Getting Narrow With RFID Is The Only Way It Will Work

Written by Evan Schuman
March 22nd, 2007

This week’s Wall Street Journal article on Dole’s use of RFID in the produce supply chain is yet another example of RFID being applied for specific use-cases, rather than in a blanket effort to “improve visibility.”

In response to the E. coli outbreaks from last fall, Dole and other producers are starting to tag produce from field to store in an effort to introduce trace-ability into the supply chain and make it easier for health officials to narrow in on sources of outbreaks. Coupled with Wal-Mart’s increasing focus on in-store applications, the success of recent CPG pilots around in-store promotional displays, and successful pilots by Best Buy and Marks & Spencer tagging high-value items in the store, RFID use is fast moving from general applications to specific uses within the retail supply chain.

Why get specific? At an aggregate level, it’s easy to see the value that RFID can bring to the supply chain. If you know where every case is from the moment it rolls off the production line until it hits the trash compactor at the store, then theoretically you can solve almost any supply chain snag or at least have all the information you need to recover when something goes awry.

The problem is, that doesn’t work in reality: Visibility alone is not enough to build a business case.

Yes, you can make assumptions about how many supply chain problems would be avoided if you had perfect information (presumably supplied by RFID) and that could potentially be enough to get some numbers on a spreadsheet to look good enough if tag prices get low enough.

However, all “visibility” gets you is enough data to start asking questions that identify issues. If you don’t know the right questions to ask, then you won’t identify issues, and you won’t get any value out of visibility. That’s why these specific use-cases � trace-ability, promotional displays, counterfeiting, and high value item tracking � are getting better traction. There’s a problem to solve; people already know what questions they need answered.

The root cause of supply chain issues is not “lack of visibility.” When Kraft, Unilever, and Proctor & Gamble started testing RFID-tagged in-aisle promotional displays, they found a host of root causes � everything from a true lack of visibility problem (stock clerks not being able to find it in the back room of the store), to basic operations and training issues (like when the stock clerk pulled the product out of the display, stocked it on the shelf, and trashed the display itself).

P&G can impact the first problem � by shipping the display much closer to the floor date � but they have no control over the latter problem, other than to complain to the retailer when it happens. Visibility reveals problems to be solved � it doesn’t solve them. And it takes time to make the fixes needed to actually solve the root cause of the problem.

When early leaders in RFID looked to blanket a supply chain with tags and readers, the objectives focused on open standards and interoperability. The whole point, after all, is to share data with trading partners to enable “visibility.” But this new, use-case driven RFID is different.

Use-cases drive unique requirements, not standards. Dole wants to trace boxes of lettuce from field to store. Best Buy wants to inventory a tightly packed shelf of video games in ten seconds instead of four hours. A department store retailer wants a consumer to be able to hold a shoe up to a kiosk and get size availability information. These are completely different uses of the same technology, requiring different methods of tagging and reading, different frequencies and different types of tags.

In a way, it means a step back for RFID, as companies tinker with closed-loop systems that solve their unique problems first, and then potentially later consider wider implications. While it means more pain later on, loosening the emphasis on developing standards could actually speed adoption today.

The blanket mindset no longer applies. In the wide application of RFID, every case has to be tagged and every trading partner has to be reading in order for visibility to work. It doesn’t really help to trace one box through the supply chain when it could take one of potentially hundreds of routes from source to shelf.

But limited applications do help specific use-cases. CPG tagging of promotional displays proved that nicely: they didn’t have to wire up every case and every store in order to get benefits from solving the root causes they identified.

A process change that changes behavior at a wired store �like shipping promotional displays closer to the floor date so there is less chance of it being lost in the back � can have just as much impact at an unwired store. Removing the blanket requirement from an RFID implementation can turn a business case from a risky maybe to a slam dunk.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.