On taking risk in controlled environment agriculture

I’ve always been fascinated with the intersection of risk and decision-making, from Boise State running trick plays to upset Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl to the Seattle Seahawks deciding to throw instead of run from the goal line with the Super Bowl on the line. Were these good decisions? How do we evaluate our decision-making process?

Most of us, when faced with trying something new, especially when everything is on the line, stick to what we know. It’s human nature. We’re creatures of habit, and doing something different often feels uncomfortable. And when we do take the leap of faith to try something new, and it happens to end in a poor outcome, it can be deflating to our egos and make us even more timid when approaching future decisions.

Annie Duke, a former professional poker player turned decision strategist, has spent years studying how people make choices under uncertainty. Her research revealed a truth: Waiting often feels safer than acting, but it can be far more costly.

Over my career, I’ve worked with farmers and producers of all types on production solutions, and there’s an obstacle that gets in the way of innovation: risk.

In controlled environment agriculture, that risk is magnified. When growers have invested millions in infrastructure, when energy costs can represent 50 to 60% or more of operating expenses, and when margins are measured in pennies per pound, every decision carries weight. The wrong technology choice doesn’t just mean lost time; it can mean lost seasons, damaged relationships with buyers or worse.

Whether managing square footage under glass or vertical growing systems, growers are navigating risk from greenhouse to shelf. Yet too often, they wait for someone else to go first. This isn’t condemning caution. In an industry where calculated decisions mean survival, caution makes sense. But recognizing when necessary caution becomes paralysis is equally important.

Why waiting feels safer

Why do we hesitate when the upside is clear? Behavioral science offers answers:

• Loss aversion: We fear losses more than we value gains.
• Omission bias: We feel less responsible for risks we don’t actively take.
• Herd behavior: We wait for others to move first, assuming there is safety in numbers.

Even when solutions exist to reduce waste, improve quality or boost efficiency, many growers hesitate. Not because no one wants to be first, but because no one wants to fail.

CEA producers are bombarded with “latest and greatest” solutions. Everyone has tried something that didn’t work. But does that mean the decision was wrong because the outcome was poor? Too often, growers let outcomes impact future decisions, creating more hesitation to try something new.

But inaction isn’t neutral. It’s a decision with its own risks.

What we can learn from BlackBerry’s missed shift

BlackBerry dominated the mobile market among business users in the early 2000s. Their devices were secure, reliable and professional. When touchscreen smartphones emerged, BlackBerry leadership dismissed them as gimmicky, believing their keyboard model was essential for productivity.

Internally, the system worked. Enterprise clients were loyal; revenue was strong. But there were known flaws: poor user experience beyond email, a weak app ecosystem and a dated interface.

Thanks to Apple and Android, the market was shifting toward consumer-friendly devices that could also handle business needs. BlackBerry could have developed touchscreen models, improved its app platform or created hybrid solutions. Instead, the company doubled down on keyboards and enterprise features, lost relevance within years and never recovered.

The lesson? Being the best at a dated system created a blind spot. Because the model was still generating results, BlackBerry underestimated how quickly customer expectations could shift. Sometimes, the real risk is in not building the future.

The cost of inaction

When we delay innovation, we rarely measure what it costs us. But the costs are real: excess waste and shrink from poor postharvest handling; missed market windows due to outdated logistics; infrastructure that can’t adapt to demand shifts; and damaged consumer trust from inconsistent quality.

For controlled environment operations, these costs compound quickly. When managing climate control, lighting systems and automated growing environments, small inefficiencies multiply across operations. Energy costs alone in CEA operations make optimization critical, yet many growers hesitate to adopt technologies that could reduce consumption or improve yields.

Inaction risk is real: the opportunity cost of not improving, the reputational cost of poor quality and the financial cost of inefficiency. Yet it’s rarely tracked.

Risk is normal

From climate volatility to labor shortages to shifting trade policies, agriculture faces constant disruption. Waiting for stability is no longer viable.

Instead, growers must build for adaptability. This means investing in tools, systems and strategies that make operations resilient when things go wrong, not just when they go right.

What to do differently

The goal isn’t to take reckless risks; it’s to help growers make better calculated decisions.

Audit the cost of inaction: Where are operations sticking with status quo out of habit? What’s it costing in efficiency, waste or competitive position?

Test small and scale smart: Start with pilot programs that limit downside. Measure results before full implementation.

Use decision frameworks: Tools like pre-mortems and expected value help evaluate both the cost of acting and not acting.

Track inaction risk: Don’t just measure what new technology costs. Measure what staying with current systems costs over time.

Build learning partnerships: Work with suppliers who understand operational constraints and can support gradual implementation.

A good season isn’t always the result of making all the perfect decisions. Outcomes can be influenced by countless factors beyond anyone’s control. What matters is the quality of the decision-making process. In controlled environment agriculture, where margins are tight and stakes are high, the longer growers wait, the more risk they carry quietly. It’s time to think differently about risk — not as something to avoid, but as something to manage intelligently.

Peyton Merriam is a seasoned product and marketing leader with over a decade of experience driving innovation, strategy and growth across the agriculture industry. He currently serves as product manager at Verdant Technologies.