NAIT Scheme. Tag Ordering System Requirements & Options Consultation Paper. March 2013

Transcription

1 NAIT Scheme Tag Ordering System Requirements & Options Consultation Paper March

2 Contents Introduction 4 Document purpose 4 Approval & consultation process 4 Tag ordering: background 6 NAIT 6 AHB 6 LIC / CRV Ambreed 6 NAIT-approved tag 6 Tag manufacturer access to AHB TOS 7 AHB TOS customer orders 7 NAIT visual ID formats in AHB TOS 7 Linking NAIT tags purchased to NAIT numbers 8 Current process 8 Requirements of a NAIT Tag Ordering System 9 Options 11 Possible models 11 Recommendations 11 Assumptions 11 Out of scope 11 1 Model 1: Retain TOS 13 1.A Summary of Model 1: Retain TOS 13 1.B Analysis of Model 1: Retain TOS 13 1.C Stakeholder impact of Model 1: Retain TOS 14 1.D Cost of Model 1: Retain TOS 14 2 Model 2: Enhance TOS 16 2.A Summary of Model 2: Enhance TOS 16 2.B Analysis of Model 2: Enhance TOS 16 2

3 2.C Stakeholder impact of Model 2: Enhance TOS 18 2.D Cost of Model 2: Enhance TOS 18 3 Model 3: New NAIT TOS 19 3.A Summary of Model 3: New NAIT TOS 19 3.B Analysis of Model 3: New NAIT TOS 19 3.C Stakeholder impact of Model 3: New NAIT TOS 20 3.D Cost of Model 3: New NAIT TOS 21 4 Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS 22 4.A Summary of Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS 22 4.B Analysis of Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS 22 4.C Stakeholder impact of Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS 23 4.D Cost of Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS 24 5 Model 5: Off-the-shelf 25 5.A Summary of Model 5: Off-the-shelf 25 5.B Analysis of Model 5: Off-the-shelf 25 5.C Stakeholder impact of Model 5: Off-the-shelf 26 5.D Cost of Model 5: Off-the-shelf 27 6 Questions for Consultation 28 Appendix 1: Matrix of requirements 30 Appendix 2: Impact matrix 31 Appendix 3: Cost matrix 32 3

4 Introduction This paper reviews NAIT s requirements for tag ordering and explores possible models for the ordering of NAIT tags going forward. Such a review has been prompted by the following factors: NAIT is now the primary entity responsible for regulating the mandatory tagging of cattle and deer in New Zealand. The Animal Health Board (AHB) and NAIT Limited are in the process of merging. The AHB have indicated that they no longer want to manage tag ordering or operate AHB Tag ordering system (TOS) on an ongoing basis. There are some limitations with the existing tag ordering process. The inability to order NAIT tags via NAIT number is causing confusion for farmers. The Animal Health Board is currently updating its Disease Management Information System (DMIS) with a view that a revised system will be in place by November The current DMIS provides links into the existing Tag Ordering System. It is therefore important that decisions are made quickly on future approaches to tag ordering processes so that transitional strategies for the existing AHB systems can be determined with certainty. Equally, some of the proposals contained in this document suggest changes to non-nait/ahb systems may also be necessary. NAIT therefore considers that there is a degree of urgency in making decisions about future tag ordering processes. We welcome submissions from interested parties. Document purpose This document: Sets out the current process via which persons in charge of animals (PICAs) can obtain NAIT-approved tags (NAIT devices under the NAIT Act 2013). Sets out the requirements of a NAIT tag ordering system. Proposes five possible options for ordering NAIT tags going forward (This includes an option of not having any tag ordering system at all). Analyses the extent to which these models meet the requirements identified. Makes recommendations about which model(s) to investigate further. Approval & Consultation Process Discussions will be held with parties who have an interest in the efficient and effective sale of NAIT tags. The finalised and approved paper will be opened up for public consultation with the aim of collecting the views of key stakeholders including MPI, approved scheme operators, tag, rural retailers and farmers. Submissions will be analysed by NAIT Limited for approval before decisions are communicated to all submitters. Submissions on these proposals are due by 5 April Please include the following in your submission: The title of this document Your name and position (if applicable) Your organisation s name (if applicable) Your address and contact details 4

5 Please forward your submission to: The Chief Executive NAIT Ltd PO Box Wellington 6143 or to: or fax to: (04) or you can call NAIT Ltd on freephone

6 Tag Ordering: Background NAIT In February 2012 the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) Act was passed. Amongst other obligations the NAIT Act provides that NAIT Animals (currently cattle and deer) must be tagged with a NAIT-approved tag (NAIT tag). By agreement between the Animal Health Board (AHB) and NAIT; the NAIT tag is now the only tag mandatorily required for animal identification (farmers are no longer required to apply any additional AHB-approved ear tag). There is no centralised tag ordering system, currently NAIT tags are available via the following three systems: AHB Tag Ordering System (TOS) LIC Minda CRV Ambreed AHB Due to AHB s historic role as the regulator of compulsory tagging of cattle and deer, the AHB operate a tag ordering system (AHB TOS). This reflects a need for the AHB to have a link between an animal s farm of birth, subsequent movements and its place of slaughter. The AHB s primary role is to manage the implementation of the National Pest Management Strategy for Bovine TB. Given this focus and given the NAIT scheme has commenced, the AHB have indicated that they no longer want to manage tag ordering or operate AHB TOS. AHB and NAIT are currently being merged under one combined entity. How integrated AHB s and NAIT s functions, systems and staff will become, is yet to be determined. LIC / CRV Ambreed Both LIC and CRV Ambreed (organisations concerned with the continual improvement of dairy genetics) operate their own tag ordering systems outside AHB TOS. Dairy farmers affiliated with LIC use LIC MINDA to order tags. Orders from LIC MINDA go directly (electronically) to the tag. Dairy farmers affiliated with CRV Ambreed use the CRV Ambreed system to order tags. Orders from the CRV Ambreed system go directly to the tag. In the foreseeable future tag ordering via LIC MINDA and CRV Ambreed is going to continue as is. Both organisations are approved as animal identification system operators under section 50 of the Biosecurity Act It is noted that LIC was not managing the information printed on the outside of NAIT tags effectively (i.e. duplicates are not being flagged) which is currently an issue with negative impact on the operation and integrity of the NAIT scheme. The future of CRV Ambreed and LIC MINDA as providers of NAIT tags needs to be investigated further. NAIT-Approved Tag Manufacturers There are currently three NAIT-approved tag ; Allflex, Zee Tags and Leader Products. Other tag can be approved in the future under the NAIT tag standard. Other tag are currently looking to enter the New Zealand NAIT tag market. 6

7 Tag either have access to their own international standard ICAR code or they are authorised to use the 900 ICAR code. For example: Allflex =982; Zee Tags = 942 and Leaders =951. All RFIDs that are produced are unique. Tag Manufacturer Access to AHB TOS AHB TOS is a computer application hosted and maintained by the AHB. Each of the three approved tag has access to AHB TOS. Although the system is the same for all tag, a customised branded skin is applied to the user interface by the tag manufacturer. The tag manufacturer lists their specific products (within defined types) and grants access to the branded portal to selected rural retailers. The process via which a newly approved tag manufacturer obtains access to AHB TOS is not transparent or well established and the cost associated is high. AHB TOS Customer orders Using their AHB Herd number customers order their chosen tags via their preferred rural retailer who enters the order into the AHB TOS system. The tag manufacturer is able to pick up the order (it is not automatically sent to the manufacturer) who then fulfils the order either by post directly to the farmer or to the retailer for pick-up. There is no direct relationship between a tag manufacturer and the customer. The customer detail available in AHB TOS is drawn from the Disease Management Information System (DMIS); a further system operated by AHB using the AHB herd number as the primary identifier. The DMIS system is currently being rewritten. NAIT Visual ID Formats in AHB TOS Customers have a choice about the information that is printed on the outside of the tag (known as the NAIT visual). Two main prescribed formats are available; birth tags and traka tags. Birth Tags Birth tags are currently printed with the customer s AHB number or dairy participant code, a year (optional) and sequential numbering. Birth tags can be purchased as a birth set with a second visually readable tag (often a panel tag) printed with identical information. Birth tags makes NAIT compliance easier for farmers who are not electronically reading their tags and the visual ID can be easily used for on-farm management. This paper assumes that the birth tag format is currently still required by industry. Traka Tags Traka tags are currently printed with the customer s AHB number or dairy participant code and the unique RFID number encoded on the inside of the RFID tag. Currently not all tag package traka tags in sequential order, this combined with the long multiple digit number printed on the tag, makes using traka tags in NAIT more difficult for farmers who are not electronically reading their tags. Traka tags were introduced as the tag to use to make older stock NAIT compliant or as a replacement tag. The NAIT field team have reported that traka tags are being used more broadly than this. Because these tags are more difficult to use for those not electronically reading tags (i.e. scanning); the field team has indicated that they would like to discourage the use of the traka tag, especially as the first NAIT tag applied to young stock. Duplicates The visual ID must always be unique except if the tag is flagged as a duplicate. If the farmer has a birth set on an animal and either the panel or the RFID tag is lost; the farmer can order a duplicate and the tag manufacturer (via 7

8 the retailer) will supply a new set of tags (a matching panel and an RFID with the same visual ID but different RFID number). Provision of duplicates is currently causing additional work at NAIT as: Given only one tag has been lost; only one of these replacement tags is actually necessary, and the provision of another matching pair creates confusion. LIC is currently not flagging tags as duplicates effectively It is recommended that if NAIT continues to allow duplicates, the current issues need to be fixed via: clear communications about duplicates to PICAs, tag and rural retailers a clear direction to the approved identification schemes and tag to only supply the tag that is lost, and only flag it as a duplicate where this is the RFID potentially a change to the tag standard If NAIT is not going to allow duplicates then changes will need to be made in the NAIT IT system to the other identifier field so other visual identifier formats can be accommodated. Linking NAIT tags purchased to NAIT numbers The tag upload all of the sold tags into the NAIT IT system via CSI or CSV protocol as published on the NAIT website. The tags are added to the site in an unused state. They are linked to a NAIT number in the NAIT IT System via the AHB herd number, participant code or NAIT number (currently only for saleyard tags) that the tags were ordered on. This means that they become visible to the person in charge of animals in order to select them on the NAIT IT screen. Current Process The following diagram describes at a high level the current AHB TOS ordering process. AHB TOS - current ordering process Manufacturer DMIS System Admin Set up retailers, manage permissions Create tags, upload data to NAIT, send tags AHB TOS Herd number details TOS ordering process Retailer Logs on to TOS using AHB herd number Farmer Decide number and type of tags required Go to preferred retailer with order details Receive tags 8

9 Requirements of a NAIT Tag Ordering System Requirements Description 1 Mechanism for obtaining tags Any future tag ordering system must provide a mechanism for customers to obtain NAIT tags. The existing TOS system is used by the AHB to order reactor tags. Any new system must accommodate the purchase of these tags. 2 Uniqueness of RFID Any future tag ordering system must provide a mechanism for ensuring that the RFID encoded in a NAIT tag is unique. 3 Uniqueness of visual ID Any future tag ordering system must provide a mechanism for ensuring that the Visual ID printed on the outside of a NAIT tag is unique, or where a duplicate Visual ID is required it is identified as a duplicate Visual ID. 4 Uniqueness of secondary tag While any secondary tag is not mandatory, any future tag ordering system must provide a mechanism for ensuring that any information printed on a tag sold in conjunction with a NAIT tag is unique and matches the Visual ID printed on the NAIT tag. 5 Tailored visual IDs Any future tag ordering system must provide a mechanism for particular formats of Visual ID prescribed by NAIT to be printed on the outside of a NAIT tag (including but not limited to year/sequential number and simple sequential numbering systems). 6 Link between tags purchased and NAIT IT system Any future tag ordering system must provide a mechanism for the tags ordered or purchased by a particular customer to be added to the customer s tag list on their NAIT number in the NAIT IT System. 7 Mechanism for distributing tags Any future tag ordering system must not inhibit tag from distributing their tags in an effective way. 8 Verification by identification system operators and tag Any future tag ordering system should provide a mechanism for all identification system operators and tag to verify the uniqueness of the RFID and Visual IDs they issue against all NAIT tags available. 9 Ordering via NAIT number Currently NAIT tags can only be ordered via the AHB herd number and the inability to order via NAIT number is causing confusion for customers. Any future tag ordering system should enable customers to order tags via NAIT number. This need not be exclusive i.e. tags ordered through participant code or AHB herd number could continue either temporarily or permanently. 10 Easy to update and user-friendly Any future tag ordering system should be easy to update, including the ability to readily add or subtract: Approved identification systems Approved tags Product categories Visual ID formats In addition the process for the various user groups should be userfriendly including automation where possible. 9

10 11 AHB / NAIT integration Any future tag ordering system should facilitate the public perception that AHB and NAIT are becoming increasingly integrated. 12 Customer choice Any future tag ordering system should improve the choices available to customers by increasing the avenues through which customers can obtain tags and encouraging competition in the tag market (i.e. tag will not be obliged to create a retail market). 13 Tag costs Any future tag ordering system should minimise any overhead costs of the tag ordering process that are transferred to the farmer via the tag price. 14 Barriers to entry to tag manufacturer market Any future tag ordering system should minimise the barriers to entry into the tag manufacturing market. 15 Integration with NAIT IT system System integration between any future tag ordering system and the NAIT IT System is not a requirement but is considered desirable from a usability perspective as the RFID tag forms the basis of the NAIT scheme. Other Important Considerations Consideration 1 Minimal impact on key stakeholders Description The impact of any future tag ordering system on key stakeholder groups must be considered and minimised where possible. The following stakeholders will be specifically considered: Farmers Saleyards Tag Manufacturers Rural Retailers NAIT / AHB LIC / CRV Ambreed 2 Minimal cost for NAIT / AHB The cost to NAIT / AHB of implementing any future tag ordering system (both development and process) must be considered and minimised where possible. The cost to NAIT / AHB of maintaining/supporting any future tag ordering system must be considered and minimised where possible. The cost to NAIT / AHB of any foreseeable future changes and development must be considered and minimised where possible. 10

11 Options Possible Models Model 1: AHB TOS as it currently operates is retained Model 2: AHB TOS as it currently operates is retained with enhancements Model 3: NAIT builds a new tag ordering system integrated with the NAIT IT System Model 4: Tag are responsible for creating their own tag ordering system Model 5: Tags can be purchased off-the-shelf (this model would need to be implemented in conjunction with one of the other models above) Recommendations The NAIT scheme is now mandatory for cattle and deer. All farmers wishing to move stock (with few exemptions) must tag their animals with a NAIT tag, register that animal and then record any subsequent movement of the animal from the farm. It is imperative, for the smooth operation of the scheme, that no duplicate NAIT tag can be issued and that any tags issued are notified to NAIT expeditiously. This should be done at the least possible cost and provide the maximum flexibility to farmers, saleyards and meatworks who purchase tags. This change in operating environment means that many of the previous requirements of tag ordering systems are no longer required. NAIT s initial views are that our requirements are likely to be met through the following approaches: Continue to operate the current AHB TOS in the short term (model 1). It may be necessary to make minor modifications to the current AHB TOS if a long term approach cannot be implemented by November This is seen as a transition Consult on option 4 as the preferred long term approach to the ordering of NAIT tags. NAIT Limited seeks views on whether this approach is appropriate, whether there are any transition issues that need to be accommodated and any other matter stakeholders consider important. Following submissions NAIT Limited will review options, analyse costs and determine an appropriate course of action. This will be advised to stakeholders as quickly as possible. Assumptions The following assumptions have been made: Any changes to the existing process and system will require training and communications for all affected internal and external stakeholders. Any changes to the existing process and system will require MPI approval. The birth tag format is currently still required by industry. Out of scope This paper does not: Provide the detailed requirements of the described models Provide a detailed breakdown of forecast costs 11

12 Address the ordering of NAIT tags via the LIC MINDA and CRV Ambreed systems (but does seek to ensure that the solutions proposed do not compromise the potential to incorporate these systems in the future) Address which entity will be responsible for implementation, maintenance and management of any new model (for example NAIT, AHB, or some unit within Ospri New Zealand) These items will be explored further for the model(s) agreed after consultation as warranting further analysis. 12

13 1 Model 1: Retain TOS 1.A Summary of Model 1: Retain TOS Under this option the AHB TOS as it currently operates is retained with no changes or enhancements. This option: Fully meets five and partially meets one of the 15 requirements. Has no impact on stakeholders (except for potential tag who will continue to be excluded from the market by high barriers to entry). Has no associated initial development cost and medium maintenance costs. Future development costs are likely to be high. The Animal Health Board is currently updating its Disease Management Information System (DMIS) with a view that a revised system will be in place by November The current DMIS provides links into the existing Tag Ordering System. Given this, option 1 is not considered a viable long-term option. It is only included in this paper for completeness. This model is recommended as a transitional approach to tag ordering only. 1.B Analysis of Model 1: Retain TOS Requirements Analysis Met? 1 Mechanism for obtaining tags AHB TOS provides a mechanism for customers to obtain NAIT tags. 2 Uniqueness of RFID AHB TOS has an audit table that retains all the RFIDs printed on tags ordered via AHB TOS, any new RFIDs issued must be unique. 3 Uniqueness of Visual ID AHB TOS has an audit table that retains all the visual IDs printed on tags ordered via AHB TOS, Visual IDs ordered must be unique, or where a duplicate Visual ID is required it is identified as a duplicate Visual ID. 4 Uniqueness of secondary tag AHB TOS does not have any functionality for ensuring that any information printed on a tag sold in conjunction with a NAIT tag is unique and matches the Visual ID printed on the NAIT tag. It is simply part of the established process that any tag sold with a NAIT tag is printed with identical information to that printed on the outside of the NAIT-approved RFID tag. 5 Tailored Visual IDs AHB TOS allows for the existing Visual IDs allowed by the NAIT tag standard to be printed on the outside of a NAIT tag, but does not easily allow for any changes to the Visual ID formats. / 6 Link between tags purchased and NAIT IT System 7 Mechanism for distributing tags Retaining the AHB TOS would simple retain the current process by which tags get added to a customers tag list on the NAIT IT System. Retaining the AHB TOS would simple retain the current process by which tag distribute their tags. 13

14 8 Verification by identification system operators and tag 9 Ordering via NAIT number 10 Easy to update and userfriendly AHB TOS does not provide a mechanism for all identification system operators and tag to verify the uniqueness of the RFID and Visual IDs against all NAIT tags available. Only those ordered by AHB Herd number via AHB TOS can be verified. AHB TOS does not enable customers to order tags via NAIT number. To order NAIT tags using AHB TOS customers must use their AHB herd number. Currently AHB TOS is dependant on DMIS for AHB herd numbers and up-to-date customer details. AHB TOS is not easy to update or change. The addition or removal of the following would require significant development: identification systems tags product categories visual ID formats In addition orders from AHB TOS are not sent electronically to the tag. They are required to login and download the orders. 11 AHB / NAIT integration Retaining the AHB TOS with no changes would not facilitate the public perception that AHB and NAIT are becoming increasingly integrated. 12 Customer choice Retaining the AHB TOS would not improve the choices available to customers, increase the avenues through which customers can obtain tags or encourage competition in the tag market. The current process and system prescribes a set and inflexible relationship between customers, rural retailers and tag. Customers have to order via a rural retailer and often a particular rural retailer is affiliated with a particular tag manufacturer. This limits the choice available to the customer. 13 Tag costs Retaining the AHB TOS would not reduce the overheads associated with the current process. 14 Barriers to entry to tag manufacturer market 15 Integration with NAIT IT System Retaining the AHB TOS would not reduce the barriers to entry into the tag manufacturing market. Because each amendment to TOS is individual there is no established process via which a new provider can enter the market and know they are TOS compliant. AHB TOS is completely independent from the NAIT IT System where the life time of the tag is then managed (from tag application to the death of animal). Retaining the AHB TOS would not allow for any system integration with the NAIT IT System. 1.C Stakeholder Impact of Model 1: Retain TOS Stakeholder Level Analysis Farmers Nil Retaining AHB TOS will have no impact on stakeholders; the system and process remains unchanged. The inability to order via NAIT number will continue to cause confusion to farmers. Saleyards Nil Retaining AHB TOS will have no impact on stakeholders; the system and process remains unchanged. 14

15 Existing tag Potential tag Nil High Retaining AHB TOS will have no impact on stakeholders; the system and process remains unchanged. Suggested changes to systems requested by tag would not be accommodated. Costs to new tag will remain significant and their access to TOS difficult to implement. Retailers Nil Retaining AHB TOS will have no impact on stakeholders; the system and process remains unchanged. NAIT / AHB Low Retaining AHB TOS will have a negative impact on NAIT as it does not meet all of NAIT s requirements of a tag ordering system. This impact is low as under this model the system and process remain unchanged. LIC / CRV Ambreed Nil Retaining AHB TOS will have no impact on stakeholders; the system and process remains unchanged. 1.D Cost of Model 1: Retain TOS Cost Level Analysis Initial development Maintenance and support Future development Nil Medium High Retaining AHB TOS would involve no initial development costs to NAIT/AHB. This model will retain the existing maintenance and support costs. Because the system is not being improved any future changes necessary will be costly (for example the ready addition of newly approved tag ). 15

16 2 Model 2: Enhance TOS 2.A Summary of Model 2: Enhance TOS In this option AHB TOS as it currently operates is retained with enhancements. Potential enhancements considered include: The ability to order via NAIT number (this enhancement could be combined with the removal of the ability to order via AHB herd number). The tag categories are updated to reflect the tags currently available. Customer details are extracted from the NAIT IT System instead of DMIS. Process improvements are made to integrate the tag approval process with granting TOS access to newly approved tag and provide transparency of the costs associated with this access. This option: Fully meets eight and partly meets two of the 15 requirements. Has a low to medium impact on stakeholders. Has a significant initial development cost, medium maintenance costs and future development costs are likely to be high. This model is recommended as a transitional approach to tag ordering only. 2.B Analysis of Model 2: Enhance TOS Requirements Analysis Met? 1 Mechanism for obtaining tags AHB TOS provides a mechanism for customers to obtain NAIT tags. 2 Uniqueness of RFID AHB TOS has an audit table that retains all the RFIDs printed on tags ordered via AHB TOS, any new RFIDs issued must be unique. 3 Uniqueness of Visual ID AHB TOS has an audit table that retains all the visual IDs printed on tags ordered via AHB TOS, Visual IDs ordered must be unique, or where a duplicate Visual ID is required it is identified as a duplicate Visual ID. 4 Uniqueness of secondary tag AHB TOS does not have any functionality for ensuring that any information printed on a tag sold in conjunction with a NAIT tag is unique and matches the Visual ID printed on the NAIT tag. It is simply part of the established process that any tag sold with a NAIT tag is printed with identical information to that printed on the outside of the NAIT-approved RFID tag. 5 Tailored Visual IDs AHB TOS allows for the existing Visual IDs allowed by the NAIT tag standard to be printed on the outside of a NAIT tag, and an enhancement would be made to allow tags ordered by NAIT number to be printed with the NAIT number (replacing the AHB herd no.) How this enhancement is made would dictate how easy it is to add any new Visual IDs required in the future. 16

17 6 Link between tags purchased and NAIT IT System 7 Mechanism for distributing tags 8 Verification by identification system operators and tag 9 Ordering via NAIT number 10 Easy to update and userfriendly Retaining the AHB TOS would simple retain the current process by which tags get added to a customers tag list on the NAIT IT System. Retaining the AHB TOS would simple retain the current process by which tag distribute their tags. AHB TOS does not provide a mechanism for all identification system operators and tag to verify the uniqueness of the RFID and Visual IDs against all NAIT tags available and this enhancement is not considered under this model. Requirement addressed; this option allows customers to order via NAIT number. How this is best achieved will require further investigation. Options include: Matching NAIT numbers back to an AHB number in order for TOS to have the customer details on file. If this option is selected a mechanism for updating NAIT numbers within TOS would have to be established. Extracting customer details directly from the NAIT IT System instead of DMIS. This requirement is only partially addressed; this option: Completes the changes needed to clean up the available tag products; and Allows tags to be ordered via NAIT number This option does not make the system: Any more flexible (e.g. to easily accommodate new tag in the future) Automated (e.g. to allow the automated transfer of order details from the AHB TOS to the manufacturer). 11 AHB / NAIT integration Retaining the AHB TOS with enhancements would facilitate the public perception that AHB and NAIT are becoming increasingly integrated. The combined entity is utilising an existing system and modifying it to meet the needs of the combined entity. 12 Customer choice Retaining the AHB TOS with enhancements would not improve the choices available to customers. 13 Tag costs Retaining the AHB TOS with enhancements is unlikely to reduce the overhead costs of the tag ordering process that are transferred to the farmer via the tag price. 14 Barriers to entry to tag manufacturer market 15 Integration with NAIT IT System Retaining the AHB TOS with enhancements would marginally reduce the barriers to entry into the tag manufacturing market. Potential tag would have access to information about the process and cost of getting access to TOS. From the user s perspective AHB TOS will still be completely independent from the NAIT IT System where the life time of the tag is then managed (from tag application to the death of animal). If customer details are extracted directly from the NAIT IT System instead of DMIS some level of integration will be realised. / / 17

18 2.C Stakeholder Impact of Model 2: Enhance TOS Stakeholder Level Analysis Farmers Low The existing system and process is retained. However farmers will benefit by being able to order via NAIT number. Saleyards Low Saleyards can currently order tags directly from the manufacturer via NAIT number. This option will force them to order tags on this NAIT number via a rural retailer, eliminating the existing manual process at NAIT. Existing tag Potential tag Low Medium The existing system and process is retained. Although the process for getting access to TOS will be more transparent there will still be significant barriers to entry. Retailers Medium Rural retailers will need to explain ordering via NAIT number to customers and may be required to verify the NAIT number via TOS or look it up in the NAIT IT system. The revised tag categories suggested in this model will benefit rural retailers. NAIT / AHB Medium There is a low level of system change required and a medium level of process change required to implement this model. LIC / CRV Ambreed Nil LIC and CRV Ambreed are not impacted by this model. But the model is inflexible to future incorporation of these providers. 2.D Cost of Model 2: Enhance TOS Cost Level Analysis Initial development Maintenance and support Future development High Medium High There will be significant development costs associated with the suggested enhancements and creating an interface between TOS and the NAIT IT System to allow for customer details to be extracted from the NAIT IT System instead of DMIS. This model will not significantly improve the existing maintenance and support costs. As the system is not being significantly improved any future changes necessary will be costly (for example the ready addition of newly approved tag ). 18

19 3 Model 3: New NAIT TOS 3.A Summary of Model 3: New NAIT TOS In this option, NAIT would have responsibility for tag ordering. TOS functionality would be integrated into the current NAIT IT System or developed as a separate system with interfaces into the NAIT IT System. The TOS order history data could be migrated into the NAIT IT System if considered necessary. Functionality incorporated would meet all the specified requirements and would focus on retaining the existing benefits and addressing the current limitations of AHB TOS. This option: Fully meets all 15 requirements. Has a significant implementation cost, but low maintenance and future development costs. Has a significant impact on stakeholders. This model is recommended as a possible long term strategy to tag ordering. 3.B Analysis of Model 3: New NAIT TOS Requirements Analysis Met? 1 Mechanism for obtaining tags Requirement met, the new NAIT TOS would provide an improved mechanism via which customers could obtain NAIT tags. 2 Uniqueness of RFID Requirement met, the new NAIT TOS would have a mechanism for ensuring uniqueness of RFIDs. 3 Uniqueness of Visual ID Requirement met, the new NAIT TOS would have a mechanism for ensuring uniqueness of visual ID. 4 Uniqueness of secondary tag Requirement met, the new NAIT TOS would have a mechanism for ensuring uniqueness of any secondary tags sold in conjunction with a NAIT tag. 5 Tailored Visual IDs Requirement met, the new NAIT TOS would be built so that Visual IDs could be easily updated and modified to meet the requirements of updates to the NAIT tag standard. 6 Link between tags purchased and NAIT IT System 7 Mechanism for distributing tags 8 Verification by identification system operators and tag Requirement met, the new NAIT TOS would ensure that tags purchased by a PICA were added to their tag list. Requirement met, the new NAIT TOS would likely utilise the existing channels for distributing tags to customers as well as explore other potential avenues such as the ability for customers to order directly. Requirement met, the new NAIT TOS would include a registry for all identification system operators and tag to verify the uniqueness of the RFID and Visual IDs they issue against all NAIT tags available. 19

20 9 Ordering via NAIT number 10 Easy to update and userfriendly Requirement met, the new NAIT TOS would incorporate the ability to order via NAIT number. Requirement met, this option constitutes a total overhaul of TOS functionality. 11 AHB / NAIT integration Requirement met, this option provides seamless integration between NAIT and AHB. 12 Customer choice Requirement met, in this option alternative avenues via which the customer could obtain tags (such as a direct link from their NAIT IT System log) would be explored. 13 Tag costs Requirement met, this option constitutes a total overhaul of TOS functionality. Systems and maintenance would be streamlined; minimising additional costs to the customer. 14 Barriers to entry to tag manufacturer market 15 Integration with NAIT IT System Requirement met, this model puts tag on a more level playing field; adding a new manufacturer to the new NAIT TOS would not require additional development. Requirement met, this option is the most integrated with the NAIT IT System. 3.C Stakeholder Impact of Model 3: New NAIT TOS Stakeholder Level Analysis Farmers Medium As customers will still be able to order via rural retailers under this model; the impact on farmers is not significant. Farmers may also be able to order tags directly; this would benefit computersavvy farmers. This change would enable customers to better select their tag manufacturer of choice rather than the retailers preferred vendor. The cost of tags may decrease as the market becomes more transparent. Saleyards Medium This model would force saleyard to access NAIT tags in a different way (no longer directly with tag ). Existing tag High Depending on the model for distribution, tag may need to increase staff as orders could come directly from farmers (68,000 farmers) instead of from approximately 30 retailers. Alternatively, the current distribution model through rural retailers could continue. Lead time for changes to the TOS would decrease and it would be easier to add new products. Potential tag High Potential tag would more readily be able to join the market as it will be easier to add a new manufacturer to the new TOS. Retailers High As customers may be able to order tags directly from the under this model; it may significantly change the role rural retailers have in tag ordering. This model may significantly impact rural retailers existing purchase / sales channels. 20

21 NAIT / AHB High All PICA, NAIT location, tag, and animal information in one place Major development costs including interfaces to the tag. Tailored to NAIT requirements Control over changes to application (if NAIT owns the system) AHB no longer required to manage the tag ordering system No longer dependant on DMIS Helps with transition from herd numbers to NAIT numbers New tag ordering processes required for all stakeholders. LIC / CRV Ambreed Nil LIC and CRV Ambreed are not directly impacted by this model. But the model is flexible for future incorporation of these providers. 3.D Cost of Model 3: New NAIT TOS Cost Level Analysis Initial development Maintenance and support Future development Medium Low Low Potentially significant development costs for building a new tag ordering system with potential interfaces to tag, CRV Ambreed, LIC, retailers, farmers, and NAIT IT System (if not fully integrated). The development would ensure that the new NAIT TOS is easy to support and maintain. The development would ensure that any foreseeable future changes would be easily incorporated. 21

22 4 Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS 4.A Summary of Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS Under this model tag would each have a TOS. NAIT maintains a registry of the tags in the field as all tag are obligated to send the data to NAIT. Tag are able to validate customers and uniqueness of tag numbers/ranges in the NAIT IT system, prior to the issuing of tags. Under this model, it would be the duty of the tag to recall non-flagged duplicate or non-compliant tags and cover the costs of any tags that were issued. Tag would make this TOS available to desired stakeholders. This availability could extent beyond rural retailer e.g.: Directly to customers To retailers interested in provision of a generic traka type tag This would be a decision for each tag manufacturer to make. The tag standard (under the section 14(2)(c) of the NAIT Act ) would be required to be updated under this model. This updated standard would specify that an approved tag manufacturer must: Have a tag ordering system that ensures that visual IDs printed are unique Provide NAIT (in the format and via the mechanism specified) tag and customer details. This option: Fully meets 14 of the 15 requirements Has a medium associated implementation cost Has a significant impact on stakeholders This model is recommended as a possible long term strategy to tag ordering. 4.B Analysis of Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS Requirements Analysis Met? 1 Mechanism for obtaining tags Requirement met, tag that would like to compete in the New Zealand tag market would need to provide customers with a mechanism to obtain tags. 2 Uniqueness of RFID Requirement met, tag are allocated an ICAR code and uniqueness of visual IDs is monitored via the ICAR standard. In addition NAIT would maintain a registry of the tags in the field for to check against. 3 Uniqueness of Visual ID Requirement met, NAIT would maintain a registry of the tags in the field for to check against. 4 Uniqueness of secondary tag Requirement met, NAIT would maintain a registry of the tags in the field for to check against. 22

23 5 Tailored Visual IDs Requirement met, acceptable visual IDs would be prescribed by the tag standard. What tags are supplied / purchased most regularly would be market driven. 6 Link between tags purchased and NAIT IT System 7 Mechanism for distributing tags 8 Verification by identification system operators and tag 9 Ordering via NAIT number 10 Easy to update and userfriendly Requirement met; as per the current process it would be a requirement of the tag standard that the tag manufacturer record what unique identifier the tags were ordered under. Requirement met; under this model tag distribution is market driven; it would be up to the tag manufacturer to find effective ways to distribute tags. This might be via retailers as per current model or more broadly (i.e. direct to customers). Requirement met; NAIT would maintain a registry for all identification system operators and tag to verify the uniqueness of the RFID and Visual IDs they issue against all NAIT tags available. Requirement met; the tag standard would prescribe the unique identifier (if any) required to order NAIT tags. Requirement met; flexibility and automation of the new systems would be up to the individual tag manufacturer subject to any requirements defined by NAIT. 11 AHB / NAIT integration Requirement met; this option shifts focus away from AHB and NAIT to tag. 12 Customer choice Requirement met; tag can more easily access the potential customer base. 13 Tag costs Requirement met; TOS maintenance fee would be removed, potential to experience economies of scale, and reduce costs of provision. 14 Barriers to entry to tag manufacturer market 15 Integration with NAIT IT System Requirement met; tag can more easily access the potential customer base, but a new barrier of entry (establishing a TOS) is introduced. Requirement not met; in this option the tag manufacturer TOS would be completely independent from the NAIT IT System. Potential for an interface or integrated system is not realised, other than an established mechanism for achieving the unique NAIT visuals in the field. 4.C Stakeholder Impact of Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS Stakeholder Level Analysis Farmers Medium This model could result in a significant change to how farmers access NAIT tags. However, this change could provide farmers with more choice and lower costs. Saleyards Low This model would give saleyards more flexibility in the way they access NAIT tags and as above could lower the cost of some tags. Existing tag High This model has a significant impact on tag ; they would have to develop a tag ordering systems that meet the NAIT tag manufacturer standard and potentially rethink distribution models. Competition could be increased. 23

24 Potential tag Medium This model has an impact on potential tag ; to enter the market they will need to develop a tag ordering system that meets the NAIT tag manufacturer standard. New already face significant costs to integrate with the existing TOS system; this option may in fact be cheaper than current approaches. Retailers High This model may significantly change the role rural retailers have in tag ordering, they may not be required or they may simply stock packets of traka type NAIT tags. NAIT / AHB Medium This model would significantly impact NAIT and the AHB. Significant policy and process work would be required. Going forward management of a TOS would not be required. LIC / CRV Ambreed Nil LIC and CRV Ambreed are not impacted by this model. But the model is flexible for future incorporation of these providers. 4.D Cost of Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS Cost Level Analysis Initial development Maintenance and support Future development Low Low Low For NAIT/AHB the development cost is low. However the cost for tag is significant and consultation will be essential. Under this model NAIT / AHB would not bear any significant maintenance and support costs other than keeping the registry up to date. Future development by AHB/NAIT. NAIT will need to provide significant assistance regarding standards. 24

25 5 Model 5: Off-the-shelf 5.A Summary of Model 5: Off-the-shelf This model proposes that NAIT RFID tags are made available at participating retailers as an off-the-shelf product. The tags would need to be activated in the NAIT IT System (potentially by an activation code entered by the purchaser into the NAIT IT System). This activation code would need to be unique and could be controlled by the tag querying a registry or being allocated a range of activation codes. Traka tags Traka tags are the most obvious candidate for selling off-the-shelf. If this was allowed the visual ID printed on a traka tag could be simplified down to simply the unique RFID number. The NAIT IT system could be enhanced so that entry of any RFID number in a packet of tags would bring all the tags in that packet of tags into the PICA s tag page. Birth tags Tags similar to birth tags could also be possible under this model. Tag could print a type of birth set where the AHB Herd Number is replaced by the unique activation code. This would allow farmers to continue to use a meaningful, visually readable identifier. This option: Meets 5 of the 15 requirements Has significant associated implementation cost (in terms of developing process) Has a significant impact on stakeholders In isolation this option does not meet NAIT s tag ordering requirements. However it could be a useful addition to one of the four models outlined above. 5.B Analysis of Model 5: Off-the-shelf Requirements Analysis Met? 1 Mechanism for obtaining tags Requirement met; this model does allow customers to obtain tags. But if used alone it would not allow customers to obtain tags in the manner they are accustomed. 2 Uniqueness of RFID Requirement met, tag are allocated an ICAR code and uniqueness of visual IDs is monitored via the ICAR standard. 3 Uniqueness of Visual ID Requirement met for traka tags (RFIDs are inherently unique). Requirement not met for birth style tags; a system, process or registry would need to be established to ensure that the visual ID printed on an off-the-shelf tag is unique. / 4 Uniqueness of secondary tag Requirement not met; a system, process or registry would need to be established to ensure that any secondary tag sold in conjunction with a NAIT tag is unique. 25

26 5 Tailored Visual IDs Requirement not met; as outlined above a traka type tag and a birth type tag could be made available however the current visual IDs that include the customer s unique identifier would not be available under this model. 6 Link between tags purchased and NAIT IT System 7 Mechanism for distributing tags 8 Verification by identification system operators and tag 9 Ordering via NAIT number 10 Easy to update and userfriendly As outlined above this requirement would need to be met via some sort of unique activation code. Requirement not met; this model implemented in isolation does not provide a mechanism or tag to distribute tags. Requirement not met; a system, process or registry would need to be established to ensure that the visual ID printed on an off-the-shelf tag is unique. Requirement not met; if this model was implemented in isolation customers would not be able to order via unique identifier. Requirement not met; this model in isolation does not include a tag ordering system. 11 AHB / NAIT integration Requirement not met; this model does not facilitate the perception that AHB and NAIT are working closely together. 12 Customer choice Requirement not met; if this model was implemented in isolation customer choice would be dictated by what retailers are selling tags and what these retailers have available. 13 Tag costs Requirement met; making tags available off-the-shelf has the potential to significantly lower the cost of tags. 14 Barriers to entry to tag manufacturer market 15 Integration with NAIT IT System Requirement met; allowing tag to sell off-the-shelf has the potential to significantly lower barriers to entry. Requirement not met; this model does not provide any integration with the NAIT IT System. 5.C Stakeholder Impact of Model 5: Off-the-shelf Stakeholder Level Analysis Farmers High Farmers cannot order specific visual tags or duplicates; they are totally reliant on the supplying retailers having the products they want available. Potentially smaller packets and cheaper tags available. Saleyards Low Saleyards will not be able to order specific visual tags or duplicates; they are totally reliant on the supplying retailers having the products they want available. Existing tag High Development costs. Standard required for tag numbering for tag may need to be revisited to ensure cross-manufacturer issues are addressed. Potential tag High This model would significantly change how a potential tag manufacturer enters the market. 26

27 Retailers High Retailers will need to manage their tag stocks carefully. NAIT / AHB High A process would be required in the NAIT IT System to allow for tags to be linked to a specific NAIT number when the unique code is entered. More calls to NAIT Contact Centre as farmers would call to activate tags if they do not have an IP or computer/internet Development cost Hard to maintain unique activation codes across all tag (currently three) No separate system to maintain LIC / CRV Ambreed Nil No impact; LIC and CRV Ambreed would continue to use their own system. 5.D Cost of Model 5: Off-the-shelf Cost Level Analysis Initial development Maintenance and support Future development High Low Low Need a way to link unique code to NAIT IT System. Huge process change associated with simplified birth sets causing large impact on stakeholders; extensive consultation required. Process not as onerous for supply of generic traka tags. Under this model NAIT / AHB would not bear any significant maintenance and support costs other than keeping the registry up to date. Needs to be reviewed based on tag type demand. 27