Innovation

Readers may have noticed that very little has been added to the blog recently! May and June proved an extraordinarily busy time for me and I’m afraid it has been the blog that has been neglected as a result.

So this is a quick catch up on some of the issues, events and activities that have been occupying me since the last post.
continue

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

I just posted a very useful piece written by Alan Butters and Paul Chartier in response to a question asked on the US RFID list concerning UHF tags. Alan and Paul are two of the world’s leading authorities on RFID standards so this summary is compulsory reading for those of us with an interest in how the technology is developing.

In the library context the actual RFID technology to be used is, of course, a key element to consider but maybe not the only one? I think there might be at least three overlapping areas that have to be considered by anyone thinking of making, what is likely to be, a fairly major investment in a library RFID solution.
continue

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

“Frankly it’s a mess.”

The words were from a respondent to the recent survey and they were in fact describing their difficulties with CD/DVD management but judging by my mailbox for some librarians they sometimes seem to apply to RFID in general.

In particular there seems to be some confusion about the announcement (yet to be followed up by a statement) by 3M about SIP 3.0. What does it mean, why does it matter?

Well in order to answer those questions it’s probably worth reminding ourselves how RFID is being used at the moment. That’s not quite as simple a question as you might imagine because, on a global scale, it’s being used in many different ways.

RFID is a very broad term used to describe a staggeringly wide range of applications, equipment, physical tags and complete solutions that are deployed to carry out tasks as diverse as tracking elephants to ensuring the integrity of drugs.

In the library context we can use RFID for both the items we want to use and the clients that want to use them. Borrowers might use RFID enabled ”Smart” cards; books CDs and DVDs will use tags. To make things more complicated still both the borrower cards and the item tags are supplied in a variety of formats, using different frequencies and have different data written on them in a variety of formats.

So it is, potentially, complicated.

On top af all this most libraries will have existing investments in automation – often in the form of a management system – the LMS (or outside of the UK – ILS) that may, or may not interoperate with RFID.

There are so many ways in which all these different elements might be combined that it’s impossible to discuss them all without losing the plot – and possibly the will to live. Most suppliers will tell you that their RFID solution is much simpler than all this suggests – and mostly, that’s been true – up to now.

So let’s try and make this all a bit more manageable.

In the UK, US, Europe and some parts of Australia suppliers and libraries alike have opted to use the HF frequency of 13.56MHz for library tags. Not everyone agrees but the main defining characteristic of those uniting around HF are that they interact with a management system of some kind. Since most readers of this blog use an LMS (or ILS) I’m only proposing to talk about these kinds of systems.

The tags themselves can be programmed in a variety of ways and, apart from some European nations, most other markets have not, until very recently, attempted to standardise the data that is programmed in any way. Why this was so remains something of a mystery to me. The fact that, even now, many libraries are either unaware or unconcerned about using standards baffles me even more. Even the suppliers – who might seem to have the most to lose – have recognised that a standards-based approach to RFID deployment will bring some major advantages.

The agreement by the RFID Alliance to promote and support a single data standard was a great step forward for two reasons. Firstly it creates a level playing field for the suppliers – and freedom of choice for the buyers but secondly – and perhaps more importantly – it creates an environment in which new players can more easily develop new applications.

Which is where the next component in the process comes in.

Almost every library in the world seems to have introduced RFID to improve (or introduce) self-service. It remains one of the quickest wins around. Add a “smart” tag to an item and all manner of things become possible. Multiple item issues, automated returns sorting, integrated security… it is, as my American colleagues would say – a “no-brainer”.

But changing from barcode to tag isn’t just substituting one kind of label for another (although many still seem to think that it is). Once items are “tagged” they are more easily managed via the tag. That means that all your operations should be RFID enabled – stock movement, weeding, accession – it’s a long list. And if you move stock around – or share resources with other libraries – it will be a whole lot easier if you use RFID to do it – so long as you don’t forget that your LMS/ILS also needs to be kept informed of what you’re doing.

So in order to make updating (and interaction) easier we need a way of sending information to and from the LMS/ILS. Right now that’s pretty much SIP, the Standard Interface Protocol invented by 3M to enable different LMS/ILS to talk to barcode-driven self service units back in pre-historic times. The protocol offers almost infinite flexibility in its implementation by allowing “extensions” and these have been seized upon by suppliers to create new functionality for a wide range of library operations.

So while we have started to straighten out the tag standards we haven’t yet begun to solve all the compatibility issues lying in wait for the unwary.

This isn’t a new problem. RFID and LMS/ILS companies (at least in the UK) have been working around the deficiencies of SIP for a while now. Fines payment  for example frequently requires both SIP and some other protocol working in tandem to function effectively. The “other protocol” of choice increasingly being web services.

Now if every RFID and LMS/ILS provider continues to work out their own solutions to these problems we will build a second Tower of Babel and risk creating non-transportable solutions that will make creating a single data model look like solving a child’s jigsaw puzzle. So, in the UK, we decided – and the “we” in question was the BIC/CILIP RFID committee – to see if we couldn’t find agreement on finding common solutions to this problem too. (A second impossible thing to do before breakfast!)

Now, strictly speaking, we have strayed well away from matters strictly RFID but the committee is the only place in our market where librarians meet RFID suppliers, meet LMS (ILS) providers, meet servicing companies (jobbers) to discuss technical issues on a regular basis and – having worked in pretty much all of these sectors – it has fallen to me to try and steer the ship safely home by the end of 2010.

The first objective will be to replicate existing minimum SIP 2.0 functionality within a web service (or set of web services). So many applications now depend on SIP that it would be foolish not to ensure that everyone can continue to benefit from 3M’s generosity.  After that the plan is to try and identify as much “common” functionality as we can across existing ILS/LMS platforms and define web services for those. This will hopefully help us build “many-to-many” solutions.

Now into the arena springs SIP 3.0. Not yet (we believe) fully formed, and still blinking in the bright new RFID dawn details of its composition are rarer than hen’s teeth at present, but the inititiative is as welcome as it is overdue.

SIP currently defines both a data protocol and the means by which it is communicated. That’s part of its difficulty in working with RFID applications since the technology is at its best when not confined to serial operation. However in the London meeting we agreed (3M included) that SIP 3.0 could equally well describe a web service as a serial protocol. Accordingly we agreed to keep 3M advised of everything we do so that they can – if they so wish – incorporate our efforts into 3.0.

So SIP 3.0 and web services may well become the same thing…but what about that “future of RFID in Libraries” bit?

Well to be frank that’s still a bit unclear - but what is changing is the scope of RFID systems to deliver new and innovative services as well as to change the way in which some existing functions are perfomed. Bringing us full circle are the many innovations being made in Asia – where RFID has often arrived ahead of the LMS/ILS, creating completely new and self-contained models - for circulation for example.

RFID enables us to interact with objects in ways that we have never been able to before. Data standards enable developers to find new ways to design library applications. Where those developers are currently working will probably determine the future course of many aspects of library management. That might be somewhere completely new…

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

Judging by the emails I have received reaction to my latest ramblings in the Gazette is pretty mixed. Somewhat to my surprise there is quite a bit of support for the notion that RFID should indeed replace the LMS(ILS).

I still think that’s something that needs more thought. Existing systems represent significant investment for libraries and the introduction of something as radically different as RFID could chnage things in unexpected ways.

The undoubted success of RFID self service has somewhat obscured the fact that library stock in the RFID library simply “works differently” from those using barcodes. With so many new and exciting RFID products appearing on the internet day by day it is not at all surprising that companies supplying the equipment should be eager to sell these to their clients. Indeed the libraries themselves are often the prime movers in pushing for innovation.

And that’s a good thing of course, but (of course there’s a “but”)

Out there in RFID world, where cats can be seen leaving their home in Oregon thanks to RFID and Twitter, the technology is generally the servant of the application. Somone identifies a problem, and RFID is used as part of the solution. So an application is written – built around RFID – to provide it.

But what libraries are doing  is effectively “retrofitting” RFID to applications that were most often designed and written – by a different supplier - before anyone in a library had even heard of it. So there is a potential disconnect between the application’s design and the  operational technology. A bit like adding an outboard to a pick-up.

This never mattered with self service of course. The rules by which it operates were already well established and understood – even standardised – and the tags were only used as “smart labels”. Now things have changed/are changing. The labels can carry data and interact in different ways and the need for libraries – and their suppliers - to understand the implications have never been greater.

Maybe someone will design an RFID based solution for libraries that does more than circulate stock. Certainly some of the solutions coming out of Asia look worthy of closer inspection, but in the meantime I don’t think anyone should assume that someone else is necessarily thinking through all the issues involved in marrying up RFID enabled stock to your OPAC for example. They may be, but it’s always a good idea to check.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

My work with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) is now complete. The results are in and soon senior management will go into conclave to consider recommendations and options before sending the white smoke up the chimney. This leaves me free to speak at least about the evaluation process – if not the actual selection.

Apart from standards one recurring theme of the process was the difficulty in reconciling the claims made for RFID as a technology with its application in libraries.

There are many layers of misunderstanding between libraries and their suppliers over what RFID is meant to be/do.

The first is the widely accepted use of the term “RFID” as shorthand for self-service:

Libraries and suppliers alike see the terms as interchangeable. (Oddly enough some parts of the world see “RFID” as being synonymous with “inventory”). This leads to a great deal of miscommunication – particularly when talking to tag manufacturers or more generalist RFID companies. Unless they are one of the companies that created this confusion in the first place the chances are that supplier and client will be speaking slightly different languages.

The next problem arises out of the approach taken by the RFID supplier in the first place:

Some RFID suppliers have a track record in library self-service, a handful even understand that library operations go beyond loans, but many came from the retail supply chain – a very different market altogether. In the fast moving and exciting world of RFID solutions appear and disappear rapidly. New tag technologies appear all the time making old ones obsolete.

In retail such rapid change is welcomed. In a market where the priorities are speed of supply, greater accuracy and better margins data standards are practically non-existent and tags – and tag data – change almost as fast as the applications that use them. These solutions are not designed to be used by anyone else, Asda don’t share their RFID warehousing solutions with Tesco. So the solutions are “closed loop” – i.e. they are designed to work in a closed environment to perform a particular task.

So when RFID suppliers came to libraries they assumed that lending of books was an equivalent operation to the delivery of consumables at the end of the supply chain and built solutions accordingly.

Job done?

Well, no. So long as self-service is all libraries want from RFID this “closed loop” approach works  very well  but what about using tagged stock to improve other library operations?

Looking at the RBKC offers I was struck by how different they were. From an LMS-oriented standpoint one would expect RFID suppliers to take account of the fact that libraries had already spent a great deal of money on systems and would probably not want to do anything that might jeopardise that investment.

A false assumption. Some did, but most had obviously ticked the “SIP support” box and moved on.  One supplier, seemingly unaware that libraries in the UK would already have a circulation control system, had created their own. Another used SIP to run staff workstations (thereby increasing licence costs charged by some LMS/ILS suppliers). Some even proposed replacing existing staff workstations altogether.

Each solution was clearly influenced by the direction of travel of the company supplying it. Those who kept up-to-date with advances in tag technology enthused about the potential of new tag design, others – with a retail background – focussed on speed of supply. Few spoke about interoperability with the LMS/ILS beyond SIP and self-service.

This selective view of the world can work both ways of course. I know of one LMS/ILS supplier, unaware that self-service was a hot topic in the UK, originally developed their RFID solution to make stocktaking faster by using UHF rather than the HF used by everyone else.

Even the more “savvy” RFID suppliers seem capable of proposing new solutions that could – if not carefully integrated – compromise existing systems by duplicating both data and functionality.

I’m not suggesting that innovation is a bad thing – indeed I believe there is much to be learned from other markets and booked Alastair McArthur – CTO at TagSys RFID – for the CILIP RFID conference later this year for precisely that reason. No I’m just suggesting – as you might expect – that you cannot make many assumptions about how RFID solutions will work. You have to do the research.

Like RBKC .

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

I was a little bit surprised to see quite so many RFID exhibitors at this year’s show since most of the pre-match talk had been pretty negative. Whether there were enough visitors to guarantee its survival next year seems unclear and certainly the LMS suppliers that stayed away in droves this year seem unlikely to be returning any time soon.

Nonetheless anyone looking for innovation would have been delighted with the products on offer. Three that caught my eye were the smart book drop from 2CQR, 3M’s remote system manager and Intellident’s smart shelves.

It would be difficult to miss the book drop. In keeping with 2CQR’s already well established use of colour the book drop is a substantial piece of hardware that changes colour faster than a Glasgow traffic light. Items placed in its copious “mouth” are chewed over before either being rejected or swallowed. A kind of half-way house between automated sorting and a simple drop box it offers another way of securing returns in libraries with limited space.

3M were showcasing their new remote management software that enables an operator to see at a glance the status of  all devices connected to the RFID susbsystem. Devices can also be configured over the internet/intranet. From appearances it seems to work off of the standard Windows Event Manager but the 3M people at the show were unable to confirm or deny this. Either way it looks quite impressive and brings 3M right back into contention against similar offerings from its competitors.

Intellident were once again heavily promoting their smart shelves. Now working very closely with SmartSM (even down to common branding) Intellident have clearly seen an opportunity to take RFID stock management to a new level. I have a lot of questions to ask about how some of the more “blue sky” ideas that Paul Dalton presented in the show’s Technology Theatre but the direction is very clear, even if the details are still a bit fuzzy. Get ready to equip your library for supermarket style scanner racks…

Much more to say about RFID stock management once the Royal Borough reach their decision on their selection.

Wednesday sees a meeting in Birmingham of the Trade Association of Library Equipment Suppliers (TALES). This is the body that we set up many years ago to try and find better ways to exhibit our wares to libraries. LIS is the natural descendant of the show spawned at a meeting held at CLSI’s offices in Chiswick 29 years ago. Although no longer supplying anything much, I remain the secretary of this loose federation of library suppliers which will be trying to decide whether to continue to support the show in its present form. If you have any (polite) suggestions we’d like to hear them!

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post

Visited the Library Show at the NEC on Thursday, partly in my role as secretary of TALES (despite not having any equipment to supply!) and partly to see how the RFID market are responding to the challenge/opportunity of the UK National Profile for ISO 28560-2.

The expression “curate’s egg” springs to mind. Some great ideas – and some genuinely innovative new products – were on display. In some cases the art of the possible seems to have overtaken to art of the practical but it was good to see some really creative thinking.

Sadly almost no-one was talking about the potential the standard will provide for mixing and matching products from different suppliers at the show but feedback from my recent talk at CILIPS suggests that most libraries are now making the future use of the standard – and the profile – mandatory elements in their proposals. Visits to two libraries already using RFID last week confirmed that they too intend to migrate to the new standard when available.

How they might do that will be the subject of a future blog. I’m not convinced it’s quite as simple a process as some are suggesting. However with Kensington and Chelsea’s tender evaluation process now underway I find myself in a kind of “purdah” until it is completed an must refrain from detailed comment until it is complete.

So radio silence must be maintained for a little while longer…

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post