D Tech

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

Last Friday I received a telephone call from D Tech’s Tim Pond which was quickly followed by a press release from their PR company expressing concerns about the soon to be published ISO data standard ISO 28560-2.

Given the nature of the allegations I contacted two other members of the recently formed RFID Alliance to see if they shared Tim’s concerns. They didn’t – although they did offer the information that they had been approached by a commercial company that has already developed software for the standard.

I have previously published any press releases I have been sent by RFID companies and would not want to deny D Tech a voice so here’s the statement in full – with my comments in italics.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

D-Tech expresses concern at proposed charges for new data standard model

RFID supplier D-Tech has publicly expressed their frustration at having received a communication from a source proposing an excessive fee for accrediting software to the new data standard model.

Speaking at the RFID Conference Marvin Crisp, Managing Director, D-Tech said:   “We question any form of levy placed on the new data standard model.  An open ISO, in our view, should be free.  If it’s not free then it’s not open.  If it’s restricted to one company and one supplier then we come up against a lot of issues that can be very counter productive to suppliers and customers.

Comment: An ISO is indeed open but there is a charge for buying the documentation from the ISO. An ISO is in the public domain and cannot be exclusively owned by any one company. I’m afraid I missed Marvin’s speech at the conference or I would have commented at the time.

He added:  “I can’t speak on behalf of all RFID suppliers but I gather the general consensus is that no-one is happy about this.  I feel strongly that it is D-Tech’s duty as a supplier to speak out.   We’ve all fully supported the adoption of the new model, as it quite rightly offers the best opportunities to vendors and libraries to scope RFID to its full potential.   Now we are being asked to support something that goes against best practice and the open access principles we have all been pursuing.”

Comment:  I am somewhat at a loss to know who is requiring D Tech  to “support something that goes against best practice”. I am aware that at least one member of the Alliance has already developed support for ISO28560-2 in its draft form – entirely on their own. I can’t see how they could have done so if these allegations were correct.

D-Tech’s Tim Pond has also been vocal about these recent developments:  “All RFID suppliers will have to develop their own data model structures anyway so that they can convert existing customers’ labels ‘on the fly’.   It doesn’t help to have approaches like this where we will have to bespoke design elements for different data models.  In fact, our new Self Check V4 software has LabelConvert software as standard, allowing the conversion of datamodels through self service, circulation, conversion and the RFID wand on the fly. This will give customers an open and up to date data model.

Comment: I think this is a straightforward piece of marketing and not actually relevant to the rest of the piece and so probably requires no comment from me. I have already expressed my views on migration strategies elsewhere on this blog.

He added: “There has been talk that the final structure ratified list will be available in early January 2010.  We would propose that the document is released to ensure that all models are created and based upon this structure and not a derivative or misinterpreted version. “

Comment: It’s rather more than “talk”. The ISO publishes the timetable for standards publication on its official website. The standard IS the standard and available to anyone who wishes to use it.

D-Tech is asking for the support of BIC and CILIP in ensuring that a mechanism is in place to accredit and have test data model facilities accessible, without costs into the thousands.

It was noted that Bob McKee did state at the end of the RFID conference that a more suitable and less costly mechanism for testing be considered, with costs born by the RFID vendors.

D-Tech asks what shape and form this might take and when where and how this is going to be ready.

Comment: The issue of possible “accreditation” was raised at the conference by both Bob McKee and I. I’m not sure where the demand comes from – or who should carry it out. I know it will be discussed by BIC/CILIP and the RFID committee (which includes D Tech) in January 2010.

Marvin Crisp summed up his feelings:  “We’re facing Government cuts in public spending and the impact this may have on libraries and, in the same breath, talking about committing to tens of thousands of pounds for an accreditation that should be freely available.  It just doesn’t make sound commercial sense for any supplier to be forced into this situation”. 

Comment: I know of no such charge – or requirement for a charge. Perhaps other readers of the blog know more but neither BIC, CILIP or any other member of the RFID Alliance has been able to tell me to what charges D Tech might be referring.

Tim Pond:  “We will have to wait for the detailed document to ensure the new Data Model is structured and modelled for all. Time is looming and shall need to have evidenced based systems in place for this.”

Comment: The “detailed document” I presume is the standard? If so a copy may freely be obtained from a number of outlets including the BSI.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

I confess I am as baffled as I am concerned by this statement. It seemed that everyone was behind the standard but this suggests that this is far from the case. Let’s hope that this is just a misunderstanding.

• 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

A little more detail has emerged on the newly formed RFID Alliance. Andy Chadbourne of Intellident sent me the link to the original announcement on their website this morning. He tells me that over 1300 hits have so far been reported – very good news.

Clearly there are others more alert than I out there, so might I make a plea to anyone spotting such a story to post the link either here or on the RFID list for us all to share?

• 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 following press release from Carolyn Long at the McOnie Agency reached me via a somewhat circuitous route this evening.

Informally I learned some time ago that a statement of this kind was being planned by the UK’s main RFID suppliers some time ago but one company was apparently not co-operating at that point in time so the message has been delayed until now.

It is obviously good news for the UK library community that the main suppliers have seen fit to back up the commitments they made back in January and April (and widely reported on this blog, the UK RFID list and by BIC and CILIP at the time).

It seems a pity that the suppliers felt unable to recognise the huge contribution that BIC, CILIP and the library community have made to this process  but we should all rejoice in the news and look forward to even greater co-operation as we move to the next phase of RFIED development. BIC announced today (by an amazing coincidence precisely one minute earlier than this email was sent out!) that the RFID group will meet again early in the new year to review the data transfer protocols driving the new standard.

3M’s announcement follows:-

…………………………………………..

 3M joins other major players to support adoption of technology in UK libraries

For the first time in the UK market, an alliance of leading library suppliers including diversified technology company 3M, 2CQR, Axiell, Bibliotheca, D-Tech, Intellident, and Plescon Security Products, have come together to support the ISO 28560 tag data standard and the UK National Profile that relates to how this will be implemented in UK. The soon-to-be-released standard will help Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) take a huge step towards becoming a universally adopted technology in UK libraries. 

In forming the Alliance, each member has committed to help deliver ISO-based solutions to the library community and achieve the ultimate goal to make all library items interchangeable between libraries, regardless of the self-service equipment deployed. The benefits of this agreement could be instrumental to the wider public use of library facilities, as the loaning and returning items could be completed at different venues, allowing for much greater flexibility.

The move to form an Alliance has been made possible by the development of the new standard from the global ISO standards body. ISO/DIS 28560 relates to how information is stored on an RFID tag and, as a result, all new tags can be read in the same way, allowing interoperability of disparate self-service solutions.

The agreement is a breakthrough for the use of RFID technology in libraries as it will provide a single standard that every member can work to. The Alliance between these leading vendors demonstrates that although competing at a solution level, they share a common belief in promoting standards and recognise that tagged items should be interchangeable between libraries.

Importantly, for existing customers of the Alliance suppliers, each has committed to supporting their historical customer base with the move to the new standard as and when required.

With the Alliance agreement in place and ISO/DIS 28560-2 setting the standard for all future tags, the next logical step is for libraries to act on this to further improve their services. The development and wider acceptance of RFID is growing at a pace, with the UK now the market leader in the deployment of innovative technology.

Paul Sevcik, Senior Product Development Specialist for 3M and a member of the ISO working group responsible for the standards comments: “The development of the ISO 28560 family of standards is critical to the continued growth of RFID applications in libraries and to providing a return on the library’s investment in RFID.  We are very excited about this Alliance and the commitment of the players involved, to make interoperability a reality for our customers.”

Members of the Alliance will be in attendance at the RFID in Libraries Conference, organised by CILIP and sponsored by 3M, which takes place on 10 November 2009 in London.

3M is a leading supplier of technology solutions to libraries. The company offers a wide range of options to suit all libraries, including RFID systems, SelfCheck systems, Tattle-Tape Security technology and applications, detection systems and circulation accessories.

• 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

Interesting post from Catherine Dhanjal on the lists this afternoon announcing their intentions.

From other correspondence received it seems clear that the “rough wooing” of existing D Tech clients has begun in earnest with Newcastle now being singled out already as a key Bibliotheca site.

How this pans out in contractual and support terms is, of course, entirely a matter for the parties involved and hopefully solutions that suit client’s needs will be paramount in everyone’s mind as the story develops.

From my own perspective – and increasingly from the point of view of all those who seek to create more co-operative service models in the future there are still one or two slight concerns niggling at the back of my mind.

Last week I was delighted to report that progress toward the publication of ISO 28560 in all three parts was proceeding as rapidly as could be expected. The creation of a common foundation for RFID development is in my opinion, as regular readers will know, key for both library co-operation and future service development so anything that might prevent us from achieving that goal makes me nervous.

I wrote to Matthias Joos expressing my concern that Bibliotheca’s web pages gave strong endorsement to ISO 28560-3 with no mention of the UK’s preferred option of 28560-2 and he was quick to reassure me that Bibliotheca intend to support both versions.

He also used the opportunity to promote the same “dual data model” self-service kiosk that I have already criticised on these pages (when D Tech took me to task for doing so!).

This is the kiosk that can convert data models “on the fly”. The claim is made that by using it you can convert all your stock in 3-4 months.

My question previously ”how do you manage the stock that isn’t circulated in this period?”  wasn’t answered then either. From the responses I’ve had to the question I asked earlier in the week it seems that only a small percentage of stock would have been circulated in 3-4 months, leaving a huge amount unconverted.

Since self-service is only one aspect of RFID stock management how does a library identify which items on the shelf have which model? The answer that most UK RFID suppliers seem to have reached is to enable all their devices to read two models. Hopefully that will be Bibliotheca’s conclusion as well.

This is a minor concern though. The phrase that worries me in the press release is “… supplying customer-specific state-of the art RFID solutions” (my emphasis). I’m sure it’s more a question of ”lost in translation” rather than indicating a return to a proprietary approach but I really hope it doesn’t mean that libraries will be encouraged to operate outside of the new standard.

Those concerns aside it is of course good news for UK libraries that another major player has arrived – and just in time for the November conference too! I’m really looking forward to meeting them there!

• 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