Key findings Was a ‘chasm’ in social referencing evident? The test of Moore’s ‘chasm’ thesis is – are there some technology users that potential users of the technology would not reference? The findings are inconclusive. Not all pragmatists agreed that it was a prerequisite to reference other pragmatist farmers before making a decision to adopt the technologies investigated and there were cases where some self-assessed pragmatists referenced visionaries. There were, however, individual cases that provided a degree of support to the notion of chasm in social referencing between visionaries and pragmatists. Is farmer-to-farmer social referencing likely to be an effective diffusion mechanism for the technologies investigated? ‘Adoption’ by interviewees of the focus technologies depended on the sense that the ‘virtual world’ created by the technology is relevant to the physical world it represents and an experience that outcomes are significant to farm management practice – i.e. benefits sufficiently outweigh the costs (including non-monetary costs) of adopting. The findings indicated that the process of social referencing was not likely to be sufficient as a means to facilitate farmers’ appreciation of the relevance and significance of the key technologies investigated. In relation to the focus technologies, they key conditions for relevance were that the technology adequately represented the structure and behaviour of the biophysical production system and that the technologies’ output adequately relates to that experienced on the adopter’s own farm. In other words, relevance was established in the context of one’s own farm and the technology had to be credible and flexible. A personal learning experience (albeit socially facilitated in group events) also appeared to be a factor in achieving relevance. Although a social referencing process can communicate potential relevance, resulting in an attitude of openness towards the innovation, it cannot be relied on to provide the subjective appreciation that goes the next step to establish the conditions for relevance described above. This launched a second stage of enquiry for this study, which sought to identify what interventions, if necessary, could facilitate the cognitive experiences for farmers that expedite adoption of technologies. Value of cropping systems simulation in commercial use A detailed study of Yield Prophet® use in four states of Australia identified three current paths for cropping systems simulation in commercial practice: 1. A flexible simulator for systems analysis by a farmer and/or consultant, customised for a farmer’s specific production environment and management issues, to explore the consequences of tactical management decisions; 2. A flexible simulator to facilitate farmer learning and development – i.e. creation of insights into farming systems and their management; 3. A tool for meeting external regulatory demands – e.g. corporate farming reporting, accountability, dealings with finance companies. This possibility was raised infrequently, compared with the first two. These correspond with 3 of the 4 paths for model-based information systems identified by McCown (2002). In relation to Path 1, Yield Prophet’s value is the provision of a flexible tool for managing climatic uncertainty by forecasting production outcomes in relation to contemplated tactical management alternatives. To date, this has largely involved Nitrogen (N) management, and there has been little use of Yield Prophet for other management decisions (e.g. pre-season planning) – a situation largely explained by the limited promotion of the latter. While demand for tactical management support would be expected on a continuous basis, it is questionable whether Yield Prophet will generate enough value to warrant ongoing use by subscribers if it is used solely for N management. Although N is an important management decision – it is a costly but necessary input, and the only in-season management option identified by interviewed farmers for dealing with climate variability – farmers varied in the degree to which their experience and judgment was augmented by Yield Prophet’s explicit presentation of probabilities of certain crop outcomes occurring. The interviews revealed that Yield Prophet was not the only method for informing the N management decision. Not all farmers received the same value from Yield Prophet – for some, the value was a low marginal benefit, whereas other reported high value.