See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/4257983

Quantitative assessment of the benefits of RFID technology for libraries: a

trans-European study

Conference Paper · July 2007

DOI: 10.1109/AUTOID.2007.380606 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
2 133

7 authors, including:

Juan Carlos Burguillo

University of Vigo
186 PUBLICATIONS   1,251 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Personalisation of Tourism Resources View project

Brokerage of Cloud Resources View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan Carlos Burguillo on 01 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 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 re-
shelving 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 “re-
shelving 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 re-
shelving and inventory tasks.
Consequently, nowadays there exist RFID-enabled
library management systems (LMS). However, at the
1 user handling, abrasion, moisture, or cover edges.
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
 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 back-
office 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 self-
service 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.

3.3. LIBER-IMMS architecture Fig. 2. Left to right: portable tagging kit, librarian
workstation with basket and self-service workstation

INTERNET 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.
Touch screen Returning could proceed in two ways. The users
GSM
WIFI
could return the books getting a receipt at a self-service
WIFI Previous server

LIBER-IMMS server
xN DB, WEB workstation and then leaving them on the basket
Mid-range
DB, WEB RFID reader
Ticket printer
antenna (the system automatically registered the
Antitheft gates
Self service workstation returned items) or they could directly leave the books
Librarian workstation
(Desk, tagging) on the basket antenna (without a receipt). Returning
Ticket
printer
WIFI Long-range
times are quite different in these two cases, because in
RFID reader

Mid-range
WIFI Long-range
RFID reader the second one the operation only takes a few seconds.
RFID reader

Printer
(Badges, shelves list)
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
Figure 2 shows the RFID stations in the pilots.
However, for administrative reasons we only
Basket
considered returns with user receipt.
xM
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
assessment of RFID 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 Table 1. Average indicator values along 8 months
defined in terms of data, algorithms,
measurement, frequency and procedure. LIBER Previous
4. Comprehensibility and usability: the indicators (Average values) (Average values)
had to be simple to understand and measure. LS.1 TMTTB 15 sec / item 19 sec / item
CSTTB 0,52 € / item 0,02 € item
5. Comparability between RFID-enabled LMS and
LS.2 TMRSH 19 sec / item 22 sec / item
previous LMS.
LS.3 TMAVS 1h / 6 items 2 h / 14 items
6. Transparency: the indicators had to be
CS.1 CSMEM 38 sec / member 41 sec / member
transparent to usual library activities. CS.2 NMQUE 9.2 items/month 11.7 items/month
The corresponding achievement indicators were: CS.3 TMLND 16 sec / loan 58 sec / loan
LS. 1 - Tagging CS.4 TMRTN 14 sec / return 15 sec / return
o TMTTB – Average time to tag a book TMDLY 2,1 days 1,9 days
o CSTTB - Cost of the materials required to tag
a book Note that there is an improvement in all indicators,
LS. 2 - Shelves management which is noticeable in some cases, with the sole
o TMRSH – Average time to re-shelve a book exception of CSTTB. However, one would expect the
LS. 3 - Availability status value of this indicator to drop in the next months, due
o TMAVS – Average item unavailability time / to RFID evolution.
average number of simultaneously unavailable The times to register new items (TMTTB) and users
items (CSMEM) are comparable, but this is not really
CS. 1 - Membership significant as this operation is performed once per user
o CSMEM – Average cost to issue a user card and it does not affect global efficiency.
(materials & labor) The improvement in the average time to re-shelve a
CS. 2 – Information book (TMRSH) was not significant, although there was
o NMQUE - Number of books demanded to the a considerable improvement in peak value.
librarian Regarding item availability (TMAVS), we must
CS. 3 - Lending consider that performance is strictly limited by basket
o TMLND - Average time to lend an item size and capacity (a higher capacity implies less
CS. 4 - Returning unavailability time for returned books).
o TMRTN – Average time to return an item The improvement in the number of books that were
o TMDLY - Average item unavailability time for demanded to the librarian (NMQUE) seems to be
those items that are returned after the deadline related to the fact that users locate books easily with
the new system (as shown by TMAVS).
4.2. Efficiency The most important difference between the two
systems is in loan time (TMLND), thanks to the RFID
The measures were performed with the same self-service stations that allow several loans at a time.
methodology in all pilots, without interfering with daily Note that the average returning time (TMRTN) is
activity. As the RFID LMS and the traditional one similar, because the time it takes a user to get a receipt
worked in parallel, it was possible to compare the at a self-service station and leave the item in the basket
metrics. We must remark that the traditional LMS in all is similar to the time it takes a librarian to accept the
three pilots employed barcodes. item and register it manually in the traditional system.
Table 1 shows the average values along eight The difference, obviously, is in the time the librarian
months in all pilots. 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
50
paramount importance when deploying new
40
technologies. The different library profiles in the
30
project allowed us to gather information on a
considerable variety of people, so the following results 20

adequately represent the acceptance of RFID in 10

libraries. 0
ITALY SPAIN ROMANIA
There are two types of users in the study: don't know 0 0 0
very good 20,8 54,6 48,5

Librarians prefer to interact with users rather than good 29 36 41,5

20,7 5,9 10
performing repetitive tasks. Therefore, it is not only traditional system is
better
a matter of elapsed times, but also of comfort and not so bad 29,5 3,5 0
ergonomics for librarians. bad 0 0 0

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.
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 0
ITALY SPAIN ROMANIA
don't know 4,3 0 20
don't know 0 0 0
very good 0 35,2 7,7
very good 16,7 60 10
good 0 56,5 31,5
good 25 25 70
traditional system is 33,3 6,3 25,4
better traditional system is 25 15 20
better
not so bad 33,4 2 15,4
not so bad 33,3 0 0
bad 25 0 0
bad 0 0 0

Fig. 3. Librarians’ point of view on a RFID-assisted

shelves management service. Fig. 5. Librarians’ point of view on the lending/returning
self-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.
 70

60

50

40 6. References
30

20 [1] Boss, R.W., “RFID technology for libraries”

10 [Monograph]. Library Technology Reports, November-
0 December 2003
ITALY SPAIN ROMANIA
[2] McArthur, A., “Integrating RFID into library systems -
don't know 0 0 0
myths and realities”, 69th IFLA General Conference and
very good 42,5 50,5 63,5
Council, Berlin, Germany, August 1-9 2003
good 32,5 37,5 30
traditional system is 10 6,8 4,3
[3] Kern, C., Geiges, L., “Radio frequency identification in
better security applications: function and use in modern library
not so bad 15 5,2 1 systems”, PISEC Conference on Security Applications,
bad 0 0 1,2 Lisbon, April 3-4, 2000.
[4] SIRSI Corporation website: http://www.sirsi.com
[5] Bibliotheca website: http://www.bibliotheca-rfid.com
Fig. 6. End-users’ point of view on the lending/returning
[6] Libra website: http://wavex-tech.com/Libra.htm
self-service.
[7] Libramation website: http://www.libramation.com
[8] Tagsys website: http://www.tagsysrfid.com
Regarding the lending/returning self-service, figures 5 [9] Nedap Library Solutions website:
and 6 also indicate that many librarians prefer the http://www.nedaplibrary.com
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 3-
6 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 re-
shelving 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.

View publication stats