In December 2009 I undertook a survey on behalf of LIB-RFID - the JISC list set up primarily for UK libraries to share experiences and ask questions about the technology - to try and gain a better picture of the current status of RFID in the UK library market.

Some aspects - notably CD/DVD disc security - proved to be such complex topics that they will require some additional research and analysis before publication but the major part of the results will be published here over the next few weeks. A review will also be appearing in the CILIP Gazette.

The questions asked were,

Users:

Planners:

All respondents:

Interest and investment in RFID remained high in 2009 and looks likely to grow further with the prospect of a more competitive marketplace in 2010.

This year the survey ran for four weeks ending on January 15th 2010. This was longer than in 2009, which may account for the significant increase in the number of replies.

The 259 responses received represented 193 different organisations, 116 of which have already deployed RFID to some extent. By comparison the 2009 survey attracted responses from only 51 libraries, of which 28 were using RFID, mostly for self-service.

The results

There are several constituencies represented in the results. Broadly these divide between existing users, those actively planning to introduce the technology, and those with no current plans but some interest in the subject.  The geographic split was:

  Using Planning Total
England 102 44 146
Scotland  9 7 16
Wales 5 3 8
All 116 54 170

… with public libraries overtaking the universities as the main users.

  Using Planning Total
Public 63 25 88
University 47 21 68
College 5 6 11
Other 1 2 3
All 116 54 170

Deployment (existing users)

End 2009

  Fully <10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% >75% DNA Total
Public 7 2 14 8 7 4 0 63
University 21 5 4 7 4 4 2 47
College 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 5
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
All 31 28 18 15 13 8 3 116

Projected by end 2010

    <10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% >75% DNA Total
Public   7 12 14 10 12 1 56
University   6 3 5 3 5 4 26
College   0 0 0 1 1 0 2
Other   0 0 0 0 0 1 1
All   13 15 19 14 18 6 85

Planning to deploy

  2010 2011 after 2011 Total
Public 12   4   9 25
University   9   5   7 21
College   1   1   4   6
Other   0   2   0   2
All 22 12 20 54

The responses appear to show a greater interest in RFID among public libraries than their academic counterparts, however in terms of their commitment to the technology public libraries continue to lag behind with only 7 (11%) of 63 libraries having fully deployed the technology compared to 21 (45%) of the 47 universities.  The planned “roll-out” of these services however suggests that public libraries will soon catch up – with one university even predicting a reduction in deployment over the coming year!

Patterns of use

Of the 116 existing users of RFID only 2 use more than one supplier. One uses 2 and another identifies no fewer than four. That accounts for the apparent discrepancy between the 120 users in the following tables and the 116 organisations identified in the first table.

In the two cases where more than one supplier has been listed  both are using RFID – at a different frequency - for access control in addition to using it for more integrated services like self-service, etc.

Rank order 2008 Rank order 2009   2CQR 3M Axiell Bibliotheca D Tech Intellident Intrepid Plescon Telepen Unknown All
1 1 S/S loans 5 35 2 1 7 50 1   3 8 112
1 2 S/S Returns (no sorter) 5 27 2 1 6 47 1   2 7 98
3 3 S/S Renewals 2 25 2 1 7 46 0   2 7 92
8 4 Cash Payment 0 16 1 1 3 39 0 0 0 3 63
4 5 Borrower a/c management 1 10 1 0 4 37 0 0 0 6 59
6 6 Finding Lost Items 1 24 0 0 2 14 1 1 0 2 45
4 7 Taking Inventory 0 12 0 0 3 13 1 1 1 2 33
7 8 Automated Returns Sorting 3 6 0 0 1 9 0 0 2 1 22
11 9 Automated Book Drop 1 2 0 0 1 7 0 0 1 2 14
9 10 Smart Card 1 3 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 11
9 11 Credit/Debit Card Payment 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 9
12 12 Smart Shelves 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
                           
    Total Users 7 36 2 1 7 50 1 1 5 10 120

Self-service is still the clear favourite in RFID applications but other uses are beginning to emerge as the technology matures. Cash management has seen the most significant increase in use over the last 12 months rising 4 places in the popularity ratings over 2008.

The high hopes for the advent of ‘smart’ shelving expressed in 2008 have yet to be realised. The application showed the smallest increase in use of any RFID application over the period.

One detail that emerges from this analysis is the domination of the RFID market by only two companies. 3M and Intellident own by far the greater part of UK library RFID business and, as may be deduced from this list, the greatest range of applications.

In part this may be a direct consequence of the lack of a UK data standard for RFID. In the UK buyers are compelled to buy their RFID solution from a single supplier so those with the greatest range are likely to secure the lion’s share of the market. In countries where a common standard has opened up the market there tends to be a greater range of providers.

Attitudes

The survey asked a series of questions about attitudes toward key issues in RFID.

Users 
  SA A D SD DNA
Only for Self Service 0% 5% 57% 23% 15%
Book security is poor 2% 19% 50% 2% 27%
CD/DVD security is poor 11% 35% 33% 4% 17%
Privacy is an issue 0% 5% 64% 14% 17%
Standards are unimportant 0% 5% 45% 33% 17%
No plans to use the UK data model 0% 5% 52% 18% 26%
 
                Planners
  SA A D SD DNA
Only for Self Service 0% 2% 62% 22% 15%
Book security is poor 2% 11% 68% 5% 15%
CD/DVD security is poor 5% 37% 40% 3% 15%
Privacy is an issue 0% 11% 69% 3% 17%
Standards are unimportant 5% 3% 42% 34% 17%
No plans to use the UK data model 2% 0% 46% 32% 20%

Key:

SA Strongly agree, A Agree, D Disagree, SD Strongly disagree, DNA Did not answer

The ability of RFID to deliver more than self-service appears to have been fully understood by the UK library market. Those who may have started down the RFID road purely for that purpose now appear equally eager to get more from their investment. There are however still some concerns that the survey seems to reveal, about security in general and CD/DVD security in particular.

UK libraries also appear rather less troubled about personal security than their transatlantic neighbours – although those planning to use RFID show a little more concern – whilst all parties agree that standards are important and that a UK data model is a requirement.

Reasons

 Why do libraries decide to acquire RFID? 

Users 1 2 3 4 5 DNA
Reduce staff costs 17% 19% 17% 14% 16% 18%
Introduce Self Service 5% 4% 7% 19% 50% 14%
Improve stock control 6% 15% 16% 26% 20% 18%
Improve security 20% 23% 22% 11% 5% 19%
Other libraries using it 21% 23% 24% 8% 1% 22%
 
Non Users 1 2 3 4 5 DNA
Reduce staff costs 14% 20% 20% 12% 17% 17%
Introduce Self Service 5% 3% 11% 20% 46% 15%
Improve stock control 2% 5% 12% 37% 31% 14%
Improve security 15% 18% 25% 15% 11% 15%
Other libraries using it 6% 20% 29% 22% 9% 14%

Key:  1 = not very important, 5 = very important, DNA = Did not answer

Reducing staffing costs does not appear to be a major factor in favour of, or against, the introduction of RFID. Self service is still, just, the single most important reason given by users and planners alike although fractionally more planners now rate the importance of stock management above self-service in the combined scores for the higher end of the scale.

Security is not a priority among users and non-users alike, perhaps reflecting the concerns expressed elsewhere about the efficacy of RFID in this area. Peer pressure appears to be of very little influence. Other reasons given included:

Free staff for other duties   17
Improve customer experience   7
Extend opening hours   6
Improve existing self-service   5
Replacing existing security system   1
Staff restructuring   1
Support minimal staffing levels in new library   1

LMS Suppliers

These tables list the LMS suppliers that have successfully linked to RFID systems. The larger of the two details the various combinations that have been successfully implemented, and the number of sites using that particular combination.

Axiell (DS) 21
Bibliomondo 1
Civica 4
Endeavor 1
Ex Libris 10
Infor 3
Innovative 13
IS (Oxford) 1
OLIB 1
SirsiDynix 16
TALIS 34
Did Not Answer 11
Totals 116
 

 

  2CQR 3M Axiell Biblio- theca DTech Intellident Intrepid Plescon Telepen / Codeco
Axiell (DS) 2 3 5 3 2 8      
Bibliomondo           1      
Civica   3 1     1      
Endeavor   1              
Ex Libris 1 5       4      
Infor           2 1    
Innovative 1 11   1 1        
IS (Oxford)               1  
OLIB 1                
SirsiDynix   5   1 2 9      
TALIS 2 9     2 19     3

Versatility/Adaptation

 

One of the questions that the list is frequently asked is - “Which systems work together?” With all of them currently supporting 3M’s Standard Interchange Protocol (SIP) the answer should be “any to any” however it’s always good to know…

RFID No. of different LMS   LMS No. of different RFID systems   Other providers using  RFID tag data
3M/Intellident 7   Axiell (DS) 6   SmartSM 8
2CQR 5   TALIS 5   Envisionware 1
Dtech 4   Innovative 4        
Bibliotheca 3   SirsiDynix 4        
Axiell 2   Civica 3        
Intrepid / Plescon / Telepen/Codeco 1   Ex Libris 3        
      Infor 2        
      Bibliomondo 1        
      Endeavor 1        
      IS (Oxford) 1        
      OLIB 1        
  ...and finallyWho tagged the stock?       …and what was tagged?  
                 
  No. %       No. %
Staff 87 75%     Books 104 89.7%
Students 15 13%     DVDs 87 75.0%
Volunteers 7 6%     CDs 78 67.2%
Commercial company 27 23%     Other AV 55 47.4%
          Musical scores 25 21.6%
Note: Some libraries used these resources in combination   Pamphlets 22 19.0%
          Antiquarian 6 5.2%
          Journals 4 3.4%
          Artefacts 3 2.6%
          Manuscripts 1 0.9%
                 
CD/DVD Management       Still using EM?    
                 
    No. %   Yes 30  
Discs are tagged 30 26%   No 66  
Book tags used on jewel cases 46 40%   Did not answer 20  
Disc matches cases 8 7%          
Special packaging 6 5%          
Safers 28 24%          
"Set" data is used 16 14%          
Lockable boxes 30 26%          
Dispensers 0 0%          
No security 12 10.3%