PDA

View Full Version : When It Comes To RFID, Sometimes Down Means Up


David Blanchard
8/24/2006, 04:58 PM
As anybody who has spent even a little bit of time tracking the RFID industry can attest, there is a large and growing cottage industry of consultants, systems integrators and market analysts who all have a stake in the game (and that doesn?t even count the doomsayers who are also making a nice living from their books, newsletters and websites that warn about the ?Big Brother? apocalypse soon to come from government?s/retail?s use of these ?spychips (http://www.spychips.com/)?). In any event, it?s very unusual to find a market analyst who believes that RFID is NOT setting the world on fire right now.

And yet, here?s an interesting market projection from ABI Research (http://www.abiresearch.com): In 2007, the total amount of sales of RFID software and services will be roughly $3.1 billion, which is 15% less than ABI previously estimated. Assuming that ABI?s projections are accurate, that kind of ?negative growth curve? would be cause for alarm and panic. But in fact, something else is happening here.

Michael Liard, ABI?s RFID practice director, explains the lowered revenue expectations as resulting ?from the current direction of RFID's evolution, not from any decline in the industry. Four interrelated factors, particularly within asset management and supply chain management RFID markets, have led us to revise our forecasts: market consolidation; collaborative solutions; the growing availability of off-the-shelf commercial RFID software packages; and the improving level of skills in RFID project planning.?

I can?t quite pinpoint the logic in Liard?s argument ? that RFID revenues are on the decline because people are getting better at planning their projects, unless of course what he is really saying is that many of the companies predicted to hop on the RFID bandwagon back when Wal-Mart and the DoD announced their mandates are so far sticking with short-term slap-and-ship strategies that require the purchase of far fewer RFID tags than analysts originally thought would be necessary, based on pie-in-the-sky predictions that assumed immediate full-scale adoption of the technology. In fact, the tech roll-out is still largely at the pilot stage for most passive RFID tag users.

Liard has it almost exactly right when he points to the market consolidation as a major factor for why the RFID industry isn?t growing. I?d take it a step further, though, and point out that there really isn?t an actual RFID industry to speak of yet, so rather than using the term ?consolidation? ? which implies that an industry has already emerged ? we should be speaking of a gestation period that is lasting much longer than anybody imagined.

The biggest news so far this year within the RFID ?industry,? after all, was a non-event: Alien?s withdrawal of its IPO. Mike Langberg of the San Jose Mercury News described it rather succinctly: ?Wall Street just escaped an attempted alien abduction, spurning a wildly inappropriate initial public stock offering from Alien Technology of Morgan Hill.? Read the rest here (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/15284789.htm).

Other than Alien and a few other small companies, the RFID tags currently available tend to be provided by companies who make most of their money doing other things, such as Texas Instruments, Philips and Symbol Technologies. Alien, or Impinj, or SmartCode, or any other pure-play RFID tag producer might very well stage a successful IPO in the future, but I don?t think we need to wait for Wall Street?s imprimitur to decide whether or not a technology is ?legitimate? or not.

?Do you use RFID, and does it do the job it?s supposed to do, and do you anticipate a reasonable return on your investment?? If you can answer ?yes? to all three of those questions, then RFID is already legitimate ? for you. And that?s really the bottom line on any technology ? whether it works for you.

I'd love to hear from the community at large about your experiences -- good, bad or indifferent -- with RFID.

adamjfein
8/29/2006, 10:33 AM
The analyst firms have conflicts of interest that bias them toward overly optimistic projections showing that trees grow to the sky. In that sense, this is a man bites dog story.

Neverthess, I'm deeply skeptical about any of these projections (up or down), especially since analyst firms rely on vendors for much of their revenues. Imagine what would happen if Roger Ebert got paid for movie reviews by 20th Century Fox or Disney?

IBM allowed me to post a skeptical article on their site about RFID 18 months ago (Full disclosure: I'm paid to write a monthly column for them.) It's here if you care:

http://www-1.ibm.com/businesscenter/smb/us/en/contenttemplate/gcl_xmlid/31667/

BTW, I like the new blogs on IW.

Adam

M Humphreys
8/31/2006, 08:38 AM
It does not surprise me that the forecasts are being scaled back. We tend to look for "technology silver bullets" to solve our operational problems. And at the end of the day, they fail to live up to the hyped expectations. Is it a failure of the technology? Does it mean that the technology is flawed? Should the technology be dismissed?

None of these alternatives is correct. The problem is that the technology is a tool. A component of the solution. It is still imperative that the process be properly evaluated. The objectives clearly stated. And the constraints recognized. Only then can the process be engineered and the application effectively and properly utilize the technology. To do otherwise is to get the cart before the horse.

RFID will ultimately be an effective tool in the supply chain professional's arsenal. It just is not the answer.

David Blanchard
9/1/2006, 11:59 AM
In his posting on the IBM site, Adam used this extremely appropriate quote to describe RFID:

>> Remember Arthur C. Clarke?s adage: "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.? <<

Clarke has it exactly right. A number of years ago, I used to closely cover the artificial intelligence industry, something Clarke knows a little something about, and it was fascinating to see how many analysts were predicting that the AI market would become a billion-dollar industry by such-and-such a year. It didn't matter if the year chosen was 5 years off in the distance -- just so long as "billion dollars" got mentioned somewhere in the report. In the early years of AI, those billions were going to be made by the manufacturers of Lisp machines (remember those?). Then it was going to be neural networks in airport security devices and stock market scenario planners. Then it was going to be fuzzy logic in washing machines. Meanwhile, the real killer application for AI turned out to be basic optimization capabilities in software. Few users today even have an inkling that the software they use has an AI component.

I suspect that RFID is on a similar adoption cycle. The applications where RFID has already proven itself are the active tag applications, which track things like cargo containers and cattle. It's the Wal-Mart/DoD passive tags that get most of the attention, though it's more due to hype (both positive and negative) than to actual implementations.

The fact of the matter is: Nobody is quite sure what impact RFID will eventually have on supply chains, but I think over the long haul, RFID will become as ubiquitous as the bar code, to the extent that the average consumer won't even know -- or care -- that there's a tag on a product.

David Blanchard
9/1/2006, 12:02 PM
Millard wrote:

>> RFID will ultimately be an effective tool in the supply chain professional's arsenal. It just is not the answer. <<

I agree with most of that, but I would slightly amend that last statement to read like this:

RFID will be one of the answers, but it won't be the only answer.