The Good Library Blog

Mick

Many thanks. Got to rush out, but I'm very grateful and hope this starts a whole discussion. I'll reply properly when I get back later. They are two separate subjects, RFID and the London Consortia. Tim

I think I took the piss out of RFID about a year ago, but it's important to say that not all IT systems are wrong per se. Most of the fault lies with unrealistically high expectations, inadequate planning and preparation (see baggage handling in Denver and at Terminal 5), and indeed the amateurish way so-called professionals scamper after the latest shiny toy instead of asking hard and sceptical questions.
I've been quoting Tony Collins (editor and blogger for Computer Weekly) for years, and one of his best quotes is something like "if you tried to build a bridge across the Atlantice, you would rightly be denounced as a lunatic, but in IT terms people are trying to do this all the time and no-one says a word".
Back when they were the DSS, the DWP tried to create a national IT system which failed for most of the above reasons and the NHS is currently trying to standardise/computerise its patient database on a national scale. This project will probably fail at a cost of gazillions of pounds and so might RFID. Now in fairness, it might not, but I'd really rather they spent the money on employing more doctors, nurses and (in the case of this blog) librarians.

My view about RFID is, I hope, the same as Simon Edwards. I am not sure that the technical development is yet at the stage where it is stable. In other words anything that is bought now may well be obsolete in two years. Nor am I convinced that it saves money. It may change the working pattern of staff in libraries, but that is not the same as saving. I would prefer to wait for the day when publishers print RFID tags to a standard when the book is produced. I also think the BIC programme for standardisation is absolutely essential before more councils embark on expenditure. Only with standard methods and processing will we avoid huge wasted expenditure. I am sure that suppliers will welcome this work, but councils must learn how to use BIC as a normal part of what they do. This is really important and not being done at present.

My views about purchasing consortia in general are

- They have been used as a method for saving on council time in tendering and writing supply contracts but there are many other potential advantages

- Some consortia have become much more effective at negotiating extra discount, but there is still a lot of room for additional benefit

- Few consortia have developed the mechanisms for back room savings within individual councils and then how to share those benefits between councils. The London Libraries consortium has begun to work in that direction and has created opportunities in this field. This is extremely difficult to achieve and that was why I was so impressed by what I saw.

- I also think that BIC has a role in helping councils to know when their servicing is standard. They are effective and experienced in this field having brought many standards to the publishing supply chain over the past 20 years. Aside from them there is no body set up to do this work.

Happy to explain more.

Knowing biros shouldn't be allowed near books or documents, I googled "BIC" for your readers:
BIC is an independent organisation set up and sponsored by the Publishers Association, Booksellers Association, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals and the British Library to promote supply chain efficiency in all sectors of the book world through e-commerce and the application of standard processes and procedures.

In a word, there has to be standardisation. I used to be a cataloguer and really liked my old Anglo-American cataloguing standards (AACR2). This seems to be becoming a lost art, but sheer computer power cannot compensate for lack of standardisation. IT managers know how to put databases (and RFID and so on) together, but only cataloguers know why. This is a crude and sweeping generalisation, but I have referred to it in more detail in previous comments, blogs, letters to Update and articles. I was also reminded of it by a recent Update article, which quietly mentioned that the UK was facing "an information management crisis", mainly because companies assume the solution is to hire more IT people. It isn't, but nobody thinks to ask for cataloguers instead so we are rapidly becoming extinct!

Amen to James Christie's remark about the need for standardisation but I suspect that many early adopters and most RFID companies would quite rightly insist that they already support all existing library RFID standards.

The real problem is the lack of a data standard. What that means is that every RFID system is currently unique and non-transferable.

In practice that means that if you buy say, a self-service unit for one branch, you will probably have to buy ALL your RFID equipment for ALL your branches from the same company. It may also have implications for the future of your library stock management.

The UK RFID market is working to change that by considering the general adoption of an international data standard for library RFID in 2009. There seems to be widespread support for this course of action among all UK library stakeholders.

Reasons for optimism perhaps?