Home
Search
Login
<mosaic.cnfolio.com>
Group Design Project – B202

Product feasibility study


Introduction


"Losses from shoplifting in the United Kingdom are in the region of £4 billion annually and figures in excess of 5% of sales revenue being lost to shoplifting are not uncommon." (Maxtag, 2005). With thieves employing various methods to deceive and elude traditional security systems, such as the current coil tagging and magnetic pillar sensor approach.

We are designing a system to combat the threat of shoplifting and allow retail outlets to track products, by utilising RFID tags with passive sensors. RFID tags can be attached to products of any value. By utilising already implemented RFID tags we will have a software program which will communicate with security devices and alert staff to the attempted theft. The system will also retain information of the product being stolen to aid tracking of the offender and the product.

With this technology having such a large potential scope, initially our design will be aimed at security at the Gunwharf Quays retail site but has other potential uses such as stock management and point of sale systems as well as tracking throughout the supply chain.


Design Requirements


Benefits of the System
Our system is far superior to current security systems, the main advantages over current systems do not have the ability to track the products or know the exact product that has been stolen. They are also prone to false alarms, caused by staff failing to remove tags and items such as library books setting of the alarm.

The system will help ensure an accurate stock level as major retailers loose a large amount of stock every year, a large proportion of this is due to theft. If all thefts of a product are known this level of unaccounted for stock will be significantly reduced. By integrating this system with the retailers stock management system, either by fully integrating the systems or by producing detailed printed reports.
The remainder of this unexplained wastage is caused by occurrences such as being 'short delivered' on an item or for example receiving 5 cases instead of 6. By eliminating theft from these figures it will allow retailers to concentrate on reducing other areas of this unexplained wastage and increase profit and turnover in their business.

It would also be possible to discreetly tag products so the customer would never know it was on there. A problem with current tags are they are very obvious and not every product is tagged and therefore products with no tag are more likely to be stolen. If a thief does not know which products are tagged and which are not, they may not take the risk and target somewhere else. The system will also allow silent alarms so catching the thief can be done discreetly.

The RFID tag deactivater could be put near the bar code reader at the Point of Sale so all products would be automatically deactivated so that there is no risk of staff forgetting.

The system also allows retailer security teams to work together on combating shop lifting, this would work best in a retail park or shopping centre where security is generally a shared resource anyway. A theft from one shop could alert shopping centre security as well as security from other retail outlets, allowing a greater chance of recovery of the product.

The potential scope for the future of this system is huge, hidden tags in clothes could activate when the thief enters any establishment using our system and allow them to be apprehended. Staff would be able to see exactly what the product is, where it was stolen from and when.


Product Functionality
Below is a list of the primary functionality of our system, written in sequence:


Product Behavior
It is crucial that the product allows for the following:


Customer Requirements
This section will cover the requirements of the customer, as for our system to be successful it is crucial that the hardware and software co-exist seamlessly:

Firstly it is critical that the tags, writers, sensors and interfaces are all compatible, however their exact specifications cannot be defined at this point.

The software system will not require any 'high end' computer hardware, a Pentium 4 processor or better, with 2GB of RAM running Windows XP (or similar) would definitely be adequate. Our system would also require a reliable ethernet 100 baseT network infrastructure for communications.

At minimum the tags must contain a product identification number in their on board memory, to correspond with a full product description within our system database. This detailed product description is then given to the security team to help them recover the stolen products.

A worrying realisation in one of our initial discussions was that, if the tag is destroyed or removed maliciously then obviously it will not be picked up by the sensors at all. Although this is a significant revelation we felt that we still had a very strong product regardless and firstly that steps would be put in place to make it difficult for devices to be tampered with. Such steps would include hiding the tag within garments, and seeking tags that are difficult to interfere with. Secondly when designing any security system cost, inconvenience, benefit and the probability of the average thief going to such an extent (to use a sophisticated tampering device) all have to be taken into consideration. We certainly feel ours system balances all the above.

For that reason it is recommended that tags are kept as small as possible allowing then to be hidden effectively. However this is largely dependent on the type of tag used and at what stage such a device is attached.

Customers could potentially use active, semi-passive or passive tags however it is strongly recommended that passive tags are used. As this choice begins a complex relationship between the tags size, weight, cost, associated advantages and disadvantages, as well as effecting whether the tag can be concealed effectively, lowering the likely hood of tampering and ultimately affecting theft and recovery figures.

In summary the key positive and negative aspects of each tag relating to our implementation are:
It be made clear that products will only be tracked if the RFID tags are not de-activated at the point of sale, and are therefore assumed to have been stolen.

The table below summarises the associated advantages and disadvantages of tagging at either the factory, distribution centre or the shop:

Where Tagged Sophisticated, Hidden Tagging Short term cost Long term cost Examples
Factory Yes High Low Printing tags directly onto products, Injecting tags into the outer skin of boxes or into fabric as well as simply gluing and attaching tags
Distribution Centre Yes Medium Medium As above, this will be easier to implement but will cost more long term
Shop No Low High Simply attaching tags to products


It is also obviously very important to both us and the customer that the necessary steps are taken to ensure the actual product is not affected by our system, for example through tagging damaging garments.

Another potential issue is that thieves would not only be able to escape through numerous exits but that it would be possible to bypass the sensors, bearing in the width of many exit points and the limited sensor range. To overcome this multiple sensors would be installed at points across each exit at either: ground level, on lighting posts or the ceilings of covered passageways for example.

A further detail brought into question was which products should be tagged. After discussion we appreciate this is highly dependent on the value, the ease of stealing and the frequency of thefts. We felt a recommended value of £100 was appropriate, but that this is ultimately up to the customer as every product could be tagged if required.

Customers must meet all the relevant regulatory, legal and health and safety requirements.

For our system to work it is crucial that every retail site has a well organised, skilled, efficient collaborative security team, to ensure the information given by our system is used to its potential.


Regulatory, Legal and Health and Safety Requirements
We need to consider the health and safety implications of our product, such as ensuring the chips do not contain hazardous chemicals or sharp edges. This will be discussed in depth within the design, prototype and testing phases.

Within the United Kingdom the radio spectrum is managed by Ofcom, many technologies require permission to use specific frequencies, however as RFID is an existing technology with preassigned frequencies Ofcom do not need to be consulted. If we were to take the product to another country such as the United States we would need to consult with the relevant regulator in that country (FCC in USA) We would also need to file for a patant to protect our system. To avoid concerns about privacy invasion it will be ensured that the sensors range only covers the retail site, as well as signs clearly stating that the system is in use. However this will be irrelevant for the majority of consumers as they will have paid for products and the chip will have been either, de-activated or removed.

Radiation given out by the chips maybe of concern however the hardware we will be using has been through all safety and health checks by the regulatory bodies. This would include interference with Pacemakers, which are not at risk from the frequencies of RFID.


Overcoming problems
The main problem was actually defining our product, firstly it needed to be realised that our technology is entirely software based as standard RFID equipment can be used without the need for any tailoring. Requirements will obviously have to be stated but apart from these customers can use whichever equipment they wish. Secondly the exact product and its specifics were decided upon from the huge array of potential applications.

Initially our hand held and control room interfaces were going to convey information via a map, however after considering the knowledge of security personnel at Gunwharf we feel it is the important to give flexibility by implementing both a map, and a text interface. Staff communicate using unit, shop and area names to specify a location and in this instance a map could slow communication - costing valuable time. However on other occasions such as when working in open spaces where there are few landmarks a map may be more desirable.

There was also some difficulty in deciding whether a stock control system should be implemented into our design, the majority of us were against this recognising the ease that it could be implemented but feeling that it diverts from our goal: to make a product security system.

All the other problems were hardware based and although they are significant, as our product is purely software based these become requirements for the customer to choose the correct hardware. Key points are summarised here, but are stated in detail within the requirements section:


Use Case Scenarios

The RFID tagging system can be adapted to suit the customer requirements in many ways. The tags that customer’s use will not be of any fixed orientation so they will only play a small part in the system. The backbone of the system, or the software is where the main usability will be. Current tagging systems can be adopted to fit around system.
Passive censors will need to be placed in predefined locations around the shopping centre to ensure that the tags can be traced to the software’s full potential and all retail outlets will need to work together to gain maximum benefit from the system.
Our system gives you the advantage of being able to track a product around the shopping centre so if a thief was to steal from one shop a silent alarm can be sounded to only security and shop officials. They will know what product has been stolen and the thief will not know that they have been caught and are currently being observed and tracked around site. This will aid in the defense of theft, as it will allow officials to build a portfolio of how criminals may operate in the area and point out holes in their security defense system. This will not only benefit the individual retail outlets, but also Gunwharf Quays as a complete unit.

• Item is stolen from store
• Silent alarm is sounded to the store and security. Security guards are alerted to the theft
• Security are aware of the exact nature of the item and can easily see more product information from the product information database
• Item is tracked on the mapping system, security can easily see movements of the thief


Potential Scope
We will initially be aiming this technology at Gunwharf Quays, however it has the potential to be beneficial in a huge variety of applications by means of system expansion, user interface changes and increasing the information stored on the chip to name a few.


Design Analysis

Comparison to Existing Products


Bar Coding Technology Vs RFID
One technology used for the identification of products at Gunwharf Quays, is bar coding. A bar code provides the world's least expensive and most robust method of data entry. Although bar coding may not be directly linked to security monitoring, it is often seen as an equivalent comparison in terms of auto-identification. Auto-identification is the technology used to identify products, humans and animals. Even though RFID and bar coding come from the same technology family they are different in many ways.

For example, bar coding identification requires the line of sight to be read, meaning items can only be scanned one by one, and codes cannot be read if they happen to be damaged or dirty. This can be a time consuming task for the sales clerk, especially in a busy store where customers can be waiting a considerable amount of time to be served. Bar code vendors have tried to come with some solutions to this problem. Thermal bar code printers and RFID printers can identify and correct bad bar codes before they enter the production or distribution system. The benefits of this kind of printing are improved accuracy and increased productivity. Such solutions are becoming more and more utilized in a variety of markets including healthcare, manufacturing and retail.

RFID eliminates this issue, as the chips embedded in the product allow multiple tags to be identified and processed simultaneously by the reader. What’s more, is that items can be oriented in any direction, as long as they are in the read range of the chip, direct line of sight is never required. As a result, RFID delivers a more rapid scanning time. It could therefore be possible for a full trolley of goods to be identified and processed simultaneously. This makes it immediately preferable over bar code identification in the majority of retail environments - where quick throughput of product is of paramount importance.

This leads us to the security benefits of RFID over barcode. RFID chips are very difficult to replicate. Data can be password protected, encrypted or include a 'kill' operation which can remove data permanently from the Electronic Product Code (EPC). The EPC is a product numbering system that uses a set of numbers similar to bar codes. It assigns each item with a unique product identification number. The EPC system can also be linked to a networked database which can be used to autonomously update and monitor information such as item destinations and the number of products in stock. This means that a product's path through a particular supply chain can be closely monitored and reviewed. Another security concern is that the RFID tags could be duplicated. If someone duplicates the tag, they could potentially produce a “cloned” tag that they could use. This is especially dangerous when you consider RFID chipped passports, or security cards used to access secure buildings.

Bar codes can only be used to identify the type of item, whereas RFID can identify specific items and even track their location. This means that RFID tags can hold information within them.
A similar bar code technology exists in the form of two-dimensional bar codes, but this requires a bar code printer to print each piece of information. This can be expensive, time consuming, and requires a large space for the 2D bar code to be housed on the packaging of the product (the amount of data stored on the 2D bar code is proportional to the space the bar code takes up). The products bar code is encoded both horizontally and vertically, allowing the amount of data encoded to be increased. On the other hand, RFID tags can contain a large amount of memory in a physically small space, particularly when the tag is passively powered.

A reason why RFID may not appeal to consumers is the price of the tags along with the additional equipment required for full implementation of an RFID system. Bar codes on the other hand, are a cheaper and more common (universal) solution for the identification of products. Although RFID tags would be more reliable, the cost is a factor deterring people from making the change from bar codes to RFID. Another reason that makes RFID superior is the same reason people are opposed to it. If something is tagged, the location of the object can be read. Consumers are afraid that they or their possessions could be tracked by people, and do not want their privacy to be invaded in this way. Although this is not the reason for implementing RFID tags, it may consequently have an impact on the way the public conceive and interpret the concept of RFID for asset tracking.

RFID however, cannot be seen as a full replacement for bar coding. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages that vary depending upon the application in which they are used. For applications requiring reliable performance and re-usability (high-end products), RFID will prevail. However, in a system that requires reliable performance with low cost implementation (low-end products), bar codes will remain the clear choice for some years to come.


Gunwharf Quays

The use of our product will be providing a service, as this service has such a large potential scope we want to initially aim this service at Gunwharf quays, being a complex of which houses a series of retail outlets that all rely on security to prevent the problem that is theft.

The stores situated within Gunwharf quays pay a fee to Gunwharf of which involves the hire of a security team which covers all the shops. This is very much the case for most shopping centres/complexes and this is the aim of our product; to improve this service. If we look at the current security service which would be in place we can identify the pros and cons if any, of our system replacing this current system.


Current methods of preventing theft
In the case of a theft, providing the magnetic strip hasn’t been removed from the product, when the product is taken out the door it should effectively pass through the security towers, which are essentially magnets, creating a magnetic field between them; this will disrupt the magnetic field and in effect, set off an alarm.

The benefit of this loud alarm, is a loud noise such as this draws attention and so not only by alerting the staff to the theft and security other shoppers’ attention will go to this doorway, providing more witnesses to potentially identify the thief.

This alarm, depending on the quality of the system, will alert a main security control centre of which will communicate to the security guards on duty by radio communication in most cases of the theft, to begin the pursuit of the thief.

Flaws within this system:
• If the strip does not pass through the magnetic field i.e. between the two towers, the alarm will not sound. Thieves can simply throw the product above the towers or pass them round the side of them – obvious system.
• Using a magnet, thieves can remove the magnetic strip – too obvious.
• Unaware of product specifics – the security are unaware of what the product may look like, so in the case of catching the thief they may not know what they are in fact looking for.
• If in the case the security loses sight of the thief, they have no way of tracking them, therefore losing the product.
• Potentially slow responses, relies upon staff personnel responses as well.
• Store is unaware of what is stolen until a stock check is carried out.


The new way – RFID
If we now look at our system we can identify the difference and benefits of such a system. When the stock is brought into the retail outlet it is the stores responsibility to distribute the RFID tags onto the products, when doing so they will write the product details onto the tag as well as setting a state, this state is what eventually trigger the alarm. At the POS this state will of course be wiped to avoid triggering the alarm from a purchased product.

In the case of a theft when the product with the tag is taken through the doorway the RFID reader of which is discrete will read the chip and identify it has not be purchased. This will then set the alarm, as well as sending an alert to the security control room identifying the store, the product, and a product description of which is stored on the tag. This information will then be passed on to the guards on duty via the control room. This allows security to respond rapidly to the theft.

Further more, located throughout the shopping centre on doorways, fire exits will be RFID readers; these will excite the passive the RFID chip if it passed them. Each RFID reader will have an individual location description. This information will then be fed to the security to identify where the thief is exactly in the centre, hopefully preventing the thief from leaving the centre with the product.

From looking at the current methods in place in today’s retail outlets, it gives a great opportunity to see what problems they are facing and ensure that our system overcomes these problems. Problems such as, removal of the tag; in the case of using the magnetic stripe, thieves could remove it using a strong enough magnet, RFID tags can come in all shapes and sizes and depending on the customer’s choice, can be near impossible to remove from the product, that is even if they are visible.

If we also look at the problem of thieves being able to avoid the sensors at the door, they are very obvious, and allow thieves to avoid them by simply ensuring the tag does not go through the magnetic field, i.e. passing it through above them or around them. RFID overcomes this. The reader is small and does not require line of site of the product, therefore it can be hidden in the floor say or the ceiling, out of site and yet still covering the full exit, ensuring the thief cannot avoid it.

These are a few crucial points, from looking at today’s system in place, at which we think our RFID system improves on the system used today:
• RFID reader at store exit is discrete. It can be hidden at the exit and will cover the whole exit, ensuring there is no way of avoiding it when exiting the retail outlet.
• RFID chip, depending on stores choice, can be discrete, i.e. thief cannot remove it.
• Product details are stored on the chip as the chip is activated.
• Faster read time of data on the RFID tag
• System informs security of product details - they are aware as to what they are looking for.
• Security is updated as to the products (the thief’s) movements throughout the centre.


Use of RFID - GAO RFID Inc

GAO Inc are a company of which provide RFID solutions of all sorts, some of which have a lot in common with our system.

Here we are going to take a look at one of their solutions; identifying the benefits that came from using RFID technology like we will be.

Library system
The goal of the system was to address the inevitable concern that was, as libraries expand their services to their patrons providing more materials such as renting laptops, CD, DVDs etc, they have to address security issues of the collection assets and maintaining service levels. Another issue the system sought to address was to reduce the operating budgets i.e. staff, to make room for the costs of these new services.

Below we can see GAO Inc’s interpretation of their system (GAO RFID inc, 2001):
text

For this system the RFID tag is assigned and attached to the asset in similar ways to how a bar code or magnetic stripe would be. The system also involves self check in/out utilities, easy shelf management by use of a PDA which can scan multiple tags within seconds, meaning there is no need to remove all products from the shelves to check stocks. The system also uses the RFID tag to prevent theft, and this is something of which we will be involving within our system.

From using an RFID system, quoting GAO Inc, they believe it has benefited in the following ways:
1. Faster scanning of the data stored on the RFID tag,
2. Simple and easy way for patrons to self-checking for material loans and returns,
3. Superior detection rates,
4. Significantly reduce the number of false alarms at the exit sensors (up to 75% less)
5. High speed inventory - reducing time to by staff for 'shelf-reading' and other inventory activities,
6. Automated return of materials that speeds up sorting of materials and re-shelving for the next patron to access and
7. A longer lifecycle than a bar code.

Now like this system we will be using RFID tags on all of the assets within the store, however our system will write to the tags, storing the product information as well as on the system database, so when the tag is applied to the asset, the information from the system database will be on the tag as well.
We will also be using similarly the RFID tag for anti-theft detection as this system does, however our system will take it further to the extent of monitoring the tags movement once it has left the retail outlet via RFID readers located throughout the shopping center / complex, thus communicating to the security the thief’s position, aiding in the retrieval of this product even after it has left the store.

Also, from looking at GAO Inc’s library system we see that they have involved a logging scheme for managing the stock of books within the library, simply from using an RFID reader. Our system has the potential to involve a similar scheme for our retail outlets; simply by scanning the store with a handheld RFID reader the store could process multiple tags within seconds to check the stock.


Design Analysis

Concept Diagrams


Context Diagram http://www.storesite.co.uk/context.jpg


Key Cost Drivers


When designing a new product, it is important to understand how costs are involved in the development and implementation of the product. Costs involved in implementing the product will allow the company to determine whether it is feasible to implement the product or not. At the moment in the UK, losses from shoplifting is in the region of £4 billion annually, this shows that the security being used at the moment is not very reliable which is why we chose our product which would aid security systems.

Readers (the detectors)
The price of the readers vary depending on the size of the retail outlet as that determines the amount of antennas and the necessary range needed to use our system effectively e.g. if the outlet has many exits the readers range will need to cover the whole exit. Also if the company wants to make use of the additional features our product has such as stock audit, then they need to cover the whole shop floor with the antennas.
Price List
For a reader which covers up to 1.5m there is the iDTRONIC ISO 15693 Long Range Reader EzScan LR this can be purchased in the region of 1,353.40EUR or 1260.53GBP (based on currency rates on 30th march 2009) (RFID Shop, 2006).

RFID Tags
The prices of the RFID tags vary in price depending on how each retails want to implement our product. Some companies may add our device on already existing security which would be beneficial to the outlets contents though RFID tags will also need to be added if they do not already exist in the current security system. The other main point that effects the price of the RFID tags is whether the tags are passive or active, passive RFID are our choice for our product as they have a longer life span than active RFID tags because they do not require batteries.
Price List
The iDTRONIC Adhesive Labels HFI 38x38 - 500 pcs are Adhesive labels which come in a pack off 500 they are priced at 410.00EUR or 381.87GBP

Computer or PDA Device
some sort of computer or PDA device will e need for the simple purpose as to run our software, though the requirements for the hardware are undetermined a fairly low specification computer or PDA device should be able to run our software with little difficulty. Although depending on the system implemented may dictate how the software communicates with the other devices.
Price List
Computer specification doesn’t have to be high an example of a computer that can be used is the LG X110 Netbook Laptop, Atom 1.6Ghz, 1GB RAM, 160GB HDD, 10" WSVGA, WLAN, 3in1 Reader, 3 Cell battery, Gloss Black, XP Home the is priced at 268.41EUR or 249.99GBP
PDA’s can also be used, the Compaq iPAQ H3970 Pocket PC with SD Slot and Bluetooth is a key example and is priced at 75.10EUR or 69.95GBP

Writer
The writer is the device used to interact with the RFID tags to assign product number and description to each item they are attached to. The writer uses wireless technology to interact with the RFID’s. The price on the writers vary depending on how many RFID’s it can interact with at the same time.
Price List
The iDTRONIC ISO 15693 Long Range Reader EzScan LR can also act as a writer.

Impact on Costs
Based on this information I would say that 40% of you cost will be impacted by the RFID tags as many would have to be purchased in order to cover most inventory.
The writers and readers are absolutely necessary in the operation of the system which is why I think this would be at least 40% of the key cost.
The remaining 20% would be the cost of connectivity and the computer system required, the computer is important but as specification is not a main issue the impact on the key cost can be greatly reduced and as most outlets already have some sort of computer system this is less likely to really have an impact on the cost.


References


Maxtag. (2005). Retrieved March 26, 2009, from http://www.maxtag.com/
RFID Shop. (2006). Retrieved March 28, 2009, from http://www.therfidshop.com/product_info.php?cPath=23_36&products_id=553
GAO RFID inc. (2001). Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http://library.gaorfid.com/
Page revised 2009-05-03 15:12 • ©2012 University of Portsmouth • This website uses wikkawiki.org software.