RFID Alliance

At the present moment there is no UK statutory body authorised to test technical compliance with ISO Library Data Model standard (ISO 28560). There is, as Paul Chartier has mentioned previously, software in existence which can verify that tags are being correctly encoded but so far as I am aware none of the RFID Alliance are using it. There is no reason why they should of course – it costs money – but one would hope that no-one would risk installing a fairly complex model (with over 1 billion possible combinations I’m told by Alan Butters) without testing.

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

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

According to Marshall Breeding’s excellent website 3M HQ yesterday announced their support for ISO 28560. So far I have been unable to find the story on 3M’s own site but it’s good news to know that the US are backing the decision made in Bracknell and announced in October 2009.

The delay – and indeed the nature of the announcement – does raise a slight concern about the nature of 3M’s development plans. I think we all believed the original statement, which had the added force of being agreed with the newly formed “RFID Alliance”, had already given us a clear statement on 3M’s postion regarding 28560 but perhaps this wasn’t the view from across the pond.

The press release is of course the usual excellent piece of marketing we would expect from a global leader in the library market but the wise reader will look beyond the breezier comments about the apparent simplicity of running as many different data models as you can shake a stick at – particularly those early adopters still waiting to deploy some of the expensive hardware they have bought, and if there was no problem, why did 3M and others spend so much time and effort (as the press release reminds us) finding ways to solve it?

But this is a time for rejoicing! At least one of the walls that restricted librarians freedom of choice appears to be finally coming down. Now we have to make sure that a bigger wall – that of proprietary communication protocols – doesn’t replace it.

• 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 title comes from a question I was asked at the recent Library RFID conference in London. It’s a REALLY good question because it’s extraordinarily difficult to answer. I was also challenged to rewrite a simple guide to RFID in the light of the changes taking place and while both of these projects are dear to my heart they will take a little time to complete.

In the meantime, judging by the number of emails and phone calls I’ve had since last Tuesday a lot of libraries are in a hurry to buy the technology and want some quick answers to key questions.

The Standard – for the non-technical

Rejoicing in the snappy title of ISO 28560-2, the UK data model has now been adopted by all the UK’s major RFID suppliers. That means that from January any library wishing to deploy RFID will, for the first time, be able to do so confident in the knowledge that their solution will REALLY be compatible with any other on the market.

Many libraries believe they are already in this happy position – and then there are the unhappy few who know otherwise. But since the RFID Alliance has undertaken to migrate all existing users to the new standard should they choose to do so, everyone can join the party if they wish.

The full standard allows for 25 data elements with multiple values available for each element but that’s only because the far-sighted people who designed it are thinking ahead to a future where even Library Management Systems as we know and love them today may no longer exist, and we may be interacting with objects in an entirely different way in an “Internet of Things”.

But for now only a handful of elements will be used and since these are pretty much those already present on existing tags in some form or other, migration should not be a major undertaking. And only three elements are compulsory.

So what was all the fuss about?

The “fuss” dear reader was mostly wind and fury – signifying nothing. RFID companies now have to give up their mini-monopolies so some of them have had a bit of a vested interest in trying to make me look like I’m being negative about the whole technology, rather than trying to stop them protecting their markets. But that all ended when the RFID Alliance announced that creating the standard was their idea all along…

I am on the record as saying that we needed a standard, ANY standard. We (the suppliers and the users) chose this one “because it was there” and because it offers much greater scope for future development. Whether we will ever that  potential is for the market to decide.

So what changes?

One thing that might change right away is the way you buy RFID. Up to now you had to buy all your RFID toys from the same toyshop. (Did no-one ever wonder why?) A few have successfully bucked this trend by finding ways around the problem of different data models but that usually by getting one supplier to change their software to read another’s tags – or changing all the tags. Not what an IT person would call “interoperability”. Now we can do as the Danes, Dutch, French, Swedes, Finns…  have been doing for years and choose where we buy our gates, our kiosks, our sorters and yes, even the wands that seem to sit under so many desks around the nation.

That means we may have to rethink our purchasing strategy as well. Framework agreements like Catalist and ESPO are predicated on a different model and will have to change – unless consumers choose to be locked into the past. Likewise a “pay as you go” approach to acquistion might make less impact on capital budgets and make it easier to fund transformation programmes. RFPs might need some reworking too…

For public libraries there is another major benefit in the potential to create a national ILL service in which at least the items circulated can be readily identified. One of the compulsory fields is the ISIL unique identifier for the owning library and Danish libraries already use this to manage a nationwide circulation system.  – Now that will really help the SCL’s inititaive.

So What Should I do?

Insist on the UK Data Model. Your stock has to be tagged according to some kind of data model so why wouldn’t you choose the UK standard?

Ask for guarantees. Until some way is found of “certifying” the compliance of tags the only way you can be sure that your supplier meets the standard will be by testing it yourself – or paying someone else to. If a supplier tells you that their tags can be read by anybody else ask them to prove it.

Consider consortia deals. If all tags can be read by anyone there’s no longer a requirement to buy your tags from your RFID supplier – or even just for your library. I know that some libraries in the south east are already doing this where they share a common supplier but now anyone can join together. I may even start up my own co-operative…

Those are a few thoughts to begin with. I welcome corrections and opinions from anybody so please jump in!

• 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 Tuesday saw the (for me) long awaited CILIP RFID in Libraries conference at the King’s Place close by King’s Cross station in London. Having been asked by CILIP to put together the programme and open the event I was more than a little concerned that delegates would feel they had received value for money.  Beyond this I was hoping for some lively discussion and debate around the whole issue (no pun intended) of RFID use in libraries – specifically UK libraries.

From the comments received it seems reasonable to make the claim that almost everyone felt the conference was valuable and relevant. The number that felt there was too much of a technical nature was balanced by a similar number that felt there wasn’t enough – and that’s about as balanced as one might reasonably expect I suppose!

The word “buzz” was used quite often in tweets and emails received during and since the event and I confess it felt livelier to me than in previous years. Maybe there’s more fear around about the future of the profession?

Certainly there are plenty of libraries seeking to find some kind of salvation in the technology. The desire to invest first and ask questions later was sadly still very much in evidence in some of the conversations I overheard between suppliers and their potential clients. Indeed the first question asked at the end of the first session was “How much will it cost?”

How much will WHAT cost I wondered. An answer would have been possible had the question been about Mars bars or even what model of car to buy, but even then some idea of appetite and function would have helped formulate a response. But not about RFID surely?  Having prepared myself to answer anything from “why are there three parts to the standard?” to “why do you believe we need to re-examine communication protocols?” I was at a loss. RFID is a technology not a function. How much it costs depends on what you want to do with it.

From there on however, things improved and we were entertained, provoked and educated in equal measure by some fine presentations from stellar performers. The conference review will appear in the next CILIP Update – don’t miss it!

I hope that everyone understood what seemed to me to be the clear message from all sides – insist on the new data standard to protect your investment if you haven’t yet made the jump to RFID; consider migration if you want to benefit from future innovation if you have already.

Next day I was up early and on my way to Denmark – almost the spiritual home of RFID, at least in Europe. Having kindly been offered the chance to meet the architects of ISO 28560 at the Danish Agency for Libraries and Media, I was fortunate enough to have also been given the opportunity to visit two libraries that have been using the technology for many years.

My first host, at Lyngby, was Poul Tørslev-Thomsen. Despite my arriving well ahead of schedule Poul answered all my questions with great good humour and obvious enthusiasm for his topic. Lyngby had been almost the first library in Denmark to install RFID and had “made all the mistakes” already. Nevertheless, despite the pain of being a real early adopter the introduction of RFID had seen nothing but benefits for the library and its users (who were present in considerable numbers for a Thursday morning!).

During the five years they have had RFID Lyngby has replaced security gates, re-programmed tags and switched self-service units as standards emerged and more choices became available. It was interesting for me to discover that Danish libraries do indeed exercise the freedom of choice that using a common data model has given them – one of the outcomes predicted both at the London conference and in the “RFID Alliance” press release.

Lyngby has invested in self-service in a big way. Their automated sorter has two inputs linking to a single conveyor to which no less than 16 “ergo stack” trolleys are connected.  Two of the many self-issue machines were being used by two gentlemen even older than me – evidence of acceptance by the public I think, and security gates, originally designed by one company but now driven by technology supplied by another, protected the exits.

This is the Danish library world so often cited by UK librarians as being the exemplar of transformational technology in action. It is vitally important however  to remember WHY this has worked so well for the Danes.

Firstly they have had a common data standard almost from the beginning. The Danish Agency for Libraries and Media advised RFID suppliers that they would not endorse any solution that did not support a common standard. Without this endorsement there was virtually no market, and so the Danish Data Model was born. (If only we had a UK Library Agency….)

Secondly, and perhaps only slightly less important, is the fact that 85% of Danish public libraries use the same Library Management System (a statistic supplied to me by Henrik Wendt at Tårnby – my host on Friday). The Danish public library system already allows the public to borrow and return books wherever they please – a development no doubt made much simpler by a more unified approach to LMS and RFID supply.

RFID has certainly made its mark in Denmark though they still share many of the same concerns as do we, over the efficacy of CD/DVD security (although recent changes in tag design are helping), and neither library I visited used stock management devices (a point repeatedly made in London on Tuesday).

There has also been very little done on developing new interfaces to RFID tags. WG11, the group that brought us ISO 28560, has not been disbanded, partly because its members have seen the potential for the technology to play an even greater role in the modernisation of services through new applications and new communication methods. There was real interest in BIC’s recently announced project to re-examine and re-evaluate SIP, NCIP and web services as means of interacting with RFID.

So with the publication of the data standard in January UK libraries at last have the chance to reap the rewards from which the Danes have benefited these past five years. They also have a chance to work together with our European neighbours to build better systems in the future.

Will they accept the challenge and learn how to make the technology work for us?

Or just ask how much it costs?

• 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