NYT: Wal-Mart Slows RFID Plans, Suppliers Resist

securitas writes "The New York Times' Barnaby Feder reports that Wal-Mart has scaled back its plans to deploy RFID tags because the majority of its top 100 suppliers will not be able to meet the Jan. 1, 2005 deadline that the retailer demanded. Suppliers are resisting Wal-Mart's RFID demand for a variety of reasons according to AMR Research. Only 40 suppliers will meet the deadline, with two suppliers 'so tied up in a complete overhaul of their entire information technology infrastructure that they have put off attempting to introduce radio tagging.' A more pragmatic reason for the delay is that 'no one who uses the technology has systems that can reliably read the information 100 percent of the time in factories, warehouses and stores; Wal-Mart said the rate was around 60 percent in its stores.' It's hard to make the case that RFID will help track inventory when you can't reliably find 40% of it."

Comments

Bad title

[Tim C]

The title makes it sound as though Wal-Mart's suppliers are resisting the slowing of the introduction of RFID, while the truth is quite the reverse - that the slow-down is happening because of supplier resistence, not despite it.

Re:Bad title

[Stevyn]

should have read "Wal-Marts' RFID Plans Slowed"

Re:Bad title

[MrRTFM]

It isn't even supplier resistance - they simply cannot get it implemented in time.

Walmarts great 'do as we say - sell for the price we say - dont be late - fuck you in general' policy may just be a little too oppresive after all.

It would be good if the suppliers could get a little more power back because of this.

Re:Bad title

[Anonymous Coward]

Walmarts are a scourge on society.

Yes, I used to shop there. No, I don't any more.

I am willing to pay a little more for things that I need if my money is going to "stay local". For this reason, I don't shop at Walmart and, instead, give business to the local "mom and pop" concern.

They are suffering from what I term the "3G Effect". Any time you have a family business that grows into a large powerhouse, the 3rd generation of the family is the one that is spoiled / fucks up the company.

The 1st generation (the owner) cares about the business - its ideals, its goals, its employees. He / she treats it like another child, caring for it and nurturing it. Generally, it is not an evil company.

As the company grows and the children of the owner come into the business (2nd generation), things generally stay the same. The 2Gers respect the company and their parent. They saw the hard work and dedication that went into the company and want it to continue along the original path.

When the grand-children come on board (3G), they've only ever seen the company at the top - they've never seen the hard work that went into it. When it's their turn at the controls, usually just after the owner kicks, they morph the company into a "how can we make the most money possible?" organization - forgetting the community and employees that the 1G and 2G dedicated themselves to. Sometimes, the 3Gers don't get involved in the company and just live as spoiled, ignorant brats (Paris, although you are a 4Ger, this means you!).

Now, I call it the "3G Effect" when, in fact, the schedule could be moved up or back. In the case of Walmart, as soon as Sam kicked, the kids really started decimating the company by going offshore for more goods and putting the screws to the manufacturers.

Enough of my tirade....

Re:Bad title

[Shajenko42]

Better to have power in the hands of many smaller companies than one large one.

Re:Bad title

[Anonymous Coward]

He dislike Wal-Mart because it uses foreign, rather than local, made goods and forces the local, mom and pop shops to compete on a global level [with underpaid workers].

He attributes this move torwards globalization (by Wal-Mart) to an effect he made up.

--

well except for the millions of consumers that are able to more efficiently spend their hard earned money

Wal-Mart often doesn't have the lowest price on a majority of its items (unless it is the only store in an area). But, it does offer the lowest price on a small range of well-placed, well-advertised goods. (If you are only buying those items, then, you are saving money. Shopping at Wal-Mart is like shopping at any other store: you have to be selective, and check prices to know you are saving money. I would argue that many shop at Wal-Mart because it's easier to buy everything in one place than several rather than because shopping at Wal-Mart is always the least expensive place to shop.)

Am I the only one who likes RFID?

[rokzy]

I have an RFID card I leave in my wallet that allows me access to parts of my work building. much better than swipe cards.

I'd love them to be used in shops too. if you could just walk round a shop putting things in a bag, put the bag on a pay station, insert your credit card, type your PIN, and leave... I think that would be great, and a real case of technology actually making life better.

and the only people (*cough* luddites *cough*) I want to hear privacy complaints from are the people who are posting from an internet cafe, wearing a disguise, putting a tinfoil blanket over themselves and the computer, and then paying with cash they've cleaned any DNA from. and you guys probably don't even go to shops ever since they introduced the eeeeeevvvviiiilll of barcodes anyway.

Re:Am I the only one who likes RFID?

[jbash]

Bar codes don't track the movements of the product for months after you bought it, so there's no comparison.

You totally miss the point of RFID though, which is that it's a landmark advance in surveillance technology. It can be easily abused.

The government would be very tempted to implant such tags in prisoners and homeless people. (Perhaps the argument could be made that it would reduce crime.) Employers may require implantation of such devices as a condition of employment. (The argument could be made that they would reduce employee shirking.)

Re:Am I the only one who likes RFID?

[plover]

There are a lot of reasons for consumers to not want RFID tags. The primary reason I can think of is personal security. Would you want to literally broadcast the fact that you had thirteen platinum Visa cards in your wallet? Walk into the wrong bar one night and count yourself lucky to wake up again.

RFID reading is secret -- nobody needs to ask your permission to scan you. (Barcodes require you to expose them to the reader.)

There are also other privacy related reasons you might not want RFID tags in your clothing. What if you walked into a fancy restaurant and they scanned you on the way in, realized you had on Walmart underwear, and refused to serve you? "Excuse me, sir, but we don't serve your kind here. You can play dress-up in an Armani suit, but we know who you really are." Or, would you want that restaurant to throw you out before they seated you because they saw your Visa cards were maxed out? "Hey, I was just here to meet a friend!" "Sorry, sir; may I suggest you meet him at McDonalds instead?"

Re:Am I the only one who likes RFID?

[rokzy]

assuming the RFID was still enabled after purchase, and someone wanted to track the packaging of an item I bought, and was close enough to scan they could see and touch it anyway.... sorry but I just don't care.

complain when it's abused, not because it CAN be abused. if you listened to complaints based on something COULD be a problem, we wouldn't have the internet or 99% of inventions.

implantation? you must be taking the piss. how many of us have barcodes tattooed on our foreheads? that's what happens to prisoners in all the sci-fi movies but years later we still don't have it! WTF!?!!123

RFID Threat

[Himring]

RFID technology is the greatest threat to individual freedom in our times. In order for there to be liberty, we must be free to be anonymous. "Tagging" things -- making items identifiable -- is really nothing more than a step toward tracking us (we are our things in spite of what fight club would have us believe). It all began when the U.S. laid back and allowed social security numbers to be attached to every citizen....

Re:RFID Threat

[MankyD]

You say this, but you provide no proof or examples of the rampant abuse you so disdain. If you're going to make far reaching claims like this, don't expect people to take them to heart without facts backing it up.

While I might concur that RFID has potential for abuse, I must say that I have been quite happy with it when I do use it (access cards etc.) I also personally believe that it is much harder and impractical to implement these "tracking" methods /. so commonly fears. Most RFID generally has a range of a meter or two (at most.) How are they going to track you once you leave the store? It would be ludicrous (and legally impossible) to set up readers along public sidewalks and inside public buildings.

No, you aren't

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

I like RFID in the same way I like barcodes. Both are amazing for certain applications (RFID kinda beats the pants off barcodes for most things, though it needs to be backed up by a barcode and a human readable identifier...)

Their usefulness, however, in my mind, does not preclude discussion of their drawbacks. Sure, there are people who are screaming BAN RFID OMG WTF but they're already the fringe and are being officially and unofficially ignored. Just because some fringies are mewling does not make the entire line of inquiry invalid.

I think it is a reasonable point to make in general with technology that once we feel that our assumptions in terms of civil life are being changed, we have to step up and say something.

Hold on a second

[CaptainZapp]

So according to the second link Walmart achieves 60% accuracy with the scanning of the tags?

I know that they are considered to be top-of-the-pops in logistics, but when you achieve 40% failures in stock maintenance and merchandise flow I wouldn't call that state of the art, I'd call that outright shoddy (even considering that accuracy _might_ get to 95% one day)

By calling up the psychic hotline (9$99 a minute) they probably achieve more accurate results..

(But then again, maybe it's just an engenious way to piss of their suppliers).

Re:Sounds about as good as its self-checkout scann

[fermion]

The other issue is trust. When allowing a consumer to check themselves out, there has to be some level of trust, or, alternatively, a significant tolerance for shrinkage. Wal*Mart has niether.

This completely eliminates the advantage for the consumer, which is fast checkout without the hassles of going through a poorly trained human. At Kroger's, for instance, it is perfectly possible to get out of the store without any significant interventions. The few times I have ben to Wal*mart, I have never been able to get out without hassle. Not only do you have the normal thug at the door, but the atttendent seems much more willing to assume malice on the part of the consumer.

I assume that this assumption that most of the customers are thieves derives from the fact that Wal*Mart executives are theives. This would also likely mean that the executive presume tha the suppliers are thieves, which is why every item has to be tagged. The only thins that can be trusted are computers.

Bodes poorly for consumer use

[Dan East]

So here we have an RFID implementation in a controlled environment - one in which everyone is babying the system along and trying to make things work.

If the system is this unreliable in the warehouses then imagine it in the consumer world (ie checking out a whole buggy of products at a time), where the complexity, volume, and general misuse will be amplified. Throw into that mix people actively trying to circumvent or sabotage the system, and things look pretty dismal.

Dan East