SlideShare a Scribd company logo
The 2012 survey of RFID use in
                        the Library.
Library RFID




                  Lessons learned and indicators for the
                                 future

                                Mick Fortune
                              Library RFID Ltd.
Overview
               • Who did it – and why.
               • The results
               • Some assumptions – and why they were
                 wrong
               • Lessons learned
Library RFID




               • Next Year’s survey
Who did it?
               • RFID use in the UK surveyed since 2008.
               • In 2011 Lori Ayre (US) and Alan Butters
                 (Australia) asked to join in.
               • Launched the first ‘global’ survey in
                 January 2012
Library RFID
Why?
               • Try and better understand a confusing
                 global picture
               • Establish baseline for future surveys
               • Identify common practices
               • Assess market response to publication of
Library RFID




                 data and communications standards.
               • Measure client satisfaction
Library RFID   The Survey
Overview
               • More than 100 questions in the survey
               • A summary of responses has been
                 published online.
               • Written report to be published in
                 Alexandria (University of Manchester
Library RFID




                 Press)
               • Supplier performance was shared
                 confidentially with clients.
Replies by Country
                                                           Austria, Netherlands
                                                                    (2)
                                     United States (65)

                       Switzerland (6)
               New Zealand (11)
                                                                                        Australia (166)
                  Ireland (3)
               Germany (22)
               Sweden (3)



               Canada (14)
Library RFID




                                                                                  Belgium, Cyprus, India,
                                                                                  Italy, Singapore, South
                                                                                   Africa, Spain, Ukraine
                                    United Kingdom (161)                                     (1)




                 463 valid responses from 19 different countries
Libraries
                                   Business, 2   College, 23   Health, 6
                 University, 120                               National, 1
Library RFID




               School, 10



                                                                      Public, 285
What frequencies are being
                                 used?
                                 Both, 3



                                                      HF, 102



               Don't Know, 122
Library RFID




                                           UHF , 23
Frequency by Country
                 45
                 40
                 35
                 30
                 25
               %
                 20
                                        HF
                 15
Library RFID




                                        UHF
                 10
                  5
                  0
Years used
               80
               70
               60                                                Other
               50                                                New Zealand
                                                                 Germany
               40
                                                                 Canada
Library RFID




               30                                                USA
               20                                                UK

               10                                                Australia

               0
                    Less than   1-3 Years   3-5 years   Over 5
                     1 year                             years
Extent of Deployment
               90%
               80%
               70%
               60%
               50%                                            Australia
               40%                                            UK
                                                              USA
Library RFID




               30%
                                                              Other
               20%
               10%
               0%
                       All   Over   50-75%   25-50%   Under
                             75%                       25%
Reasons for investing in RFID
               70%
               60%
               50%
               40%
               30%
               20%
               10%
                0%
Library RFID
Using Self-issue/check
                                Total

                               6%
Library RFID




               Yes
               No




                                        94%
Percentage of loans managed by
                        Self-Service

               30%
               25%
               20%
               15%
Library RFID




               10%
                5%
                0%
                     less than   50-75%   75-85%   85-95%   95-100%
                        50%
Other uses

               80%
               70%
               60%
               50%
               40%
               30%
               20%
Library RFID




               10%
                0%
Return on investment achieved?
                80%
                70%
                60%
                50%
                40%
                                         Don't know
                30%
                                         Yes
                20%
Library RFID




                                         No
                10%
                 0%
How important is support?
                      Would not recommend to others
               60%

               50%

               40%

               30%
                                                      On Support
Library RFID




               20%
                                                      Overall
               10%

               0%
Who are the major suppliers*?
                100
                 90
                 80
                 70
                                                               Others
                 60
                 50                                            New Zealand
                 40                                            Germany
                 30                                            Canada
                 20
                                                               USA
Library RFID




                 10
                  0       Techlogic                            UK
                                3M




                             Nedap
                      Envisionware



                              2CQR



                              Axiell
                                                               Australia
                        Bibliotheca

                            FE Tech

                             D Tech
                              Other




                              Civica

                        Easy Check
                       ST Logitrack
                            Plescon

               * Suppliers with fewer than 2 clients omitted
ILS Communication
               60%

               50%

               40%

               30%
Library RFID




               20%

               10%

               0%
                     NCIP   SIP 3.0   Neither   Don’t know
Using data standards?

                                           Yes, 18%


                 Don't
               know, 43%
Library RFID




                                                      No, 39%
Our assumptions…
               • RFID mostly used in conjunction with ILS/LMS.
               • Integration with other library systems is
                 important.
               • Interoperability with other RFID systems is
                 important.
Library RFID




               • Standards are a good thing.
Major lessons learned
               • RFID is being used in ways we had not
                 imagined (survey did not allow some of
                 these to be recorded)
               • Close integration and interoperability not
                 common.
Library RFID




               • Little awareness among librarians of
                 efforts being made by agencies to
                 improve/expand usage.
Next Year
               • Extend coverage
                 – Scope
                 – NFC
                 – Territories
Library RFID




               • Volunteers?
                 – Contact mick@libraryrfid.co.uk
                 – Tell your colleagues!
A word of thanks to my
                     sponsors
Library RFID
Thank you!
Library RFID




                     Mick Fortune
                     Library RFID Ltd.
                     +44 7786 625544
                     e. mick@libraryrfid.co.uk
                     w. www.libraryrfid.co.uk
                     b. www.mickfortune.com/Wordpress

More Related Content

More from Michael Fortune

More from Michael Fortune (9)

Big changes ahead for RFID in the library
Big changes ahead for RFID in the libraryBig changes ahead for RFID in the library
Big changes ahead for RFID in the library
 
Current issues in library rfid
Current issues in library rfidCurrent issues in library rfid
Current issues in library rfid
 
RFID Update for National Acquisitions Group Conference, York 2013
RFID Update for National Acquisitions Group Conference, York 2013RFID Update for National Acquisitions Group Conference, York 2013
RFID Update for National Acquisitions Group Conference, York 2013
 
Presentation to Konferencja Biblioteki PL
Presentation to Konferencja Biblioteki PLPresentation to Konferencja Biblioteki PL
Presentation to Konferencja Biblioteki PL
 
Presentation for NAG seminar
Presentation for NAG seminarPresentation for NAG seminar
Presentation for NAG seminar
 
30 minute guide to Library RFID
30 minute guide to Library RFID30 minute guide to Library RFID
30 minute guide to Library RFID
 
Abf presentation
Abf presentationAbf presentation
Abf presentation
 
Chipping in – reflections and predictions for library rev
Chipping in – reflections and predictions for library revChipping in – reflections and predictions for library rev
Chipping in – reflections and predictions for library rev
 
Catching up, moving on
Catching up, moving onCatching up, moving on
Catching up, moving on
 

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 2
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 2UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 2
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 2
 
"Impact of front-end architecture on development cost", Viktor Turskyi
"Impact of front-end architecture on development cost", Viktor Turskyi"Impact of front-end architecture on development cost", Viktor Turskyi
"Impact of front-end architecture on development cost", Viktor Turskyi
 
10 Differences between Sales Cloud and CPQ, Blanka Doktorová
10 Differences between Sales Cloud and CPQ, Blanka Doktorová10 Differences between Sales Cloud and CPQ, Blanka Doktorová
10 Differences between Sales Cloud and CPQ, Blanka Doktorová
 
Exploring UiPath Orchestrator API: updates and limits in 2024 🚀
Exploring UiPath Orchestrator API: updates and limits in 2024 🚀Exploring UiPath Orchestrator API: updates and limits in 2024 🚀
Exploring UiPath Orchestrator API: updates and limits in 2024 🚀
 
A Business-Centric Approach to Design System Strategy
A Business-Centric Approach to Design System StrategyA Business-Centric Approach to Design System Strategy
A Business-Centric Approach to Design System Strategy
 
Salesforce Adoption – Metrics, Methods, and Motivation, Antone Kom
Salesforce Adoption – Metrics, Methods, and Motivation, Antone KomSalesforce Adoption – Metrics, Methods, and Motivation, Antone Kom
Salesforce Adoption – Metrics, Methods, and Motivation, Antone Kom
 
Kubernetes & AI - Beauty and the Beast !?! @KCD Istanbul 2024
Kubernetes & AI - Beauty and the Beast !?! @KCD Istanbul 2024Kubernetes & AI - Beauty and the Beast !?! @KCD Istanbul 2024
Kubernetes & AI - Beauty and the Beast !?! @KCD Istanbul 2024
 
Integrating Telephony Systems with Salesforce: Insights and Considerations, B...
Integrating Telephony Systems with Salesforce: Insights and Considerations, B...Integrating Telephony Systems with Salesforce: Insights and Considerations, B...
Integrating Telephony Systems with Salesforce: Insights and Considerations, B...
 
SOQL 201 for Admins & Developers: Slice & Dice Your Org’s Data With Aggregate...
SOQL 201 for Admins & Developers: Slice & Dice Your Org’s Data With Aggregate...SOQL 201 for Admins & Developers: Slice & Dice Your Org’s Data With Aggregate...
SOQL 201 for Admins & Developers: Slice & Dice Your Org’s Data With Aggregate...
 
Designing for Hardware Accessibility at Comcast
Designing for Hardware Accessibility at ComcastDesigning for Hardware Accessibility at Comcast
Designing for Hardware Accessibility at Comcast
 
Unpacking Value Delivery - Agile Oxford Meetup - May 2024.pptx
Unpacking Value Delivery - Agile Oxford Meetup - May 2024.pptxUnpacking Value Delivery - Agile Oxford Meetup - May 2024.pptx
Unpacking Value Delivery - Agile Oxford Meetup - May 2024.pptx
 
Motion for AI: Creating Empathy in Technology
Motion for AI: Creating Empathy in TechnologyMotion for AI: Creating Empathy in Technology
Motion for AI: Creating Empathy in Technology
 
Free and Effective: Making Flows Publicly Accessible, Yumi Ibrahimzade
Free and Effective: Making Flows Publicly Accessible, Yumi IbrahimzadeFree and Effective: Making Flows Publicly Accessible, Yumi Ibrahimzade
Free and Effective: Making Flows Publicly Accessible, Yumi Ibrahimzade
 
Software Delivery At the Speed of AI: Inflectra Invests In AI-Powered Quality
Software Delivery At the Speed of AI: Inflectra Invests In AI-Powered QualitySoftware Delivery At the Speed of AI: Inflectra Invests In AI-Powered Quality
Software Delivery At the Speed of AI: Inflectra Invests In AI-Powered Quality
 
ODC, Data Fabric and Architecture User Group
ODC, Data Fabric and Architecture User GroupODC, Data Fabric and Architecture User Group
ODC, Data Fabric and Architecture User Group
 
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 1
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 1UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 1
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 1
 
Powerful Start- the Key to Project Success, Barbara Laskowska
Powerful Start- the Key to Project Success, Barbara LaskowskaPowerful Start- the Key to Project Success, Barbara Laskowska
Powerful Start- the Key to Project Success, Barbara Laskowska
 
Knowledge engineering: from people to machines and back
Knowledge engineering: from people to machines and backKnowledge engineering: from people to machines and back
Knowledge engineering: from people to machines and back
 
The architecture of Generative AI for enterprises.pdf
The architecture of Generative AI for enterprises.pdfThe architecture of Generative AI for enterprises.pdf
The architecture of Generative AI for enterprises.pdf
 
What's New in Teams Calling, Meetings and Devices April 2024
What's New in Teams Calling, Meetings and Devices April 2024What's New in Teams Calling, Meetings and Devices April 2024
What's New in Teams Calling, Meetings and Devices April 2024
 

2012 Library RFID Survey - report to IFLA/WLIC

  • 1. The 2012 survey of RFID use in the Library. Library RFID Lessons learned and indicators for the future Mick Fortune Library RFID Ltd.
  • 2. Overview • Who did it – and why. • The results • Some assumptions – and why they were wrong • Lessons learned Library RFID • Next Year’s survey
  • 3. Who did it? • RFID use in the UK surveyed since 2008. • In 2011 Lori Ayre (US) and Alan Butters (Australia) asked to join in. • Launched the first ‘global’ survey in January 2012 Library RFID
  • 4. Why? • Try and better understand a confusing global picture • Establish baseline for future surveys • Identify common practices • Assess market response to publication of Library RFID data and communications standards. • Measure client satisfaction
  • 5. Library RFID The Survey
  • 6. Overview • More than 100 questions in the survey • A summary of responses has been published online. • Written report to be published in Alexandria (University of Manchester Library RFID Press) • Supplier performance was shared confidentially with clients.
  • 7. Replies by Country Austria, Netherlands (2) United States (65) Switzerland (6) New Zealand (11) Australia (166) Ireland (3) Germany (22) Sweden (3) Canada (14) Library RFID Belgium, Cyprus, India, Italy, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Ukraine United Kingdom (161) (1) 463 valid responses from 19 different countries
  • 8. Libraries Business, 2 College, 23 Health, 6 University, 120 National, 1 Library RFID School, 10 Public, 285
  • 9. What frequencies are being used? Both, 3 HF, 102 Don't Know, 122 Library RFID UHF , 23
  • 10. Frequency by Country 45 40 35 30 25 % 20 HF 15 Library RFID UHF 10 5 0
  • 11. Years used 80 70 60 Other 50 New Zealand Germany 40 Canada Library RFID 30 USA 20 UK 10 Australia 0 Less than 1-3 Years 3-5 years Over 5 1 year years
  • 12. Extent of Deployment 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Australia 40% UK USA Library RFID 30% Other 20% 10% 0% All Over 50-75% 25-50% Under 75% 25%
  • 13. Reasons for investing in RFID 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Library RFID
  • 14. Using Self-issue/check Total 6% Library RFID Yes No 94%
  • 15. Percentage of loans managed by Self-Service 30% 25% 20% 15% Library RFID 10% 5% 0% less than 50-75% 75-85% 85-95% 95-100% 50%
  • 16. Other uses 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Library RFID 10% 0%
  • 17. Return on investment achieved? 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Don't know 30% Yes 20% Library RFID No 10% 0%
  • 18. How important is support? Would not recommend to others 60% 50% 40% 30% On Support Library RFID 20% Overall 10% 0%
  • 19. Who are the major suppliers*? 100 90 80 70 Others 60 50 New Zealand 40 Germany 30 Canada 20 USA Library RFID 10 0 Techlogic UK 3M Nedap Envisionware 2CQR Axiell Australia Bibliotheca FE Tech D Tech Other Civica Easy Check ST Logitrack Plescon * Suppliers with fewer than 2 clients omitted
  • 20. ILS Communication 60% 50% 40% 30% Library RFID 20% 10% 0% NCIP SIP 3.0 Neither Don’t know
  • 21. Using data standards? Yes, 18% Don't know, 43% Library RFID No, 39%
  • 22. Our assumptions… • RFID mostly used in conjunction with ILS/LMS. • Integration with other library systems is important. • Interoperability with other RFID systems is important. Library RFID • Standards are a good thing.
  • 23. Major lessons learned • RFID is being used in ways we had not imagined (survey did not allow some of these to be recorded) • Close integration and interoperability not common. Library RFID • Little awareness among librarians of efforts being made by agencies to improve/expand usage.
  • 24. Next Year • Extend coverage – Scope – NFC – Territories Library RFID • Volunteers? – Contact mick@libraryrfid.co.uk – Tell your colleagues!
  • 25. A word of thanks to my sponsors Library RFID
  • 26. Thank you! Library RFID Mick Fortune Library RFID Ltd. +44 7786 625544 e. mick@libraryrfid.co.uk w. www.libraryrfid.co.uk b. www.mickfortune.com/Wordpress

Editor's Notes

  1. 463 replies from librarians in 19 different countries were received.By far the largest number were from the UK and Australia, probably as a result of users in these two countries being more aware of the survey – which was advertised on the UK RFID list.The survey did receive a lot of support from the US RFID list but – unlike in Australia and the UK – we were unable to persuade either the professional bodies or standards agencies in the USA to promote the survey this year. We are heavily indebted to Frank Seeliger for his efforts in promoting the survey both in his native land and on the IFLA SIG website.
  2. Public libraries appear to be the most interested in the technology - accounting for more than half the total responses received. From this point on the results displayed have been filtered to show answers from actual users - and de-duplicated to ensure only one response per organisation.
  3. Most librarians don’t appear to know which frequency they are using.Concerns about the accuracy of these figures are further exacerbated by the fact that some libraries claimed to be using UHF with data standards that the frequency doesn’t support. Even so it seems clear that HF remains the most popular frequency in use worldwide.
  4. Don’t knows have been excluded to give a clearer picture.With the exception of the USA HF solutions heavily outweigh UHF.More research is needed to understand why this is the case but the most likely explanation is the reliance of most RFID solutions on some form of ‘data model’ – something currently not supported by UHF solutions.
  5. RFID has been in use in libraries for at least 12 years (some claim much longer) but the survey showed that large scale investment is a more recent event. The UK in particular showed a marked interest in the technology between 3 and 5 years ago while Australia’s peak was more recent (1-3 years). In the USA we found the greatest number of long term users whilst the number of libraries worldwide having invested only in the last year shows that interest continues to grow.
  6. Most libraries appear to commit to an RFID strategy once they have decided to invest. Most of those in the “under 25%” group were in the first year of deployment.Interestingly the UK, despite having shown the most rapid recent growth in the number of organisations using RFID, do not appear to be as whole-heartedly committed full scale deployment.
  7. Figures show respondents who rated these elements as “Very important”
  8. Self-service loans and returns – whether a major reason for using RFID or not – is used by a massive majority of organisations.Until relatively recently it was also almost the only application available…
  9. The figures appear to suggest that librarians have been very wise in their selection of sites when deploying self-service solutions. For example UK libraries, despite often deploying in less than 50% of sites are still achieving over 85% of loans managed by self-service devices.
  10. Security – being easily included with RFID tags – is a popular “add-on” but from comments made is not always as successful as other methods. Returns handling is growing in popularity with other applications lagging behind. It will be interesting to see if increased use of standards changes this picture at all.
  11. Once again the don’t knows are very high. Only the Australians, Americans and ‘Others’ were sure they had achieved ROI.
  12. Interesting one this.This suggests that quality of support may not be as important as is sometimes thought since most librarians – despite not being prepared to recommend their supplier to others based on support alone – are still happy to do so overall. New Zealand libraries appear to be the least content with the support they receive – yet still recommend their solutions to others.
  13. The question we asked was whether the solution in use did – or would – support SIP 3.0 or NCIP (for self-service).At the present time most ILS/RFID integration is driven by the ageing SIP protocol. New ways of integrating the two services are being deployed but most are the result of bilateral agreements between ILS and RFID suppliers.At the time of the survey there were two alternatives to this essentially proprietary approach to integration for circulation – SIP 3.0 and NCIP. Since then both of these protocols have become the property of NISO and we now await the result of their deliberations to see which will emerge as the NISO standard.The survey results suggest that the library community at large has very little interest in the outcome.
  14. ‘Data standards’ included any existing national model, ISO 28560-2 and ISO 28560-3. Very few libraries appear to be using any kind of data standard – possibly explaining why most are still only using self-service, overwhelmingly from a single supplier.It will be interesting to see if the recent publication of ISO 28560 will alter this picture over the next 12 months.
  15. RFID means different things to different people – self-service is no longer a synonym – a few libraries don’t use RFID for this at all.No consensus (or even interest?) in standards or frequencies. It’s a supplier-ledmarket.Library system providers display little interest in potential of RFID data so integration is still very poor.Interoperability between RFID solutions desired but not realised. Standards would change this – but will they?US librarians in particular have been very critical of attempts to introduce standards – often see them as ‘stifling’ creativity.
  16. RFID is an exciting, creative and innovative technology and RFID suppliers are eager to extend its use. No longer just about self-service or AMH. We need to consider how best to accommodate this reality in the way we approach the technology.Libraries appear content with what they have – even when it’s badly supported. Little interest or awareness among librarians of the advantages or disadvantages of different frequencies, protocols or standards.Lesson for the standards agencies really – need to promote their activities more – raise awareness of advantages of using standards rather than simply creating them.
  17. Next survey needs to be much broader in scope – look at uses of RFID for asset management, access control etc.Gather more detail about current levels of interoperability and integration (or lack of it). Don’t assume there is any – also look at ‘closed loop’ solutions.Look at growing use of NFC – another form of RFIDReach a wider audience – especially in North America and non-English speaking marketsHelp needed!
  18. Last year I had to pay my own way to Puerto Rico so I was very grateful to have received support from suppliers this time. Acceptance is not endorsement however – and for balance I’d be equally happy to receive support from other companies to get me to Singapore in 2013 