are available. The historical, and seemingly unwarranted, escalation of organisational commitment to the provision of agricultural DSSs appears to have been based on a fundamental category mistake of confusing process models (for professional research) with model-based DSSs (intended as a guide to practical action). This escalation of commitment has had substantial implications for the design and implementation of both modelling and DSS projects, and has precluded the development of distinctive criteria for evaluating DSS success. Design issues for DSSs include: the need for an analytical phase in DSS development to deconstruct professional models; resolution, validation and appropriateness in relation to intended purpose, in order to avoid over-engineered solutions; its contribution to communication practice; and the role of professional responsibility. The SIRATAC cotton pest management system, used in Australia between 1980 and 1993, is presented as a case study.
Url:
DOI: 10.1016/0308-521X(96)00063-7
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:0C8D69DF69F3C422FBA6B37525099B06353282AELe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems</title><author><name sortKey="Cox, P G" sort="Cox, P G" uniqKey="Cox P" first="P. G." last="Cox">P. G. Cox</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Socioeconomics and Policy Division, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:0C8D69DF69F3C422FBA6B37525099B06353282AE</idno><date when="1996" year="1996">1996</date><idno type="doi">10.1016/0308-521X(96)00063-7</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/0C8D69DF69F3C422FBA6B37525099B06353282AE/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000B77</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000B77</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems</title><author><name sortKey="Cox, P G" sort="Cox, P G" uniqKey="Cox P" first="P. G." last="Cox">P. G. Cox</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Socioeconomics and Policy Division, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Agricultural Systems</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">AGSY</title><idno type="ISSN">0308-521X</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="1996">1996</date><biblScope unit="volume">52</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2–3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="355">355</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="381">381</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0308-521X</idno></series><idno type="istex">0C8D69DF69F3C422FBA6B37525099B06353282AE</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1016/0308-521X(96)00063-7</idno><idno type="PII">0308-521X(96)00063-7</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0308-521X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The development of crop and soil process models, and their incorporation into decision support systems (DSSs) for the practical management of agricultural production, have made a significant contribution to the focus and integration of research by agricultural scientists. However, such DSSs should not necessarily be used as vehicles for communicating with other groups, such as farmers, with a view to effecting directed change in their behaviour. Other, sometimes more effective and efficient (and often more enjoyable and elegant) models are available. The historical, and seemingly unwarranted, escalation of organisational commitment to the provision of agricultural DSSs appears to have been based on a fundamental category mistake of confusing process models (for professional research) with model-based DSSs (intended as a guide to practical action). This escalation of commitment has had substantial implications for the design and implementation of both modelling and DSS projects, and has precluded the development of distinctive criteria for evaluating DSS success. Design issues for DSSs include: the need for an analytical phase in DSS development to deconstruct professional models; resolution, validation and appropriateness in relation to intended purpose, in order to avoid over-engineered solutions; its contribution to communication practice; and the role of professional responsibility. The SIRATAC cotton pest management system, used in Australia between 1980 and 1993, is presented as a case study.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>elsevier</corpusName><author><json:item><name>P.G. Cox</name><affiliations><json:string>Socioeconomics and Policy Division, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>Full-length article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The development of crop and soil process models, and their incorporation into decision support systems (DSSs) for the practical management of agricultural production, have made a significant contribution to the focus and integration of research by agricultural scientists. However, such DSSs should not necessarily be used as vehicles for communicating with other groups, such as farmers, with a view to effecting directed change in their behaviour. Other, sometimes more effective and efficient (and often more enjoyable and elegant) models are available. The historical, and seemingly unwarranted, escalation of organisational commitment to the provision of agricultural DSSs appears to have been based on a fundamental category mistake of confusing process models (for professional research) with model-based DSSs (intended as a guide to practical action). This escalation of commitment has had substantial implications for the design and implementation of both modelling and DSS projects, and has precluded the development of distinctive criteria for evaluating DSS success. Design issues for DSSs include: the need for an analytical phase in DSS development to deconstruct professional models; resolution, validation and appropriateness in relation to intended purpose, in order to avoid over-engineered solutions; its contribution to communication practice; and the role of professional responsibility. The SIRATAC cotton pest management system, used in Australia between 1980 and 1993, is presented as a case study.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.604</score><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>504 x 720 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>0</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1522</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>9484</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>59899</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>27</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>217</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems</title><pii><json:string>0308-521X(96)00063-7</json:string></pii><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><serie><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Science and Technology Analysis Research Programme Working Paper No. 5</title></serie><host><volume>52</volume><pii><json:string>S0308-521X(00)X0022-4</json:string></pii><pages><last>381</last><first>355</first></pages><issn><json:string>0308-521X</json:string></issn><issue>2–3</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Agricultural Systems</title><publicationDate>1996</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>1996</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1996</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1016/0308-521X(96)00063-7</json:string></doi><id>0C8D69DF69F3C422FBA6B37525099B06353282AE</id><score>0.039378855</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0C8D69DF69F3C422FBA6B37525099B06353282AE/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0C8D69DF69F3C422FBA6B37525099B06353282AE/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/0C8D69DF69F3C422FBA6B37525099B06353282AE/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><availability><p>ELSEVIER</p></availability><date>1996</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">P.G.</forename><surname>Cox</surname></persName><affiliation>Socioeconomics and Policy Division, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Agricultural Systems</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">AGSY</title><idno type="pISSN">0308-521X</idno><idno type="PII">S0308-521X(00)X0022-4</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="1996"></date><biblScope unit="volume">52</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2–3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="355">355</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="381">381</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">0C8D69DF69F3C422FBA6B37525099B06353282AE</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1016/0308-521X(96)00063-7</idno><idno type="PII">0308-521X(96)00063-7</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1996</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The development of crop and soil process models, and their incorporation into decision support systems (DSSs) for the practical management of agricultural production, have made a significant contribution to the focus and integration of research by agricultural scientists. However, such DSSs should not necessarily be used as vehicles for communicating with other groups, such as farmers, with a view to effecting directed change in their behaviour. Other, sometimes more effective and efficient (and often more enjoyable and elegant) models are available. The historical, and seemingly unwarranted, escalation of organisational commitment to the provision of agricultural DSSs appears to have been based on a fundamental category mistake of confusing process models (for professional research) with model-based DSSs (intended as a guide to practical action). This escalation of commitment has had substantial implications for the design and implementation of both modelling and DSS projects, and has precluded the development of distinctive criteria for evaluating DSS success. Design issues for DSSs include: the need for an analytical phase in DSS development to deconstruct professional models; resolution, validation and appropriateness in relation to intended purpose, in order to avoid over-engineered solutions; its contribution to communication practice; and the role of professional responsibility. The SIRATAC cotton pest management system, used in Australia between 1980 and 1993, is presented as a case study.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1996">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0C8D69DF69F3C422FBA6B37525099B06353282AE/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Elsevier, elements deleted: tail"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//ES//DTD journal article DTD version 4.5.2//EN//XML" URI="art452.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><converted-article version="4.5.2" docsubtype="fla"><item-info><jid>AGSY</jid><aid>96000637</aid><ce:pii>0308-521X(96)00063-7</ce:pii><ce:doi>10.1016/0308-521X(96)00063-7</ce:doi><ce:copyright type="unknown" year="1996"></ce:copyright></item-info><head><ce:title>Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems</ce:title><ce:author-group><ce:author><ce:given-name>P.G.</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Cox</ce:surname></ce:author><ce:affiliation><ce:textfn>Socioeconomics and Policy Division, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India</ce:textfn></ce:affiliation></ce:author-group><ce:date-received day="6" month="6" year="1995"></ce:date-received><ce:date-accepted day="20" month="10" year="1995"></ce:date-accepted><ce:abstract><ce:section-title>Abstract</ce:section-title><ce:abstract-sec><ce:simple-para>The development of crop and soil process models, and their incorporation into decision support systems (DSSs) for the practical management of agricultural production, have made a significant contribution to the focus and integration of research by agricultural scientists. However, such DSSs should not necessarily be used as vehicles for communicating with other groups, such as farmers, with a view to effecting directed change in their behaviour. Other, sometimes more effective and efficient (and often more enjoyable and elegant) models are available.</ce:simple-para><ce:simple-para>The historical, and seemingly unwarranted, escalation of organisational commitment to the provision of agricultural DSSs appears to have been based on a fundamental category mistake of confusing process models (for professional research) with model-based DSSs (intended as a guide to practical action). This escalation of commitment has had substantial implications for the design and implementation of both modelling and DSS projects, and has precluded the development of distinctive criteria for evaluating DSS success. Design issues for DSSs include: the need for an analytical phase in DSS development to deconstruct professional models; resolution, validation and appropriateness in relation to intended purpose, in order to avoid over-engineered solutions; its contribution to communication practice; and the role of professional responsibility. The SIRATAC cotton pest management system, used in Australia between 1980 and 1993, is presented as a case study.</ce:simple-para></ce:abstract-sec></ce:abstract></head></converted-article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">P.G.</namePart><namePart type="family">Cox</namePart><affiliation>Socioeconomics and Policy Division, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="Full-length article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1996</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1996</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">The development of crop and soil process models, and their incorporation into decision support systems (DSSs) for the practical management of agricultural production, have made a significant contribution to the focus and integration of research by agricultural scientists. However, such DSSs should not necessarily be used as vehicles for communicating with other groups, such as farmers, with a view to effecting directed change in their behaviour. Other, sometimes more effective and efficient (and often more enjoyable and elegant) models are available. The historical, and seemingly unwarranted, escalation of organisational commitment to the provision of agricultural DSSs appears to have been based on a fundamental category mistake of confusing process models (for professional research) with model-based DSSs (intended as a guide to practical action). This escalation of commitment has had substantial implications for the design and implementation of both modelling and DSS projects, and has precluded the development of distinctive criteria for evaluating DSS success. Design issues for DSSs include: the need for an analytical phase in DSS development to deconstruct professional models; resolution, validation and appropriateness in relation to intended purpose, in order to avoid over-engineered solutions; its contribution to communication practice; and the role of professional responsibility. The SIRATAC cotton pest management system, used in Australia between 1980 and 1993, is presented as a case study.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Agricultural Systems</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>AGSY</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><originInfo><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">199610</dateIssued></originInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0308-521X</identifier><identifier type="PII">S0308-521X(00)X0022-4</identifier><part><date>199610</date><detail type="volume"><number>52</number><caption>vol.</caption></detail><detail type="issue"><number>2–3</number><caption>no.</caption></detail><extent unit="issue pages"><start>143</start><end>397</end></extent><extent unit="pages"><start>355</start><end>381</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">0C8D69DF69F3C422FBA6B37525099B06353282AE</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1016/0308-521X(96)00063-7</identifier><identifier type="PII">0308-521X(96)00063-7</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>ELSEVIER</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Agronomie/explor/SisAgriV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000B77 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000B77 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Agronomie
|area= SisAgriV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:0C8D69DF69F3C422FBA6B37525099B06353282AE
|texte= Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.28. |  |