(Using a Seismic Data Management Example)
I was recently asked (and rightly so) why I am not using RFID’s instead of barcode technology to track the physical assets we handle daily for our data management clients. I made a commitment to read more and try and see why I have not in fact moved to this technology given all of the reported benefits. In addition to reading I thought I would call in the local bar-coding and RFID specialists to see what they could tell me about how to move forward with this technology. This is what I found….
Firstly, what is an RFID?
RFID is an abbreviation for radio frequency identification (ID). These tags are essentially (at least in my mind anyway, when compared to a standard barcode) a tag that is capable of transmitting its information using radio frequencies. Where conventional barcodes need to be passed by a laser reader in order for the information to be received, RFID tags transmit the data they hold by radio frequency. As long as they are within the correct distance/proximity to a reader, the data will be transmitted.
An RFID tag tends to be small and can be attached to or incorporated into a product, animal, person or for SpectrumData’s purposes a digital asset. RFID tags contain silicon chips and antennas to enable them to receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from an RFID transceiver. The tags tend to come in two forms, passive and active. Passive tags require no internal power source and simply store information within them and only release that information when a transponder queries it. Active tags on the other hand, require a power source and transmit their stored information where transponders in the area can receive and process the signal.
Why would anyone want to use RFID’s?
Well a simple example is better than anything. Lets say you have a box of 30 tapes and each tape has a barcode on it. If you need to record which tapes are in the box, you have to take each tape out and scan the tape with a barcode scanner to get the detail you need. If the tapes were in fact affixed with RFID tags, then the box would simply need to be passed by a transceiver, and all tapes (without even opening the box) will be captured. The first scenario takes about 6 minutes, the second only 5 seconds. You can see straight away that if you had to handle 1000 boxes per day that if using RFID’s, it would take an hour and a half, while standard barcodes would take 100 hours. If you were in a warehousing or distribution business you could see why this technology is being held in such high regard.
So… the benefits are there, why doesn’t anyone use them?
The truth is that RFID’s are all around us. If you have been to a library recently then you probably came in contact with RFID’s without even noticing. (How do you think they can inventory the whole library so fast!) Many security swipe card systems employ RFID technology to control access, and if you own a pet and have had them implanted with a tag to track them if they go astray, then your pet cat might well be an RFID user.
So, we now know that they are everywhere but why not on data assets managed by data management companies or your off site storage contractor?
Well, the first issue tends to be cost related. Many tags tend still to be about $1 each and when compared to conventional barcodes at about $0.05 each, there is a significant cost difference.
Secondly, when I looked into the technology, I found that the size and shape of the tags varied greatly and even though tags can be made into any shape you like, they still tend to be too large for the management of data assets like backup tapes, or seismic survey tapes. As an example, many of today’s data tape technologies are in a cartridge form with only a limited amount of space to place a tag or barcode. In many cases, there are simply not any tags that will fit the space as most are too large.
Lastly, RFID tags can be quite particular about the angle they are read from, and distance away from the reader they are, how close to other objects they are, and what kind of material is near them that might interfere with the radio frequencies. A lot of very small items with RFID tags on them, in a confined space are not ideal situations for RFID tags and readers.
Are there other technical issues to consider?
When I first read about RFID tags, I got very excited about the possibilities. In the oil and gas industry, magnetic tape plays a huge role in storing data for companies and for the most part these tapes are barcoded for tracking purposes. I thought that if we could replace the barcodes with RFID tags, we would be able to track entire boxes of tapes with one read by a scanner. I also thought that by using read/write tags, the tapes could use their RFID tags to contain not only their identification but also where they had been, where they are going, and even what the tapes had on them. With modern magnetic tape containing up to 1.5Tb of data on a single tape, I thought it would be a huge time saver to be able to write the tape contents to the RFID tag and then read the RFID tag in the future to see what was on the tape. This would save hours of tape reading looking for a file!
Unfortunately, the RFID tag just does not seem to be up to it. (At least not from what I have found). The smaller the tag, the smaller the memory available to store information. (Not ideal for small data tapes). This is a big issue considering that most of the tags that I investigated only had enough memory for up to 32 bytes of information - hardly enough for the cartridge ID let alone the contents and its own portable audit trail.
So how can they be used?
For data management (particularly physical asset management), the RFID tag can be used on ‘containers’ for other items like a pallet or a box, but that it is not quite ready for deployment on items of a small scale like files in a box, or tapes in a box. There is still no real reason why the tags can not be used for some of the purposes I suggest above but in a modified form. As an example, don’t store the contents of a tape in the tag, but rather store the tape contents in a database and use the tag ID as a lookup for the contents etc.
In addition, at the cost of $1 per tag, they are simply still not cost effective enough to use on large volumes of small and relatively inexpensive objects.
Give RFID’s another two years in development and implementation and I believe we will start to see the end of the humble barcode. Stay tuned………..