NAIT Scheme Chief Executive NAIT Ltd PO Box 10 082 Wellington 6143 ... Given this focus and given the NAIT scheme has commenced, the AHB have indicated that they no longer

1 |

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

NAIT Scheme

Tag Ordering System Requirements & Options Consultation Paper

March 2013

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 manufacturers 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

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

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 2013. 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.

• ProposesfivepossibleoptionsfororderingNAITtagsgoingforward(Thisincludesanoptionofnothavinganytagordering system at all).

• Analysestheextenttowhichthesemodelsmeettherequirementsidentified.

• Makes recommendations about which model(s) to investigate further.

Approval & Consultation Process

DiscussionswillbeheldwithpartieswhohaveaninterestintheefficientandeffectivesaleofNAITtags.Thefinalisedandapprovedpaperwillbeopenedupforpublicconsultationwiththeaimofcollectingtheviewsofkeystakeholders including MPI, approved scheme operators, tag manufacturers, 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 2013. 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

5 |


Please forward your submission to: The Chief Executive NAIT Ltd PO Box 10 082 Wellington 6143 or e-mail to: [email protected] or fax to: (04) 894 0145 or you can call NAIT Ltd on freephone 0800 624 843.

6 |


Tag Ordering: Background

NAIT

InFebruary2012theNationalAnimalIdentificationandTracing(NAIT)Actwaspassed.AmongstotherobligationstheNAIT 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 foranimalidentification(farmersarenolongerrequiredtoapplyanyadditionalAHB-approvedeartag).

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(AHBTOS).ThisreflectsaneedfortheAHBtohavealinkbetweenananimal’sfarmofbirth,subsequentmovements 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.

DairyfarmersaffiliatedwithLICuseLICMINDAtoordertags.OrdersfromLICMINDAgodirectly(electronically)tothetagmanufacturers.DairyfarmersaffiliatedwithCRVAmbreedusetheCRVAmbreedsystemtoordertags.Ordersfromthe CRV Ambreed system go directly to the tag manufacturers.

In the foreseeable future tag ordering via LIC MINDA and CRV Ambreed is going to continue as is. Both organisations areapprovedasanimalidentificationsystemoperatorsundersection50oftheBiosecurityAct1993.

It is noted that LIC was not managing the information printed on the outside of NAIT tags effectively (i.e. duplicates arenotbeingflagged)whichiscurrentlyanissuewithnegativeimpactontheoperationandintegrityoftheNAITscheme. The future of CRV Ambreed and LIC MINDA as providers of NAIT tags needs to be investigated further.

NAIT-Approved Tag Manufacturers

TherearecurrentlythreeNAIT-approvedtagmanufacturers;Allflex,ZeeTagsandLeaderProducts.Othertagmanufacturers can be approved in the future under the NAIT tag standard. Other tag manufacturers are currently looking to enter the New Zealand NAIT tag market.

7 |


Tag manufacturers either have access to their own international standard ICAR code or they are authorised to use the 900ICARcode.Forexample:Allflex=982;ZeeTags=942andLeaders=951.AllRFIDsthatareproducedareunique.

Tag Manufacturer Access to AHB TOS

AHB TOS is a computer application hosted and maintained by the AHB. Each of the three approved tag manufacturers has access to AHB TOS. Although the system is the same for all tag manufacturers, a customised branded ‘skin’ is appliedtotheuserinterfacebythetagmanufacturer.Thetagmanufacturerliststheirspecificproducts(withindefinedtypes)andgrantsaccesstothebrandedportaltoselectedruralretailers.

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)whothenfulfilstheordereitherbypostdirectlytothefarmerortotheretailerforpick-up.Thereisno 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 systemoperatedbyAHBusingtheAHBherdnumberastheprimaryidentifier.TheDMISsystemiscurrentlybeingre-written.

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 manufacturers 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 difficultforfarmerswhoarenotelectronicallyreadingtheirtags. Traka tags were introduced as the tag to use to make older stock NAIT compliant or as a replacement tag. The NAIT fieldteamhavereportedthattrakatagsarebeingusedmorebroadlythanthis.Becausethesetagsaremoredifficulttouseforthosenotelectronicallyreadingtags(i.e.scanning);thefieldteamhasindicatedthattheywouldliketodiscouragetheuseofthetrakatag,especiallyasthefirstNAITtagappliedtoyoungstock.

Duplicates

ThevisualIDmustalwaysbeuniqueexceptifthetagisflaggedasa‘duplicate’.Ifthefarmerhasabirthsetonananimal and either the panel or the RFID tag is lost; the farmer can order a ‘duplicate’ and the tag manufacturer (via

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.

• LICiscurrentlynotflaggingtagsas‘duplicates’effectively

ItisrecommendedthatifNAITcontinuestoallowduplicates,thecurrentissuesneedtobefixedvia:

• clear communications about duplicates to PICAs, tag manufacturers and rural retailers

• acleardirectiontotheapprovedidentificationschemesandtagmanufacturerstoonlysupplythetagthatislost,andonlyflagitasaduplicatewherethisistheRFID

• 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”fieldsoothervisualidentifierformatscanbeaccommodated.

Linking NAIT tags purchased to NAIT numbers

The tag manufacturers upload all of the sold tags into the NAIT IT system via CSI or CSV protocol as published on the NAITwebsite.Thetagsareaddedtothesiteinan“unused”state.TheyarelinkedtoaNAITnumberintheNAITITSystem via the AHB herd number, participant code or NAIT number (currently only for saleyard tags) that the tags were orderedon.Thismeansthattheybecomevisibletothepersoninchargeofanimalsinorderto“select”themontheNAIT IT screen.

Current Process

The following diagram describes at a high level the current AHB TOS ordering process.

AHB TOS - current ordering process

Man

ufac

ture

rAH

B TO

SRe

taile

rFa

rmer

DMIS

Her

d nu

mbe

rde

tails

Create tags, upload data to NAIT, send tags

System Admin Set up retailers,

manage permissions

TOS ordering process

Logs on to TOS using AHB herd

number

Go to preferred retailer with order details

Decide number and type of tags

requiredReceive tags

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,orwhereaduplicateVisualIDisrequireditisidentifiedasaduplicate 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 manufacturers from distributing their tags in an effective way.

8 Verification by identification system operators and tag manufacturers

Any future tag ordering system should provide a mechanism for all identificationsystemoperatorsandtagmanufacturerstoverifytheuniqueness 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:

• Approvedidentificationsystems

• Approved tags manufacturers

• Product categories

• Visual ID formats

In addition the process for the various user groups should be user-friendly including automation where possible.

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 manufacturers 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 Description

1 Minimal impact on key stakeholders

The impact of any future tag ordering system on key stakeholder groups must be considered and minimised where possible. The followingstakeholderswillbespecificallyconsidered:

• 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.

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 manufacturers 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 thatanytagsissuedarenotifiedtoNAITexpeditiously.Thisshouldbedoneattheleastpossiblecostandprovidethemaximumflexibilitytofarmers,saleyardsandmeatworkswhopurchasetags.Thischangeinoperatingenvironmentmeans 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 modificationstothecurrentAHBTOSifalongtermapproachcannotbeimplementedbyNovember2013.Thisisseen 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

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.

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:

• Fullymeetsfiveandpartiallymeetsoneofthe15requirements.

• Has no impact on stakeholders (except for potential tag manufacturers 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 2013. 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 whereaduplicateVisualIDisrequireditisidentifiedasaduplicateVisual 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

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.

7 Mechanism for distributing tags

Retaining the AHB TOS would simple retain the current process by which tag manufacturers distribute their tags.

14 |



AHBTOSdoesnotprovideamechanismforallidentificationsystemoperators and tag manufacturers to verify the uniqueness of the RFID and Visual IDs against all NAIT tags available.

OnlythoseorderedbyAHBHerdnumberviaAHBTOScanbeverified.

9 Ordering via NAIT number

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.

10 Easy to update and user-friendly

AHB TOS is not easy to update or change. The addition or removal of thefollowingwouldrequiresignificantdevelopment:

• identificationsystems

• tags manufacturers

• product categories

• visual ID formats

In addition orders from AHB TOS are not sent electronically to the tag manufacturers. 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.

Thecurrentprocessandsystemprescribesasetandinflexiblerelationship between customers, rural retailers and tag manufacturers. Customers have to order via a rural retailer and oftenaparticularruralretailerisaffiliatedwithaparticulartagmanufacturer. 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.


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.

15 Integration with NAIT IT System

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.

15 |


Existing tag manufacturers

Nil Retaining AHB TOS will have no impact on stakeholders; the system and process remains unchanged. Suggested changes to systems requested by tag manufacturers would not be accommodated.

Potential tag manufacturers

High CoststonewtagmanufacturerswillremainsignificantandtheiraccesstoTOSdifficulttoimplement.

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

Nil Retaining AHB TOS would involve no initial development costs to NAIT/AHB.

Maintenance and support

Medium This model will retain the existing maintenance and support costs.

Future development

High Because the system is not being improved any future changes necessary will be costly (for example the ready addition of newly approved tag manufacturers).

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).

• Thetagcategoriesareupdatedtoreflectthetagscurrentlyavailable.

• 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 manufacturers 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.

• Hasasignificantinitialdevelopmentcost,mediummaintenancecostsandfuturedevelopmentcostsarelikelytobe high.

This model is recommended as a transitional approach to tag ordering only.

2.B Analysis of Model 2: Enhance TOS



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 whereaduplicateVisualIDisrequireditisidentifiedasaduplicateVisual ID.


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.

17 |



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 manufacturers distribute their tags.


AHBTOSdoesnotprovideamechanismforallidentificationsystemoperators and tag manufacturers 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 tohavethecustomerdetailsonfile.Ifthisoptionisselectedamechanism 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:

• Anymoreflexible(e.g.toeasilyaccommodatenewtagmanufacturers 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.


Retaining the AHB TOS with enhancements would marginally reduce the barriers to entry into the tag manufacturing market.

Potential tag manufacturers 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.

/

18 |


2.C Stakeholder Impact of Model 2: Enhance TOS


Farmers Low Theexistingsystemandprocessisretained.Howeverfarmerswillbenefitbybeing 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.


Low The existing system and process is retained.


Medium Although the process for getting access to TOS will be more transparent there willstillbesignificantbarrierstoentry.

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.Therevisedtagcategoriessuggestedinthismodelwillbenefitruralretailers.

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 inflexibletofutureincorporationoftheseproviders.

2.D Cost of Model 2: Enhance TOS

Cost Level Analysis

Initial development

High Therewillbesignificantdevelopmentcostsassociatedwiththesuggestedenhancements 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.


Medium Thismodelwillnotsignificantlyimprovetheexistingmaintenanceandsupportcosts.

Future development

High Asthesystemisnotbeingsignificantlyimprovedanyfuturechangesnecessarywill be costly (for example the ready addition of newly approved tag manufacturers).

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.

FunctionalityincorporatedwouldmeetallthespecifiedrequirementsandwouldfocusonretainingtheexistingbenefitsandaddressingthecurrentlimitationsofAHBTOS.

This option:

• Fully meets all 15 requirements.

• Hasasignificantimplementationcost,butlowmaintenanceandfuturedevelopmentcosts.

• Hasasignificantimpactonstakeholders.

This model is recommended as a possible long term strategy to tag ordering.

3.B Analysis of Model 3: New NAIT TOS



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.


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 couldbeeasilyupdatedandmodifiedtomeettherequirementsofupdates to the NAIT tag standard.


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 identificationsystemoperatorsandtagmanufacturerstoverifytheuniqueness of the RFID and Visual IDs they issue against all NAIT tags available.

20 |



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.


Requirement met, this model puts tag manufacturers on a more level playingfield;addinganewmanufacturertothenewNAITTOSwouldnot 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


Farmers Medium As customers will still be able to order via rural retailers under this model; the impactonfarmersisnotsignificant.

Farmersmayalsobeabletoordertagsdirectly;thiswouldbenefitcomputer-savvy 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 manufacturers).


High • Depending on the model for distribution, tag manufacturers 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.


High Potential tag manufacturers 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 manufacturers under thismodel;itmaysignificantlychangetheroleruralretailershaveintagordering.

Thismodelmaysignificantlyimpactruralretailers’existingpurchase/saleschannels.

21 |


NAIT / AHB High • All PICA, NAIT location, tag, and animal information in one place• Major development costs including interfaces to the tag manufacturers.• 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 flexibleforfutureincorporationoftheseproviders.

3.D Cost of Model 3: New NAIT TOS

Cost Level Analysis

Initial development

Medium Potentiallysignificantdevelopmentcostsforbuildinganewtagorderingsystem with potential interfaces to tag manufacturers, CRV Ambreed, LIC, retailers, farmers, and NAIT IT System (if not fully integrated).


Low The development would ensure that the new NAIT TOS is easy to support and maintain.

Future development

Low The development would ensure that any foreseeable future changes would be easily incorporated.

22 |


4 Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS

4.A Summary of Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS

UnderthismodeltagmanufacturerswouldeachhaveaTOS.NAITmaintainsaregistryofthetagsinthefieldasalltag manufacturers are obligated to send the data to NAIT. Tag manufacturers 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 thedutyofthetagmanufacturerstorecallnon-flaggedduplicateornon-complianttagsandcoverthecostsofanytags that were issued.

Tag manufacturers 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

• ProvideNAIT(intheformatandviathemechanismspecified)tagandcustomerdetails.

This option:

• Fully meets 14 of the 15 requirements

• Has a medium associated implementation cost

• Hasasignificantimpactonstakeholders

This model is recommended as a possible long term strategy to tag ordering.

4.B Analysis of Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS



Requirement met, tag manufacturers 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 manufacturers are allocated an ICAR code and uniqueness of visual IDs is monitored via the ICAR standard. In additionNAITwouldmaintainaregistryofthetagsinthefieldformanufacturers to check against.

3 Uniqueness of Visual ID Requirement met, NAIT would maintain a registry of the tags in the fieldformanufacturerstocheckagainst.


Requirement met, NAIT would maintain a registry of the tags in the fieldformanufacturerstocheckagainst.

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.


Requirement met; as per the current process it would be a requirement of the tag standard that the tag manufacturer record whatuniqueidentifierthetagswereorderedunder.


Requirement met; under this model tag distribution is market driven; itwouldbeuptothetagmanufacturertofindeffectivewaystodistribute 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 identificationsystemoperatorsandtagmanufacturerstoverifytheuniqueness of the RFID and Visual IDs they issue against all NAIT tags available.


Requirement met; the tag standard would prescribe the unique identifier(ifany)requiredtoorderNAITtags.


Requirementmet;flexibilityandautomationofthenewsystemswould be up to the individual tag manufacturer subject to any requirementsdefinedbyNAIT.

11 AHB / NAIT integration Requirement met; this option shifts focus away from AHB and NAIT to tag manufacturers.

12 Customer choice Requirement met; tag manufacturers 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.


Requirement met; tag manufacturers 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


Farmers Medium ThismodelcouldresultinasignificantchangetohowfarmersaccessNAITtags. However, this change could provide farmers with more choice and lower costs.

Saleyards Low ThismodelwouldgivesaleyardsmoreflexibilityinthewaytheyaccessNAITtags and as above could lower the cost of some tags.


High Thismodelhasasignificantimpactontagmanufacturers;theywouldhavetodevelop a tag ordering systems that meet the NAIT tag manufacturer standard and potentially rethink distribution models. Competition could be increased.

24 |



Medium This model has an impact on potential tag manufacturers; to enter the market they will need to develop a tag ordering system that meets the NAIT tag manufacturerstandard.Newmanufacturersalreadyfacesignificantcoststointegrate with the existing TOS system; this option may in fact be cheaper than current approaches.

Retailers High Thismodelmaysignificantlychangetheroleruralretailershaveintagordering, they may not be required or they may simply stock packets of ‘traka’ type NAIT tags.

NAIT / AHB Medium ThismodelwouldsignificantlyimpactNAITandtheAHB.Significantpolicyandprocess work would be required. Going forward management of a TOS would not be required.

LIC / CRV Ambreed Nil LICandCRVAmbreedarenotimpactedbythismodel.Butthemodelisflexiblefor future incorporation of these providers.

4.D Cost of Model 4: Tag Manufacturer TOS

Cost Level Analysis

Initial development

Low For NAIT/AHB the development cost is low. However the cost for tag manufacturersissignificantandconsultationwillbeessential.


Low UnderthismodelNAIT/AHBwouldnotbearanysignificantmaintenanceandsupport costs other than keeping the registry up to date.

Future development

Low FuturedevelopmentbyAHB/NAIT.NAITwillneedtoprovidesignificantassistance regarding standards.

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 manufacturers querying a registry or being allocated a range of activation codes.

Traka tags

Trakatagsarethemostobviouscandidateforselling“off-the-shelf”.IfthiswasallowedthevisualIDprintedonatrakatagcouldbesimplifieddowntosimplytheuniqueRFIDnumber.TheNAITITsystemcouldbeenhancedsothatentry 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 manufacturers 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,visuallyreadableidentifier.

This option:

• Meets 5 of the 15 requirements

• Hassignificantassociatedimplementationcost(intermsofdevelopingprocess)

• Hasasignificantimpactonstakeholders

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



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 manufacturers 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.

/


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.

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 includethecustomer’suniqueidentifierwouldnotbeavailableunderthis model.


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 manufacturers 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 customerswouldnotbeabletoorderviauniqueidentifier.


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 potentialtosignificantlylowerthecostoftags.


Requirement met; allowing tag manufacturers to sell off-the-shelf hasthepotentialtosignificantlylowerbarrierstoentry.


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


Farmers High Farmerscannotorderspecificvisualtagsorduplicates;theyaretotallyrelianton the supplying retailers having the products they want available.

Potentially smaller packets and cheaper tags available.

Saleyards Low Saleyardswillnotbeabletoorderspecificvisualtagsorduplicates;theyare totally reliant on the supplying retailers having the products they want available.


High Development costs.

Standard required for tag numbering for tag manufacturers may need to be revisited to ensure cross-manufacturer issues are addressed.


High Thismodelwouldsignificantlychangehowapotentialtagmanufacturerentersthe market.

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 linkedtoaspecificNAITnumberwhentheuniquecodeisentered.

• 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 manufacturers

(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

High Need a way to link unique code to NAIT IT System.

Hugeprocesschangeassociatedwithsimplifiedbirthsetscausinglargeimpacton stakeholders; extensive consultation required. Process not as onerous for supply of generic traka tags.


Low UnderthismodelNAIT/AHBwouldnotbearanysignificantmaintenanceandsupport costs other than keeping the registry up to date.

Future development

Low Needs to be reviewed based on tag type demand.

28 |


6 Questions for Consultation

Please circle your answers or provide written responses where required:

Do you believe that the traka tag format should be:

a. Retained

b. Phased out

c. Allowed but only as a replacement tag

d. Other (please explain below)

Do you believe Duplicate tags should be:

a. Allowed but a clear communications sent to PICAs, tag manufacturers and rural retailers about how they should be used

b. Allowedbutacleardirectionprovidedtotheapprovedidentificationschemesandtagmanufacturerstoonlysupplythetagthatislost,andonlyflagitasaduplicatewherethisistheRFID

c. Allowed but a change made to the NAIT tag standard to better prescribe their appropriate use

d. NotallowedandachangemadeintheNAITITsystemtothe“otheridentifier”fieldsoothervisualidentifierformats can be accommodated.

e. Other (please explain below)

Do you believe NAIT tags should be ordered using:

a. The NAIT number

b. The AHB herd number

c. Either the AHB herd number or the NAIT number

d. Other (please explain below)

Do you agree with NAIT’s listed requirements for a tag ordering system? If not please explain. Y / N

Are there any additional requirements you believe should be considered? If yes please list below. Y / N

29 |


What is your preferred model (or combination of models) for tag ordering in the short-term (next 2 years) and why?

What is your preferred model (or combination of models) for tag ordering in the long term and why?


30 |

Appendix 1: Matrix of Requirements

Mec

hani

sm f

or o

btai

ning

ta

gs

Uni

quen

ess

of R

FID

Uni

quen

ess

of V

isua

l ID

Uni

quen

ess

of s

econ

dary

tag

Tailo

red

Visu

al ID

s

Link

bet

wee

n ta

gs

purc

hase

d an

d N

AIT

IT

syst

em

Mec

hani

sm f

or d

istr

ibut

ing

tags

Veri

ficat

ion

by id

enti

ficat

ion

syst

em o

pera

tors

and

tag

m

anuf

actu

rers

Ord

erin

g vi

a N

AIT

num

ber

Easy

to

upda

te a

nd u

ser-

frie

ndly

AH

B /

NA

IT in

tegr

atio

n

Cust

omer

cho

ice

Tag

cost

s

Barr

iers

to

entr

y to

tag

m

anuf

actu

rer

mar

ket

Inte

grat

ion

wit

h N

AIT

IT

syst

em

Model 1Retain TOS /

Model 2Enhance TOS / /

Model 3New NAIT TOS

Model 4Tag Manufacturer TOS

Model 5Off-the-shelf /


31 |

Appendix 2: Impact Matrix

Farmers Saleyards Existing Tag Manufacturers

Potential Tag Manufacturers Retailers NAIT / AHB LIC / CRV Ambreed

Model 1Retain TOS

Nil Nil Nil High Nil Low Nil

Model 2Enhance TOS

Low Low Low Medium Medium Medium Nil

Model 3New NAIT TOS

Medium Medium High High High High Nil


Medium Low High Medium High Medium Nil

Model 5Off-the-shelf

High Low High High High High Nil


32 |

Appendix 3: Cost Matrix

Initial Development


Future development

Model 1Retain TOS

Nil Medium High

Model 2Enhance TOS

High Medium High

Model 3New NAIT TOS

High Low Low


Low Low Low

Model 5Off-the-shelf

High Low Low

Documents

NAIT Scheme Chief Executive NAIT Ltd PO Box 10 082 Wellington 6143 ... Given this focus and given the NAIT scheme has commenced, the AHB have indicated that they no longer