The Good Library Blog

RFID is one of the 'biggies' for librarians. Libraries need to track and secure stock and RFID does this better (probably) than the barcode system. The big seller though is self service. Every RFID supplier, and there are currently at least nine, will sell you self service kiosks. This can mean less staff needed as they do not have to stay behind counters to issue, and it also means that opening hours could be extended more cheaply. However, knowing local government, any savings are likely to be ploughed into council coffers rather than buying more books.

RFID can, in the long run, improve stock management, cut down on processisng costs etc. I guess that is the promise of it, same as any long-term investment which doesn't respond to apparent customer needs.
Whether it pays on those promises is another issue.

Everybody in the world has to "track and secure stock", whatever they do- from the Museum of Modern Art to Marks and Spencer. But before that they have get some stock.

How can anyone justify the expenditure- and then say there is no money for stock or refit work?

"Ah well the council ought to give us more money....!" Give me oxygen. I know a large authority in which the management bleat endlessly that they cannot find the resources (and lack the communication skills) to keep the library windows clean, which are filthy-- and yet they have the nerve to tell their councillors that the taxpayers need to fork out £100,000 for RFID..

It's another train set. Another time waster that will distract everyone from doing the job they are paid for. Another excuse for passing the days.

I don't see it as an either or thing. RFID can be introduced over time, alongside new stock. As long as the benefits are clearly identified and costed properly.
Otherwise you'd never have any change.

Sorry Tim, but this shows your lack of understanding of local authority finances. All councils set aside a certain amount of money for capital projects, i.e. big one off spends. This is where RFID would be financed from and would be considered against other capital bids from other council services. Window cleaning, stock etc are revenue expenditure. This is the amount councils allocate to day to day running and it is this that gets rationed/cut when councils don't get their sums right. If RFID is sold as a way of making long term savings then elected members may go for it. It is an entirely different process to upping book funds.

James

Thank you for my lesson in local govt financing, in which I have some experience. You might note the comment from Tony Durcan, President of the SCL and a director of Newcastle, the other day that he seeks capital funds for buying books- and recommends others do the same. Refitting work is generally capital, too, I think. Also whether expenditure is capital or revenue- it is still taxpayers' funding.

Plainly put- I believe the restoration of the building estate, much neglected and overdue- and the most important means of modernising the servie, is, in most authorities, a higher priority than RFID.

Where are you?

As a thought experiment, does the arguement work in reverse? Would libraries be in a better position if they had stuck with card catalogues and paper tickets for borrowing, and spent the money on improving stock and buildings instead? I'm not for or against RFID, the (academic) library I work for is introducing a small RFID collection alongside its main collection for heavy use books, with the express intention of reducing staff involved in circulating said books, so like Pete said, it's not an either or situation. On the other hand, I think it's not a 'proven' technology for public libraries yet.

I think this is not such a silly idea at all. What I woud say is that Library Management Systems for public libraries are far too complicated. They should be simpler and cheaper.

Of course there are fantastic benefits to come from RFID-- I just have a feeling that the time will come when printers will print the tag into the cover (with a copy number, if you like) and then the whole technology will be a fraction of the price. Retailers will force this in due course. A shop loses 10% of the value of its stock in a year-- it has to be worthwhile for them to improve their security this way.

Capital spend for books is wrong for any number of reasons. Capital spends are, as you rightly say, for things like building works and other major improvements. Personally I am not entireley convinced by RFID, particularly as there are a number of different systems around (the old VHS/Betamax conundrum). RFID has the potential to release staff from routine counter duties to provide a better service to the public. If RFID is to work as it is supposed to do then some building refurbishment is needed so you should get some (limited) internal makeover.

I don't think that LMSs are too complicated, but I do think that librarians don't always understand their potential for providing useful management information. I suspect that you have never worked in a paper based library system - at least not a big one. Staff time was spent writing out up to twenty individual tickets for each user and hundreds of overdues never mind endless catalogue filing. All this requiring higher staffing levels than any automated system.

Where am I? I shall reserve that information as I don't want to be seen as promoting or criticising any particular authority.

James

I didn't say we don't management systems-- I said they are too complicated and try do too much. But I agree with you that most library managers that I have seen don't use the information that is provided to improve what they do.

Blockbuster have a perfectly ok system for lending things out. It's just a file of stock and a file of people and locations. Nobody catalogues these days, do they? I thought we'd stopped that and let BDS etc do it all.

In terms of cataloguing, it depends. Academic libraries generally import but still do local cataloguing for dissertations etc; and will also need to check records so that they meet local needs from time to time.
Here at the College we catalogue as we don't subscribe to any bibliographic services.
We use our LMS to generate a lot of our statistics,as well as run reservations, overdues etc.
In public libraries, I don't know what they might need to od, but getting BDS to do stuff- or using TalisBase say- is a significant cost I'm sure.
I don't know what needs Blockbuster have of their system, and how they get what they need from it.

Most public libraries import BDS or similar, as far as I know, and only catalogue some non-mainstream material and the odd donation. Regardless of how the records arrive, LMSs bring them together and allow for reservations etc. To liken an LMS to a simple systems from Blockbuster is a bit like saying your PC is like an electric typwriter since they both have keyboards.

The Cornwall Council website implies the £1.25m is money spent saving costs, as ultimately it will replace 25 staff, and will not be implemented in libraries that are too small to justify the costs.

http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=35604

In my opinion the RFID system isn't even that great in regards to stock management. I work in a college library with RFID, and it has created extra hassle with stock checking. Using the barcodes would be twice as quick! I dont believe it will really take off until it improves/technology gets even better.

However, the self-service unit is great.

Re RFID, I don't like tingly technology and like even less those who throw money regularly at it. As Tim and this other James seem to be ripping each other's throats out on a regular basis over this and other matters, I think I'll try for the middle ground. Libraries certainly don't need to stick in a timewarp with catalogue cards but principles of good management should be timeless. I may be one of the last people alive to have actually catalogued a library with manual cards, but I transferred the principles I learnt there to OPACs and intranets with ease. As ever technology is only a means, not an end in itself and in practice, the main problem I've usually run into is getting all the different systems to integrate (lack of integration being one of the great IT industry screw-ups). So RFID might be okay, but I do have a gut suspicion it's being considered as a replacement for staff and I don't agree with that. Nor are machines much good at coping with illogical humans who either don't return books or mess up the transaction! Again, I spent years as a law librarian cleaning up one mess after another and after nearly a decade of this had a moment of clarity, realising that all this IT bumf had not in fact made my life easier at all. Quite the opposite in fact.
All I want (apart from a room somewher and my two front teef) is a library well-stocked with books and staff at a counter to whom I can return items. Why oh why can't they just do this and stop trying to reinvent the wheel?