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