RFID: A Dearth of Direction

In the August 30, 2006 AIM Viewpoint, I pointed out that a large number of RFID standards exist so the complaint that "there are no standards" is not a valid excuse for not implementing RFID.  What is lacking, however, is real direction from industry organizations.  Aside from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and several large retailers, there does not seem to be the fundamental support that helped start the trend towards bar code marking 30 years ago. The question we have to ask is, "Haven't you learned anything from the past?"

In the early days of bar codes, the grocery industry (including retailers and suppliers) got together to create the original Universal Product Code (U.P.C.) numbering system and bar code symbology.  The automotive industry and DoD issued their own, Code 39-based, bar code standards shortly thereafter.  By ones and twos, other industries followed this lead: healthcare, office furniture, office products, HVAC, plumbing, chemical, aerospace, electrical, electronics, telecommunications...the list grew every year.

Yet the transition was neither easy nor cheap.  Companies adopting U.P.C. coding had to replace (or augment) legacy product codes with a basic 11-digit number (6 for manufacturer, 5 for product).  This was no trivial task.  Other groups, such as DoD and automotive, maintained their legacy codes but began to require more and more information to be printed on a bar code label.

It was costly.  It caused major disruptions in "business as usual." In fact, chaos reigned in some sectors because bar code standards were developed in relative isolation and were industry-specific yet many products flowed into a wide variety of supply chains, requiring companies to comply with many different industry "standards" for bar code symbology, label design, company ID and product codes.  It was years before non-U.P.C. systems were finally synchronized to a significant extent.

Today, there is no such chaos.  EPCglobal™ and ISO/IEC 18000-6c provide sound, compatible technical standards.  The EPC and other internationally-recognized standards set forth the options and requirements for unambiguous company identification.

Perhaps that has lulled companies and industries into a false sense of security.

But the existence of international standards alone is not enough.  Industries must agree on which of these standards to follow and how to apply them.  Should they conform to EPCglobal or use "traditional" GS-1 data, an ISO/IEC coding convention, or some legacy industry code? If they're not already in the EPC/GS-1 camp, will they use a D-U-N-S® company ID, a country-assigned company code, a customer-assigned vendor code...or something else?

This is what is needed: strong direction from industry associations to guide their members in the right direction. But -- here is the conundrum. Industry associations take direction from their members and if their member companies do not see an immediate need for RFID themselves, they will only respond to their customers' demands.  Since there seems to be no strong pressure except from a few retailers and the DoD, very little, if anything, is being done to prepare for the eventual need for an industry standard.

Developing an industry standard (or even a policy) on RFID labelling is also a measure of self-defense.  Otherwise, when customer requests do prompt action, there may be conflicting requests.  Setting an RFID policy now is not the same as issuing a mandate.  It would simply say that, "Within our industry, RFID labelling will be done in the following manner, following these international standards [insert appropriate standards and other industry specific guidance]."

As difficult as it might be today to gain consensus within an industry on an RFID standard or policy, it will be far more difficult when conflicting customer demands have to be considered.

You can help avoid future chaos by contacting your industry trade association(s) now and voicing your concern about the lack of action and movement. The best defense, of course, is to get involved.  After all, you're the one who will have to deal with the fallout if your industry adopts a "wait and see" attitude.

Thursday, September 07, 2006 - AIM Global