Dear Ian

I'm glad to hear that. The comment was based on conversations with two other LMS suppliers but it's also a view I hear from some RFID companies. I'd better explain the reference to 1989. It was then that 3M launched a self-service solution on the library world - in Paris - with Dynix (and me). Pretty soon after that they realised that having to develop a different interface for every LMS supplier out there was going to prove unsustainable so they launched a "certification" programme whereby LMS companies could pay to have their solutions certified for use with 3M products. To be certified you had to use the 3M protocol…

Much later - when SIP was struggling to keep up with developments - one LMS company tried to reverse the process by trying to persuade RFID suppliers to pay them to use their protocol to connect to their LMS. I seem to be the last person left alive who was present on both occasions (and refused to pay on both occasions).

It is clearly not in the interests of libraries to have to keep paying their LMS suppliers to build a new web service or API for them every time they want to add the smallest piece of functionality. Not just because it's expensive but also because every time they do, they move slightly further away from the chance of maintaining that functionality if they change suppliers.

I grant you it looks like a confusing world out there. But NCIP have been working on the RFID problem for many years now and SIP celebrated its 22nd birthday recently. I think if 3M believed in NCIP they wouldn't have launched SIP 3.0. After all they are a prominent member of the NCIP committee.

SIP 3.0 begins to look more and more like a specification for a new LMS altogether - and is unlikely to hit the streets any time soon. Plus the political issues surrounding data standards in the US look likely to rumble on for some time yet and 3M have only recently withdrawn an action against one of their US competitors for patent infringement - which is making some people jumpy about their plans for SIP 3.0. BIC's pragmatic approach was driven in part by the urgent need to resolve the matter before things get out of hand, and in part by listening to the frustrations of the RFID suppliers that want to work with a single protocol, rather than build a new one for every library. We've already made that mistake with the tags - let's not make it worse!

BIC and CILIP are very grateful for the support of Infor in the RFID committee but, as you will know from your own attendance at our deliberations, some of its LMS members are rather lukewarm about RFID altogether. I think that has to change - because it's still LMS that drives much of RFID development - whether their developers realise it or not. I'm not sure that anybody wins if these two communities don't get a bit closer (maybe we'll see more standalone circulation systems?) but I'm pretty sure it will be the libraries that lose.

Interesting that you should mention IFLA. My presentation to the newly established SIG on RFID last week - during which I shamelessly promoted the BIC standard as an international solution (and which may be viewed at http://ht.ly/66uQZ) was attended by Vinod Chachra and Todd Carpenter (chair of the NCIP committee and director of NISO respectively). So it's not like we're not trying to get a debate started.

Thanks for doing your bit to keep it going :-)

Best

Mick

From: Ian Manson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 26 August 2011 10:53
To: Mick Fortune; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: New framework agreement for procurement of Library Systems inc LMS RFID

Dear Mick and Ken,

I don’t think it is as simple a case ‘that LMS suppliers would rather sell their own solutions than use a common protocol’.

We spend a great deal of our development resources on ensuring we support common protocols and at the moment what comes after SIP2 is still emerging. The work done so far in the UK is excellent in defining a practical next step but will it turn out to be the common solution we are looking for or another variation on a theme that we need to adapt for a local market.

We seem to be all moving in the right direction albeit at different speeds and I hope promoting standards through an international organisation such as IFLA may be beneficial.

best regards

Ian

Visit our web site: get the latest news, read our newsletter and learn about our products

Follow us on Twitter

From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mick Fortune
Sent: 25 August 2011 18:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New framework agreement for procurement of Library Systems inc LMS RFID

Hi Ken

I spoke on interoperability issues in Manchester over two years ago -and wrote to Manchester Libraries at the same time, but like most other UK public libraries, they weren't interested in hearing about any concerns about RFID data standards. They just wanted self-service…

Happily IFLA recognises the need to establish common data standards - precisely in order to permit interoperability and choice, as well as allowing for greater exploitation of the technology by creating a more homogeneous market. The alternative is for the technology to remain languishing in the backwaters of self-service with neither the library or their RFID suppliers able to break out, change or expand their operations. That's why we've set up a special interest group. That's why what other European libraries were right to agree a common standard from the very start.

I somehow doubt that any framework agreement, government sponsored or otherwise, will do very much to change the situation now facing UK libraries but fortunately RFID suppliers in the UK have more understanding of the need for standardisation than the majority of their clients. That's why they've supported a common data standard for RFID tagging, why they are (mostly) in favour of migration, and why they've spent so much of their valuable development time and resource this year building a better (open) interface for LMS integration. It's just a pity that LMS suppliers would rather sell their own solutions than use a common protocol. They do this by hiding behind the fact that librarians aren't asking for it- but then we've been here before. In 1989. That's when SIP was invented.

Plus ca change :-)

Best

Mick

From: Ken Chad [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25 August 2011 18:06
To: 'Mick Fortune'; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: New framework agreement for procurement of Library Systems inc LMS RFID

The list of companies for...

‘systems that would support these functions include but are not limited to: RFID, library management systems, library automation (including web user interface), cataloguing systems, collection management systems, leisure management systems, booking systems (including online booking systems), allotment administration software, interactive software, translation software, facilities booking systems’

..are......

# Azeus Systems Limited

# Bramble.cc Limited

# Capita Group

# Civica UK Limited

# HTK Limited

# Managemycomplaints.com

# SirsiDynix

# Zipporah Ltd

I don’t see RFID companies in there? I don’t know if they made bids to be included. (I wonder who the ‘allotment administration software’ vendors are? ).

Some library consortia such as SELMS (based around the Civica Spydus LMS) and London Libraries Consortium-LLC (based around Axiell Galaxy) already have framework agreements in place that allow new authorities to join without going through an EU tender.

Looking at the upcoming library management system procurements listed on the Local Gov Library Technology (LGlibTech) wiki (http://lglibtech.wikispaces.com/Procurements ) ---and reckoning there must be others not on that list --I’d estimate that 15-20% of UK library authorities are looking to change their library systems..with quite a few joining consortia. That will inevitably raise issues around interoperability of RFID systems—something I did point out in my work with Greater Manchester.

I don’t see any mention of the key criteria you mention in the customer guidance but the guidance does say:

‘Each customer (or Customer Group) will need to define their requirement prior to running a

Further Competition. This may be a technical specification for a specific system that is required or it may be an

output based specification’.

Ken

Tel +44 (0)7788 727 845. Email: [log in to unmask] www.kenchadconsulting.com

Skype: kenchadconsulting Twitter: @KenChad

Open Library Systems Specifications: http://libtechrfp.wikispaces.com

From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mick Fortune
Sent: 25 August 2011 14:24
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New framework agreement for procurement of Library Systems inc LMS RFID

Hi Ken

Yes, I saw this in an announcement from Capita recently. Interesting - and probably ill thought out stuff.

I wondered why they had RFID first in the list…

Presumably the framework will include some companies that actually deliver RFID solutions? None of those you mention do.

Sorry to be so parochial (about RFID) but it is rather disheartening to see yet another framework agreement being issued that almost certainly does not refer to any of the key criteria that should form part of a successful implementation - adherence to data standards, open communication between LMS and RFID, interoperability between RFID systems, integration with LMS etc. Yet more disappointment and potentially expensive re-investment ahead for yet more libraries I fear.

Still it's great news for Capita, Civica and SD. Less good news for PTFS Europe, Axiell and the others?

…and terrible news for anyone buying RFID.

Mick

From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Chad
Sent: 25 August 2011 12:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: New framework agreement for procurement of Library Systems inc LMS RFID

Quite a few library authorities are looking to change their library systems and will find the following government announcement relevant:

‘Software Application Solutions for Local Government

See http://www.buyingsolutions.gov.uk/categories/ICT/Software/LGSAS/

This new framework agreement is designed to save costs by streamlining the procurement process by avoiding a costly EU tender. I should also point out that a further way to reduce procurement costs is to use the UK Core specification (UKCS) which is now available free of charge on the Open System Specifications (LibTechRFP) website. http://libtechrfp.wikispaces.com/

The announcement also notes that ‘Government Procurement Service is keen to facilitate any aggregation opportunities that councils have’. Looking at the Local Government Library Technology wiki (LGLibTech) ‘Procurements’ page http://lglibtech.wikispaces.com/Procurements it seems as if quite a few library authorities are looking to join consortia and develop shared services. I have just finished working with what will could a very large and exciting project in Greater Manchester. (http://www.kenchadconsulting.com/)

From the government announcement:

‘We are pleased to announce that a new framework designed specifically to meet the needs of local government is now available. Local Government Software Application Solutions provides an efficient and cost effective route to purchase software that supports the activities of local government such as planning or social care. There are 39 suppliers in total ranging from multi-national to SME organisations, providing services through the nine Lots of the framework agreement’

Library systems are included under the heading:

‘Social Care & Education - Libraries, Museums and Leisure related Software Application Solutions’

The definition is as follows:

‘Software Application Solutions which specifically enable Local Government Bodies to deliver their functions in the field of libraries, museums and leisure. Including: administration and management of enquiries, bookings, admissions, memberships, buildings and assets. Example systems that would support these functions include but are not limited to: RFID, library management systems, library automation (including web user interface), cataloguing

systems, collection management systems, leisure management systems, booking systems (including online booking systems), allotment administration software, interactive software, translation software, facilities booking systems’.

The library system providers named in the agreement are Capita, Civica and SirsiDynix

Ken

Ken Chad Consulting Ltd

Tel +44 (0)7788 727 845. Email: [log in to unmask] www.kenchadconsulting.com

Skype: kenchadconsulting Twitter: @KenChad

Open Library Systems Specifications: http://libtechrfp.wikispaces.com