I’ve been focused recently on developments in UHF technology and how it might help libraries improve on the RFID products we currently use (which are  based on HF tags).  My interest, of course, is having something that fits our library applications best and if UHF is a better fit, I’d rather know now than later after we have an even greater investment in the HF technology.

So, several of us have been discussing this very thing and I feel we finally got a pretty definitive response from Alan Butters who has been one of the people talking quite a bit about UHF  and it’s promise (he certainly peaked my interest).  The response, co-authored with Paul Chartier (they are co-authors of ISO 28560-2) is provided here (with their permission):

As co-Project Editors of ISO 28560-2, we thought it useful to provide some input to the list.

Let’s start with the installed base of RFID systems.  At a conference a few months ago, one of the major vendors of chips (they produce HF and UHF) estimated that there were 2500 libraries that had implemented RFID systems using high frequency technology.  The count for UHF was less than 1% of this number.  Our guess is that the 2500 might be a slightly low estimate.

When the work started on ISO 28560, we had to consider the installed base and the infrastructure and associated investment that had already been made.  Simply disenfranchising all the libraries that had adopted national models or proprietary solutions would have been unthinkable – the aim was to increase interoperability between existing systems.

As those on this list probably know. ISO 28560 is a three-part standard as follows:

* Part 1 defines the data element – almost certainly more than necessary for a single library, but trying to cover all aspects of circulation, collection management and the acquisition of library material.

* Part 2 defines a flexible encoding system based on ISO/IEC 15962, which is increasingly being used in a number of applications and is independent of frequency and air interface protocol.

* Part 3 is a fixed structure data model, effectively standardising the Danish national model.

These three standards together will allow libraries to move away from proprietary data models or systems providing an increased degree of interoperability. Furthermore, it may be possible to intermix old and new tag formats in the same library system.

Both Part 2 and Part 3 specify the use of ISO/IEC 18000-3 Mode 1 tags (also known as ISO/IEC 15693 when used as a smart card).  This is a mature technology that is tried and tested, but is probably no longer the best RFID technology (other than its extensive installed base) with a wide choice of vendors for chips, tags and reading devices. However, it does still have some strong features that are not necessarily supported by other tags and one particular feature is the capability of selective memory locking.

Now, let’s consider the position of UHF which has failed to make extensive market penetration in any library sector as was expected by some at the time that we started work on ISO 28560. UHF technology could not have been used universally a few years ago, because it was only recently approved by radio regulators in different regions of the world. There are still significant differences in performance capabilities based on regional and national radio regulations.

Although there are other UHF technologies, I am assuming that the discussions are about ISO/IEC 18000-6C tags (also known as EPCglobal Class 1 Gen 2). If we consider some of the features not mentioned in Lori’s e-mail, we might identify some of the challenges that libraries will face in selecting this technology:

* Some tags only support a 96-bit identifier with no additional user memory, so there is no step forward from this tag being an electronic bar code.

* Even those tags that have additional memory currently do not support selective locking.

* Not all the tags support a unique serial number of the chip itself.

There is a gradual move away from some of these constraints, but libraries and specialist vendors need to be aware that these constraints will be around in some products for years to come.  So selecting the tag without an understanding of its capabilities could cause problems for libraries.

Because Paul is heavily involved in ISO standardisation of the technology, the committee developing ISO 28560 has cognisance of the fact that there is the possibility of a new 18000-3 Mode 3 high frequency tag which has some of the features of the 18000-6C tag.  This has just been approved for publication and the library community needs to wait for products and a proper evaluation. So, even if we acknowledge that HF might not be the ideal platform for library RFID systems, UHF might not turn out to be the ideal replacement anyway – there may be other options to consider.

Now to some comments based on the heading of the CityU report.

* Performance will be better for UHF based on the fact that this is a new technology.  But 18000-3 Mode 3 will have bit transfer rates across the air interface that are up to four times (even eight times, if an optional feature is supported by the tag) than that of the present 18000-3 Mode 1 tags.

* An extensive read range is not always a plus feature.  When UHF was introduced in the logistics field, cross talking between interrogators at different dock doors in warehouses caused significant operational problems until fixed.  The same also applied for airline baggage handling, where the read range enabled tags on other luggage on other conveyors to be read.  Certainly, in different parts of the world, there are privacy concerns about the read range where the RFID tag might be used for tracking an individual.  These concerns are such that legislation has already been passed – expect more in Europe.

The discussion on security gates is interesting, because the more extensive read range of UHF may have a positive impact, but in reality the extended read range may create a significant no-go zone for library users which could impact heavily on space utilisation. It is also necessary to consider UHF in the context of the three security systems discussed in ISO 28560, which are:

* The main solution is to toggle between two different values of the tag’s AFI. This is possible with an 18000-3 Mode 1 tag while still permitting selective locking of the primary item identifier – a situation desired by many libraries. This strategy is not possible with an 18000-6 Type C tag, nor an 18000-3 Mode 3 tag.  This is because the AFI is an integral part of what is known as Memory Bank 01 and this has to be locked or unlocked in its entirety.

* Some of the vendors have developed proprietary EAS solutions for the 18000-3 Mode 1 tag.  This second solution is not available in 18000-6C and it is not clear yet what will happen with 18000-3 Mode 3 tags.

* The final security measure is to use a unique chip ID, which is an essential component of an 18000-3 Mode 1 tag that is at the core of the “hand-shaking” process with the communications protocol.  This unique chip ID is optional in 18000-6C and 3 Mode 3, and is not used for communication purposes.

It was interesting to read that “CityU plans to adopt the data model of the US (ISO 15962) with slight modifications but is likely to follow ISO 28560, once adopted, which supports backwards compatibility and flexibility.”  As co-Project Editor for ISO 28560-2 and Project Editor for ISO/IEC 15962, Paul is happy to assert that this solution is NOT A STANDARD, it is just another proprietary solution that will create problems of interoperability.

So, let’s take stock of what might happen in the future with ISO 28560, while we are still awaiting the final Yes/No ballot for the three standards. These standards will be implemented to different degrees by libraries with existing RFID systems, and certainly by libraries yet to embark on RFID. When the standards were being developed, the experts on the ISO committee were obviously aware of both 18000-6C (a reality) and the impending 18000-3 Mode 3 standards. One likely outcome is for the next generation of library RFID standards to be based on 18000-3 Mode 3 tags, which will require either a new part to ISO 28560 or enhancements to existing parts. The tags will be different but, because of the significant installed base, there might be a degree of interoperability in readers that can be achieved with an engineering upgrade.

Because of the laws of physics, adopting UHF will certainly require different equipment, but it might still be possible for a future part of ISO 28560 to support UHF technology. However, before this can be done, the library community needs to be clear not just on aspects of the technology, but also on potential business and competitive issues that might exist with UHF technology. To support a business case, not only does the solution need to be based on suitable technology but the supplier community must build systems that take advantage of the strengths of the technology platform in such a way as to provide a compelling case for its purchase. Particularly is this so in the context of a market heavily dominated by HF solutions which themselves continue to evolve.

As soon as libraries embark on adopting standards, the standards makers have to take into account infrastructure issues and the installed base. A balance needs to be struck between the benefits of interoperability with existing technology versus switching to new technology. This is why most railway track gauges around the world have not changed for a hundred years, because the cost of infrastructure changing is too high compared to the benefits. The GS1 bar code (previously known as EAN and UPC) that we see on most retail products including books, is based on a technology developed in 1973.  37 years later, the same technology is being used even though there are significantly “better” bar code symbologies available.  So while GS1 has added a number of new bar code symbologies, the old symbol might still make its 50th birthday!

Also, even if one is of the view that UHF is the “right” technology for libraries, the corollary that HF is the “wrong” technology does not necessarily follow. This is an important point. To miss this point is to suggest that project success and ROI in libraries cannot be achieved with HF platforms. There are simply too many successful library RFID projects around the world for this to be the case. This is not to say that library RFID systems couldn’t be better – of course they could and my own investigations suggest that implementing a UHF based platform could contribute some useful improvements. But are all library RFID systems based on HF really so bad that we should just push back and refuse to embrace the technology until something new comes along? Libraries will make their own call but I think not.

So, whatever we do in the future with the new generation HF or the existing UHF technology, recognition of the millions of Dollars (or Euros) of investment already made by libraries in RFID technology must be made. The door continues to stay open, but the work of the ISO committee must proceed with full acknowledgement of the extensive investments made by libraries over the past 12 or so years.

Kind regards,

Alan Butters and Paul Chartier

My take-away is this:  don’t be hesitant about moving to RFID because of potential developments with UHF.  Yes, the technology has some benefits over HF (that it didn’t have even a few years ago) but it still has some drawbacks that are potentially bigger drawbacks than the devil we already know (HF tags).

But.  Let’s keep demanding something better.  There is very definitely room for improvement.  I hope Alan and Paul are right that we will continue to see more improvements  in existing HF-based systems without sacrificing interoperability while maintaining some measure of backwards compatibility.  From their lips to….

If you care about physical delivery of library material (and I do), you may want to catch this webinar being produced by NISO.

It’s in the Mail: Improving the Physical Delivery of Library Resources
May 12, 2010
1:00 – 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time)

I’m going to open the session with a broad discussion of delivery issues in libraries. So, in my twenty minutes, I’m thinking I’ll talk about the increased demand on libraries to provide access to anything anywhere and to do so quickly. The open source trend is providing new opportunities to respond to this demand with better discovery tools and more sharing of systems. Shared systems make the “find and request” side of resource-sharing a slam dunk but this in turn puts a heavier burden on physical delivery. RFID has a role to play too. As the US gets closer to having a data model standard, there are opportunities to use RFID tags to speed up the movement of material and to track and sort it better.

If you have opinions about something I should address, let me know!

wccls.org

2009-current.   Conducting materials handling and collection management analysis. The project will address space shortage issues, materials handling workload, how to reduce turnaround time and expand services, and ways to improve central delivery and sorting.  The analysis will also include a comparison of RFID versus bar codes solutions and provide suggestions for how to implement AMH solutions into their libraries.

I’m hoping you find the study useful because it describes all the factors that come into play making a strong argument for automated materials handling as a way to support better customer service and and improved work environment for staff.
While you’re at it, don’t miss this analysis I did for another client analyzing the benefits of automated check-in systems at a medium sized library (which already had some AMH components). This analysis showed that there are additional savings to be had by adding the automated check-in systems to the automation mix.

2008.  Conducted materials handling analysis. Providing recommendations and projected payback periods for implementing automated materials handling and RFID technologies.

RFID technology for libraries still suffers from a lack of standards. Early adopters bought tags that aren’t necessarily usable with today’s RFID systems. RFID readers, security systems and materials handling systems are often purchased from a single vendor in order to ensure that all the components and tags work together. Tags that any library buys today will not necessarily work with all the circulation or security components a library might like to use in the future. One of the big standards hurdles is a data model standard. The data model specifies what information can be stored on a tag and where it will be located on the tag. This is an important first step toward interoperability.
In December of 2007, the NISO RFID Working Group published a Best Practices document that included a data model. Note that this is not a standard but a recommendation. The goals of the NISO RFID Working Group are:
1. To review existing RFID standards, assess the applicability of this technology in U.S. libraries and across the book publishing supply chain, and promote the use of RFID where appropriate.
2. To examine and assess privacy concerns associated with the adoption of RFID technologies in libraries
3. To investigate the way RFID may be used for the circulation or sale of books and other media in the United States and make recommendations.
4. To focus on security and data models for RFID tags, along with issues of interoperability and privacy.
5. To create a set of recommendations for libraries with regard to a tag data model and other issues.
Ultimately, the NISO RFID Working Group seeks a future where library RFID technology is truly interoperable (nationally as well as internationally) and personal privacy is protected. Ideally, tags will support advanced functionality and security, and can be used the entire lifecycle of the library material. The availability of Best Practices Guidelines and the data model recommendations are an important start to achieving interoperability but it still doesn’t provide a standard that binds vendors. Even if vendors choose to meet the current data model guidelines, there are barriers to interoperability including issues related to encrypting and encoding of the data, proprietary security functions, and firmware that is system dependent.
Still…..libraries considering implementing RFID should follow the guidelines provided by the NISO RFID Working Group which include selecting a vendor that is compliant with the current NISO data model recommendation and a vendor with a published migration path for ensuring ongoing compatibility with new standards (per the NISO recommendations). Compliance with the guidelines provides the best protection that the library’s choice of vendor and product will be interoperable with existing and future technology, and will preserve the library’s investment.

Do you understand that you can incorporate automated check-in machines and sorters for your library without taking on the enormous costs associated with RFID tags? Self check out is old news. Everyone is doing it (or should be) and they are getting a very high rate of self checkout use (85% and higher) with and without RFID. If you are NOT getting 85% self check on your machines it properly has more to do with where the bar codes are located, whether everything in your library is indeed self check out-able. It could also be an problem related to where you’ve located your machines and how well you are driving your customers to those machines (instead of the old circulation desks). Anyway, if you aren’t getting 85% self check on your self check machines, it isn’t because you are using bar codes, I assure you.

In fact, you can do most automation stuff with RFID tags as well as bar codes and that includes self check out, self check in and sorting.

Here’s where RFID really makes a difference: inventory and book drops. You may actually do inventory of your collections if they are RFID tagged because it is so much easier. And I’m convinced that more frequent inventories would be a good thing. Now that everyone is pulling so many holds/requests for customers, we’re seeing how frequently things are not where they belong. Frustrating, isn’t it? Well, guess what. That’s been the customer experience all along. Customers and staff both benefit from a tighter correlation between what the catalog says and what the reality on the shelves is. RFID could help with that.

Book drops can be RFID-enabled too. To be clear, I’m not talking about automated check in machines that work almost as well with bar codes as with RFID tags. An RFID-enabled book drop is literally a book drop that just checks in the item. No sorting happens because it is just a book drop. The reader reads the tags as they are dropped into the book drop and they get checked in (later in batches or in real-time if you have a connection to the ILS).

Automated self check in machines can be RFID or bar code based. With bar codes, the customer has to feed in each item with the bar code oriented properly so it can be read (although you can have a top and a bottom reader so they don’t have to be THAT fussy). Ideally, your automated check in machine is equipped with a sorter that AT LEAST separates Holds from Returns and maybe even puts Children’s material, Adult Fiction, NonFiction, and A/V material all in their own special bins. So, whether its bar codes or RFID tags, you are getting the benefit of instant check in (for the customer) and sorting (for the staff). And remember, that if you are sorting (which totally rocks), the items have to be fed in one at a time anyway so its not like the customer can just shove in a pile of books either way.

From my point of view, the RFID-enabled book drop is handy for customers but not nearly has useful as the automated check in that feeds right into a sorter. And that automated check in with sorter works very well with either RFID tags or bar codes (assuming bar codes are on the outside of your material).

So, please. Don’t collapse sorting and self service automation in with RFID. It just isn’t necessary. You may choose to implement RFID at the same time but hopefully its because you really want that inventory feature, or you want to have the security and identification of items all in one unit (the RFID tag) rather than using security strips for security and bar codes for identification. (Caveat: there are still some issues with how well RFID tags do the security thing especially with A/V material)

Another reason you may choose RFID now is because you’ve got a library full of nasty ‘ol bar codes stuck on the inside of your material instead of nice clean ones uniformly located on the outside of each item. If you’d need to rebarcode everything anyway, yes, then, you should definitely be considering RFID tags.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-RFID. I think libraries are going to end up with RFID tags eventually. But it would be nice to wait for the standards to be in place (ISO and NISO data model standards) so that they are interoperable and will only work with library readers (read about Application Family Identifiers in the latest NISO report).

In fact, RFID poses some very interesting new ideas but if we treat it like a glorfied bar code, we don’t take advantage of some of the really innovative possibilities. The current generation of RFID tags are just that: glorified (and very expensive) bar codes.

Innovative possibilities? Consider the department store in Germany that is tagging their men’s clothes and then reading the tags in the fitting room to customize suggestions that help shoppers find other things they might like or which might be a nice addition to the outfits they’ve selected. Here’s the article from ZDNet.

Or what about the little device called the TellMate that helps visually challenged people identify objects that are difficult to identify by touch (e.g. credit cards and generic containers). Could blind customers someday have a device that reads titles out loud for them to help select DVDs perhaps?

These kinds of truly innovative applications get me to thinking about how we could might someday take advantage of RFID technology in libraries. But to do that, we have to agree on how to store data on the tags, how our customer’s privacy will be protected, how to ensure they are interoperable across vendors, how we can use them throughout the lifecycle of the item including during ILL transactions and delivery. And all that requires standards. Oh, and why not have the book publishers install them instead of having library staff do it. Once we get all these things in place, our creative juices can flow. “Stand here to get recommendations of other items you might like (based on what you have in your book bag now.” Okay, potentially creepy but also potentially cool.

In sum, choose RFID tags for the right reasons and those reasons are very limited right now. But stay tuned because there will someday be some very exciting reasons to choose RFID tags, just not yet. We’ve still got some work to do before everyone should be jumping on that bandwagon.

I just finished The Complete RFID Handbook by Diane Marie Ward. It’s excellent. Every library considering RFID should read it. Ward provides nice coverage of the technology (including the obligatory statement about how RFID has been used since WWII) andshe explains the technology thoroughly but in accessible language.

She does the best job I’ve ever seen in explaining library applications for RFID with a strong focus on the benefits of using portable scanners for shelf reading and for locating misshelved material.

Aside: Right now, I’m working on a materials handling study and finding that a big issue for my client is the time it takes to locate items that have been put on Hold. Libraries can spend hours tracking down items needed to fill requests. Many are never found and ultimately they get removed from the catalog. With RFID, inventory can be done quickly and easily which means libraries might actually do it! I hadn’t really grokked the significance of this application before. I only noted that RFID vendors push it and libraries don’t use it. But I think it’s big. Using RFID makes inventory do-able. Inventorying collections keeps the catalog current. A current catalog increases the changes that an item that is supposed to be somewhere really will be there. Combine this with more shelf-reading (also made much easier with RFID) and you get a much more satisfactory experience for customers (who actually find what they are looking for) and a much more efficient operation for library staff. Win. Win.

Ward has a chapter on ROI but of course she articulates more intangible benefits than tangible. Why? Because no one has the hard data yet for the more tangible benefits of RFID. Still, she does a great job of providing some numbers to work with and covers the RSI connection as well as it can be at this point given the lack of data there as well.

If you are thinking of doing an RFI, RFQ or RFP for RFID…this manual is a must. She puts together a very nice outline for getting you started and on your way with a sample structure fully populated with questions to ask the vendor.

She covers the marketplace well — both Europe and the U.S. — and addresses installation and maintenance as well as selection and implementation.

There’s also a DVD with interviews and demos of equipment (which I would have liked indexed so I could jump to specific excerpts, but oh well, I’m not complaining).

Overall, this is a great resource and its about time someone did this. Good job, Diane!

TAGSYS has announce a new RFID tag, the Folio 370L Tag. It has a password protected electronic article surveillance feature. This sounds good but I’m not sure what that means exactly. What is most interesting to me and most annoying is TAGSYS’ claim that it “meets the emerging NISO (US National Information Standards Organization) data model standard for libraries.

If its an emerging standard, it means it ain’t there yet. It’s a standard-to-be. It’s in development and subject to change. The point of a standard is that we all know what it is and comply with it. An emerging standard means we haven’t quite worked that out yet but we’re trying. So to claim a tag meets the emerging NISO data model standard is more marketing hype than anything else. Don’t some of you other vendors have a tag that is equally “compliant” with the emerging standard?

I had the same reaction to reading that as I do when I read that an Internet filter is “CIPA-compliant.” CIPA of course is the Children’s Internet Protection Act which seeks to prevent kids from seeing Internet material that is “harmful to minors” which is a legal term that is so subjective as to be meaningless across communities. What is harmful to your minor may not be harmful to my minor. At any rate, who knows what a filter that claims to be “CIPA compliant” thinks is harmful to minors.

Similarly, what are the features of an RFID tag that meets an emerging standard? Still, I’ll be keeping my eye on it just in case we get that standard someday!

[From Biblio-Tech Review]

(podcast)
Lori Ayre and Mary Minow discuss the intersection of library services and technology issues in this 55 minute podcast. April 5, 2007.