Farmers did not always know how much they would earn before selling their crop. The final price could change based on crop quality, moisture, buyer rules, delivery timing, and commission.
We designed a mobile pricing flow that surfaced buyer requirements, prices, and expected payouts in one place.
The experience reduced crop rejection by 17%, improved payout visibility, and standardized the sales process.
Each farmer followed different rules for crop type, moisture, timing, and price. I translated those variables into a consistent card structure so farmers could evaluate options without reconstructing the calculation themselves.
Comparable card structure
A consistent card structure made it easier to scan and compare available sale options.
Eligibility surfaced upfront
Delivery date and accepted moisture range helped farmers quickly understand whether an option matched their crop.
Expected payout made visible
The card distinguished the buyer price, Jiva’s commission, and the final expected amount.
Clear path to action
Moisture directly affected the price a farmer could receive, but a single headline price did not explain the full range of possible outcomes.
I created a detailed pricing view that showed how each moisture range corresponded to a different price per kilogram. This allowed farmers and field teams to understand how the assessed quality of the crop could change the final amount.
Before sending their trucks to a feedmill, farmers could review the selected feedmill, delivery date, moisture requirements, price, commission, expected payout, and key conditions in one place.
Once confirmed, the success state gave users a clear endpoint and reassured them that the selected sale option had been secured.
Because feedmill capacity changed frequently, the experience also needed to explain when a sale option was no longer available. In both cases, the goal was to make unavailability understandable rather than simply blocking the action.
After designing the flow, we tested the end-to-end experience with the farmers.
The study combined remote in-depth interviews with moderated usability testing. Participants completed the flow while sharing their phone screens through Lookback.
Sessions were conducted across four districts in Central Java: Tegowanu, Godong, Penawangan, and Grobogan.
We tested the flow with six farmers across Central Java. Participants included both newer and more experienced Jiva users, with tenures ranging from 7 to 11 months. Most participants were high-performing users.
Price and moisture were the first things farmers checked.
Moisture level and price were visible upfront, so the screen was easy to scan. “View all prices” was rarely used, but easy to find when a deeper comparison was needed.
Familiar feedmills felt safer because acceptance rules were already understood.
Farmers preferred feedmills they already knew. Unfamiliar buyers felt risky when it was unclear how strictly they would evaluate moisture and quality.
Securing a feedmill first made newer farmers feel more confident buying harvest.
Newer farmers preferred to secure a feedmill before purchasing harvest, so they had certainty before committing money to the crop.
Penalty rules needed to be clearer before farmers committed to dispatch.
Farmers understood the confirmation screen but wanted penalty rules stated more specifically, especially around crop failure, truck availability, and exceptions.
Clearer moisture requirements helped teams match crops to feedmill conditions and reduce avoidable rejections.
Farmers and field teams could review price, commission, and expected payout before choosing a feedmill.
A consistent comparison flow helped branches evaluate feedmill options and make sale decisions more efficiently.