Standards: Are They Really Standard?
Standards are the lynchpin to widespread RFID adoption.
August 2006 by Ken ReichDirector, Global Marketing & PR, TAGSYS
|
By definition, “standards” relate to “fulfilling specific requirements as established by an authority, law, rule, custom, etc.; a guiding principle.” Speaking to matters of interoperability and the reigning in of potential monopolistic business and antitrust practices, we are emboldened to look at those doctrines within which companies operate when bringing products to market. Unlike many other technologies, RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) is not a plug ‘n’ play or an off-the-shelf commoditized technology. It is, however, a fairly simple concept designed to address fairly complex challenges, such as combating drug-counterfeiting and black-marketing.
Widespread adoption of RFID has been hobbled to some degree by the slow, but methodical march toward standard development in terms of item-level application; particularly in the pharmaceutical space. In this case, adoption is acting like a double-edge sword. It can be a driver, as well as a detractor. The pharmaceutical community is smacking its lips at the prospect of tightening the lid on supply-chain security, and it is hoping to step through the looking glass into a future that holds promise for a safer and more profitable industry environment.
In the June issue of packagePRINTING magazine, we told a story of Oscar, a French bulldog who was injected with four RFID tags. (The use of RFID for the identification of companion animals, referred to as micro-chipping, is a very mature application whereby small glass-encapsulated tags are implanted as sub-dermal tracking/identification devices containing preprogrammed memory encoding. This technique offers a means for enabling accurate identification of the animal.)
Oscar received his first RFID tracking device as a pup in Australia. When the first tag was inserted, all assurances were given that it was compliant to Australian standards. Later, when Oscar’s family relocated to Europe, he received a second transponder, making the pooch compliant with the European Union “Pet Passport Program” mandate. But a local French vet was unable to read either tag, so Oscar received a third tag governed by the French standard. Oscar will receive a fourth implant when he relocates to the United States.
Standards are sometimes more complex than their name suggests. Just because something is referred to as a “standard” doesn’t necessarily confer interoperability. Often manufacturers design their own proprietary functions into what will be sold as a standard-compliant product, and as a consequence, compatibility with other manufacturers’ products is not guaranteed.
The micro-chipping of pets and other companion animals is an example of one RFID application which is struggling to implement a globally recognized standard. With the emerging international opportunity of applying RFID to the tracking and tracing of cases and pallets (Logistic Supply Chain applications), and even more critically, tracking products at item level where billions of tags will eventually be deployed, it is clear that standards do require careful scrutiny and meticulous attention.
Widespread adoption of RFID has been hobbled to some degree by the slow, but methodical march toward standard development in terms of item-level application; particularly in the pharmaceutical space. In this case, adoption is acting like a double-edge sword. It can be a driver, as well as a detractor. The pharmaceutical community is smacking its lips at the prospect of tightening the lid on supply-chain security, and it is hoping to step through the looking glass into a future that holds promise for a safer and more profitable industry environment.
In the June issue of packagePRINTING magazine, we told a story of Oscar, a French bulldog who was injected with four RFID tags. (The use of RFID for the identification of companion animals, referred to as micro-chipping, is a very mature application whereby small glass-encapsulated tags are implanted as sub-dermal tracking/identification devices containing preprogrammed memory encoding. This technique offers a means for enabling accurate identification of the animal.)
Oscar received his first RFID tracking device as a pup in Australia. When the first tag was inserted, all assurances were given that it was compliant to Australian standards. Later, when Oscar’s family relocated to Europe, he received a second transponder, making the pooch compliant with the European Union “Pet Passport Program” mandate. But a local French vet was unable to read either tag, so Oscar received a third tag governed by the French standard. Oscar will receive a fourth implant when he relocates to the United States.
Standards are sometimes more complex than their name suggests. Just because something is referred to as a “standard” doesn’t necessarily confer interoperability. Often manufacturers design their own proprietary functions into what will be sold as a standard-compliant product, and as a consequence, compatibility with other manufacturers’ products is not guaranteed.
The micro-chipping of pets and other companion animals is an example of one RFID application which is struggling to implement a globally recognized standard. With the emerging international opportunity of applying RFID to the tracking and tracing of cases and pallets (Logistic Supply Chain applications), and even more critically, tracking products at item level where billions of tags will eventually be deployed, it is clear that standards do require careful scrutiny and meticulous attention.
|
