From Adoption to Impact: A Life-Cycle Monitoring Framework for Scalable and Meaningful Digital Agriculture in India

References

[1] Abbasi R, Martinez P, Ahmad R (2022). The digitization of agricultural industry – a systematic literature review on agriculture 4.0. Smart Agricultural Technology, 2, 100042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2022.100042

[2] Aker JC (2011). Dial "A" for agriculture: A review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. Agricultural Economics, 42(6), 631–647.

[3] Bhattacherjee A (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation–confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.

[4] Cole SA, Fernando AN (2021). 'Mobile'izing agricultural advice: Technology adoption, diffusion and sustainability. The Economic Journal, 131(633), 192–219.

[5] Davis FD (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

[6] Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (2019). Agriculture Census 2015–16 (Phase I): All India report on number and area of operational holdings. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India.

[7] Dibbern T, Romani LAS, Massruhá SMFS (2024). Main drivers and barriers to the adoption of digital agriculture technologies. Smart Agricultural Technology, 8, 100459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2024.100459

[8] Fabregas R, Kremer M, Schilbach F (2019). Realizing the potential of digital development: The case of agricultural advice. Science, 366(6471), eaay3038.

[9] FAO (2022). The State of Food and Agriculture 2022: Leveraging automation in agriculture for transforming agrifood systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[10] Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322–1327.

[11] Government of India (2023). The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023). Ministry of Law and Justice.

[12] Kernecker M, Knierim A, Wurbs A, Kraus T, Borges F (2020). Experience versus expectation: Farmers' perceptions of smart farming technologies for cropping systems across Europe. Precision Agriculture, 21(1), 34–50.

[13] Khanna M, Atallah SS, Kar S, Sharma B, Wu L, Yu C, et al. (2022). Digital transformation for a sustainable agriculture in the United States: Opportunities and challenges. Agricultural Economics, 53(6), 924–937.

[14] Klerkx L, Jakku E, Labarthe P (2019). A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90–91, 100315.

[15] Mittal S, Mehar M (2016). Socio-economic factors affecting adoption of modern information and communication technology by farmers in India: Analysis using multivariate probit model. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 22(2), 199–212.

[16] Moser CM, Barrett CB (2006). The complex dynamics of smallholder technology adoption: The case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural Economics, 35(3), 373–388.

[17] Rogers EM (2003). Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. Free Press.

[18] Rose DC, Sutherland WJ, Parker C, Lobley M, Winter M, Morris C, et al. (2016). Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery. Agricultural Systems, 149, 165–174.

[19] Shang L, Heckelei T, Gerullis MK, Börner J, Rasch S (2021). Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies – integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction. Agricultural Systems, 190, 103074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103074

[20] Silveira, F. da, Lermen, F. H., & Amaral, F. G. (2021). An overview of agriculture 4.0 development: Systematic review of descriptions, technologies, barriers, advantages, and disadvantages. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 189, 106405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106405

[21] Wolfert S, Ge L, Verdouw C, Bogaardt MJ (2017). Big data in smart farming – A review. Agricultural Systems, 153, 69–80.

@article{1724263,
      author = {Pranjal Cholke, Rushika Burande, Harshada Jadhav, Dr. Sunil Mahajan},
      title = {From Adoption to Impact: A Life-Cycle Monitoring Framework for Scalable and Meaningful Digital Agriculture in India},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {10},
      number = {4},
      pages = {3953-3966},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1724263.pdf},
      abstract = {India's pursuit of Viksit Bharat@2047 has placed digital agriculture at the centre of agricultural policy through initiatives such as the Digital Agriculture Mission, AgriStack, the Soil Health Card scheme, the electronic National Agriculture Market (e-NAM) and a rapidly growing agri-tech start-up ecosystem. Yet the success of digital programmes is still reported largely through enrolment and adoption counts: farmers registered, devices distributed or applications downloaded. Such figures reveal little about whether a technology remains in use, why farmers discontinue it, or whether it delivers measurable benefit on the farm. In a country where most operational holdings are small and marginal, this gap between adoption and outcome is a central implementation risk. This chapter proposes the Agri-Tech Lifecycle Monitor (ALCM), a conceptual and design-oriented framework that follows an agricultural technology from introduction through adoption, usage, continued usage, actual benefit and impact. A parallel recovery pathway, comprising abandonment, reason identification, problem analysis, corrective action and re-tracking, treats discontinuation as diagnostic information rather than as failure. The framework defines stage-wise indicators, including the continuation rate, abandonment rate, recovery rate and a proposed Meaningful Digital Transformation Conversion (MDTC) ratio, which expresses the share of adopters who reach a defined measurable-impact stage. A multilingual farmer interface (Marathi, Hindi and English) and a stakeholder dashboard for extension officers, Krishi Vigyan Kendras, farmer producer organisations, technology providers and policymakers form the operational layer. Using an illustrative smart-irrigation scenario, the chapter shows how lifecycle monitoring exposes attrition and unrealised benefit that adoption statistics conceal. It then derives policy lessons and implementation pathways for embedding lifecycle monitoring in programme design, extension systems and digital public infrastructure. The chapter argues that scalable digital agriculture should be judged not by how many farmers adopt a technology, but by how many continue to use it and gain from it.},
      keywords = {digital agriculture; technology adoption; continued use; dis-adoption; lifecycle monitoring; impact assessment; agricultural extension; Viksit Bharat@2047},
      month = {October},
  }