P&G, Gillette First Sponsors Of MIT Auto-ID Research Center
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
Executive Summary
Alternatives to UPC codes employed on retail products will be developed at a new Massachusetts Institute of Technology research center co-funded by Procter & Gamble and Gillette. The project was announced in conjunction with the recent 25th anniversary of the Universal Product Code.
|
Alternatives to UPC codes employed on retail products will be developed at a new Massachusetts Institute of Technology research center co-funded by Procter & Gamble and Gillette. The project was announced in conjunction with the recent 25th anniversary of the Universal Product Code. The MIT Auto-ID Center will devote itself to: "fully understanding the capabilities of new technologies... collecting and evaluating the needs of various sectors of industry...[and] creating standards and infrastructure on which the future of auto-ID can be based," according to a Sept. 30 fact sheet on the center. The project was conceived by the Dayton, Ohio-based Uniform Code Council (UCC). P&G Business Development Manager Kevin Ashton is on loan at MIT as one of the center's founding directors, along with three MIT researchers. A board of overseers made up of 20 industry sponsors will govern the center. P&G and Gillette are the first corporate entities to provide seed funding. The center is expected to obtain necessary base support of $5 mil. to $6 mil. within six months. The one-time sponsorship fee is $300,000. The designs of future auto-ID systems will largely depend on "evolving technologies and trends" such as new sensing techniques, including radio-frequency/ electrostatic tags and magnetic imaging/holograms, the evolution of the Internet and wireless telecommunications, and the growth of new business channels, namely e-commerce, the MIT center stated. Among the center's primary tasks will be to evaluate "emerging tag technologies," to conduct research on new auto-ID systems, to create "application test beds" for new technologies and to propose "next-generation standards and languages...while maintaining continuity" with existing systems. The OTC drug and cosmetic industries may welcome a new UPC alternative, particularly if it means space-savings for packaging. The Cosmetic, Toiletry & Fragrance Association and Consumer Healthcare Products Association have voiced concern over the placement and size of UPC codes under FDA's OTC labeling rule. CTFA urged FDA to not include the UPC symbol in the 60% labeling space requirement of the reg, but FDA reaction has gone from mixed to unreceptive (1 (Also see "FDA Aims To Resolve OTC Labeling Issues At Three Upcoming Meetings" - Pink Sheet, 23 Aug, 1999.)). |