This year’s survey closed on 15th November and drew 356 responses – mainly from the UK, Australia and New Zealand – but with some contributions from North America and English speakers elsewhere.
There were 356 replies in total but after removing the mischievous, malicious and an unusually high number of duplicates entries only 207 ‘valid’ entries could be processed.
Duplicates – by which I mean additional replies from the same organisation – are always a problem as there will always be members of staff with different views on issues like levels of service. Wherever possible I verified which respondent had responsibility for managing RFID systems and used their responses. Where this was not possible I selected the responses that had shown an understanding of RFID – knew which frequency was in use, knew the name of their ILS/LMS system for example – rather than the ones that only answered the questions on supplier performance (many of which were either entirely very positive or very negative).
There were several reasons for conducting the survey. I wanted to establish whether the obvious potential of RFID for library service development was showing any sign of being realised. With Near Field Communication (NFC) – a technology that enables smartphones to interact directly with library stock – now widely available I wanted to try and discover whether it had yet found its way out of the laboratory and into the commercial sector.
Another area of interest is the extent to which RFID devices designed for library use were being used to deliver other services. In 2013 Lambeth announced its intention to spend £373,420 of its library budget on a product called ‘My Community’ – designed to deliver council services via self-service kiosks. I wanted to discover how successful that initiative had been.
Finally I wanted to try and ascertain how well suppliers were serving their clients. This was because of a growing number of emails received expressing concerns about deterioration of service. It’s a perennial complaint, I just wanted to try and gauge whether it was any worse than in previous years.
With the UK and ANZ accounting for most of the replies received I’ve decided to publish theirs separately this year, beginning with the UK. Both markets are dominated by a single supplier – Bibliotheca+3M in the UK and FE Technologies in ANZ – which tends to influence the ways in which their library RFID markets have developed and it seemed more helpful to analyse them individually.
Publication will start tomorrow with the UK results, followed rapidly by ANZ, North America and everywhere else. My analysis will follow on Friday. Between now and then I welcome – as always – your observations, comments and opinions.