The success of Marks & Spencer's RFID implementation has turned the spotlight on why such 'closed-loop' approaches to RFID are proving a success, while 'open' implementations in comparison, are stalling. Such 'open' implementations typically include scenarios where a number of organisations e.g. consumer goods manufacturers or suppliers are having to deliver RFID-tagged goods to the spec of a number of different masters i.e. retailers, and are struggling to see how they will get a return on any RFID investment.
There is a good article in Supply Chain Digest which explains this so called 'Revenge of the Closed Loop System', and suggests that RFID product suppliers such as Alien Technology are changing their tune to tackle the closed-loop model, because the 'open' 'retail-based approach is, for product suppliers like Alien, moving at too glacial a pace.
Comments (2)
I am wondering how you can write an article about Marks & Spencer's and have Alien's name even in the article?? Marks & Spencer's is using IPICO's UHF technology, IPICO's IP-X TTO technology and closed loop model is what helped M&S be successful.
Alien & Intermec's dream of forcing EPC on the world is why open loop and EPC is failing! If EPC Global would have looked at the World's Standards and not just the US, then trying to force the world to use their guidelines, passive RFID would not be in the dangerous position it currently is in today!
Posted by Mark Hall | October 10, 2007 1:17 PM
Posted on October 10, 2007 13:17
Thanks for your comment, Mark. Isn't the point that Alien has had to change its stance to address the closed model, which was why Alien was referred to in the original article? I'm not writing a case study on Marks & Spencer, so that's why I haven't singled out Ipico in the original - but thanks for the prompt. Dangerous? Is that the state you think we've got to with passive RFID? And is that state all Alien, Intermec and EPCglobal's 'fault'? So, what would you say is the solution?
Posted by David Bicknell | October 10, 2007 3:02 PM
Posted on October 10, 2007 15:02