Library Management Systems/Integrated Library Systems

Looking into a problem being experienced by a UK Public Library service last week I was struck once again by the apparent reluctance of librarians to complain about the systems and services in which they have often heavily invested. 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

Last week I was lucky enough to be invited by Linda Davies of the University of Cardiff to come and see the progress they’ve been making at the Biomedical Sciences library with RFID enabled shelving. Paul Dalton and Darren Ratcliffe came along to answer technical questions. I am grateful to them all for a very interesting visit.
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

 The new agreement between Intellident and BDS announced recently poses some interesting questions. The first that sprang to my mind was “why?”
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

The last meeting of the BIC/CILIP RFID committee began looking more closely at the ways in which improved communication between existing LMS and RFID systems might be improved by examining the existing methodologies and seeking improvements.

With RFID initially being deployed in support of self-service operations most solutions use 3M’s SIP protocol as the primary data transport mechanism between LMS and RFID systems but for some time now there has been some unhappiness on the part of libraries and RFID suppliers with the protocol’s perceived deficiencies in handling some aspects of the circulation process – in particular in handling financial transactions.

Added to that, the fairly loose device of allowing essentially unregulated “extensions” to SIP to be created by pretty much anyone who wishes has resulted in a protocol that – whilst still essential – is now seen by some to be holding back the pace of development of RFID.

Some LMS providers, especially those relatively new to RFID, and even to self-service, have been reluctant to develop support for what they see as “old” technology. This reluctance has given rise to the creation of new means of handling some RFID based transactions – with web services being prominent among those now being used in conjunction with SIP to provide better financial management for example.

Aware of these developments, but also mindful of the large number of non-RFID installations dependent on SIP (in both self-service and other areas of library operations) the committee felt that now was a good time to review existing options with a view to both regularising existing practices as well as creating a platform of services upon which future systems might be built.

As a first step the meeting agreed to create a smaller working party to examine the existing SIP 2.0 functionality and to create a common set of web services to replace its present base functionality. The plan is to have these services in place by the end of 2010.

Given the nature of SIP – and its extensions – the committee wants to get as much feedback as possible from the market, especially existing users, about their present use of SIP, and any known limitations of which they may already be aware.

3M mentioned at the same meeting that the USA were about to issue a statement about the development of a version 3.0 of SIP. Seen by them as a pragmatic alternative to the rather slowly emerging NCIP protocol for self-service their intention is to revise and revamp SIP to meet the new demands of the market.

The meeting welcomed this announcement – which was confirmed as being imminent by the US office a week later but has yet to appear – and suggested that the definition of SIP 3.0 could just as readily define a web service as another serial-based protocol, i.e. the functionality to be delivered could be the same in either scenario and agreed to keep 3M informed of our work, hopeful that this spirit of co-operation would be reciprocated.

I was asked to provide the focal point for this undertaking and, as a first step, to use all the avenues of communication open to me to garner input from the market. This post appears on both the UK RFID list and my blog – please pass it on to anyone you know who might be willing to contribute.

So what we are seeking from you are details of any extensions to SIP 2.0 that you may be running on your site, together with any known deficiencies of the protocol preventing you from deploying additional functionality.

Just to remind new readers the BIC/CILIP RFID committee currently includes all of the members of the RFID Alliance, many early (and some late) library adopters of RFID, representatives from most of the library materials supply chain, and the library systems market. So it’s about as representative a group as we can construct.

We still need your help though!

Thanks a lot

• 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

Earlier this week I mentioned that Bibliotheca have announced a new memorandum of understanding with Civica.

Last night I was delighted to see the following reply from Johannes Rogg, Managing Director of Bibliotheca’s UK company posted on the UK RFID list:

“Hi Mick,

Thanks for your valuable comments. I fully agree with your statement, that HF is currently the frequency of choice for libraries; this is a main reason for this announcement.

With regards to your question on encryption I have no idea where this rumour is coming from, but Bibliotheca currently supplies to specification required by customer and market and our standard supply is the Danish data model with no encryption. Our BiblioChip technology enables us to support multiple data models in the same deployment and to rewrite chips on new models including the upcoming ISO standard on the fly.

One more word to you blog entry from yesterday, which I enjoyed reading very much:

You say. “To overcome this gap Civica is partnering with Bibliotheca to offer our fully standardized HF solution based on the BiblioChip technology and our experience and proactive standardization policy in this area.”

…which appears to imply that all Civica’s existing HF based installations are not standards based.”

As you know UK market is relatively standardised and will be more so when we can adopt the ISO standard and the UK profile. World-wide things are broader and its important for Bibliotheca as a world-wide player to meet these requirements whether for tags, interfacing standards or elsewhere.

Equally as a supplier it makes our life easier of standards are adopted so please keep evangelising standard such as ISO 28560-2. Success in broadening adoption is good for libraries and suppliers and will reduce costs for all in the longer term.

Best regards

Johannes Rogg
Managing Director

Bibliotheca RFID Library Systems Ltd.

I posted a brief reply to the list but as most of the points he was answering related to those made here I thought it might be helpful to post his reply here as well.

I asked whether Bibliotheca encrypted any of their data – a question we asked everyone who attended the meetings that established the UK data model back in 2009. Bibliotheca had not been present at that meeting so it seemed reasonable to ask them now. Apparently there is a rumour going around that some Bibliotheca sites have encrypted data. Well frankly it’s a bit more than a rumour – some libraries with Bibliotheca systems do have encrypted data (they have written to tell me so) - but no-one seems to know why. To be fair to Johannes he says that they prefer to adhere to standards – but also implies that they will always do whatever the customer tells them.

I’ve heard that argument from other suppliers.

Now I happen to believe that many librarians aren’t very sure of their ground here (because they tell me they’re not) and that many have previously asked for things that aren’t necessarily a good idea. I also happen to think that suppliers have a duty of care to advise when an idea might not be such a good one.  I’ve lost a lot of business that way .

My main point – that Civica already have an HF RFID solution in the UK – wasn’t really answered at all. Instead I am reminded that it’s a big world and people elsewhere have different needs (with no apparent irony) and that Bibliotheca have a product that meets all of them. Readers with long memories may remember that I commented on this product when it was launched in the US. No-one answered my concerns at the time, maybe they will now?

• 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

Following on from the evident spirit of co-operation between Civica and Intellident at David Lindley’s excellent road show in Manchester (about which I blogged last week), this week brings Bibliotheca’s announcement - at the VALA meeting in Melbourne – of a new “global memorandum” with Civica, followed today by a statement to the UK’s RFID list.

The statement contains some interesting assertions. Most striking perhaps is the remark that, 

“Until today, they (Civica) lacked a standard driven HF RFID portfolio. To overcome this gap Civica is partnering with Bibliotheca to offer our fully standardized HF solution based on the BiblioChip technology and our experience and proactive standardization policy in this area.”

…which appears to imply that all Civica’s existing HF based installations are not standards based.

The statement continues:

“HF is the standardized solution for RFID in Libraries, and Bibliotheca is a leading company in this area with over 580 installations world-wide based on HF and standardized technology. As for UHF, Bibliotheca remains strongly focussed on research in all areas of RFID and we see the relationship with Civica and access to and involvement with UHF solutions and research as potentially interesting for the future and in meeting specialized needs of some institutions.

The announced strong relationship of Civica and Bibliotheca gives Civica customers in the UK the advantage that a Bibliotheca RFID HF solution based on the current standards will be tightly integrated into the Civica LMS.”

…which appears to imply that there actually is such a thing as a “standardized solution for RFID in Libraries” – which there isn’t.

HF is – as Bibliotheca’s own statement says – only one of the frequencies used in libraries. UHF is another. In fact the statement appears to contradict itself by acknowledging an interest in Civica’s expertise in UHF based library RFID solutions whilst at the same time stating that HF is the global standard.

A great deal of sound and fury in RFID land but what does it signify?

Well it may be something to do with money.

There isn’t much of it around in libraries at the moment. UK public libraries in particular are feeling extremely vulnerable with both political parties having identified their continued existence as a possible election issue. Local authorities under pressure to save money are looking closely at the future provision of library services and naturally want to make whatever savings they can.

There are two popular ways in which they believe they might do this and both involve RFID and Civica.

The Civica approach to selling library systems has always been rather different to other LMS companies. Where most LMS companies try and sell the quality of their products, Civica have always preferred to focus on their understanding of how local government works..

This is a popular message for beleaguered CEOs. Most already know Civica and like the sound of the “tighter integration” that buying from them implies.

Best of all it’s true. Civica do lay great emphasis on integration with local services and work hard to provide the enabling links.

But let’s consider the position of the public library for a moment. It works for two masters and both are putting it under pressure.

Their employer demands local integration with other council services whilst external agencies – like  the government and the Society of Chief Librarians want them to be more “national” in their approach.

Is there a conflict in trying to meet both agendas?

You bet there is – especially when we look more closely at the RFID dimension.

Why don’t we have a national library service?

Local authorities like RFID because it makes it easier to introduce self-service. That ticks two boxes – improving services and reducing staff time spent issuing and returning stock.

But the lack of a common data standard has had two consequences. First each authority has had to buy their entire solution from a single RFID provider (making that process less competitive) and second, stock can’t freely be circulated to libraries outside of the authority – unless they have the same RFID system, installed in the same way.

Despite protestations from the market that handling different data models is “no problem at all” the recent UK survey failed to identify a single library that uses two different data models on the same site.

So, no national library service anytime soon.

One way around this dilemma that has been used by consortia, has been to ensure that everyone buys the same solution. Hence the London consortium uses Axiell Galaxy while SELMS use Civica. The addition of RFID caused some problems for London when one members bought a different RFID system, but SELMS ensured that everyone bought from the same supplier ensuring continuity of service across member libraries.

But only member libraries – no-one else can join.

So we can only have a national library service if we all buy the same solution for both LMS and RFID – or if we agree to use a national standard that will interoperate with any solution.

But now we have a data model so everything’s OK… isn’t it?

Enter Bibliotheca stage left bearing an announcement.

Bibliotheca are partnering with Civica to provide “tighter integration” and a standardised HF RFID solution as part of a global initiative to bring their expertise to bear on the UK market.

Whilst their international success is undeniable I’m not sure that financial success is necessarily evidence of expertise. That sounds a bit like Calvinism to me.

We don’t know much about Bibliotheca in the UK – apart from their recent split with D Tech International - but we do know that their data model is different to any other in the UK market – because they all are. There’s no reason to think they may renege on the agreement to support the UK data model but that “tighter integration” bit keeps making me wonder…

At best future members of SELMS will face a choice between at least three alternatives, and that’s without considering whether Civica (or any other LMS) need be part of the equation at all. It’s a choice they’ll have to make…

…and so, most likely, will everyone else; because this isn’t just about RFID. It’s about how your library is going to be managed in the future.

When is an RFID system not an RFID system?

As I mentioned last week there may be a battle beginning for control of library management. With so little business around there’s a tendency for companies to scramble after whatever funds are available and that might just tempt RFID companies further into LMS territory.

Let me explain that remark.

In former times LMS providers looked after most of the management functions of libraries (often called “housekeeping”). When self-service came along the LMS and self-service providers found a way to use the new devices to collect barcode data and, acting under direction from the LMS, the self-service units allowed items to be issued or not. This was SIP and it relied primarily on a single data element – the barcode.

In the meantime RFID was busy finding ways to use data written onto intelligent tags to create new ways of managing processes – most notably in the supply chain.

Many application providers earned their spurs by designing and building supply chain and warehouse management applications. To them operating a library operations looked very similar. So rather than considering how the technology might add value to existing systems they often designed completely new ones.

That’s how we end up thinking how to build a new catalogue to support RFID-enabled shelving – and that’s how change happens.

It’s a good thing.

So long as everyone understands what’s going on.

• 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

An announcement curiously dated 9th February 2010 (presumably released at VALA in Melbourne?) has been reported by the excellent Marshall Breeding on the Library Technology Guides website today.

The announcement contains the following paragraph:

“Civica and Bibliotheca will collaborate on the technology development of their respective RFID-enabled library solutions enabling tight integration into the Civica Spydus suite of library solutions. The tight integration with the Civica Spydus solutions will eliminate the use of unwieldy interface protocols and will realise significantly higher levels of efficiency, speed and automation opportunities for library customers as well as the possibility for closer integration into external solutions such as finance management.

Bibliotheca and Civica will both be able to offer UHF and HF RFID Library Systems providing libraries with enhanced efficiency, productivity gains and flexibility. This provides libraries with increased choice and performance over comparable RFID-enabled library solutions currently on offer.”

This must be some kind of record for raising so many issues in such a short statement. UK clients of Civica and Axiell will be among those with some questions to ask one would imagine. The current co-operation between Civica and Intellident that I heard about only last week looks a little shakier all of a sudden.

But most of all the throwaway references to “unwieldy protocols” and the implied combination of UHF and HF technologies in the future gives me considerable pause for thought.

What does it mean? An end to reliance on SIP perhaps – but UK suppliers – including Bibliotheca, Civica and Axiell are scheduled to discuss that very topic in three weeks from now. So how will this agreement affect those discussions?

Or do they mean and end (even before they begin) to standards?  Australia (where this announcement was presumably made) has a number of Civica libraries using UHF-based RFID systems as we learned at the London conference in 2009. We also learned – from the world’s leading manufacturer of RFID chips – that UHF was an unsuitable technology for library use and yet here are two of the world’s largest suppliers announcing their ability to provide both.

Now we all know that UHF and HF don’t work together, and that UHF is currently incapable of supporting the international library data standard. So how will this new arrangement increase choice?

Perhaps my Australian readers can offer an explanation? Or at least go and ask Civica and Bibliotheca what this announcement really means.

• 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

The Libraries Agency’s David Lindley was kind enough to allow me to attend the Manchester leg of his travelling road show to see what’s hot and what’s not in the world of library technology. He even invited me to say a few words about RFID (as if I might be able to confine myself to a few words!) following Intellident’s presentation.

A series of half hour talks included one from Nicky Parker – now tasked with transforming rather more than Manchester’s Library Service.

Nicky’s presentation included an obvious enthusiasm for what Danish libraries have achieved with RFID that was both heartening but also a little worrying. I have heard other UK librarians talk excitedly about what the Danes can do with RFID technology, only for them then to discover that it isn’t so much the technology that makes the difference. It’s the way Danish libraries worked together. Her other message – that librarians need to start thinking corporately – was received and well understood by the audience.

Even though I missed the chance to speak to Nicky – one of my reasons for going to Manchester- I’m really glad I attended the event.  It made me realise how fast things are changing – especially in that slightly uneasy space where RFID and LMS meet.

The two presentations that made the most impact on me featured Civica and Intellident. Although both strongly affirmed their partnership it is becoming clear that there is considerable overlap in their ambitions for libraries.

First up were Civica. Simon Parkes told us, Obama like, that “change is coming” and that we must begin to “think the unthinkable”. The “unthinkable” seems, in part at least, to involve Civica quite a bit. Spurning the opportunity to tell us much about “one of the world’s leading library products” he elected instead to focus on the changing role of the public library.

He’s not wrong of course – and probably wise to concentrate on the “libraries as a service hub” idea. In this model the library will become a delivery point for other council services as well as fulfilling their traditional role as purveyors of knowledge, wit and learning. Some of these services might even be provided by Civica…

This is not really new – in terms of the buildings at least – but now it’s also about the systems. And that’s where it starts to get really quite exciting.

Civica laid great emphasis on the lack of service integration within most local authorities. In a Civica enabled authority everything links up. What it doesn’t do though is link up with any library not using Spydus. The wider world sacrificed for local convenience/needs. Not the vision for libraries that the SCL has been voicing.

Both Civica and Intellident also appear to share aspirations to deliver “one-stop shop” facilities to their mutual clients – kiosks that can deliver all council services at a single service point. Intellident announced a new Smart Kiosk that will also link with e-media providers (like Overdrive – also on the programme) as well as dispensing CDs and DVDs. They are also talking to Bowker about using  bibliographic data to enhance their user “interface”. (Another word for catalogue perhaps?)

Intellident also revealed some of their thinking on using iPhone technology. The vision is for borrowers to identify all their library’s holdings on a particular subject and download that data to their phone. In conjunction with Smart Blade shelves (keeping constant track of the use of every item the library holds) your phone will guide you to the location of each item identified.

Heady stuff.

Don’t get me wrong. I know I am often misunderstood and frequently (mostly by suppliers) misrepresented as a Luddite – opposed to change of any kind – but I’m all for this vision of the future. I want the world that Civica promises me will deliver “joined up” services across a consortium like SELMS. That’s what the North West wants, what London wants, what the government wants, that’s what we all want.

But we mustn’t let ourselves be entirely swept away by visions. It just might take a little more time..

For instance…

The SELMS consortium delivers exactly what it says on the tin. A proper joined up library service in which all the institutions can share resources with each other – but only if you have Civica and Intellident. There’s no way for anyone else to join in –yet.

And what about that iPhone idea? I think it’s brilliant, so it will seem churlish to point out that all RFID enabled phones currently don’t support the frequency used by libraries. And that downloaded data? Where does that come from?

Currently the horsepower needed to drive data from live RFID shelves to an LMS isn’t available so Intellident have had to build a new database to handle the traffic. This will periodically (I didn’t have the heart to ask how periodically) update the LMS database. But why bother? The LMS database is probably inaccurate anyway.

Intellident are I think, whether by design or by accident, slowly but surely re-designing library management around RFID. Their e-media and CD dispensers will have no requirement for RFID – like their counterparts in Holland, Italy and Singapore – prompting me to ask them if they still see themselves as an RFID company. (They do, of course). They are however increasingly establishing their credibility in terms of all library operations – a long way from self-service now.

In a complementary way Civica established their RFID credentials by referencing the close work they have done with the RFID market in SE Asia and Australia. But many of these sites use UHF technology  a frequency that – for the moment – cannot support the newly established (by the RFID Alliance) UK  data model. It seems a pity to throw away the considerable effort made by RFID companies and others to create a level playing field for RFID operations – only to have an LMS company persuade Local Government to invest in something that will prevent them from delivering the central government agenda.

So who’s driving now? The LMS? – as exemplified today by Civica – or the RFID supplier? (today that was Intellident but other suppliers are available).

And how does the poor librarian decide what to do? Deprived of almost all IT expertise most public libraries now live in the same misery as they did in the 1970s. No wonder so many of them rely on their suppliers for expert advice.

The future sounds fantastic – and it is – but there will be some casualties as well as triumphs along the way as the juggernaut rolls along. I had never previously seen scarcity as a driver for change but it seems clear to me that library suppliers – from whatever area of expertise they may come – are now engaged in a desperate struggle to win whatever business they can.

As Simon pointed out – right at the start of the day – there’s very little business out there at the moment. We had better fasten our seatbelts – change is coming!

• 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