This year’s survey was not actively promoted outside of the English-speaking world. Without the support of suppliers and others it is frankly beyond my means and ability to attempt a truly global survey.

Nevertheless a few readers of my blog and followers on Twitter did take the time and trouble to answer the survey in English – and I am extremely grateful for their support.

With such limited numbers it is not possible to gain any kind of accurate picture of the international scene but the answers are nonetheless interesting.countries

There were 7 responses from 4 different countries.types

Library types were mixed – including the only National Library to have responded to this year’s survey.uses

Despite the low numbers one obvious difference between these European libraries and their counterparts in the UK, ANZ and North America is the extent to which RFID is being deployed. Everyone uses RFID to prevent theft with only one not also using it for circulation but beyond these two functions the number of libraries using RFID for User Identification, monitoring in-house use of stock and automated materials handling were all proportionately higher than outside of the European market.suppliers

Bibliotheca+3M were once again in the majority in these European libraries with both Nedap and Autocheck appearing for the first time in this survey – both in the Netherlands. One other Dutch supplier – that I know very well! – also completed the survey but their answers are not included as I was only looking for the opinions of librarians.

All the respondents use HF frequency solutions and all use SIP to communicate with their library management software. Only one also used an API to deliver additional functionality.

Only Bibliotheca+3M libraries replied in sufficient numbers to be worth analysis and their results are given in the following table,

Poor Not very good Good enough Very good
Answering helpdesk calls? 0% 0% 100% 0%
Responding to development requests? 0% 50% 50% 0%
Quality of their advice? 0% 0% 75% 25%
Resolution of hardware problems? 0% 0% 75% 25%
Quality of project management? 0% 0% 50% 50%
Response to equipment failures? 0% 25% 50% 25%
Response to software problems? 0% 25% 50% 25%
Speed of implementation? 0% 0% 75% 25%
Relationship with your ILS/LMS/ILMS provider 0% 0% 75% 25%

 

Finally three libraries had found other uses for their self-service kiosks – all three allowing users to make catalogue enquiries. No-one used their kiosks for non-library services and no-one had, so far, allowed library users to use NFC equipped smartphone in conjunction with stock.

There were no additional comments.

 

A very low response from the USA this year, but a better one from Canada so I have combined the responses from both countries to produce a view of the North American market as a whole.types

A total of 24 organisations responded 18 from the USA and 6 from Canada. In both countries the public sector appears to have invested most heavily in RFID (100% in Canada). The ‘Other academic’ category comprised 3 community colleges and 1 research institution.uses

 

Circulation and theft prevention tied for the most popular use of RFID at 23 each. Both collection management (13), and automated materials handling (12) were more popular than in previous surveys, AMH significantly higher than in either of the other international markets examined so far. Each of the bottom four applications listed here represents only one library – relatively lower than in the other markets examined.frequencies

North American users appear to be much better informed about the frequencies they use in their library RFID solutions. Only 1 library claimed to be using UHF supplied by a company that does not supply this option. The rest either identified HF as their chosen frequency or did not answer the question.ils

Dependence on SIP in North America is the highest of all the markets analysed. Only one library was not using SIP – 4 used both SIP and APIs. The most common use of APIs appears to be in conjunction with Automated Materials Handling (AMH). This is an area of library activity that in the USA in particular appears to be more open to competition than elsewhere with several respondents indicating that they had purchase an AMH solution from a different supplier to that which supplied their other RFID applications.suppliers

A very similar pattern to the UK and again completely different to Australia and New Zealand Bibliotheca+3M dominate the North American market. (All the Canadian libraries that replied were their clients except one that declined to give a name).

The list of ILS/RFID partnerships is as follows,

 

 

Innovative Interfaces & Bibliotheca+3M 5
SirsiDynix & Bibliotheca+3M 4
Ex Libris & Bibliotheca+3M 2
Polaris & Bibliotheca+3M 2
Evergreen & Bibliotheca+3M 1
Polaris & Envisionware 1
Polaris & Techlogic 1
SirsiDynix & Checkpoint 1
SirsiDynix & Sentry 1
SirsiDynix & Techlogic 1
TLC & Techlogic 1

 

Supplier satisfaction tables for each of the nine areas assessed follow below,

helpdesk

devreqs

advice

hardwareprobs

projman

equipfails

softwareprobs

implementation

ilsrels

I asked respondents if they wished to make any additional comments about supplier performance. There were a few (5) concerns expressed about the changes at Bibliotheca+3M – about the same percentage as in the UK. I’ve omitted those from those from this very short list,

  • We’ve ended up developing local expertise for our sorting system, and call (our supplier) much less frequently.
  • Ordering RFID tags takes forever! Communication is terrible. Wrong send to name, shipped to wrong address, no response, etc.

 

Only one (Canadian) library indicated that their members had access to NFC applications that interacted directly with library stock, which allowed them to  discover related items. Four used self-service kiosks for operations other than circulation, one for booking library assets and two for catalogue enquiries, the remaining one did not say what else they did. No libraries used library kiosks for non-library purposes.

Finally, respondents were asked to share any additional thoughts they might have about the survey or RFID in general. There was only one reply – from Canada,

  • I would like to see smartphone apps that will check out library materials and disarm the security to cut down on the need for self check out stations, etc.

Having visited several Australian and New Zealand libraries over the past ten years I understand that there are very significant differences between the two countries! However, in terms of the supply and deployment of RFID technology they are very much closer to each other than to other significant library RFID markets so I hope my ANZ followers will forgive me for analysing their results together.types

A total of 79 organisations responded to this year’s survey 66 from Australia and 13 from New Zealand. In both countries the public sector appears to have invested most heavily in RFID (although the figure for New Zealand was slightly lower at 63%). This contrasts sharply with the picture in the UK where universities have long been in the majority – certainly in terms of their willingness to complete the survey!uses

 

Circulation (76) is once again the major use of RFID with theft prevention (63) in second place. These are followed by collection management (42), and monitoring stock use in the library (33), access control (10) is however much less popular than in the UK while acquisition and accession handling (22) and automated materials handling (18) are both relatively more widely deployed.frequencies

As I have mentioned elsewhere my reason for including this question is twofold. Knowing the frequency s probably the single most important thing to understand about an RFID installation so the answers to this question help me gain an understanding of how much librarians understand about the technology. A secondary reason is to assess the extent of the library UHF market.

In Australia and New Zealand, like the UK, the probability of libraries using UHF is low (although there are more UHF suppliers) as major RFID suppliers in the two counties only supply HF solutions. Of the 15% that reported using UHF solutions 75% said they bought them from FE Technologies, the rest were equally divided between Bibliotheca+3m and Checkpoint whilst one declined to give the name of their supplier.sip

Dependence on SIP in Australia and New Zealand is significantly higher than in the UK (it will be interesting to see the US numbers). Both libraries that reported using an API were clients of the same supplier (FE Technologies) though neither appeared to be using functionality over and above that already supported by SIP (and both reported using SIP as well).  It would be interesting to know what the APIs are being used to provide but only one of the respondents indicated a willingness to be contacted while the other has not replied to my enquiry.suppliers

A chart that speaks for itself. FE Technologies were already the major force in the market when I conducted the last survey in 2014 and their acquisition by Invengo appears to have increased their momentum significantly.

FE Technologies dominance of the market almost renders comparative analysis redundant but there is always a demand for information about which ILS and RFID suppliers work with each other so here’s that list,

 

 

SirsiDynix & FE Technologies 18
Libero & FE Technologies 8
Softlink & FE Technologies 8
Civica & FE Technologies 5
Access IT & FE Technologies 4
AMLIB & FE Technologies 3
Ex Libris & FE Technologies 3
OCLC & FE Technologies 3
SirsiDynix & Bibliotheca+3M 3
Civica & Bibliotheca+3M 2
Aurora & FE Technologies 1
Capita & Checkpoint 1
Civica & Envisionware 1
Innovative Interfaces & FE Technologies 1
Koha & Bibliotheca+3M 1
Kotui & FE Technologies 1
Softlink & Envisionware 1

 

The remaining charts show the results for one of the main areas of interest for librarians – supplier performance. I asked how well each performed against nine criteria. Each bar represents the percentage of users of each solution expressing that opinion.

helpdesk

devreqs

advice

hardwareprobs

projman

equipfails

softprobs

implementation

ilsrel

 

I also asked respondents if they wished to make any additional comments about supplier performance. Here’s what they said,

  • We had unacceptable service from 3M here in NZ, and from other libraries I’ve spoken to, our situation is not unique. 3M are now out of libraries in NZ, and have handed over to Bibliotheca.
  • Bug fixes seem to take a long time to be developed
  • I find that from the purchase of the item to the installation, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of communication between the sales person and the installer.
  • It took some weeks to resolve all issues on a branch new kiosk this year.
  • The provider responds to problems quite well, HOWEVER, the problems we have with the product are huge. Every day there is something that doesn’t work and we are tired of calling and calling to have things fixed.
  • It is proving much more difficult & far slower than it should be to get our RFID provider, our library consortia’s tech helpdesk and our LMS provider to communicate with each other to resolve interop issues between our RFID gear and the LMS, and to keep us (the library) in the loop. This feels like pulling teeth.
  • We find that the company don’t follow through unless we push them and keep on contacting them.
  • Communication is below standard
  • Response times have improved
  • They are quick to answer calls and log them, but fixing problems tends to take a long time

 

Only two libraries indicated that their members had access to NFC applications that interacted directly with library stock, one of them for self-issue and the other for discovering items related to items in hand. Ten reported using the self-service kiosks for operations other than circulation, two for booking library assets and five for catalogue enquiries, the remaining three did not indicate the other purposes for which they were used. One library reported using library kiosks for non-library purposes but declined to say what these might be.

Finally, respondents were asked to share any additional thoughts they might have about the survey or RFID in general. This is what they said. I have emphasised areas to which I will return in my final summary of these results at the end of the week.

  • I don’t think libraries are currently using RFID to its full potential. Having worked at several RFID enabled libraries, they mostly use them as barcode replacements. I’m still waiting for the next level innovative use of RFID technology. Additionally, while our RFID system doesn’t directly use SIP2 to communicate with our LMS, the SIP2 connection is antiquated by today’s standards. No secure encryption, limited query fields to name but a few. Direct APIs or the fabled ‘SIP3’ with https enabled has been too long coming. I have questioned RFID vendors who use SIP2 to send client data to off site servers about security and have got unsatisfactory answers.
  • We are building a new library and will not be installing RFID.
  • We are very happy with our RFID system and our customers take up of it.
  • We’re keen to see what opportunities that the combination of NFC & our new web-based LMS can offer us in terms of enabling mobile library / pop-up library functionality, fully connected to real-time circulation functionality. However, it seems that we’ll need to initiate our own investigations to go down this path, as neither our RFID provider nor our LMS provider have as yet laid out any ready-to-go plans / offerings on how to do this, or intimated that such things are in the works. In any event, we figure that this should be possible with minimal capital outlay, once we can put the pieces together (NFC-enabled smartphone / tablet, & NFC / barcode apps that integrate well with the LMS).
  • We love the (supplier’s) RFID system as it is user friendly for the customers and it is a very reliable system but we get frustrated with the consistency of support the company provides. We feel we have to keep sending messages asking for an update on the situation.

This survey required a technical knowledge that I don’t have. I was not the person who managed the implementation of the RFID technology, they have since left.  I manage the technology and when there is a problem I report it to the help

A total of 115 UK organisations responded to this year’s survey – down from the 144 that completed the last survey in 2014. This is perhaps not too surprising partly because this year’s survey received no external support or publicity and partly because of the growth of consortia. In London for example there was no response from London Library Consortium (LLC) members – previously most members had replied individually. This may in part account for the apparent decline of the public library sector’s share of the library RFID market.types

A total of 57 universities and 41 public libraries replied this year. This is far from being a representation of the numbers of UK libraries using the technology. In 2014 I aggregated responses from all the previous surveys and listed 141 public libraries that were known to be using RFID then. It seems unlikely that any of them have disposed of the technology since so the real number is likely to be even higher now.

Other sectors represented include Health (6), Other Academic (mainly 6th form colleges), Schools (2) and one that self-identified as being both public and school.uses

As might be expected circulation (105) remains the major use of RFID with theft prevention (81) following close behind. However other uses are clearly on the increase with collection management (42), monitoring stock use in the library (35), accession/acquisition management (22) and automated materials handling (mostly sorting) (22) becoming more common than in previous years.frequencies

This is one of my pet questions and has appeared in every survey since they began. My reason for including it is in part to try and assess the level of understanding of the technology among librarians and partly to track the spread of UHF solutions in the global library market.

In the UK the probability of libraries using UHF is actually quite low as all of the major RFID suppliers in the country only supply HF solutions. Of the 13% that reported using UHF solutions 67% said they bought them from Bibliotheca+3M, 20% from 2CQR while 13% did not identify their supplier at all.sip

A question designed to determine how dependent the industry is on the SIP protocol.

All RFID solutions (for the moment) rely on data exchange with the LMS to determine what course of action they should take with every transaction. Historically (the protocol is 30 years old now) this has been achieved using the Standard Interchange Protocol (SIP) originally designed by 3M. More recently we have seen a growth in the use of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to provide additional functionality unsupported by SIP.suppliers

In previous years the overall share had been dominated by Bibliotheca and 3M and the newly combined company still retains the lion’s share of the market. 2CQR and D Tech continue to provide the main competition but two new players have emerged since 2014 – Solus and SA Secure (each reported by a single library).

Axiell’s showing remains quite low despite the changes in their supply model that I reported on earlier in the year. Paradoxically – given Axiell’s advertised intent to be a one-stop shop for LMS and RFID their only showings as an LMS supplier in this year’s survey showed them paired with D Tech and Bibliotheca+3M whilst their single RFID site uses Civica’s LMS. The full list of LMS/RFID pairings is as follows (LMS first):

 

Ex Libris & Bibliotheca+3M 16
SirsiDynix & Bibliotheca+3M 14
Capita & Bibliotheca+3M 13
Axiell & Bibliotheca+3M 8
Innovative Interfaces & Bibliotheca+3M 7
IS (Oxford) & 2CQR 4
Civica & Bibliotheca+3M 3
Capita & 2CQR 2
Innovative Interfaces & 2CQR 2
IS (Oxford) & Bibliotheca+3M 2
PTFS/Liblime & Bibliotheca+3M 2
SirsiDynix & 2CQR 2
SirsiDynix & DTech 2
Axiell & DTech 1
Capita & DTech 1
Civica & 2CQR 1
Civica & Axiell 1
Evergreen & Bibliotheca+3M 1
Ex Libris & 2CQR 1
Ex Libris & DTech 1
Infor & Bibliotheca+3M 1
Innovative Interfaces & DTech 1
IS (Oxford) & DTech 1
Koha & Bibliotheca+3M 1
OCLC & 2CQR 1
Softlink & Bibliotheca+3M 1

The next section of the survey focused on customer service. Responders were invited to assess their RFID supplier’s performance in nine areas. I have excluded Axiell, Solus and SA Secure from the analysis since only one customer replied for each of them. Whilst there may well be more customers out there for all three I have no way of knowing, and since I guarantee the anonymity of everyone’s responses I have no choice but to exclude these three companies to protect the identity of my contributors.

The results for 2CQR, Bibliotheca+3M and D Tech follow in the next nine tables.

helpdesk

dev-requests

advice

hardware-probs

projman

equip-failures

softprobs

implementation

ils-relations

In addition to asking respondents to assess specific areas of supplier performance I also invited them to make any additional comments they felt might be relevant.

The following is a selection of the more printable comments.

Perhaps unsurprisingly (change is always difficult) there was considerable concern over the merger of Bibliotheca and 3M. I have not included them here to protect their author’s anonymity. Anyone who wishes me to include their comments please let me know and I will add them (unattributed) to this post.

  • Our ILS provider does very little with SIP compared to our previous provider. Obviously not a priority in the States so no development work carried out over here.
  • Not been able to fully implement self-service. have now decided to abandon this supplier.
  • We work on a partnership basis with (our supplier) – it is a positive relationship – and a longstanding one.
  • General communication is very poor.
  • Not good at keeping software at up to date versions and same versions across all kiosks and other software
  • Handheld scanner has never worked – given up trying to resolve this.
  • Moving our ILS into a hosted SaaS environment, establishing a more secure connection to the new server. Looking into SIP over https.
  • Quick enough to get a contract – not sure what we pay our service contract for as I seem to have to do most of the initial troubleshooting and issues are still problematic years after implementation.
  • Account management is non-existent. It seems the lack of competition in the marketplace allows them to simply not have to try, in any respect.
  • A lot of RFID suppliers, our current one in particular, are still selling overpriced equipment, with similarly overpriced support contracts, whilst offering a much lower level of support… They are still seeing local authorities as a cash cow. Considering the cost of the component parts have dropped by an enormous amount since our last implementation, the equipment from the majority of suppliers has not followed suit.  This is seriously bringing the viability of continued use of RFID for self-service and security in to question.

 

  • We got a book sorter in late 2011. It took over a year to get it working reliably.  However, it is now integral to the library workflow — it is a major problem if stops working.
  • The service we receive from the online helpdesk and remote first line support is laughable. The engineers who visit to fix things are generally very good. My complaints are less to do with the equipment which is fairly reliable, and more to do with the cutting corners approach adopted by our supplier which means that problems take far longer than they should to be resolved.
  • Suppliers should take on duty and cost to use ISO standard RFID tags (upgrade hardware and software)
  • One of our biggest challenges at present is remote support. Our supplier can’t diagnose issues remotely and wants access inside our corporate network but IT security policies block this. Sometimes our supplier then refuses to send someone out and we have to do triage to prove the issue is hardware.
  • Week commencing 24 October 2016 I enquired about having the customers lending history on the kiosk and was told it would not be available for at least 2 years.

 

The next question sought to determine whether Near Field Communication (NFC) was being used in library operations at all. NFC is the technology behind a number of smartphone apps – such as Apple Pay – and allows users to interact directly with library stock. Having seen examples of this capability in action I was eager to discover whether many UK libraries were yet using it.

The answer was yes – from 4 libraries. One was using it to enable library users to borrow their own items the other three were using stock as a discovery tool by reading the RFID tags. (An extension of the solution implemented by Oslo public library that first featured in one of my presentations four years ago). I have not produced a chart for such a low level of activity.

Similarly I asked if libraries were using their circulation self-service kiosks for library purposes other than circulation. 14 replies said ‘yes’ although some implied that they were in fact using separate kiosks rather than those used for circulation. The other uses were:

Booking other library assets                                                                      5

Catalogue enquiries                                                                                      3

Managing printing                                                                                         5

Tourist enquiries, Flickr,  Heritage (separate kiosks)                        1

 

The penultimate question asked whether self-service kiosks were being used to deliver non-library services – like paying council tax bills etc. No-one was.

 

Finally I asked for comments on any aspect of RFID/NFC use that respondents felt moved to make. Here is a selection of their replies. I’ve emphasised some of the points in bold. I’ll be returning to these in my analysis at the end of the week.

 

  • We have just changed LMS provider and are hoping to develop the use of NFC and RFID further in the coming year.
  • SIP2 constraints are proving a real headache and mean we’re providing a 2nd rate service to our RFID branch users.
  • In relation to NFC, we are aware that our users have access to apps on Android devices that would enable them to do things with RFID tags. However, there is no library app.
  • When we refreshed our RFID solution we asked (our supplier) to also have their tagging software installed. Thus allowing staff/volunteers to tag new stock or check the status of tags at the kiosks rather having to take the borrower to a staff PC to check this. This has saved us valuable time and helped us complete the customer journey at the kiosk instead of going from the kiosk to the staff PC and then back to the kiosk. We also wanted to launch chip and PIN payments on our kiosks but due to the high fees that the card payment provider was going to charge that (our supplier) put us contact with we were unable to offer this facility. Hopefully now that we are with (new supplier) we may be able to offer this service. We are also looking to offer self-service kiosk (desktop version) on our mobile library service too going forward.
  • The market in the UK has contracted significantly – this is a concern for the future.
  • Our RFID supplier has added all manner of bells and whistles to the kiosks’ capability but we aren’t interested in that. (In response to using kiosks for non-library service delivery)
  • Would like an RFID accessioning solution that integrates with Aleph
  • Looking to the future the developments around NFC are potentially exciting and we are keen to explore them; the idea of our Library users carrying out their own circulation transactions AND supplying the hardware is interesting! However, there is potentially risk around the use of NFC and I don’t feel that I’m particularly up to speed on that front. We are also keeping half an eye (thanks BIC for monitoring this on our behalf) on developments around potential EU requirements in respect of RFID privacy.
  • I felt that this year’s survey could have done with some questions about the longevity of the hardware in service. Although the cost of RFID self-service machines has come down quite a lot over the last 10 years, many users who run multi-site operations will have made a substantial investment in this kit. Many of those who’ve adopted solutions over the last few years won’t have run up against the problem of what to do about replacing it yet but some who’ve been using RFID for a while longer may have found themselves shopping for new kit after their existing hardware has, apparently, become obsolete overnight for no obvious technical reason. Many suppliers claim that they have a customer in a library somewhere in the depths of England who still has a kiosk that was implemented in Roman Times that is still going strong but it would be interesting to know how this experience tallies with the typical experience of customers. Having said this, perhaps the only thing that is sure if you buy an RFID system today is that it’s got an even chance of lasting as long as the supplier who sold you the kit. This is true irrespective of whether you buy it from: a bloke operating from the garden shed who could decide to retire to Bognor Regis as soon as your payment has gone through; a large multinational company with many fingers in many pies who could decide tomorrow on a whim that they’re a bit bored with RFID; or from an international specialist supplier that is backed by an investment capital company, which could turn around tomorrow and decide to cut its losses and sell the whole thing to an unsuspecting punter for £1.

 

This year’s survey closed on 15th November and drew 356 responses – mainly from the UK, Australia and New Zealand – but with some contributions from North America and English speakers elsewhere.

There were 356 replies in total but after removing the mischievous, malicious and an unusually high number of duplicates entries only 207 ‘valid’ entries could be processed.Muntpunt checkout

Duplicates – by which I mean additional replies from the same organisation – are always a problem as there will always be members of staff with different views on issues like levels of service. Wherever possible I verified which respondent had responsibility for managing RFID systems and used their responses. Where this was not possible I selected the responses that had shown an understanding of RFID – knew which frequency was in use, knew the name of their ILS/LMS system for example – rather than the ones that only answered the questions on supplier performance (many of which were either entirely very positive or very negative).

There were several reasons for conducting the survey. I wanted to establish whether the obvious potential of RFID for library service development was showing any sign of being realised. With Near Field Communication (NFC) – a technology that enables smartphones to interact directly with library stock – now widely available I wanted to try and discover whether it had yet found its way out of the laboratory and into the commercial sector.

Another area of interest is the extent to which RFID devices designed for library use were being used to deliver other services. In 2013 Lambeth announced its intention to spend £373,420 of its library budget  on a product called ‘My Community’ – designed to deliver council services via self-service kiosks. I wanted to discover how successful that initiative had been.

Finally I wanted to try and ascertain how well suppliers were serving their clients. This was because of a growing number of emails received expressing concerns about deterioration of service. It’s a perennial complaint, I just wanted to try and gauge whether it was any worse than in previous years.

With the UK and ANZ accounting for most of the replies received I’ve decided to publish theirs separately this year, beginning with the UK. Both markets are dominated by a single supplier – Bibliotheca+3M in the UK and FE Technologies in ANZ – which tends to influence the ways in which their library RFID markets have developed and it seemed more helpful to analyse them individually.

Publication will start tomorrow with the UK results, followed rapidly by ANZ, North America and everywhere else. My analysis will follow on Friday. Between now and then I welcome – as always – your observations, comments and opinions.

13. October 2016 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized

surveyThanks to everybody who has completed the survey so far – and especially those who took the time to offer suggestions for improving future surveys.

Somewhat to my surprise there still seems to be a lack of understanding of some aspects of RFID so I thought it might be useful to explain their significance here.

The frequency being used by the chosen supplier still puzzles many of my respondents. The majority report using HF 13.56MHz – the standard most frequently recommended in Europe, Australia and New Zealand and North America and the one that supports the data models in use in the UK, much of Europe and most of North America. A few report using UHF – generally more popular in Asia but quite a few have no idea which they are using.

Why does frequency matter? There are a number of operational reasons – many have been extensively discussed elsewhere on this blog so I won’t repeat them here – but probably the main thing to remember is that UHF tags cannot be read by HF equipment – or vice versa. So your future choice of supplier might be severely limited.

My reason for asking the question is to try and establish the extent to which UHF – gaining popularity in India, China and Japan (despite being the older of the two technologies) – is penetrating those markets currently dominated by HF solutions. Since UHF systems have only very recently become capable of supporting anything other than a single ID their use in conjunction with ILS/LMS/ILMS systems is very limited. Additionally, they cannot communicate with NFC devices – a technology I expect to become more widely used in conjunction with RFID over the coming years.

A respondent from North America expresses regret that they are still unable to use smartphones to issue stock – a possibility that has so far failed to excite the interest of supplier selling expensive self-service kiosks for some reason. The good news is that I know of at least two European universities that have developed this capability themselves and may well release products in the coming year.

Another, from closer to home in the UK, complains about the restrictions of SIP2, preventing them from developing more modern library services. This reply I found particularly heartening for two reasons. First, because it came from a public library – a cause dear to my heart and secondly because it suggests that the work I’ve been doing with RFID and LMS suppliers for the past four years to replace SIP2 with something more useful is worthwhile. The Library Communication Framework – which seeks both to extend interoperability and make the development of new services much easier – is also extensively discussed on this blog – search for LCF.

So far no-one has reported using their self-service devices for anything other than library work although one respondent (from a university) did acknowledge the possibility in their comment:

“Our RFID supplier has added all manner of bells and whistles to the kiosks’ capability but we aren’t interested in that.”

I’m looking forward to hearing from a library that is using kiosks for other purposes – Lambeth perhaps?

(The survey of RFID use in libraries runs until November 15th 2016. You can contribute here.)

imageRFID companies have been quick to respond to the challenge of keeping libraries open in these austere times. All the major UK providers now offer individually designed solutions to enable cash strapped local authorities to extend opening hours by managing access to buildings outside of staffed hours with some of the more desperate authorities now rumoured to be considering using this opportunity to remove staff from some service points altogether.

With library buildings now being converted to 24/7 operation suppliers have seen the potential to repurpose them as service delivery points for a wide range of council services. Kiosks originally designed to issue books and pay fines now offer citizens the opportunity to pay for other council services. Bibliotheca were first in the field with their ‘My Community
product but others, like DTech’s ‘access-it’ clearly have the potential to develop along similar lines.

In this rapidly evolving landscape LMS company Axiell appear to be taking a rather different approach.

The last few months have seen some major changes at Axiell. With Grant Palmer’s tenure ending earlier this year and Sven Totté, Axiell’s Lund based CEO now working with the Nottingham based UK team it is perhaps unsurprising that the company’s direction now reflects a more Scandinavian view of the library market.

With the concept of the Library Service Platform (LSP) steadily gaining traction in the market place (most recently with EBSCO’s potentially game-changing announcement of support for a new Open Source project in the academic sector) it’s interesting to see similar language being used to describe the new product offers from many LMS and RFID providers, Axiell included.

Axiell have been announcing a steady stream of new products and partnerships since mid 2015 that now seem to be part of a strategy of steering the company towards enabling the kind of library service enjoyed by the Danes – as recently described by my friend Jan Holmquist on his blog.

In addition to providing cross platform support for staff (including volunteers) functions through their ‘Spark’ product Axiell have also announced a partnership with Scottish company SOLUS to provide mobile applications for library users – which could potentially include the possibility of using mobile devices to self-issue items at the shelf.

Perhaps the most surprising announcement – and the original impetus for my call with Sean Meagher (Axiell’s UK Marketing Manager) on Tuesday morning – was their decision to return to the policy of combining LMS and RFID solutions in a single offer. This is made possible by a little known quirk (in the UK at least) in the deal that established Bibliotheca’s European operations. The Danish arm of this company, Bibliotheca A/S is jointly owned by Axiell and Bibliotheca and continues to supply their own portfolio of products to the Scandinavian market.

UK customers of Axiell will now have the freedom to choose between Bibliotheca UK’s range of products and services or be supplied and supported by Axiell – using hardware and software supplied from Denmark.

Both companies support both the UK data model for RFID data and BIC’s Library Communication Framework (LCF) and I am assured that there will be no pressure placed on existing Bibliotheca UK clients to switch over.

So what’s the difference between these options? Well I’d like to think that in part at least it represents a choice between a Scandinavian public library model and the more austerity-driven agenda of UK local authorities, but that’s both an over-simplification of the issues and certainly naive. The real choice is probably between Axiell’s more unilaterally integrated approach to service delivery and the freedom to choose the solutions you want – and integrate them yourselves.

Probably the most important consequence of these changes is that Axiell clients now have a choice offered by no other LMS supplier and the ability to decide which solutions most closely match their vision of the future of their library service and not just which kiosks they like best.

 

I am indebted to both the National Acquisitions Group and Book Industry Communication (BIC) for sponsoring me to write a revised version of the widely used (and much copied!) Guide to Library RFID Procurement published in 2011.

A great deal has changed in the 5 years since the old guide was published. RFID has found its way into many more aspects of all of our lives, libraries included. The emergence of mobile technologies that can read library RFID tags by using an RFID technology called Near Field Communication (NFC) has opened up even more possibilities for using the technology and new applications are now appearing almost daily – some of them written by enthusiasts and students rather than the big commercial companies.

Libraries around the world can now use RFID to help them manage many more processes than simply self-service loans and returns – from building access to stock disposal and everything in-between.

So writing a new guide was something of a challenge! I should warn any plagiarist that they really won’t be able to simply this guide – or even the specification of requirements – in support of a procurement process without doing some work of their own. This guide focuses on helping you define what you want to achieve with the technology – rather than enabling suppliers to tick some boxes on a form before you hand over large sums of money for a solution that doesn’t quite deliver what you expected.

But before anyone criticises me here for being negative about those who use or supply RFID solutions I should say that both constituencies have been equally vocal in urging me to “do something” about the procurement process for some time now. It clearly helps neither party if requirements are ill-defined.

So this guide seeks to steer you toward a better definition of your needs and desires for this still developing technology whilst still ensuring that you ask the right questions – about standards, privacy etc. – of potential suppliers. Who knows what you might be able to achieve with RFID over the coming years? You may surprise yourself!

I am however mindful of the fact that many procurements are still driven by a desire to replace staff so I have tried to emphasise the questions that still need to be asked of potential suppliers to do that, so that even if you have no interest in making stock interactive, automating your accessions processes, saving money on kiosks by encouraging users to use tablets and phones, using the technology to improve user experience, facilitate consortia creation and co-operation or any of the many other things you ought to be doing with RFID you will still find it useful.

You can download a copy of the new guide here.

Pleased as I was to reach my holiday destination (Cartagena in Colombia) yesterday I was almost as excited to receive the news that self-service loans – and more – are at last available for library users in the UK.
SOLUS are, like me, based in Scotland and like me are eager to find ways to exploit the full potential of RFID and the new app does just that. Borrowers in RFID equipped libraries will be able both to issue items at the shelf and clear security in a single operation. Those still using barcodes will be able to use their devices cameras to issue items but will still have to deal with whatever security system (if any) is in use separately.

Returns can also be handled using mobile devices.

Dovetailing with the launch of “self-service” within the Library App, SOLUS has also announced the Q1 launch of “SOLUS Pay”, its mobile payment solution, which will allow users to make payments from within the App.

Initially aimed at library charges there are no payment limits with SOLUS Pay so both library services and their wider parent organisations will be able to pay other service charges through their Library App.

 

Full press release available here.

Yesterday I was in Birmingham at the offices of Capita Library Services our hosts for a day of coding and discussion. My job, as chair of BIC‘s various Library Communication Framework  (LCF) committees was to kick-off the first LCF “Plugfest” where developers from different library system suppliers spent the day writing and testing applications using the new framework launched last November.

Plugfest

The Plugfest is an important part of the process of developing more interoperable systems as it offers developers the opportunity to verify that the applications they are writing work in practice. It also ensures that the team of Technical Editors charged with the responsibility of maintaining the framework are made aware of new requirements and any problem areas. Plugfests will be an essential and frequent part of the development process as more and more library applications adopt the framework. Yesterday’s event was attended by representatives from 2CQR, Bibliotheca+3M, P.V. Supa, from the world of RFID; Capita, Civica, Innovative and Infor (late apologies were received from Axiell) representing LMS providers as well as third party suppliers Lorensbergs and Insight Media.

Unusually for such a highly competitive market everyone attending had already signed up to share freely the fruits of their labours. This spirit of co-operation appears to be almost unique to the UK as colleagues in Australia and North America frequently express disbelief when I tell them that competitors in the UK library market actually work together to try and find ways to improve both the user’s and staff experience of library automation. “You’d be lucky to get them in the same room here!” is one popular response. Certainly there are plenty of examples of companies meeting to discuss new standards and best practice – America’s National Information Standards Organisation (NISO) has been discussing a successor to the SIP protocol for more than three years now – but it seems to be unusual for competitors to share code, provide hardware and develop best practice together as they do in the UK.

Perhaps that’s why the authors of the other big interoperability event of the day – the publication of the long-awaited ACE funded, SCL initiative on creating a single digital presence for England’s public libraries – ignored invitations to discuss LCF during their lengthy investigation of the UK library systems market.

Now of course I’d be the first to acknowledge that the BiblioCommons report concerns itself with much wider issues than the existing systems infrastructure but a significant part of its recommendations appears to suggest that the only way forward is for them to write new code to create a new BiblioCommons software layer on top of the various existing LMS systems, pending migrating everyone to a new, purpose-built BiblioCommons LMS at some future date. One might argue that the same result might be achieved more cheaply by awarding a contract to a single supplier now and cutting out the highly risky intermediate stage recommended by BiblioCommons. But then that is what they do for a living.

Nonetheless ignoring the significant work already being done in this area seems at best something of an oversight?

I’ll be writing a full review of the BiblioCommons report on my other blog in the near future as its findings and recommendations go way beyond the relatively simple aim of establishing a common framework for interoperability but the irony of the juxtaposition of these two events was irresistible!

Meanwhile, back in the real world, this first Plugfest was a great success and the LCF Project is now well and truly under way. New functionality – that is both interoperable between disparate systems and which can readily be migrated without impact between suppliers – is no longer a system integrator’s dream but a developer’s work in progress.