RFID in Libraries

Lauren Culpepper
William Davis

This paper presents an overview of radio frequency identification (more commonly known by its acronym RFID), and its use in libraries. It briefly covers the history as well as the pluses and minuses of this technology as a useful tool for improving library services and personnel tasks.
RFID is a technology that requires at least two parts to work: a scanner (or reader) equipped with an antenna, and a “tag” with a readable/writable chip containing data which can be read by placing the scanner in relatively close proximity. Though some RFID tags also have a battery which assists in transmission of data, libraries use “passive” 13.56 MHz tags, which require the power transmitted by the scanner to the antenna to reflect data back to the reader. These tags, depending on their use, contain data allowing the scanner to retrieve information about the specific item tagged, due to the unique identifying data contained in each tag.
Although the use of RFID in libraries is a relatively new phenomenon, the technology itself goes back nearly thirty years, and closely related prototypes and other devices using the same principles can be traced back to the early part of the last century, when airplanes used transponders to identify themselves as being “friendly” to troops who might otherwise shoot them down. Not surprisingly, the heaviest current user of the technology is the US Department of Defense. They use it as part of their security protocol to track all of their military shipments around the world. In the non-governmental arena, the largest user of RFID in the commercial world is Wal-Mart, who has taken an aggressive stance with their vendors and suppliers with regard to equipping all shipments with RFID tags.
Libraries were among the first users of bar coding technology because of the obvious advantage of a single-pass scan with a barcode reader versus opening a book, pulling out a card, stamping it, and then stamping a due date in the back of the book. So it is not surprising that the potential advantages of RFID over bar codes quickly became apparent to forward thinking librarians as well.
Use of RFID in US libraries was first proposed in 1998, and in 1999 the library at Rockefeller University became the first US library to implement the technology. That same year, the Farmington Community Library in Michigan became the first public library to embrace RFID. In the ensuing years the US has taken the lead in total number of libraries using the technology. However, the most thorough implementation of RFID in a libraries overall is in Singapore, where it now serves a large percentage of libraries in that country.
To understand the appeal that RFID offers to libraries, we must look at the many ways that RFID offers advantages over more traditional means of accomplishing things in a library environment. First of all, the simple task of checking books out and returning them can be automated. If all of the items in a library are encoded with unique RFID tags, all a library patron has to do is take those books to a self-service reader which can scan all of the books at one time and check those books out to that individual, whose library card might also have an embedded RFID tag. This task is normally accomplished with the assistance of a library employee. By automating this task, that library employee can spend more time assisting patrons with issues that require human interaction.
The same sort of station could be used to allow patrons to return books, as well. In addition, book deposit boxes can be equipped with scanners as well, so that books can be returned any time of day or night and be checked in instantly.
Another advantage of automating this process is that employees are less likely to suffer repetitive motion injuries that can accompany long-term use of bar-code scanning equipment. The San Francisco Public Library paid out $265,000 over three years for this type of injury claim, and this is one of the reasons which led them to install RFID systems in their buildings.
The labor-intensive task of taking an inventory of books could also be greatly simplified. Currently this task can take a take a month or more, depending on the size of the library’s collection. Using a scanner to read the RFID tags in a collection can accomplish the same task in a day. An employee can simply walk down the aisles with a scanner, holding the reader close to each shelf as he or she moves. This will allow “feedback” from each book, and analysis of the data will allow the library to spot items which are shelved incorrectly.
An additional advantage of RFID is that it can assist in loss prevention due to theft. By installing an RFID reader as a security scanner, it is possible to determine if material is leaving the library which has not been checked out. As each tag has specific data about the item it is attached to, the scanner can quickly check the tag to see if the system shows that the item is checked out, and notify staff not only that an item is leaving improperly, but can tell them exactly what the item or items are. This is a major advantage over security systems using electromagnetic tags, which can be falsely triggered by tags in non-library items and some electronic gear.
Currently, the number of libraries in the US which use this technology number in the hundreds, which is a tiny percentage of the libraries across the country. Given the advantages of RFID over other systems of checkout and inventory control in libraries, and the fact that libraries which have converted to RFID are very pleased with the technology, why haven’t more libraries adopted RFID? There is no single answer; there are several. These issues and concerns with installing RFID have slowed its adoption, and as they are addressed we can expect to see the technology implemented on a wider basis.
Most of the implementation concerns involve the libraries and their staff more than patrons or visitors of the library, though there have been concerns from patrons as well.
Foremost among problems with installing RFID in a library is the high initial cost of the system. In the current economic environment, where both public and academic libraries are facing budget cuts, many libraries do not have the money to start implementation, let alone complete it. The system may lead to cost savings in the long run, but coming up with the materials funding upfront could be a problem for many of these libraries, in addition to not having funding to absorb any training costs when the system comes online.
In some cases there are also worries about the system being easy to use and working well in a given library. Some libraries still have doubts that it will ultimately be worth the huge outlay of money. If the implementation fails to meet expectations, they have spent an enormous amount of money on something that ended up being both potentially unusable and overwhelming for staff who are used to doing things differently. Many libraries would have a difficult time accepting all these risks, and will be inclined to shy away from it for a little while longer until more libraries have it running effectively and the costs have come down.
A further concern among staff is that implementation of RFID and the automation of tasks that it allows could lead to possible job losses at the library. Since this system requires less hands-on attention by humans, some workers may worry about no longer being needed, particularly employees who are lower down on the payroll. Though this did not happen with RFID implementation prior to the recession, history suggests that it may be inevitable in the long run. A case could be made by budget planners that the library would be able to save money by cutting or reducing to part time employees who primarily perform tasks that can be automated. Libraries are trying to save every penny they have because of budget cuts, so if cutting someone can be done it probably will be done.
The last major problem within libraries themselves is the acceptance of change in a library system. There are many people in bureaucratic systems who do not like change because it upsets the status quo. They feel like things are running smoothly, so why rock the boat for something that is both costly and time consuming at the beginning, and will take a while to learn? The older generation of librarians likes to run their libraries the same way after a while because it is a system that they know and understand. They could use it in their sleep if they had to, so they see no reason or need for the change. They feel like it would be a lot of work and most people do not want to go through all that again and again every time a new system becomes available for a library.
For end-users of libraries there have been concerns about RFID as well, mainly pertaining to privacy. Although it is unlikely, patrons who don’t wish to have their reading habits monitored could theoretically have their checked-out material scanned surreptitiously by someone in close proximity with an RFID scanner. In most cases the person doing the scanning would only get back a bar code number, but in some systems the tag would feed back more information on the book, such as author and title and perhaps even an abstract. If the patron’s library card also contained any personal data, it might be possible to read that as well. In spite of the fact that this sort of scenario is highly unlikely, it is the sort of risk that has caused the well known and (well-regarded) Electronic Frontier Foundation to call for limits on the use of RFID. Industry responses about the need for RFID scanners to be within inches of passive tags to get data doesn’t carry a great deal of weight, given that RFID opponents have consistently shown that potential read-ranges are typically much greater than the industry claims.
The wide-spread acceptance of RFID has several hurdles to jump through before it becomes ubiquitous in libraries. One of the hurdles would be the learning of the system itself. The workers all would have to learn how to add RFID tags to books and other types of media such as magazines and movies. They would have to learn how to check people’s materials in and out. Technology can present a steep learning curve at the beginning. The everyday use of any technology is the easiest way to learn how to gain proficiency in its use, so eventually everyone will learn how to use the new equipment and accompanying procedures. The problems lie with the process that leads up to that. People get frustrated by not understanding and not knowing what they are doing. Once it is learned, the problems here are gone.
New technology almost always comes with inherent glitches. There are the inevitable worries about the problems that might come, and concerns about dealing with those problems. The library may even feel that is necessary to hire someone familiar with the technology in case there is a problem. New technology could be hard to deal with anyway, so extra problems could cause more aggravation. Once everyone who works at the library learns the technology and can fix the minor problems, the technology will not seem like new technology.
Once a library decides to move toward RFID implementation, they have a lot of work ahead of them. All of the books, magazines, movies, CDs, and other media have to be added into the system in order for the patrons to begin checking them out under the newly implemented RFID system. They have to be tagged and put into the system by hand. This process takes quite a bit of time because there are so many books and other media in a library. This is probably the most time consuming part of adding the new system. It takes several people working all day for several days and maybe even weeks depending on the number of workers and books. However, this is a necessary process to make things run faster later. Adding new materials will be faster eventually, when books and other materials come pre-tagged with data about the book in much the same way that the cataloging information can be downloaded from the vendors who provide material.
In the future, the RFID system could also cut down on the time spent finding items. Technology exists with RFID that allows the books and other media that the patrons need to be embedded with recommendations for other related materials available in the same system. For example, a patron could tap a CD by John Coltrane on a scanner and learn that many Coltrane fans also enjoy music by Ben Webster. It could even show the person looking the call number where the recommended books or other media are located. Afterward, the patrons may be able to check in and check out their materials themselves, because as RFID spreads, most libraries will have a self-checkout area. This system allows for people to use the library more quickly and efficiently.
The upfront costs will even out over time because the system will eventually save money with this technology. The initial outlay is the only time the system will cost the library huge amounts of money. The long term savings will eventually help the library to rearrange some of their budget, or better cope with budget cuts. They may even be able to cut workers, even though that is not a popular idea, to save more money. The library can spend the money they saved on more materials or more programs for the library; in other words, money can be spent in a way that benefits the library itself and the community that it serves.
In conclusion, RFID implementation has the potential to transform the way that things are done in a library. It will help libraries that adopt it to become more effective and more efficient. Patrons will not have any problems locating the materials that they need, and materials will be less likely to fall victim to theft. As the prices for tags and scanners fall and privacy concerns are addressed, it is inevitable that the use of RFID in libraries will grow. The potential for finding new ways to benefit from RFID is only as limited as the amount of data that can be stored on a given tag, and the databases they are tied to. Being on the cusp of this technology makes this an exciting time to be a librarian. It will be entertaining to tell people years from now about the “bad old days” when books only had bar codes, and they didn’t even have memory capabilities.

References



Chachra, V. & McPherson, D. (2003). Personal privacy and the use of RFID technology in libraries. Retrieved from:
http://www.vtls.com/media/en-US/brochures/vtls_fastrac_privacy.pdf .

Dorman, D. (2003). Technically speaking: RFID poses no problem for patron privacy. American Libraries, 34(11), 86.

Givens, B., & Tien, L. (2004). RFID implementation in libraries. Retrieved from:
http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/RFID-ALA.htm

Radio-frequency identification. (n.d.) In Wikipedia. Retrieved from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-frequency_identification .

Singh, J. (2006). The state of RFID applications in libraries Information Technology & Libraries, 25(1), 24–32.

Wadham, R. (2003). Radio frequency identification. Library Mosaics, 14(5), 22.

NYT Commentary on E-Readers

I'm still on the fence about buying an e-Reader. I like the Kindle DX, but the price is ridiculous. I feel badly about all of the .pdfs that I print out for each class (sorry...I hate reading lengthy articles on a computer), and a DX is just about the same size as 8.5" x 11" paper. Plus, unlike the iPad, it has a USB port and free wireless connectivity anywhere. We'll see. Meanwhile, here's a post from last weekend's NYT by an op-ed writer who isn't ready to make the change from books to e-Reader on a regular basis.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30sun4.html?scp=1&sq=further%20thoughts%20of%20a%20novice%20e-readers&st=cse

Speaking of RFID...

I ran across this article while doing some research on RFID and Wal-Mart. Interesting vision of the future (if they can make it work).

http://seekingalpha.com/article/194466-rfid-technology-transforming-food-retailers-like-wal-mart

Drupal at Emory University

On June 2nd I had the pleasure of catching up with Scott Turnbull, an old coworker of mine from Emory University’s library system. We once shared an oversized windowless office in the lower level of the Health Sciences Library in 1998 as we attempted to resurrect a medical website consisting of 17,000-plus links to useful medical sites around the world, arranged by subject.

I left Emory at the end of that year, and we kept in touch sporadically over the ensuing years. My email to Scott earlier in the week querying him about the use of CMS at the libraries elicited this response: “We just switched over our sites to use Drupal as a CMS and we're currently running 15 or so Drupal Sites. We're also running a handful of Wordpress Sites and Open Journal System (OJS) sites.” Perfect.

Scott’s title is now Manager of Information Technologies for the libraries, although internally he is still known as Manager of Software Engineering. When asked where he learned of CMS, he said “I’ve known of it for years. Drupal in particular has a lot of traction in the library world and has had for a long time; it usually comes out on top when people are talking about CMS for libraries. Joomla also comes up a lot. We created a test site back in June of last year as a trial, and we liked it. The conversion sites came online in January of this year.”

What led them to make the change? “That’s easy” he says. “Workflow. It gave us a greater ability to control architecture. It also offered built-in support for RSS feeds , news, etc.”

As for the criteria used for picking a CMS, Scott says “Architecture was our main concern as well as scalability. It was also important for us to consider how much time it would take for us to learn it, how long to update IT, plus how much effort we had to expend to sustain it. We were also looking for a CMS that fit in with our core proficiencies. We’re most proficient with PHP. So, we did some reviews of what’s out there and decided on Drupal. Its wide adoption in libraries was a plus, as was the large community of Drupal developers. Finally, we thought that the work flow worked really well. That sealed it.”

Why change from the old web sites? Were there issues that they could resolve by moving to CMS? “Definitely. Previously, campus-wide we used a template that produced XML files. The template-based system was not at all clear to library staff. As a result they were very reluctant to update their areas. In addition, the old system lacked a lot of features like RSS, feedback forms, and search. Drupal lets them edit directly, it has a blog feature and user management features that we like. The architecture is very easy, and easy to maintain. What’s not to like?”

What about the learning curve? For the first time, Scott pauses and chooses his words very carefully. “The learning curve was not so bad, but it was worse than I expected it to be. Most of the staff had very little technical experience to prepare them for this. We did extensive training of several hours per week over three or four months. First we trained the trainers and then the trainers went out and did their training. One thing about training: it’s nice, but you need to make sure people start using what they’re learning immediately or they’ll forget it.”

Would they consider going back to the old system? “Nope”, he says. “We’re happy. Any future implementations will be Drupal. It meets all of our needs, and when the time comes that it doesn’t we’ll build on to it. And you can’t argue with the price.”

That’s something we can all relate to.