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.

Just came across the PPT of Vinod Chachra’s presentation at ALA-Seattle (PDF here) in which he summarizes what is going on with the NISO Standards Committee on Library Applications of RFID.

His slides are detailed enough that you can pretty much make sense of what’s happening and I’m happy to say there’s a bit more going on that I would have thought. The best news is that the group has established four levels of interoperability that they are concerned about and they are roughly described as compatibility within the library, within the community, for ILL and for the supply chain.

Interoperability Level One: Within the Library
Addresses the fear that tags may not be useful or available in the future requiring expensive and time-consuming retagging. Suggestions include standardization of tags and data on tags and interoperability of tags from different manufacturers.

Interoperability Level Two: Within the Community
Addresses the issue of library tags being read by non-library readers or non-library tags being read by library readers. The group is recommending adopting the Application Family Identifier (AFI) to address this issue.

Interoperability Level Three: ILL Purposes
The concept here is that a tag from library A should be able to service the circulation needs of Library B. This requires a standard data model for all tags.

Interoperability Level Four: Supply Chain
Tags should be being applied as high up in the supply chain as possible so they can be used by the manufacturer, distributor, book jobber and libraries. Requires standards to be normalized for each party in that supply chain.

A final report from the NISO Working Group is due in June of 2007. That’s progress!

2007.  Recommended automated materials handling system for libraries under construction, provided recommendations on use of RFID and bar code technologies.