Sometimes barcode is simply better. And then we say so.
RFID wins where you want to read several objects at once, where you cannot get to the label, or where you have to find something back. If someone has the item in hand anyway and there is one label at a time, barcode is faster to bring in, cheaper per unit and just as reliable.
When barcode is the right answer
Four situations where moving to RFID costs you money without returning anything.
- One item per action
- Someone picks it up anyway, so aiming costs no extra time
- There is always a line of sight
- The label is visible without anything having to be turned or unpacked
- Low value, high volume
- A label of a few cents against a tag that costs many times more
- No search question
- You never have to find where something is, only register it
What barcode does and what it does not do
Wel
- Register one item at a time reliably, for a few cents
- Work on almost any surface, metal included
- Show at once what was scanned, without explanation
- Run alongside RFID on the same handheld
Niet
- Read several items at once
- Read through cardboard, film or a closed box
- Find something back that you lost
- Register without someone aiming
The honest comparison is not barcode against RFID but action against action. Count how often someone picks up a box each day and turns it to get to the label. If that is rare, keep barcode. If that is all day long, that is where your gain sits.