Delivered work Absolute tenure: October 2021–November 2024
Farm OS monitoring
Both settings needed a view of farm conditions, but indoor sensors and outdoor parcel information could not be treated as interchangeable inputs.
My role Farm OS product requirements and farmer-facing monitoring workflows.
Why this mattered
Indoor growers and open-field farmers needed information about conditions in different environments. One setting supplied sensor/controller information; the other depended on parcel-level geospatial monitoring.
Two environments, different requirements
The shared user task was understanding farm conditions. Indoors, the documented product used sensor/controller information. Outdoors, the GIS-based app supplied parcel-level crop information, described as near-real-time monitoring.
My product work connected these capabilities with the farm-management experience. The record does not establish an identical data view for both settings or automated physical control.
A useful requirements distinction is what is observed and at what level: sensor-equipped growing conditions indoors, geographic parcels outdoors. These categories are historically described scope; refresh guarantees and a specific action triggered by a reading are not supplied.
Scroll across to see every column.
| Environment | Information | Documented product scope |
|---|---|---|
| Indoor controlled growing | Sensor/controller information. | Visibility into sensor-equipped growing conditions. |
| Open-field farms | Parcel-level GIS crop information. | Geographic monitoring of the farm parcel. |
Refresh guarantees, an observed information-to-action example and isolated adoption/yield/cost results are not supplied.
Monitoring is not the whole action loop
Farm OS sat beside Upaj’s engagement work and crop-health advisory. Monitoring supplied information about conditions; interpretation and subsequent action were separate product questions. This concise case records that contribution rather than claiming a complete recommendation or control loop.
The Upaj experience case examines access to useful information and repeat use. The crop-health case examines capture, reconnection and diagnosis. They provide more detail on the adjacent user journeys than the monitoring record alone can support.
For another monitoring product I would specify three responsibilities: what the system observes, what it may responsibly conclude and who acts. Keeping those separate is the starting point for requirements, before promising that monitoring will improve a field outcome.
Delivered scope and evidence available
Documented scope: indoor IoT sensor/controller information and parcel-level open-field GIS monitoring. The case does not present isolated Farm OS adoption, yield, cost or automated-control results.
Sources & technical detail
Original artifacts, detailed tables and source notes.