DB, WEB. Self service workstation. Ticket printer. Librarian workstation. (Desk, tagging). Previous server. DB, WEB. Long-range. RFID reader. Basket. Ticket.
Quantitative assessment of the benefits of RFID technology for libraries: a trans-European study D. A. Rodríguez-Silva*, F. J. González-Castaño*#, S. Costas-Rodríguez*, J. C. Burguillo-Rial*, R. Gentile+, S. Stancaº, R. Arona^ * Departamento de Ingeniería Telemática, University of Vigo, Spain + Comune di Bologna, Italy ºBiblioteca Judeteana “Octavian Goga”, Romania ^Uniteam SpA, Italy # ETSI Telecomunicación, Campus, 36310 Vigo, Spain {darguez,javier,scostas,jrial}@det.uvigo.es
Abstract Large libraries are complex organizations. Radiofrequency Identification (RFID) technologies allow the deployment of advanced services like reshelving assistance. A number of commercial solutions for libraries have recently appeared, but so far there was a lack of objective assessments of the real benefits of RFID. In this paper we present the results of the validation that was funded by the EU in the framework of the LIBER-IMMS1 eTEN project. The validation was performed in libraries with different profiles, in three EU countries.
1. Introduction Large libraries are complex organizations with huge amounts of items. For a long time, library management typically relied on barcode labels. These labels are cheap yet easy to damage. Even worse, the optimization of librarian tasks is constrained by the fact that item handling requires the manual alignment of a barcode reader with the tag. For example, a “reshelving basket” (a container that reads all the returned items inside to provide re-shelving routes) is unfeasible with barcode labels. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) seems a suitable technology for library environments [1][2][3]; it may help to improve reshelving and inventory tasks. Consequently, nowadays there exist RFID-enabled library management systems (LMS). However, at the 1
Public Library RFID-based system for interactive Internet & Mobile Messaging Service (www.liber-imms.com)
time our work started we were not aware of any study on the real performance of RFID solutions. The EU eTEN LIBER-IMMS project has focused on this issue. It has evaluated RFID technology in three libraries of three EU countries. In each of them, a RFID LMS was deployed in parallel with the “traditional” one. The project has collected data for an objective evaluation of RFID performance from two points of view: efficiency (time and cost) and user acceptance. This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 is a brief overview of RFID technology for libraries. Section 3 describes the LIBER-IMMS validation environment. Section 4 presents the results. Finally, section 5 concludes the paper.
2. RFID technology for libraries Typically, library systems employ RFID standards in the 13.56 MHz band, such as ISO 14443 (Proximity Card) and ISO 15693 (Vicinity Card), since paper may severely degrade the performance of UHF tags. Current anti-collision protocols allow the simultaneous detection of a pile of books on a library tray. There are clear advantages of RFID labels over barcodes. Among them, we can cite: In some applications the interaction between the LMS and the RFID tags is completely transparent to humans (e.g. the aforementioned “basket”). Barcodes require manual item alignment and direct line-of-sight. Barcodes must be visible on item surfaces. RFID tags can be placed inside, thus protecting them from user handling, abrasion, moisture, or cover edges.
RFID tags have a longer access range than barcodes. RFID tags have read/write memories; barcodes do not. The capacity of RFID tags is higher. A RFID library system comprises RFID tags (for library items), self-service workstations (a computer, a RFID reader and a receipt printer), administration desks (self-service workstation plus a card printer), optional RFID antitheft gates (relying on item tags), and RFID-enabled return baskets to assist librarians in re-shelving, plus related services. Software developers, hardware suppliers and service providers have collaborated in the development of LMS with RFID extensions. In some cases they share their expertise in consortia (SIRSI [4]). We can cite the following examples of LMS with RFID extensions: Bibliotheca [5] is one of the current leaders in the European market. Libra [6] is a RFID/SmartCard service provider, whose products are mainly oriented to libraries and healthcare. Libramation [7] provides library automation equipment technology and ergonomic work environments. It belongs to the SIRSI alliance. Tagsys [8] (RFID provider) has built partnerships with LMS manufacturers to offer complete solutions. Nedap [9] was one of the few solutions with an embedded remote assistance/training feature at the time this paper was written. The high deployment cost of RFID justifies the need of an external validation of its real benefits.
3. LIBER-IMMS validation software The EU eTEN LIBER-IMMS project has evaluated RFID technologies in three pilot sites across Europe. The LIBER-IMMS validation software itself is a fully capable LMS, which has been designed to interact with legacy LMS with minimal changes. Its middleware offers a set of interfaces to integrate any RFID device or standard. Pilot sites were chosen to reach a significant panel of users, covering different profiles. Pilot workflow can be outlined as follows: a backoffice system allows librarians to tag items and register them in the LIBER-IMMS database. Users get items at self-service workstations or the main lending desk. They may return items at the workstations or simply by dumping them in the “basket”.
RFID-enabled antitheft gates at library doors intended to enforce item protection. LIBER-IMMS services include messaging, automatic reminders and remote training/assistance.
3.1. LIBER-IMMS pilot sites Three public entities managing large libraries provided the validation scenarios: The Bologna Municipality (Italy) is in charge of the “Natalia Ginzburg” library, with 16.000 tagged items. University of Vigo (Spain) granted access to the ETSIT academic library, with 12.000 tagged items. The Cluj County “Octavian Goga” library (Romania) tagged 10.000 items within the LIBER-IMMS project. Accordingly, the project has considered the following user profiles: Urban profile: this is the case of the Natalia Ginzburg library. It serves a typical metropolitan population. Retired elderly people demand traditional books, whereas youngsters and children demand digital multimedia. Countryside profile: in the regional libraries in Romania, the majority of users are secondary school students demanding textbooks and entertainment. Campus profile: in the Vigo campus users are university students and professors. They demand academic textbooks, highly specialized scientific books, CDs and academic journals.
3.2. LIBER-IMMS RFID services a) Library Services pack [LS]: RFID-oriented services for error-free item tracking, to support librarians in their daily activity. a. LS.1 – Tagging service: hardware/software support to label library items with ISO 15693 RFID tags. b. LS.2 – Shelves management: this service reads the contents of LIBER-IMMS return baskets. It generates a printout with the optimal re-shelving sequence to save time. c. LS.3 – Availability status: this service warns the librarian if an item outside its shelf is in any other RFID-enabled area, like a basket. b) Citizens Services pack [CS] – LMS embedded services, mainly related to item transactions. a. CS.1 – Membership: RFID card issuing and conditional access. b. CS.2 – Information: information delivery to specific users.
c. CS.3 – Lending items: the LIBER-IMMS layer focuses on self-service. It allows traditional librarian-assisted lending as well. d. CS.4 – Returning items: in addition to selfservice and librarian-assisted returns, this service allows the users to return items via the RFID basket. It also contributes to re-shelving optimization, as previously outlined. Fig. 2. Left to right: portable tagging kit, librarian workstation with basket and self-service workstation
3.3. LIBER-IMMS architecture INTERNET
Touch screen GSM
WIFI WIFI
xN LIBER-IMMS server DB, WEB
Previous server DB, WEB
Mid-range RFID reader Ticket printer Antitheft gates Self service workstation
Librarian workstation (Desk, tagging)
Ticket printer
WIFI Long-range RFID reader
WIFI
Long-range RFID reader
Mid-range RFID reader Printer (Badges, shelves list)
Basket
xM
Fig. 1. LIBER-IMMS architecture
As shown in figure 1, the LIBER-IMMS architecture involves the LIBER-IMMS components themselves and any previously existing library systems (with mutually synchronized databases). There are N self-service workstations equipped with a RFID reader and a ticket printer. The librarian workstation has a tagging/reports printer in addition. The basket is a long-range RFID reader (antitheft RFID gates also consist of long-range readers with external antennas). The LIBER-IMMS server needs an Internet connection for its web server. It is important to note that the deployment of the LIBER-IMMS validation LMS takes place in parallel with the traditional system, to compare their performances.
4. Quantitative technology
assessment
of
RFID
Figure 2 shows the RFID stations in the pilots.
Note that the tagging kit needs a barcode reader, since all items were previously labeled with barcodes and it was necessary to associate the new RFID tags to the corresponding barcodes before our study started. Returning could proceed in two ways. The users could return the books getting a receipt at a self-service workstation and then leaving them on the basket antenna (the system automatically registered the returned items) or they could directly leave the books on the basket antenna (without a receipt). Returning times are quite different in these two cases, because in the second one the operation only takes a few seconds. However, for administrative reasons we only considered returns with user receipt. Antitheft gates. Antitheft performance was not a central issue in our study. However, it seemed interesting to unify all system features around the same technology, thus minimizing costs. As it could be expected, ISO 15693 did not provide an adequate antitheft solution. It was relatively easy to deceive the reader by covering the tag. Next, we describe the different performance indicators in our analysis.
4.1. Performance indicators The effectiveness of RFID technologies in libraries must be validated in terms of: Efficiency in executing internal library activities and providing services to the citizens. Citizens’ satisfaction and acceptance of the new RFID-assisted services. Diverse achievement indicators were defined. They resulted from a set of quality attributes: 1. Adequacy: at least one indicator had to be defined for each area (efficiency, satisfaction, acceptance) 2. Portability: the indicators had to be effective for each pilot site, without differences or exemptions.
3. Accuracy: the indicators had to be precisely defined in terms of data, algorithms, measurement, frequency and procedure. 4. Comprehensibility and usability: the indicators had to be simple to understand and measure. 5. Comparability between RFID-enabled LMS and previous LMS. 6. Transparency: the indicators had to be transparent to usual library activities. The corresponding achievement indicators were: LS. 1 - Tagging o TMTTB – Average time to tag a book o CSTTB - Cost of the materials required to tag a book LS. 2 - Shelves management o TMRSH – Average time to re-shelve a book LS. 3 - Availability status o TMAVS – Average item unavailability time / average number of simultaneously unavailable items CS. 1 - Membership o CSMEM – Average cost to issue a user card (materials & labor) CS. 2 – Information o NMQUE - Number of books demanded to the librarian CS. 3 - Lending o TMLND - Average time to lend an item CS. 4 - Returning o TMRTN – Average time to return an item o TMDLY - Average item unavailability time for those items that are returned after the deadline
4.2. Efficiency The measures were performed with the same methodology in all pilots, without interfering with daily activity. As the RFID LMS and the traditional one worked in parallel, it was possible to compare the metrics. We must remark that the traditional LMS in all three pilots employed barcodes. Table 1 shows the average values along eight months in all pilots.
Table 1. Average indicator values along 8 months
LS.1 LS.2 LS.3 CS.1 CS.2 CS.3 CS.4
TMTTB CSTTB TMRSH TMAVS CSMEM NMQUE TMLND TMRTN TMDLY
LIBER (Average values) 15 sec / item 0,52 € / item 19 sec / item 1h / 6 items 38 sec / member 9.2 items/month 16 sec / loan 14 sec / return 2,1 days
Previous (Average values) 19 sec / item 0,02 € item 22 sec / item 2 h / 14 items 41 sec / member 11.7 items/month 58 sec / loan 15 sec / return 1,9 days
Note that there is an improvement in all indicators, which is noticeable in some cases, with the sole exception of CSTTB. However, one would expect the value of this indicator to drop in the next months, due to RFID evolution. The times to register new items (TMTTB) and users (CSMEM) are comparable, but this is not really significant as this operation is performed once per user and it does not affect global efficiency. The improvement in the average time to re-shelve a book (TMRSH) was not significant, although there was a considerable improvement in peak value. Regarding item availability (TMAVS), we must consider that performance is strictly limited by basket size and capacity (a higher capacity implies less unavailability time for returned books). The improvement in the number of books that were demanded to the librarian (NMQUE) seems to be related to the fact that users locate books easily with the new system (as shown by TMAVS). The most important difference between the two systems is in loan time (TMLND), thanks to the RFID self-service stations that allow several loans at a time. Note that the average returning time (TMRTN) is similar, because the time it takes a user to get a receipt at a self-service station and leave the item in the basket is similar to the time it takes a librarian to accept the item and register it manually in the traditional system. The difference, obviously, is in the time the librarian saves for other tasks. The returning delay (TMDLY) does not seem to be affected by RFID technology. As a final comment, we observed that most indicator values discernibly improved during the life of the project, because users and librarians got more experienced. In any case, the values in table 1 are average ones, and users’ acceptance cannot be immediately inferred. The next subsection analyzes it.
4.3. Users’ acceptance 60
The reaction of the users in a new environment is of paramount importance when deploying new technologies. The different library profiles in the project allowed us to gather information on a considerable variety of people, so the following results adequately represent the acceptance of RFID in libraries. There are two types of users in the study: Librarians prefer to interact with users rather than performing repetitive tasks. Therefore, it is not only a matter of elapsed times, but also of comfort and ergonomics for librarians. End-users: people of all ages, cultural levels, positions, interests and behaviors. Figures 3-6 show user opinion after testing the system for eight months. A minimum of 50 random end-users and all library staff in the project (~10 persons per country) filled questionnaires in each pilot. The questionnaires were repeated in three sampling periods along the life of the project. Note that Italy represents an urban profile, Spain a campus profile and Romania a countryside profile, as we described in section 3.1.
50 40 30 20 10 0
ITALY
SPAIN
don't know
0
0
ROMANIA 0
very good
20,8
54,6
48,5
29
36
41,5
traditional system is better
20,7
5,9
10
not so bad
29,5
3,5
0
0
0
0
good
bad
Fig. 4. Librarians’ point of view on the influence of RFID in availability.
In Figure 4 we observe that librarians understand that RFID improves item availability time. However this is relative. Note that, again, in Italy many librarians prefer the traditional system. This seems to be related to the higher percentage of elderly people (urban profile), who were less prone to use the RFID stations and preferred human assistance. This has an indirect influence in item availability.
60
70
50
60
40
50 40
30
30
20
20 10
10 0
ITALY
SPAIN
ROMANIA
don't know
4,3
0
20
very good
0
35,2
7,7
0
56,5
31,5
traditional system is better
33,3
6,3
25,4
not so bad
33,4
2
15,4
25
0
0
good
bad
0
ITALY
SPAIN
don't know
0
0
0
very good
16,7
60
10
good
25
25
70
traditional system is better
25
15
20
33,3
0
0
0
0
0
not so bad bad
Fig. 3. Librarians’ point of view on a RFID-assisted shelves management service.
As shown in Figure 3, librarians are happy with the new technologies in the campus and countryside profiles. However, those that prefer the traditional system cannot be ignored, especially in Italy. The high acceptance in Spain may be a consequence of the fact that the Spanish library belongs to a technological context.
ROMANIA
Fig. 5. Librarians’ point of view on the lending/returning self-service.
70 60 50
6. References
40 30 20 10 0
ITALY
SPAIN
don't know
0
0
ROMANIA 0
very good
42,5
50,5
63,5
good
32,5
37,5
30
traditional system is better
10
6,8
4,3
not so bad
15
5,2
1
bad
0
0
1,2
Fig. 6. End-users’ point of view on the lending/returning self-service.
Regarding the lending/returning self-service, figures 5 and 6 also indicate that many librarians prefer the traditional system, perhaps because they do not trust fully automation (especially those with short term contracts). End-users are much more receptive. Again, we think that the lower score in Italy is due to a higher percentage of elderly people with difficulties to change their routine, who prefer a person to attend them. On the other hand, in Romania and Spain there are many young users -mostly students-, which are highly motivated by new technologies. As in the case of the performance indicators, figures 36 only represent final average values. There was a noticeable improvement of user perception along the three sampling periods.
5. Conclusions The RFID technology has been adopted by the main players in the LMS market. However, at the time this paper was written there was a lack of independent evaluations of its real benefits (in practice, deploying RFID is difficult unless libraries replace the whole system). Of course, it may be possible to simply replace barcode readers by RFID ones, but this does not exploit the potential new services (such as reshelving assistance). The LIBER-IMMS project has performed tests in three representative libraries in different countries, and it has provided an objective analysis of the efficiency of RFID-enabled LMS. Although the performance indicators do not show a significant increase of efficiency (with the exception of loans), the polls indicate high acceptance from most librarians and users.
[1] Boss, R.W., “RFID technology for libraries” [Monograph]. Library Technology Reports, NovemberDecember 2003 [2] McArthur, A., “Integrating RFID into library systems myths and realities”, 69th IFLA General Conference and Council, Berlin, Germany, August 1-9 2003 [3] Kern, C., Geiges, L., “Radio frequency identification in security applications: function and use in modern library systems”, PISEC Conference on Security Applications, Lisbon, April 3-4, 2000. [4] SIRSI Corporation website: http://www.sirsi.com [5] Bibliotheca website: http://www.bibliotheca-rfid.com [6] Libra website: http://wavex-tech.com/Libra.htm [7] Libramation website: http://www.libramation.com [8] Tagsys website: http://www.tagsysrfid.com [9] Nedap Library Solutions website: http://www.nedaplibrary.com
