Business Requirements Survey For Serial Number Replacement or Supply

Transcription

1 Business Requirements Survey For Serial Number Replacement or Supply Please answer the questions below for a single business use case involving product serialization by a party other than the brand owner (a "non-brand owner", or "NBO"). The use case may be one currently faced by your business, or one that is anticipated in the future. If you have more than one such use case, please fill out a copy of the survey for each use case individually. If you do not know the answer to a particular question, leave it blank. We would rather have partial information about a use case than no information at all. Survey Data Company Information Your Your name: Company Name: Industry vertical: Supply chain role (manufacturer, distributor, retailer, etc): Type of product involved: How many parties assign or will assign unique identification to instances of a given trade item? You may provide a rough order of magnitude (e.g, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc), or a range (e.g., approximately ) How many instances of a given trade item are or will be serialized per year, by a single serializing party (order of magnitude or range) How many instances of a given trade item are or will be serialized per year, in total by all serializing parties (order of magnitude or range) How many instances of a given trade item are or will be serialized in total, over the life of the GTIN and by all serializing parties (order of magnitude or range) Timeframe for implementation (e.g., approximately what year(s))? Please provide a brief narrative description of this use case: Any other pertinent details about this use case:

2 Survey Questions 1. For the use case you described above, is unique identification for a trade item instance: Assigned by brand owner only Assigned by parties other than brand owner only Assigned by brand owner and by other parties 2. For the use case you described above, if a party other than brand owner assigns unique identification, is this party: A party that is contracted by the brand owner to assign unique identification (e.g., a contract manufacturer, contract packager, 3PL, etc) A party who is not contracted by the brand owner; that is, a party whose decision to assign unique identification is not because the brand owner asked it to (e.g., a downstream supply chain party who introduces or replaces a serial number) Both 3. For the use case you described above, is the reason that unique identification must be assigned by a party other than the brand owner... Because product was not serialized in the first place by the brand owner Because the original serial number was lost or damaged 4. In the use case you described above, what data carrier holds the serialized identifier: Bar code RFID Tag Both Bar Code and RFID Tag 5. In the use case you described above, is a human-readable form of the serialized identifier required? Yes, it is required It would be nice, but not if this requires additional complexity or expense No, it is not required 6. Gen 2 RFID tags are available with varying amounts of memory in the EPC memory bank (bank 01). Some newer RFID tags have 240 or more bits of EPC memory. This enables them to carry any GTIN and serial number that may be used in a bar code (up to 20 alphanumeric characters in the serial number) using the SGTIN-198 encoding. Other RFID tags have fewer bits of EPC memory, and can only hold a 96-bit EPC encoding which imposes restrictions on the serial number that accompanies a GTIN (the serial number must be all-numeric and

3 within a limited range which provides a capacity of approximately 275 billion serial numbers). In the use case you described above, what is your requirement for RFID tags: The solution need only be usable with tags having 240 or more bits of EPC memory; lower-capacity tags will not be used It would be nice if lower-capacity tags (those only capable of holding 96-bit EPC encodings) could be used, but not if allowing it makes the solution more complex or expensive to deploy The solution must be usable with lower-capacity tags (those only capable of holding 96-bit EPC encodings), even if this requires additional complexity or expense RFID tags are not used in this use case 7. Gen 2 RFID tags are available with and without user memory, which is an additional memory bank that can hold additional data besides the EPC identifier encoded into the EPC memory bank. For the use case you described above: It is acceptable if the solution requires that RFID tags have user memory and that user memory be read in order to determine the unique identifier It would be nice if the solution avoided the use of user memory, but not if avoiding user memory makes the solution more complex or expensive to deploy It is not acceptable for the solution to require that RFID tags have user memory RFID tags are not used in this use case 8. In the use case you described above, what type of bar codes will be used? (check all that apply): GS1-128 GS1 DataBar Expanded GS1 DataBar Expanded Stacked GS1 DataMatrix Composite component Other bar code Bar codes are not used in this use case 9. If bar codes are used in the use case you described above, are there printing constraints which limit the serial number length (e.g., width of inline print head)? If so, what limits are defined within your system? 10. In the use case you described above, will parties other than the brand owner ("NBOs") that must assign serial numbers have a GS1 Company Prefix issued to them? Yes, all NBOs that serialize are expected to have a GS1 Company Prefix Some NBOs that serialize may not already have a GS1 Company Prefix, but it is acceptable to require that they obtain one in order to serialize according to the solution Some NBOs that serialize may not already have a GS1 Company Prefix, and the solution must not require that they obtain one 11. In the use case you described above, will parties other than the brand owner ("NBOs") that must assign serial numbers have a Global Location Number (GLN) issued to them that identifies the party?

4 Yes, all NBOs that serialize are expected to have a party GLN Some NBOs that serialize may not already have a party GLN, but it is acceptable to require that they obtain one in order to serialize according to the solution Some NBOs that serialize may not already have a party GLN, and the solution must not require that they obtain one 12. In the use case you described above, to what extent is it necessary to be able to determine what party assigned the unique (serialized) identifier to a trade item instance: It is necessary to determine whether the unique identifier was issued by the brand owner or some other party, and in the latter case, which other party it was It is necessary to determine whether the unique identifier was issued by the brand owner or some other party, but in the latter case it is not a requirement to determine which other party it was There is no need to determine who issued the unique identifier, so long as it is globally unique 13. If in the use case you described above it is necessary to identify the serializing party (to the extent indicated in the previous question), what constraints are there on how this may be determined? It is necessary to identify the serializing party only by looking at the unique identifier itself (possibly parsing it to extract this information) It is acceptable to identify the serializing party either by looking at the unique identifier itself, or by looking at some additional information encoded into the same data carrier It is acceptable to identify the serializing party either by information in the data carrier, or by reference to an external source of information There is not need to identify the serializing party 14. Current GS1 standards specify that an instance of a trade item is identified by the combination of a GTIN (AI 01) and a serial number (AI 21). This question seeks to determine whether it is acceptable in your use case to identify a trade item instance using some other type of identification, when the unique identification is assigned by a party other than the brand owner. For the use case you described, please indicate the acceptability of each of the following identification methods: 14-A A trade item instance is uniquely identified by a GTIN and serial number (AI 01 + AI 21, equivalently an SGTIN EPC), regardless of whether the serial number is assigned by the brand owner or some other party. This solution presumes some method of ensuring that serial numbers are assigned uniquely across all serializing parties. Is this type of solution ; ; (c) not acceptable. (c) not acceptable. 14-B A trade item instance is uniquely identified by a GTIN, a serial number, and some additional data element encoded into the data carrier. For a trade item instance serialized by a party other than the brand owner, all three components must be taken together to uniquely identify the trade item instance. Is this type of solution ; ; (c) not acceptable (c) not acceptable 14-C A trade item instance is uniquely identified by some data element other than a GTIN + serial number, if the unique identification is assigned by a party other than the brand owner. Is this type of solution ;

5 ; (c) not acceptable. (c) not acceptable. 15. If in your use case the brand owner itself is one of the parties that serializes instances of a given trade item, what constraints are acceptable on serial numbers assigned by the brand owner? It is acceptable if the solution places constraints on the brand owner s use of the AI 21 serial number; e.g., reserving certain blocks of serial numbers or certain characters or patterns for the exclusive use by parties other than the brand owner who assign serial numbers. The solution must not restrict the brand owner s use of the AI 21 serial number. (E.g., by providing a means for non-brand owners to assign unique identification that does not make use of AI 21.)