RFID vs. Barcode Scanning
RFID (radio-frequency identification) is the future and traditional barcoding will soon become obsolete. That’s the opinion of many these days…but is it a true statement? While RFID technology has been around for more than half a century, it’s only recently come to the forefront since the cost of scanning devices and tags have dropped significantly.
RFID asset tracking technology theoretically allows you to walk into a room with tagged assets and inventory items and perform a complete physical audit in a matter of seconds. Travelling quickly from one location to the next, an audit of all fixed assets and inventory items – spread across numerous buildings, floors and rooms, is attainable within a very short time period. Yes, the technology used in RFID is certainly more expensive than conventional fixed asset tracking; however, many will argue that with the timesavings involved, ROI analyses favor RFID.
Q: So which is the better option: RFID or barcode scanning?
A: It all depends.
Your industry, company requirements and finances are just a few deciding factors to be considered in the decision making process.
If you have questions or comments on this topic or are simply interested in learning more about RFID vs. traditional barcode scanning, please post a reply.
I am responsible for implementing a system for better inventory control at my company. A vendor who came in to meet with me, referred to companies that barcode as dinosaurs. Any thoughts on barcoding becoming extinct?
Barcoding is here to stay. The simplicity of use and low cost of utilization make barcoding appealing to companies watching the bottom line. RFID won’t replace barcoding anytime soon.
My company recently ditched RFID as an asset tracking option due to the cost of the tags alone, they
What is Real Asset Management’s choice between the two?
Real Asset Management International (RAMI) considers prospects
A few points not yet covered in this discussion.
1. RFID (active) tags that allow you to scan all the assets in a room are not blocked by pesky things such as walls. In other words the assets scanned in a particular area may actually belong to someone in the department next door. If you have short range RFID tags then you may as well have barcodes, they are much cheaper.
2. You really always want the staff member to sight the asset. This is why good asset software can distinguish between a scanned item and one picked from a list. Often an asset audit involves checking for the condition of the asset and whether it is still in service etc. Having to sight an asset takes away the time benefit of the RFID. It could be argued that sighting the asset is just plain good practise as you could be auditing just a room full of RFID tags left behind after someone has removed all the assets.
3. RFID tags sometimes stop working. It is a fact of life that RFID tags are electronic devices. Long range tags have batteries in them and sometime things just fail. Barcodes are not electronic and therefore don’t fail. If an rfid tag fails to scan then the staff will have to search for the asset anyway.
There is room for both. RFID can potentially provide good data that has been written to the tag but often this is not required as it is kept in a database. my opinion, barcodes are still dominant for Assets and will continue to be for some time yet.