I Want More from EPC Search

If RFID does only one thing, it must detect the Electronic Product Codes (EPCs) associated with items. The ability to detect EPCs enables the creation of a time and place log which delivers benefits related to logistics, inventory management, quality, and authentication. These benefits are immense and are reliably delivered by currently available products, but I want more.

The EPC should unlock more than just an item’s logistical history. If I know the EPC of a garment that I own, I want to know care instructions and where I can buy another garment like it. If I am considering the purchase of a consumer electronic, I want easy access to detailed specifications and instructions. If my neighbor has purchased a handbag second hand, she wants to know whether it’s genuine Gucci. If I see a poster for a movie, I want to read the tag on the poster and view the trailer on my mobile device.

Here are some more general statements of the information I want relative to an EPC. I want to...
- search for information about EPCs as easily as I search the web for key words
- get a result set of rich information about any type of item
- access information about a specific item
- avoid the labor and mistakes of typing in a long number
- be able to perform my search from my mobile device or any computer

International Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs) that are used to identify books provide an example of what can be achieved. Using just an ISBN number as a Google search term on my computer or mobile device returns purchase opportunities, summaries, author information, and more. ISBN searching has reached an admirable state of maturity. One drawback is that because most people including myself don’t have a barcode reader, typing the ISBN number is manually intensive and error-prone. A second drawback is that there is no item-specific identification, so I can’t determine whether a specific book is a copy my brother loaned me or a copy I bought myself.

The ISBN standard was published by International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in 1970. Since UPCs first went into production use only 4 years later in 1974, it’s surprising that searching for information about UPCs is considerably less mature. Searching for information about a UPC using Google is fruitless. Instead, various specialized and competing search facilities (e.g., http://www.singleupc.com/, http://www.upcdatabase.com/, http://upcdata.info/) provide diverging results. Even using the specialized UPC search facilities, results are limited, consisting of a small number of highly structured fields such as description, size/weight, issuing country, and last modified date.

The EPC 96-bit format achieved a level of stability in June 2008 when "EPCglobal Tag Data Standards Version 1.4" was ratified by GS1. Predictably, freely available search facilities for EPC lag those for ISBN and UPC, but standards efforts related to Object Naming Service, EPC Information Services, and EPC Discovery Services provide a foundation for emergence of EPC search that can fulfill the wants above. With these standards efforts and the experience of ISBN and UPC, the best of searching for things lies ahead.

Heed the Business Case

“We are working with EPC, but less with RFID, due to cost per unit”, is what a friend replied when I asked about his RFID program. The decision was made with more than a million dollars invested to explore RFID for the purpose of item-level track and trace, and especially for purpose of preventing counterfeit product from entering the distribution chain. Based on careful analysis, even with a paramount need to prevent counterfeiting, his plan is “EPC yes, RFID no”. They will use EPC for unique item-level identification, but for the foreseeable future, the EPCs won’t be affixed to products via an RFID tag.

After much anticipation about employing the perfect marriage of EPC and RFID, the conclusion to forego RFID is on one hand, a disappointment. Even my friend’s company, with significant resources to plan and execute for large-scale and long-term, couldn’t make the business case work for item-level tagging. It’s disappointing at first, but on the other hand, deferring to business case over emotional attachment to technology deserves much respect.

When the business case doesn’t make sense, it’s best to call off the deployment early and avoid the more painful reality of bad economics later in the deployment. Moving ahead when the business case doesn’t make sense only results in high-visibility, costly failures. Failure to heed a bad business case will trigger a “gun shy” attitude and undermine support for future RFID deployments, even when they do make business sense. Failure to heed a bad business case will also present an unwarranted warning to others that will bias their intuition against RFID projects.

Asset tracking with RFID can pay highly-respectable returns. Pallet tagging, case tagging, and a wide range of other RFID applications can pay highly-respectable returns. In spite of my friend’s company deciding against it, item level tagging can, whether today or in the future, also pay respectable returns. Over time, as the technology continues to mature, as the advantages of scale economics increase, as infrastructure and knowledge develop, more applications will pay more handsome returns. The key to achieving those returns is understanding when and where to invest.

It’s true that one-size-fits-all does not apply to RFID and EPC solutions. Each type of need should be addressed individually. It’s also true that one-size-fits-all does not apply to RFID and EPC business cases. The business case for each situation needs to be considered individually. There’s no valor in forging ahead with a deployment that doesn’t make business sense, and then later encountering the harsh reality of economics. It’s better to do careful business analysis and invest accordingly. It’s better to get a solid business case, one way or the other, and heed the business case decide.