The interoperability of technologies allows for broader deployment of these technologies across organisational and sectoral boundaries. In order to ensure interoperability, and thus facilitate wider deployment, a certain level of standardisation is required. In the past, standards have emerged because of market forces, sometimes facilitated by government intervention, sometimes because of market domination of certain market players … either because there is a dominant technology provider or because there are dominant technology users. As RFID is reaching new stages of maturity, the issue of standardisation and interoperability needs to be discussed, as well as the need for and the nature of intervention by the European Commission in order to be able to reach better the objectives of a more open and competitive Europe. Put more strongly: standards cultivate the marketplace.

Standardisation is addressed at different levels within different standardisation organisations. In deployment of new technologies a problem can arise that there may be too many organisations that are each trying to set their own standards. Yet, intervening in the process that leads to standardisation is tricky (if consensus in establishing standards is achieved at the wrong level, this may stifle innovation), and ideally should be left to the market. Although harmonised usage of RFID technology across Europe would lead to benefits, it is not expected of the European Commission to add another layer of standard setting to this difficult process. Moreover, several presenters highlighted that adopting existing standards to new application areas may be wiser than designing completely new ones. But this does not necessarily mean that the emergence of a new RFID standard should always be deplored.

It was seen as important that governmental bodies investigate the landscape of existing standards and scrutinise those standards on their compliance with European values. Furthermore, it should also be investigated whether these standards imply hidden costs – so-called “submarine” Intellectual Property Rights. Mass adoption of standards can only be achieved if they are royalty-free (or with marginal royalty costs involved). At the moment, Europe is leading on electronic signatures; it may still take such a role for RFID standards as well.

As suggested earlier in this document, one should look at the intended use, sector, and application when investigating RFID[1]. There are strong reasons for sector-specific standards, as technological and organisational restrictions make a one-size-fits-all solution unlikely and impractical. However, during the workshop large stakeholders in the retail sector expressed their preference for the development of one cross-sectoral standard. The question is, whether this is an either/or situation, or whether it would be more appropriate to follow a double strategy. Besides, the international component in standardisation should not be forgotten, as international standards facilitate global trade. To that effect, participants suggested that the European Commission should encourage Member States to liaise with the USA, Japan, Korea, and China, and to join international initiatives.

Some participants in the workshop urged, however, not to applaud initiatives that re-evaluate existing standards, but to support an environment that is beneficial to further RFID deployment.

Alternative governance solutions

Currently, EPCglobal is strongly supported by industry (not only in the USA, but worldwide), but their solutions are not the only ones available on the market, and there are certain criticisms towards some of the solutions emerging in this framework. The Object Naming Service (ONS), as proposed by EPCglobal, is said to strain the underlying network infrastructure when readers detecting millions of tags start making requests to a specific server. This issue was not further addressed in the workshop, but it requires more examination when applied on a large scale. Alternatives may involve decentralised solutions such as peer-to-peer networks.

In addition, the question was raised if Europe does not need a more ‘open bridge’ instead of the closed ONS to the Internet of Things. The open bridge, in the format of possibly a European information centre, would enable more services in the interest of European entrepreneurs and citizens. The services could become pivotal to support intermodal transport solutions and in combating counterfeiting of drugs and other goods.

Equally, although EPCglobal has a specification for globally Unique Product Identifiers, there are competing and simplified solutions that could be more appropriate for specific purposes: a first comparison has been performed by the Helsinki University of Technology, in which their own ID@URI and the World Wide Article Information (WWAI) protocols were considered; comparisons with other solutions should be supported.

RFID and the network

RFID is a technology that can play an important enabling role in realising the vision of a network of things. Yet, for many applications there are alternative technologies that may offer the necessary solution: RFID is not unique in being able to transmit information on an object to a receiver – competing technologies may be deployed that each provides its own advantages. Highly connected devices that are small, lightweight, and mobile, allow users to communicate with other users and things via a multitude of network technologies, ranging from Bluetooth to mobile telephony, GPS and wireless networking technologies to RFID. Whereas RFID has a place in this spectrum of technologies, a forward-looking approach should be technology neutral, flexible and anticipate differing regulations and technological solutions to deploying these technologies in either open/public or private networks to identify a person, animal or good.

In summary

Standardisation issues arise when RFID reaches a next level of deployment, driven by the ability to benefit from interoperability. Like was said in earlier workshops, specific needs for standardisation depend on the application. So does the need for government intervention. It was felt that for many applications standardisation could be left to the market. However, it was also recognised that the European Commission could provide a useful role in facilitating the process by investigating the landscape of existing standards and specifications. In this, the role of IPR should be considered.

Furthermore, standards for RFID tags in international trade would be highly beneficial, but are subject to international collaboration. The European Commission should encourage Member States to remain in contact with countries such as the United States, Japan, South Korea, and China, and be active in standardisation initiatives within international standards organisations.

[1] For the transport sector, for example, one of the main barriers in progressing RFID use in container transport is related to global standards. There are already specific standards being used in this area: ISO 18185 for electronic active seals and ISO 10374 for passive container tags. The practical use of these standards still needs to be tested in trials.