article

Smartcards and interoperability: one year on

Posted: 1 April 2005 | Peter Stoddart Head of Marketing, ITSO and Independent Consultant | No comments yet

In the very first issue of Intelligent Transport, I suggested that I come back after five years and review the beliefs that I postulated on smartcards and the need for interoperability. To be asked to do it after just 12 months posed an interesting question – was there anything to say? But I am a consultant so either way it shouldn’t be a problem!

In the very first issue of Intelligent Transport, I suggested that I come back after five years and review the beliefs that I postulated on smartcards and the need for interoperability. To be asked to do it after just 12 months posed an interesting question – was there anything to say? But I am a consultant so either way it shouldn’t be a problem!

In the very first issue of Intelligent Transport, I suggested that I come back after five years and review the beliefs that I postulated on smartcards and the need for interoperability. To be asked to do it after just 12 months posed an interesting question – was there anything to say? But I am a consultant so either way it shouldn’t be a problem!

So, the thoughts from the first issue were:

  • That transport kick-starts the process of replacing all the cards in your wallet with one card
  • That there is a need for interoperability of devices, cards and data
  • That ITSO is the best thing since sliced bread

ITSO progress

The implementation of ITSO has not gone as fast as everyone would have liked for a number of reasons – but to pick the main ones:

  • It has taken suppliers longer to develop a fully compliant kit. Perhaps not surprising when you consider the breadth of the ITSO specification.
  • The key management system from ITSO (the SMS) was late in arriving due to the complexity of both the contract negotiations and the software. And even now the market cannot use it until the market provides the interface suite known as the AMS (Asset Management System).
  • Developers have been delayed a little in implementing the full range of cards, but with the availability of the Innovision card from last November, then the full set is on the market.

ITSO has taken a pragmatic approach to these issues and has introduced a number of steps in conjunction with schemes and suppliers to enable progress to be made despite the above. For example:

  • An early adopters scheme which provides Security Access Modules with embedded keys prior to the SMS service availability.
  • Interim or phased certification for suppliers kit which matches the partial functionality against the early scheme requirements.
  • The I2F/suppliers group which allows suppliers to jointly develop and demonstrate particular aspects of the ITSO specification. This was best seen at the Moving On Conference in Liverpool, UK, last November.

So where does that leave ITSO scheme implementations and my theory of interoperability? I can do no better than to reproduce a recent article from the ITSO newsletter (well I did write it) – which shows just how the schemes in one area of the country are progressing and how they overlap (see ‘The North West Goes Smart’ panel).

If I were to extend my definition of the North West then I could bring in Merseytravel and Yorcard, and then Nottinghamshire CC overlap with the latter and of course the logical conclusion to that is London, where there now exists a roadmap for the Oyster card/scheme to be ITSO compliant.

I would therefore still defend my beliefs that ITSO is the best method of providing interoperability and it is happening. Will it allow all my cards to be replaced by one? Perhaps not one but just a couple.

A handful of cards

Putting aside your bank cards, despite the introduction of chip and pin, the needs of the transport industry for a contactless interface do not match with the banks contact interface. We are seeing plans for Local Authorities to put applications such as library and leisure next to the transport application on the card. A step in the right direction? Will we ever see your banking applications on that card? Perhaps – what if there was a national electronic purse on your card? That could be run by the banks, and if so, it brings one card that much closer. But it could also be run by any FSA authorised body – a supermarket chain, a large transport company with fingers in other pies or could it be one of the existing purses breaking out of its geographical territory? I am placing no bets on this issue!

A card for all seasons

My theory of interoperability based on the Martini principle of:

Any Ticket – Any card – Any point of service

has as its common interface the card itself and I still firmly believe that the ITSO approach of eight possible card types (or customer media to adopt Eurospeak and therefore allow for mobile phones) as the industry standard is the correct way forward.

It is this range of cards which gives us the opportunities, ranging from small memory low cost, through some of the ones we have known for some years such as Mifare and Calypso, to the top end microprocessor cards. This gives scheme designers a wider choice of cards to suit their application which may even include a number of types even within one scheme. For example, a Campus may choose to use a Mifare 4K or even higher for its students to cater for the core applications such as transport, cashless environment, library, leisure and access. But for the outside visitor who comes to a two day course, perhaps a low cost card will identify them and give them free lunch.

The same type of example could apply in, say, a Local Authority. Residents get a more powerful card with multiple services on it, tourists have a simpler card. For the one off concert in the park, then residents could have their ticket added to their card whilst ‘in-comers’ would be given a low cost card for the one off event.

But is it as simple as saying that the higher the value in applications then the more expensive the card should be? Perhaps not, for example, take the season ticket. Tradition says this should be a microprocessor card because of its value. But why not a low cost card in a low cost plastic wallet? Obviously the debate has to be wider than cost – security, back office facilities, marketing image etc. come into it. But perhaps this also illustrates the opportunities a range of cards brings.

Applications

But the card is only the common interface between the applications. The question has to be ‘what applications?’

Within the Local Authority environment (and I include transport in this) there are many ‘messages’ mixed and often conflicting:

  • The outputs from the National Smart Card Project (NSCP) are not mandatory but there are ways of making you wish you had used them
  • Shared Service delivery is flavour of the month
  • Priority Services Outcomes G12 &E9 require if not mandate smartcards
  • The ODPM priority outcomes are library, leisure and perhaps e-money
  • The DfT priority is the mandated ITSO
  • The management of Citizen Identity is a priority for e-Gov
  • There is recognition that school applications (in particular meals) give the best payback
  • Transport, particularly concessionary passes, is usually the first application due to DfT financial support and as such kick-start the issuing of significant volumes of cards that others should piggy back on
  • The outputs from the NSCP provide tools, mainly business related, cost models and software for others to implement – however in the latter case the outputs from the NSCP are specific developments in terms of the card

So where does that leave us in a hierarchy of applications?

I would suggest that these applications in the Local Authority arena seem to be polarising into three general priority levels:

  • Immediate priority: transport, education (including Connexions), leisure, and library – all give major benefits or current timetables are ripe or politically correct
  • Secondly: e-purse and tourism – more complicated to put in place as probably needs commercial relationship with third party
  • Third: the rest

I have not included authentication on this list as I believe it is reasonable to suggest that with what is happening on ID cards then the highest level a Local Authority would require on their cards is equivalent to concessionary pass level e.g. photo ID and simple indicators in the application on the card to indicate elderly, child, entitlement, disabled etc. as generic definitions. (This will require some work to define these as current standards vary).

Conclusion

Last year I believe I proved the need for interoperability. This year I feel events are moving in the right direction but slower than I would have liked – my concessionary pass is looming and I would have liked it to be a ‘lifestyle’, multi-application, top of the range smartcard, built into my mobile phone, but I may still have to settle for a piece of plastic and only a smaller wallet. Next year? I have a feeling that I will be able to say “I told you so”.

Related topics

Related people