Aren’t GB ISILs published on http://www.bl.uk/bibliographic/marcagency.html so would they necessarily need to ask? I’ve explained ISIL most times I ask for a code.

1) As you point out – who ‘controls’ what gets into the framework, and how can we, as the end users, ensure it continues to evolve to meet our needs & a changing marketplace? If the answer to this is that we’re not included in that ‘update’ process, then thats a big reason to stay well away to start with.

2) With such general questions as quoted (and yes, some of those very much feel like ‘we don’t know what answer we want, so just give us something’), how can you differentiate properly between offerings that are often quite similar on the surface, but have significant differences in the detail / approach taken to particular issues

3) ..and if you haven’t, as a librarian looking at RFID technology, done at least some of your own research into the issues, then how on earth are you going to be able to make sense of what you are asking, let alone the answers that come back?

I think there really is no substitute for getting some research done – either via a professional or the very friendly & open community of RFID users that exists in the UK (who are generally happy to share info & experience in a way that I’d pretty much guarantee will give a better set of questions to pose than some of those quoted)..Do that & you’ll be able to produce a more meaningful procurement, and hopefully end up with a far better quality & value for money implementation.

Skip that process & rely completely on a very generic framework like this, with those identified question marks hanging over it, and quite frankly you are not investing wisely & are likely to be paying for the omissions made further down the road.

doing my thesis on standardization in the rfid field
GRIFS gives me indeed some good insights on the global benefits of standards

http://stevenheywoodlibrarystuff.blogspot.com/2010/04/self-service-how-not-to-do-it-workshop.html

Actually this particular problem is probably even more remote from day to day operations than many library managers are. This is entirely about saving money and not about delivering quality. In my more pragmatic moments I can accept that we can’t afford good systems anymore. What prompted this post is the wasted investment in systems that don’t deliver even the minimum service required to keep going.

CEOs aren’t concerned about quality, they have to balance the books so their argument goes like this:

Step 1. I can cut costs and deliver a better service if I make the public do more for themselves.
Step 2. Self service will do that for me.
Step 3. Where do I sign?

The logic is irresistable. But what if self-service doesn’t live up to expectations? What if it is so slow that the public won’t use it? There are no longer sufficient staff to cope with the increased demand at the counter created by the failure of self service; people stop borrowing books. and the service fails.* It’s now difficult to argue to keep the library open because the loan figures won’t support it. Result: everybody loses. The staff, the public, the suppliers and even the CEO who will at best be seen to have tried to keep a failing service alive.

So keeping quiet about poor or no service is, in the final analysis, a self-defeating strategy – and one we can no longer afford.

*of course the number of borrowers may also simply decline to meet the capacity that the system can manage. In other words demand drops not because the service is unpopular or unwanted but because people simply get bored waiting.

In my experience, sys. admin. people tend to be brutally frank about their systems in the company of their peers. And sometimes in public when provoked.

Library managers are a lot more unpredictable. Often a shortcoming in the system will be dismissed as ‘not a problem,’ despite the fact it actually disables a function. Conversely, something can be a major problem putting a halt to a project despite it having no discernible practical effect in the library. And if a technical explanation is needed to describe a problem with a system then the problem often won’t be offered up for discussion.

The scope of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is to establish the GRIFS Forum as a framework to promote cooperation between Standardization Organizations in the field of RFID in order to ensure that RFID standards meet the needs of the user community.

to avoid duplication of efforts
to avoid confusion amongst users
to ensure intersectoral coherence in the field of RFID

http://www.grifs-project.eu/index.php/downloads/en/