RFID Technology and Libraries

Transcription

1 Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) Technology For OhioLINK Libraries: A White Paper Inter-Campus Services Committee March 25, 2005 Contributors: Debra Beronja (YSU) Tony Maniaci (OSU) Phyllis O Connor (UA) Eric Schnell (OSU) Scott VanDam (Miami) Mary Beth Zachary (BGSU) Edited by Rachelle Riehl (UA)

2 Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) For Libraries The Technology Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is an electronic material identification system that is a marriage of radio frequency and microchip technologies. Unlike traditional barcodes, which require strict line-of-sight access in order to be read, RFID is a non-contact, non-line-of-sight technology. The use of radio wave technology allows for the material identification tag to be placed anywhere on an item and even covered over with a label. The overlapping use of microchip technology allows for several tags to be read at once, from any orientation. For libraries, RFID speeds-up and simplifies item check-out and check-in, inventory data collection, shelving activities, and scanning functions for both staff and patrons. In addition, RFID simultaneously provides inventory data collection and theft deterrence functions, saving both time and resources. RFID scanners can be built directly into book return units, automatically checking-in materials as they are returned and allowing for patron and item records to be automatically updated in real time. The History RFID technology was developed during World War II as a means for Allies to distinguish between friendly and enemy aircraft. The technology was revived in the 1970 s by the U.S. government to track livestock and to maintain the security and safety of nuclear materials. Soon after, the technology moved out of government labs and into the public sector. Many applications of RFID technology have since made their way into our daily lives. A few examples are: Exxon Mobil s Speedpass, which allows customers to pay for gas or groceries; E-ZPass electronic toll collection (ETC) consortium, which stores account information in RFID tags installed on vehicles and electronically debits tolls from a prepaid account; RFID-based remote keyless entry systems; and RFID tags that several major retailers, including Wal-mart, and the U.S. military will require their largest suppliers to begin using as early as The Engineering The key component of an RFID system is the tag (also referred to as targets or transponders). An RFID tag consists of both a memory chip and an antenna that is paper thin, wireless, readable, and writeable. When passed near a reading station, the radio field charges the chip, allowing for data transmission. RFID tags offer several advantages over traditional barcodes, such as: line-of-sight is not required to read the RFID tag, as it can be applied anywhere on an item and doesn t require visibility or proper alignment to be successfully read; several tags can be read at one time, so a stack of materials can be processed at once; and anti-theft capabilities are built directly into the tag, providing both material identification and security. RFID tags rarely wear out by contact or friction. In contrast, traditional barcodes placed on the outer covers of books become worn by contact with other books during re-shelving, normal handling, patron use, and by contact with pen-style barcode scanners. RFID tags placed inside book covers are not subject to these types of degradation. Manufacturers suggest that RFID tags can withstand at least 100,000 transactions before they need to be replaced. Some vendors tightly control the formatting of data on their RFID tags while others provide more flexibility in relation to data formatting and applications. Some RFID tags retain only the unique barcode number and the security bit, while others allow the library to import additional data, such as titles, call numbers, and patron record information. Existing barcode labels can be scanned and the information automatically written into the smart tag. Information may also be keyed-in from a computer that is connected to a central tagging station. 1

3 The Market Many choices are available for libraries shopping in the RFID marketplace. To maximize longterm investment value, the key is to purchase an RFID system with tags that meet or exceed current standards and that can be re-programmed and re-used with other RFID readers. This will ensure that the investment a library makes in RFID tags will complement whatever RFID hardware is purchased in the future. It is important to note that different vendors have incorporated different proprietary protocols, but that a number of initiatives are underway to develop RFID data communication standardization between RFID chips and readers. Data transfer between an RFID reader and the local ILS typically adheres to the SIP2 industry standard. Soon, this will change to the NISO NCIP protocol on top of the common frequency. Again, initiatives are underway by various standards committees to develop a common RFID protocol that would serve as a first step to the interoperability of tags and hardware available from various vendors. The Advantages for Individual Consortium Libraries The advantages of integrating RFID technology into individual libraries have been widely discussed and publicized. Various vendors of RFID products and libraries that have converted to RFID systems have reported the following benefits: Shelf-reading RFID shelf readers are relatively lightweight, hand-held, portable units that scan materials on the shelf without tipping or removing them. A shelf reader can read up to 20 tags a second, making it possible to swiftly inventory an entire shelf of books in just a few seconds. To inventory a collection, the RFID reader is simply scanned past book spines and the information on the tags is then stored electronically in the unit. The unit can then be wired into an integrated library system (ILS) via a hardwired connection from an administrative workstation. Records can be downloaded from the ILS into a unit for the purpose of locating specific materials or for identifying missing and/or misshelved items. This wireless technology makes it is possible to identify items that are misshelved and/or missing and to rapidly update library catalogs in less time than it used to take to shelf-read only. Main Circulation The current process of checking materials out and in is labor-intensive. Traditional barcodes require line-of-sight in order to be read and are often placed on materials in an illogical or haphazard manner. In contrast, RFID tags can be read from any orientation as they are passed over the reader. Installing an RFID reader at the circulation desk reduces staff time spent processing materials and expedites patron transactions. This time savings is compounded by the fact that the RFID tags are read faster than traditional barcodes and that several items can be read simultaneously. And, it is generally accepted (though unsupported by hard data) that staff repetitive stress injuries may potentially be reduced when libraries switch to RFID systems, owing to reduced materials handling. Self Check-out In the past few years, self-checkout aisles have gained great popularity in grocery and other retail stores due to their ease and convenience. RFID self-checkout systems promise these same benefits for library patrons. To check-out, library patrons simply log into the station using their ID card and a personal identification number (PIN). A series of screen prompts walks the patron through the check-out process. An antenna reads book labels, updates the ILS, associates materials with the patron s record, and updates the security status, all instantaneously. The check-out procedure is simpler than traditional barcode-based systems because there is no need 2

4 to locate barcodes and multiple items are read at once. If the library also employs RFID enabled patron cards, then the identification of the patron can also be read with the same reader, at the same time. Returns RFID enabled self-return drops check-in materials and update library records instantly as materials are returned. Library staff are alerted when reserved items are returned, enhancing service to patrons who are waiting for those specific items. RFID drops may include a sorting station that automatically checks materials in, updates the security status, and transfers materials via a conveyor to the proper bin for shelving. Libraries may elect to sort materials by location, owning library, status, outstanding holds, etc. Security Library security systems that employ electro-magnetic exit sensors are problematic, at best. Unfortunately, to date, no library has done a before and after inventory study to determine the change in rate-of-loss after switching to an RFID security system; however, the detection rate for RFID security systems is remarkable as compared to that of other theft-deterrent systems. Some RFID tags have a powerful security bit built-in, meaning that RFID systems are more reliable than traditional electromagnetic solutions because materials held above or maneuvered around security gates are more likely to set off alarms. A well-tuned electro-magnetic system only averages a detection rate of between 50%-75%. In contrast, RFID systems have detection rates that approach 100%. False alarms are common with electro-magnetic systems, but are rare with RFID systems; meaning that RFID security systems save valuable staff time and effort. RFID tags that do not have security bits built-in work instead by verifying the security status of materials via an instant ILS query. The only drawback to these types of RFID tags is that if the ILS is down, then the ability to verify the status of materials will be temporarily unavailable as well. The Advantages for Library Consortiums The advantages enjoyed by individual libraries as discussed above translate to the following potential benefits at the consortium level: 1. RFID technology reduces the overall staff time required to perform basic circulation functions such as materials check-out, check-in, sorting, and handling; thus staff would have more time available to perform OhioLINK-related tasks. 2. Countless OhioLINK requests must be cancelled because items are simply misshelved. RFID-aided inventorying results in better collection management, meaning that logically the average time spent filling requests would be decreased, fewer requests would be bounced to other institutions, and a greater number of initial requests would be filled if libraries elected to invest in RFID technology. Additionally, RFID-aided inventorying would assist staff in locating books that have been inadvertently misshelved at the borrowing institution instead of promptly returned to the lending institution. 3. There exists great potential for OhioLINK as a whole to achieve greater efficiency and accuracy through consortium-wide RFID integration. Materials with RFID tags encoded with information essential to both the lending and the borrowing libraries could be quickly scanned, sorted, and processed upon receipt and return, saving valuable staff time. In addition, books received at the wrong institution location could be quickly identified and re-routed to the correct institution. 3

5 Additional consortium-level advantages vary depending upon the data that libraries elect to encode in their RFID tags; however, public pressure to strictly limit the information encoded in RFID tags is growing. The San Francisco Public Library faced considerable public outcry over their recent conversion to RFID. The library responded by assuring the public that they would limit the information stored on tags to item barcode or like number only. Barcode-only encoding appears to be the latest trend for libraries, though this approach drastically limits the advantages gained by implementing RFID technology. The Disadvantages of RFID Cost The major reason why libraries are slow to invest in RFID technology is cost. RFID tags typically cost anywhere from $0.60 to $0.90 each; whereas, traditional barcodes cost anywhere between $0.01 and $0.03 each. Even when you add the cost of magnetic security strips together with the cost of traditional barcodes, RFID tags are still 4 to 5 times more expensive. Currently there are over 30 million item records in the OhioLINK central catalog, not including suppressed items that do not appear in the central catalog. Clearly, the cost of tagging all of these items would be enormous. Adding to the total investment cost, libraries must also purchase staff check-out stations and readers for all locations, as well as hand-held RFID shelf readers, which cost roughly $3,000 each. Servers that link RFID systems with library systems cost roughly $15,000 each, self checkout stations cost roughly $20,000 each, and RFID security gates cost anywhere from $3,500 to $6,000 each. Libraries seeking to perform retroactive conversion to RFID need to purchase a conversion station, costing $2,500 or more. Conversely, rental equipment costs approximately $250 per week; a very expensive option for libraries with large collections. Labor costs also need to be factored into the RFID investment equation. Though minimal training is required to remove barcodes and properly place RFID tags, a full conversion does take a considerable amount of staff time, exponentially so for libraries with larger collections. Application of RFID tags can be performed at a rate of 2 to 4 tags per minute, per person. At an average rate of a rate of 3 tags per minute, a collection of 1,000,000 items would take one person 5,556 consecutive hours or 2.67 consecutive years to tag. Vendor Dependency Only a handful of vendors currently market RFID technology to libraries. Because the market for these products is still relatively small, the associated costs are still relatively high. However, as libraries continue to invest in RFID technology, logically more vendors will enter the market, RFID technologies will improve in part to competition, and the associated costs will decrease. In the future, a standard data model will need to be developed to which all RFID vendors will be required to conform. Without this standard, library systems would become vendor dependant, meaning that they become victims of unfair service and equipment pricing, poor service, and unresponsiveness to requests for upgrades or enhancements. Integration Issues One of the major challenges to RFID conversion at the consortium level is integration as it relates to timing. Success in RFID conversion depends heavily on near-simultaneous implementation throughout the consortium, which minimizes compatibility issues among institutions. Logically, libraries with smaller collections would be able complete RFID conversions in less time than libraries with larger collections. Thus, a designated period of time during which all members of the consortium would run dual systems (to guarantee accountability) would be required. This is 4

6 because it would be absolutely essential for every individual consortium library to be able to process every other library s materials, with little or no interruption to work-flow. Theft A considerable disadvantage of RFID tags is that they are easily damaged and very easily removed. The magnetic security strips currently used by most libraries to prevent theft are usually concealed between book pages or inside book spines, making it difficult for would-be thieves to remove. Conversely, RFID tags are typically affixed to the back, inside cover of most books where they are entirely visible, inviting removal or damage. Some libraries have opted to disguise RFID tags with bookplates, but added time and expense factor heavily in this approach, which may or may not fool would-be-thieves. It is commonly known that wrapping items in foil compromises the effectiveness of RFID tags, as well as aligning two tags near each other. Staff is advised not to place RFID tags in the same place on every book and is encouraged to verify that all items are scanned upon check-out. Privacy Concerns Patron privacy protection or the lack thereof in regards to RFID applications is a hot issue for libraries. Privacy protection advocates are concerned about the long-term development, evolution, and ubiquity of RFID tags, readers, and other related equipment. Of specific concern is the potential vulnerability of library patron information to unscrupulous third parties. Many patrons vehemently believe that RFID tags can be surreptitiously compromised, revealing personal information to criminals and that this sensitive information could easily be extracted from tags read at distances of up to two feet. These fears may be exaggerated or entirely unrealistic; they do, however, demand consideration. Most libraries understand and acknowledge that patron perceptions can be very damaging, even if those perceptions carry little or no weight. It is arguable whether RFID technology is more or less vulnerable to privacy violation than the technologies currently being used in libraries. For instance, every day, countless employees have access to sensitive patron information via traditional patron record databases, creating criminal opportunities. Exploring the technical requirements necessary to protect and secure patron privacy should be a priority for every library. Multi-use of tags, bibliographic identification/management, and security in regards to collision-avoidance protocols create difficult hurdles in the path to privacy protection. Economic pressures are driving libraries to take extraordinary steps in order to save money. The introduction of RFID technology in libraries transforms staff efficiency but moves libraries towards vulnerability in regards to patron information. Meanwhile, developments in the commercial sector are evolving to benefit economically companies that work to nullify library efforts at privacy protection. Vigilance by privacy protection advocates will hopefully balance economic benefits with public privacy. Unfortunately, quick fixes that are already in retail use, such as rendering tags useless at point of sale, are not feasible or available to libraries. Even as libraries develop strategies to protect patron privacy, trend forecasters have determined that it is only a matter of time before individual publishers begin tracking books via RFID tags containing bibliographic information; this development would leave the entire reading public vulnerable to statistical data collection. Several states legislatures are currently considering legislation that would restrict retailers, libraries, and other businesses from using RFID. It is imperative for library administrators to stay on top of these initiatives and to educate legislators on the inherent differences between retail and library uses of RFID technology. Any RFID-limiting legislation would have major implications on libraries that have already invested in RFID technology. From a public policy perspective, it is arguably futile to enact legislation protecting the privacy of library records because in Ohio, for instance, library records are not exempt from state open-records laws. While student patron 5

7 records are protected by the Federal Education Records Protection Act, community patrons registered as borrowers with academic institutions and public library patrons are already vulnerable to open records requests. Clearly, strong policy development is vital prior to any library-related RFID integration. Public policy, consortium policy, and individual library policies are all integral components of a strong implementation plan. Included in the consortium implementation plan should be policies to guide the actions of individual libraries in the consortium, such as tag standardization. Standardization is a double-edged sword, however, within the context of a consortium. Even standardization makes patrons more susceptible to privacy violations. As one commercial writer put it, "If it's easy for you to scan all the items in a warehouse, it'll be just as easy for a competitor." Applied to libraries, it makes good sense to take conservative steps in implementing any technology, RFID technology included. Thoughtful safeguards must be built into the implementation plan from square one if RFID technology integration is ever to become an OhioLINK Consortium reality. Summary of Committee Findings The Inter-Campus Services Committee is intrigued by the following potential benefits of RFID integration: 1. increased personalized control for library users 2. item-specific handling and tracking of materials 3. higher fill rates for local and consortial requests 4. improved control and security for the 24 billion dollars worth of inventory represented in both the OhioLINK Central Catalog and in individual library catalogs This task force is mindful of the personal privacy concerns associated with RFID technology; however, we are convinced that sound decision making and careful planning may eliminate most privacy concerns. The integration of RFID technology into the OhioLINK consortium does raise other concerns that would require careful consideration and further investigation: 1. the need for RFID technology standardization. Because no universally accepted standards exist in regards to RFID implementation, the OhioLINK consortium would need to develop clear standards that would satisfy the needs of all consortium members. Tag standardization is paramount to smooth inter-operability among OhioLINK libraries. 2. the cost 3. privacy issues Committee Recommendations RFID is an exciting technology that has the potential to increase staff productivity and to realize greater efficiencies in materials handling, tracking and inventory. The only drawback is the cost labor and supplies/equipment. The substantial labor costs would, of course, need to be shouldered by the individual libraries, but it is very likely that OhioLINK could realize huge consortial price savings on the tags, the equipment needed to move from barcode to RFID technology, and on the equipment needed to operate an RFID circulation and/or security system. 6

8 The RFID task force recommends that an RFID Standards task force be appointed and charged with developing or adopting clear standards for RFID supplies, equipment and system integration. Furthermore, the RFID Standards task force will develop or adopt an RFID policy that addresses privacy issues. Once RFID standards and policies are in place, RFID vendors should be sought out and screened; libraries should be recruited to pilot test RFID technology in order to assess its effectiveness and efficiencies in a real setting and to answer the questions and issues posed in this document. 7

9 Below is a list of issues related to RFID tags. All of these issues need to be investigated and resolved before any action can be taken: Frequency Which frequency would be needed to assure a strong link between the security gates and circulation databases? What are the read ranges? Which size tags would we need to purchase? What are the memory specifications? Operation Would we need to purchase active or passive tags? Would we need to purchase read/write or read-only tags? Do the tags feature a security bit? RFID or magnetic security strips -- which offer the greatest security benefits? Application Data Can tags be used on CDs or DVDs? Where on library materials should tags be placed? What is the security failure rate in regards to closely packed tags? What library/patron specific information should be stored on the tags? What information can be stored on tags that will not create privacy concerns? North American Vendors Bibliotheca Checkpoint Systems. ID Systems. Tagsys. 3M Library Systems. Libramation. 8