ACRl/NEC ITIG program on RFIDs, 10-28-05, report
On Friday, October 28, 2005, Paul Bazin and Janice Schuster attended the Association of College and Research Libraries/New England Chapter, Information Technology Interest Group’s program on Radio Frequency ID technology at the University of Massachusetts-Boston. Jim Salisbury spoke at this program about PC’s experiences with RFID. Janice, Paul, and Jim wrote this report collaboratively.
The program consisted of three speakers: Jim Salisbury was one of the speakers, as Janice mentioned at our staff meeting this week.
Mark Shughart of 3M Library Systems was the first speaker. He gave an overview of RFID technology and its uses in libraries and beyond. RFID is used in the physical world for item identification, tracking, and management (as opposed to the virtual world of digital information) An RFID system consists of a database of items (the library catalog); tags that are placed inside each book that relate that book to its record in the catalog; hardware that is used to read the tags; and software programmed to recognize the tags and relate them to the corresponding record in the catalog. RFIDs enable:
easy self and staff check in/out; automated sorting and materials handling (Mark mentioned libraries with self check-in where the patron checks in the materials and the system indicates which colored chute to place the book in); interlibrary item tracking using the scanner; smart shelf management and inventory control (Jim mentioned this yesterday at the staff meeting as one use that PC is making of this technology); security; and patron authentication. Currently 8% of libraries have RFID; global growth is projected at 30% per year through 2006. The reasons libraries are implementing RFID include: the ability to provide higher-quality customer service; faster performance of circulation and inventory operations; improved ergonomics (don’t need to open the book/item to check in or out); it’s simple and easy-to-use with consistent handling of all media types. There are also reasons libraries are NOT implementing RFID, including: they don’t perceive a need for it; don’t see the value of it; can’t handle the conversion; it’s too expensive, especially the tags ($0.55-$0.75 per tag, but the return on investment is the savings in time and the heightened knowledge of what’s in the collection); concern about limitations of RFID, that it’s a fad. RFID limitations include: the tags are visible (the tattle-tape for the security system remains invisible); some interference from metallic material in book covers, CDs, and DVDs); the tags are relatively easy to shield or peel off; and the tags are more expensive than barcodes. Mr. Shughart’s suggested roadmap for RFID success: Start with your goals: what do you want RFID to do for you? Ask yourself what has the library done in the past 5 years and what are our plans for the next 5 years? Clarify your priorities around the RFID limitations; for example, if security if a huge concern, as with very valuable or rare collections, then RFID might not be the right thing. Conduct return-on-investment analysis to measure the value RFID will deliver to your library. Assess your technology style and resources (level of staff, do you have an automated system?) Consider your ILL partners: who do you share with? What system do they use? Plan for the conversion process: estimate how long it will take. Prepare your organization for change (consider other changes that are taking place. Will there be multiple changes at once? Might be too much change at once. Choosing a vendor: Mark suggested that we educate ourselves about the range of RFID products and features available; look for money-back guarantees; ensure products comply with safety and regulatory requirements (example of electrical codes); determine how committed the vendor is to libraries; consider the future. What is RFID?: At its simplest, RFID replaces a barcode with a tag that has an antenna and an integrated circuit. An RFID system consists of: A tag or marker which can be attached to or concealed within a library item; hardware; software; and an interface to a database which maintains the item information (the library catalog in our case). There are different types of systems and tags; some with a low shelf-life (Wal-Mart example) and some with longer shelf-life (libraries). RFID technology benefits: don’t need to be able to see the barcode; tags can hold additional data; tags can be updated/re-written (if change library systems, etc.); multiple tags may be processed simultaneously. Where is RFID going in next few years? Standardization needs to be done by libraries (ALA is starting to work on it); lower price; more memory; better performance; more applications. New features and applications coming in future: more tag memory; more variety in tag size, shape, memory capacity; more applications (i.e. use for keeping track of furniture, etc); vendor dependent. Mark spent the last few minutes of his session going over various 3M RFID products, such as tags, conversion stations, detection systems, circulation workstations, inventory equipment, etc.
Patrick Dillon, Reference Librarian, University of Massachusetts Boston, discussed the privacy implications of RFID. He stated that privacy today is not so much an issue for libraries as it is for private companies that choose to gather significant amounts of information. He stated that one of the problems with library tags is that they cannot be turned-off whereas as those used in commercial applications can be. However, the amount of date gathered by libraries is very limited although the potential for capturing information is not. Patrick used the example of placing wireless readers in various location in a library to monitor patron movement as a potential violation of privacy. As the technology evolves and greater use is made of the tags the potential for abuse increases. The tags are getting smaller, some no larger than a grain of sand and are getting more powerful and smarter.
To date the primary challenge to RFI has been a lack of consistent standards. He referenced a 1973 HEW report that recommended the following:
There be no personal- data, record keeping systems whose very existence is a secret.
There must be a way for a person to find out what information about the person is in a record and how it is used.
There must be a way for a person to prevent information about the person that was obtained for one purpose from being used or made available for other purposes without the person’s consent.
There must be a way for a person to correct or amend a record of identifiable information about the person.
Any organization creating, maintaining, using or disseminating records of identifiable personal data must assure the reliability of the data for their intended use and must take reasonable precautions to prevent misuse of the data.
He also noted a proposed RFID Bill of Rights by Simpson Garfield a leader in the field. Simpson has been quoted as:
Users of RFID systems and purchasers of products containing RFID tags have:
The right to know if a product contains an RFID tag.
The right to have an embedded RFID tag removed, deactivated, or destroyed when a product is purchased.
The right to first class RFID alternatives: consumers should not lose other rights (e.g. the right to return a product or to travel a particular road) if they decide to opt-out of RFID or exercise and RFID tag’s kill feature.
The right to know what information is stored inside their RFID tags. If this information is incorrect, there must be some ways to correct or amend it.
The right to know when, where and why an RFID tag is being read.
It is an industry that is beginning to grow out of its infancy. However, global standards need to be developed standards and privacy concerns addressed. The technology represents exciting opportunities as it moves forward.
Jim Salisbury was the last speaker of the day. Jim began his session with a bit of background: he was hired as access services librarian here at Providence College in the summer of 2001, during the library’s inventory project. We learned from that process that physical inventory is dirty and takes longer than expected (11 months in our case). The inventory identified fewer than 1% of the collection as missing or unidentified. RFID arrived at PC shortly thereafter when the library director told Jim that he would be in charge of the conversion project for the library. Jim mentioned problems with the conversion: the books had up to 6 different old security detection devices; we decided to physically remove the existing strips from each book, since our sources (3M, etc.) weren’t sure whether the existing strips would conflict with the new RFID system. We ended up tattle-taping and RFID-ing all of the books at the same time, which was very time-consuming. Staff, etc. All library staff were involved in the conversion, including student workers. We rented a 611 workstation, but some of our aisles were too narrow for the machine to fit, so we had to bring some of the items to a central location for processing. In the first month of the project, (May of 2002), we completed 1000 volumes.
Jim developed a process to maximize efficiency:
Pulled books from the shelf
Lined books on a cart
Removed the existing security tags from each book
Tattle-taped and RFID-ed simultaneously
With this process, we were able to process approx. 800 books per hour. The entire conversion process took 6 months. Due to library renovations, shifting of the collection, and the RFID project occurring at the same time, there was only a small amount of chaos!
Jim found that staff increased accuracy as they learned the best way to read the tags. Results: As mentioned above, after the inventory was finished in 2002, we identified 1% of approx. 300,000 volumes which were missing or unidentified. After the RFID project, when the circ staff performed inventory with the new system in May of 2005, there were only 262 items unaccounted for, out of approx. 350,000 books, or 0.075% of the collection. We previously had done only one physical inventory of the collection. Now, we do a complete inventory of the collection 3 times per year. Jim mentioned the sense of community which developed among the staff as a result of the conversion process.
After his presentation, Jim fielded approx. 15 questions from the attendees covering topics such as:
How are new books currently processed by cataloging? (We still use barcodes due to HELIN consortium; cataloging staff put the tattle-tape in the new books; circulation staff insert the RFID tag)
Do we have self check-out? (No, PC emphasizes personal contact)
Do the student i.d. cards have RFID tags? (No; Mark from 3M commented that such a practice is not endorsed by ALA)
How did users respond? (Most were either curious or suspicious; faculty were more suspicious than others)
Has it cut down on theft? (Not much to begin with; “Catholic guilt”!)
How do we locate a book that’s misplaced? (We scan in the section where the book is supposed to be. The scanner tells if a book is out of order; makes it easy to find misshelved items.)
Why did we decide to remove all of the existing security strips? (Jim asked about the effect on the tags; the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, the first library in the country to implement the 3M system, recommended removing the old strips. Jim wanted to err on the side of caution, so he decided to remove all of them).
Compatibility with other ILS systems? (Mark from 3M mentioned that the tags are re-writeable; Jim said that PC is the only library in HELIN to have RFID, which is why we decided to continue with barcodes).
Submitted by Janice Schuster, Paul Bazin, and Jim Salisbury, 11-3-05
The program consisted of three speakers: Jim Salisbury was one of the speakers, as Janice mentioned at our staff meeting this week.
Mark Shughart of 3M Library Systems was the first speaker. He gave an overview of RFID technology and its uses in libraries and beyond. RFID is used in the physical world for item identification, tracking, and management (as opposed to the virtual world of digital information) An RFID system consists of a database of items (the library catalog); tags that are placed inside each book that relate that book to its record in the catalog; hardware that is used to read the tags; and software programmed to recognize the tags and relate them to the corresponding record in the catalog. RFIDs enable:
easy self and staff check in/out; automated sorting and materials handling (Mark mentioned libraries with self check-in where the patron checks in the materials and the system indicates which colored chute to place the book in); interlibrary item tracking using the scanner; smart shelf management and inventory control (Jim mentioned this yesterday at the staff meeting as one use that PC is making of this technology); security; and patron authentication. Currently 8% of libraries have RFID; global growth is projected at 30% per year through 2006. The reasons libraries are implementing RFID include: the ability to provide higher-quality customer service; faster performance of circulation and inventory operations; improved ergonomics (don’t need to open the book/item to check in or out); it’s simple and easy-to-use with consistent handling of all media types. There are also reasons libraries are NOT implementing RFID, including: they don’t perceive a need for it; don’t see the value of it; can’t handle the conversion; it’s too expensive, especially the tags ($0.55-$0.75 per tag, but the return on investment is the savings in time and the heightened knowledge of what’s in the collection); concern about limitations of RFID, that it’s a fad. RFID limitations include: the tags are visible (the tattle-tape for the security system remains invisible); some interference from metallic material in book covers, CDs, and DVDs); the tags are relatively easy to shield or peel off; and the tags are more expensive than barcodes. Mr. Shughart’s suggested roadmap for RFID success: Start with your goals: what do you want RFID to do for you? Ask yourself what has the library done in the past 5 years and what are our plans for the next 5 years? Clarify your priorities around the RFID limitations; for example, if security if a huge concern, as with very valuable or rare collections, then RFID might not be the right thing. Conduct return-on-investment analysis to measure the value RFID will deliver to your library. Assess your technology style and resources (level of staff, do you have an automated system?) Consider your ILL partners: who do you share with? What system do they use? Plan for the conversion process: estimate how long it will take. Prepare your organization for change (consider other changes that are taking place. Will there be multiple changes at once? Might be too much change at once. Choosing a vendor: Mark suggested that we educate ourselves about the range of RFID products and features available; look for money-back guarantees; ensure products comply with safety and regulatory requirements (example of electrical codes); determine how committed the vendor is to libraries; consider the future. What is RFID?: At its simplest, RFID replaces a barcode with a tag that has an antenna and an integrated circuit. An RFID system consists of: A tag or marker which can be attached to or concealed within a library item; hardware; software; and an interface to a database which maintains the item information (the library catalog in our case). There are different types of systems and tags; some with a low shelf-life (Wal-Mart example) and some with longer shelf-life (libraries). RFID technology benefits: don’t need to be able to see the barcode; tags can hold additional data; tags can be updated/re-written (if change library systems, etc.); multiple tags may be processed simultaneously. Where is RFID going in next few years? Standardization needs to be done by libraries (ALA is starting to work on it); lower price; more memory; better performance; more applications. New features and applications coming in future: more tag memory; more variety in tag size, shape, memory capacity; more applications (i.e. use for keeping track of furniture, etc); vendor dependent. Mark spent the last few minutes of his session going over various 3M RFID products, such as tags, conversion stations, detection systems, circulation workstations, inventory equipment, etc.
Patrick Dillon, Reference Librarian, University of Massachusetts Boston, discussed the privacy implications of RFID. He stated that privacy today is not so much an issue for libraries as it is for private companies that choose to gather significant amounts of information. He stated that one of the problems with library tags is that they cannot be turned-off whereas as those used in commercial applications can be. However, the amount of date gathered by libraries is very limited although the potential for capturing information is not. Patrick used the example of placing wireless readers in various location in a library to monitor patron movement as a potential violation of privacy. As the technology evolves and greater use is made of the tags the potential for abuse increases. The tags are getting smaller, some no larger than a grain of sand and are getting more powerful and smarter.
To date the primary challenge to RFI has been a lack of consistent standards. He referenced a 1973 HEW report that recommended the following:
There be no personal- data, record keeping systems whose very existence is a secret.
There must be a way for a person to find out what information about the person is in a record and how it is used.
There must be a way for a person to prevent information about the person that was obtained for one purpose from being used or made available for other purposes without the person’s consent.
There must be a way for a person to correct or amend a record of identifiable information about the person.
Any organization creating, maintaining, using or disseminating records of identifiable personal data must assure the reliability of the data for their intended use and must take reasonable precautions to prevent misuse of the data.
He also noted a proposed RFID Bill of Rights by Simpson Garfield a leader in the field. Simpson has been quoted as:
Users of RFID systems and purchasers of products containing RFID tags have:
The right to know if a product contains an RFID tag.
The right to have an embedded RFID tag removed, deactivated, or destroyed when a product is purchased.
The right to first class RFID alternatives: consumers should not lose other rights (e.g. the right to return a product or to travel a particular road) if they decide to opt-out of RFID or exercise and RFID tag’s kill feature.
The right to know what information is stored inside their RFID tags. If this information is incorrect, there must be some ways to correct or amend it.
The right to know when, where and why an RFID tag is being read.
It is an industry that is beginning to grow out of its infancy. However, global standards need to be developed standards and privacy concerns addressed. The technology represents exciting opportunities as it moves forward.
Jim Salisbury was the last speaker of the day. Jim began his session with a bit of background: he was hired as access services librarian here at Providence College in the summer of 2001, during the library’s inventory project. We learned from that process that physical inventory is dirty and takes longer than expected (11 months in our case). The inventory identified fewer than 1% of the collection as missing or unidentified. RFID arrived at PC shortly thereafter when the library director told Jim that he would be in charge of the conversion project for the library. Jim mentioned problems with the conversion: the books had up to 6 different old security detection devices; we decided to physically remove the existing strips from each book, since our sources (3M, etc.) weren’t sure whether the existing strips would conflict with the new RFID system. We ended up tattle-taping and RFID-ing all of the books at the same time, which was very time-consuming. Staff, etc. All library staff were involved in the conversion, including student workers. We rented a 611 workstation, but some of our aisles were too narrow for the machine to fit, so we had to bring some of the items to a central location for processing. In the first month of the project, (May of 2002), we completed 1000 volumes.
Jim developed a process to maximize efficiency:
Pulled books from the shelf
Lined books on a cart
Removed the existing security tags from each book
Tattle-taped and RFID-ed simultaneously
With this process, we were able to process approx. 800 books per hour. The entire conversion process took 6 months. Due to library renovations, shifting of the collection, and the RFID project occurring at the same time, there was only a small amount of chaos!
Jim found that staff increased accuracy as they learned the best way to read the tags. Results: As mentioned above, after the inventory was finished in 2002, we identified 1% of approx. 300,000 volumes which were missing or unidentified. After the RFID project, when the circ staff performed inventory with the new system in May of 2005, there were only 262 items unaccounted for, out of approx. 350,000 books, or 0.075% of the collection. We previously had done only one physical inventory of the collection. Now, we do a complete inventory of the collection 3 times per year. Jim mentioned the sense of community which developed among the staff as a result of the conversion process.
After his presentation, Jim fielded approx. 15 questions from the attendees covering topics such as:
How are new books currently processed by cataloging? (We still use barcodes due to HELIN consortium; cataloging staff put the tattle-tape in the new books; circulation staff insert the RFID tag)
Do we have self check-out? (No, PC emphasizes personal contact)
Do the student i.d. cards have RFID tags? (No; Mark from 3M commented that such a practice is not endorsed by ALA)
How did users respond? (Most were either curious or suspicious; faculty were more suspicious than others)
Has it cut down on theft? (Not much to begin with; “Catholic guilt”!)
How do we locate a book that’s misplaced? (We scan in the section where the book is supposed to be. The scanner tells if a book is out of order; makes it easy to find misshelved items.)
Why did we decide to remove all of the existing security strips? (Jim asked about the effect on the tags; the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, the first library in the country to implement the 3M system, recommended removing the old strips. Jim wanted to err on the side of caution, so he decided to remove all of them).
Compatibility with other ILS systems? (Mark from 3M mentioned that the tags are re-writeable; Jim said that PC is the only library in HELIN to have RFID, which is why we decided to continue with barcodes).
Submitted by Janice Schuster, Paul Bazin, and Jim Salisbury, 11-3-05
posted by Janice at 11:57 AM
<< Home