I’m quite committed to rational, well thought out use of emerging technologies within businesses today.  Unfortunately I think lots of companies go overboard in assuming a new technology will be the silver bullet for whatever it is that’s ailing them.  For instance, each business needs to consider the context within which RFID should be implemented and then integrate it into the appropriate existing business processes and associated systems.  In many ways, RFID is just another visibility tool for many supply chain applications, and as such, should be tied into existing logistics visibility and track and trace solutions – starting with the ASN.  At RFID World and in other venues, I have seen RFID solution providers promoting their RFID visibility networks as if supply chain visibility never existed before.

Hey! Been there.  Done that. 

ASNs, bar codes, carrier status – all these things can and are used to provide very successful visibility solutions today. There needs to be a compelling reason to do a wholesale replacement of an existing technology or for introducing a technology that will co-exist for years, perhaps decades, with bar codes.  The ROI needs to be there.  In 1998 XML was proclaimed to be the immediate replacement for EDI.  EDI usage continues to grow to this day.  XML use is growing, too, but something like 85-90% of all automated B2B traffic is traditional EDI and most companies using XML for B2B are also using EDI.  There are some specific B2B use cases that have shown some limited value for RFID.  It is just taking longer than many people want it to.

If RFID wants immediate acceptance, playing well in the existing infrastructure will be more conducive to success than forcing companies to implement and support duplicate visibility networks, reporting tools and integration points.  Like XML, we haven’t seen the quick B2B adoption that some had predicted (how many more reads do you need once the product is on the truck?).  And like XML, most early benefits seem to be coming from internally focused, closed-loop implementations where one organization can control the entire process.   I recently spoke with a logistics leader for a regional grocery retailer.  This person indicated that he desperately wanted RFID but that it wasn’t going to happen any time soon.  I asked, if he could have it, whether RFID would be used for internal track/trace or for B2B.  The former, absolutely!  But even for tracking pallets and totes internally the cost is still prohibitive for his organization.

Another place RFID has hit a bump is in the tracking and tracing of pets.  The AP recently released a story suggesting RFID chips can cause cancer in rats, mice and dogs.  This brings up questions about the risk undertaken by the 2000 or so humans that have so far had the chip implanted.  It also makes one want to see results of real, targeted medical research that shows whether there is really any true causal link between RFID and cancer when implanted in a living body.  Medical experts are recommending caution but are not raising a major hue-and-cry over the situation.  Some point out that rats and mice develop tumors around just about any foreign object injected under their skin, not just RFID tags.  I wonder if there have been any tests of cattle that have been tagged for track and trace in case of an outbreak of mad cow or other disease.  They probably don’t have the tags in long enough but it would be interesting to know.

I happen to have two dogs that are tagged, so I’m concerned.  Still, I have to weigh that risk against the risk that one of the dogs gets lost and it has no way to get back to me.  If you, too, are concerned about your pets, see more extensive thoughts about this topic, and additional links, at http://nrfid.goingon.com/permalink/post/19298. That site is the portal for the National RFID Center and National RFID Institute.  For full disclosure, I’m an advisor to the organizations and authored the piece that Kurt Wall posted.  Let’s hope for all our sake that this gets better understood quickly.