…how can you?

Wal-Mart is one of the most technologically advanced retailers in the world. Their distribution system is second to none. Yet, their RFID initiative has all but failed. Recently, Computerworld ran an article called Some Suppliers Gain From Failed Wal-Mart RFID Edict. (The quotes below are from the article.)

RFID is the most likely technology to implement the NAIS program. Also, it is reported that NAIS needs nearly 100% participation for it to be effective. While I don’t believe that NAIS will be effective for the stated goals, even if there is 100% participation, it is hard to imagine that if Wal-Mart can’t accomplish their mandated goal for 60,000 suppliers, how will the USDA accomplish their goal for all the farms and ranches in our nation.

But Wal-Mart’s mandate didn’t work out so well — or even work out at all — for most of its other suppliers. The retail giant says that many of its 600 top suppliers, which account for three-fourths of the company’s sales volume, use RFID technology today to “some degree.” Most of the rest — some 60,000 strong — are not using it at all.

There are some stunning cost figures in the article.

While analysts bicker over exactly how much it costs to implement RFID technology, there’s a general consensus that a small supplier would have to spend between $15,000 and $20,000 just for the tags, readers and middleware needed to get started. Add the cost of planning, training and handling all the new information compiled by RFID systems, and the price keeps escalating.

Such a significant expense, especially for suppliers that may still be struggling to get bar codes in the right places, is a lot to ask to keep just one customer happy — even one the size of Wal-Mart.

There are also penalties.

Simley noted that untagged pallets that arrive at distribution centers after deadlines will be tagged by Wal-Mart employees. The suppliers will be charged a $2 fee per missing tag, which could quickly become a major expense.

While retail stores and distribution centers are challenging environments for equipment, that is nothing compared to a farm. Also, large companies can afford technology specialists to keep all of this working. Do you need to hire another service for your farm to operate? Yes, the expenses and hassle will be overwhelming.

It is also important to note that Wal-Mart is first implementing at the pallet level. This is where they are having all the problems. NAIS wants to implement at the individual animal level, with some exceptions for larger producers. If Wal-Mart and their suppliers can’t do it at the pallet level, how can livestock producers do it at the individual animal level?

Keep resisting this in every way you can. You can’t afford it and it may just be impossible to comply with anyway.

Have you ever been to a conference or meeting where you were herded around like cattle? Now you really can experience NAIS for yourself! Computerworld published a story, IBM Uses RFID to track conference attendees, that describes IBM’s public trial of this technology. One interesting quote:

Of the 6,500 people here, approximately 2% didn’t want a name tag with an RFID chip in it, said Mary Ann Alberry, IBM’s conference manager.

Granted, this conference is for technology professionals who are quick to adopt new technical trends. It still surprised me that only 2% declined the RFID tag. It shows that people are not aware of the issues surrounding RFID tags and the information tracking these tags make possible. Also, from the article:

The RFID system, coupled with what the conference knows about the person wearing the name badge, is providing lots of raw data, and Alberry said the company hasn’t figured out all the ways it may use it.

I did not see any use of data, from the article, that could not have been accomplished by using another method to measure. The primary function of the RFID tags is to collect ubiquitous data so that it can be analyzed. Is that really necessary?

Now let’s look at NAIS. One of the main selling points of NAIS, we are told, is that it will help to eliminate disease in our national livestock herd. This sounds good on the surface, but is it dealing with the root cause of disease? I would say that it is not. Dealing with the root cause is the only way to eliminate a problem. This is about data collection for future, unspecified, uses.

My final question. Will farmers opt out at a rate greater than 2%?