Some Issues in Implementing Library Self-Checkout Systems:
A Management Perspective

Mary Jo DeJoice and Pongracz Sennyey

With the implementation of integrated systems, libraries face the option of further automating their operations with self-checkout systems. It is therefore timely to consider both the advantages and disadvantages of self-checkout systems, and how they may impact libraries that adopt such systems. Two factors make an evaluation of the self-checkout systems relevant at this time. First, self-checkout technology has been available, in varying degrees for over fifteen years. Second, the ILCSO consortium has at its disposal the technology that renders the installation of self-checkout systems possible. For this article, we have contacted a number of libraries that have had self-checkout systems for a period of time, as well as searched relevant on-line discussion groups in search of issues that should be reviewed by any library considering the installation of self-checkout systems today.

Remarkably few articles on self-checkout systems have been published. Although the technology has been in existence since the 1970s, the literature on the topic is both scant and surprisingly limited in scope. For a review of the literature concerning a variety of customer self-checkout systems, see Jackie Mardikian "Self-service Charge Systems: Current Technological Applications and Their Implications for the Future Library" (Reference Services Review, Winter 1995 p 19-38). Mardikian makes it clear that most of the literature focuses on two advantages that self-checkout systems offer to libraries: they save labor and time. But aspects such as implementation challenges, costs, patron training, technical problems and impact on workflow are altogether absent from the literature.

This article aims to survey how the implementation of self-checkout systems may affect library management in general and circulation departments in particular, rather then describe the technical aspects of self-checkout systems. Particular attention will be paid to the system's impact on the workflow of circulation departments and the financial implications involved in implementing it.

The savings in labor and time promised by self-checkout systems seemed so compelling that in 1983 John Saunders, one of the most avid proponents of the technology, considered the question resolved overwhelmingly in favor of adopting self-checkout systems.¹ Yet a longer-term impact of self-checkout systems in circulation departments is missing in the library literature, as is a methodical analysis of the experiences libraries have had after they invested in the technology. It is possible that, given the magnitude of the initial investment required for the implementation of a self-checkout system, it becomes almost impossible to reverse the decision without incurring major financial loss. Tim Williams of the Shropshire Library points out that self-checkout systems do not necessarily lead to totally unattended circulation desks, thus raising questions about precisely how much labor is saved by the technology.²

In addition to the claims that self-checkout systems save time and labor, self-checkout systems vendors, not surprisingly, aggressively market their product with claims of self-checkout systems as a wise financial investment to make patrons happier. But how realistic are such claims? To better understand the system's potential advantages and shortcomings it is first necessary to understand how it works.

The self-checkout system has three components: the integrated library system, the self-checkout systems unit, and the self-check server. The self-checkout systems unit contains three integrated elements: a barcode reader, a desensitizer and a screen. The unit communicates the barcode, patron's name, patron privileges and any error messages through the server. The server's

Mary Jo Dejoice, Access Services Librarian, Cullom-Davis Library, Bradley University, Peoria; and Pongracz Sennyey, Collection Development Librarian, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina

5

function is to assure communication between the integrated system and the self-checkout units. Compatibility between the components is therefore critical. The self-checkout units can be located anywhere in the library and each library requires one server that communicates with the integrated system. The server communicates the validation of the patron and item information before any transaction takes place. The self-checkout unit is able to communicate to the patron any problems in the circulation process. The unit also desensitizes the item being checked out. The system allows patrons to discharge items as well, though not all libraries need to incorporate this function.

A number of factors need to be considered before implementation decisions are made. Among these cruical factors are the following: workflow changes and related labor re-allocations made possible by the implementation of self-checkout systems, the cost-benefit of having self-checkout systems instead of a staffed circulation desk, and technical issues.

How will a self-checkout system affect the workflow of the circulation department's staff? Circulation departments tend to be one of the most labor-intensive departments in the library. While on the surface the self-checkout systems may appear to give staff more time away from the desk, someone will still have to spend time at the desk to deal with problems and complaints.³ Another potential problem is inventory, since items with multiple barcodes, such as curriculum materials or music scores, require that all component items by properly checked out by the patron to avoid errors in the catalog. Although self-checkout systems will not desensitize improperly checked out items, items without security strips will remain a problem. The solution to this problem is patron training, and it raises the prospect that staff will need to supervise patrons to insure proper circulation procedures. The meager chances of recovering improperly checked out items once they have left the library make this issue particularly important.

The promise of a quick and easy method for checking out monographs could increase custom satisfaction. However, the satisfaction gained due to the ease of monograph checkout, could be compromised by a number of factors. Customers will be frustrated by improper checkout procedures, by items that still would have to be charged by circulation staff, and by the amount of time that they will have to listen to explanations about the workings of the self-checkout system.

We can state beyond doubt that self-checkout systems will impact workflow. We foresee two general ways in which this change in workflow will manifest itself: with cuts in staffing levels or with a reallocation of labor. In view of the fact that library staff has been cut in past decades and a number of functions in many libraries simply remain undone, the cutting of staff seems both destructive and unimaginative. The implementation of self-checkout systems, on the other hand, allows libraries to reallocate staff to perform tasks that, are not currently done or adequately performed. Possible tasks include keeping track of the usage of electronic resources, service at information desks or other service points, reserves etc. The option to use staff for previously neglected tasks, not only allows for a better use of human resources, but also furthers the continuously changing relationship between the different departments within libraries.⁴

It is in this context, that the authors of this article see the implementation of self-checkout systems as an opportunity for libraries to undergo a paradigm shift concerning the utilization of labor. With the progressive automation of labor-intensive processes, taken up almost entirely by professional staff in the last twenty years, the division of labor between librarians and the professional staff is ripe for reconsideration. Professional staff could be reassigned to free up librarians from tasks often considered "traditional," such as basic reference, library tours etc., to perform functions for which librarians have had scant time and which have often been neglected. For example the prolification of electronic databases has resulted in a veritable flood of statistics. But few librarians have had the luxury of analyzing data and acting upon the conclusions. There is also a general need to further develop liaison relationships with the teaching faculty. And librarians could raise campus-wide awareness of the changes taking place in the library/information techonlogy field. They could take a leadership role in the implementation of information technologies which require both the training and the time, roles few librarians have been able to assume for lack of time and training. Yet the resources (especially time) required for these changes will be found only if automating technologies are taken as an opportunity for change, rather than a threat to current routine tasks to be continued at all costs. If the implementation of the self-checkout systems takes place without accompanying workflow changes, the entire process should be considered a failure—either on the part of the technology or of the management.

6

We set out to write this article very skeptical of the viability of self-checkout systems. But the more we found out about the possibilities associated with it, the more we came to the realization that indeed the opportunities self-checkout systems offer are worth the risks entailed in implementation. Change does not come easily to any organization, but the libraries that implement self-checkout systems without seizing the opportunities opened by automating technologies, will have essentially wasted money. Self-checkout systems make sweeping reallocations of labor a realistic possibility. If the reallocation of tasks is implemented successfully, librarians ought to find themselves performing higher-level tasks, such as data analysis and liaison work, without compromising the efficiency of the library as a whole. Clearly the exact form of this reorganization will depend on each library's organizationm, size, and function in the academy, but workflow changes ought to be a part and parcel of any self-checkout systems implementation plan.

In these days of tight budgets, any savings tend to be seen positively by administrators. The attraction of the savings in labor costs promised by self-checkout systems cannot be underestimated. Unless librarians make it clear to administrators that with careful reallocation of labor libraries will be able to increase their effectiveness and perform functions that so far have been beyond their reach, administrators will have every reason to see self-checkout systems only from the perspective of the savings it represents. Ironically a number of libraries that we consulted, which had implemented self-checkout systems, have chosen neither to replace workers at the circulation desk, nor to adjust workflow. Others have opted to lower labor costs by attrition, i.e., they have not replaced retiring workers. In view of the cost of each self-checkout station, which can cost upwards of $16,000, the adoption of self-checkout systems without appropriate changes in work-flow and /or labor reallocations, is not cost effective.

The reason given for not making changes is that these libraries concluded that notwithstanding the promises, self-checkout systems did not save labor. The circulation desk still had to be staffed to solve problems, and following the initial excitement of the self-checkout systems implementation patrons tended to return to the staffed desk for service.⁵ This raises important issues. If self-checkout systems will not free circulation staff for other tasks, the central argument for its adoption, i.e., that it saves labor, is undermined. Procedures will have to be redrawn to make sure that staff members can address problems, while at the same time making sure that staffing levels at the desk can be lowered.

A cost-benefit analysis of circulation staff labor costs shows that the self-checkout systems might pay for itself in less than a year. If a library is open for 1600 hours in one semester and the average library staff member makes $10 per hour, then the cost of the self-checkout systems unit will be paid for in one semester. In the case of student workers who average minimum wage, the self-checkout units will pay for themselves in just two years. Therefore lowering staffing levels at the desk is not only a more efficient way to capitalize on the savings promised by self-checkout systems, but it will also lead to better utilization of the labor force.

Notwithstanding the claims articulated by it supporters, self-checkout systems will not solve all circulation problems, and human interaction will not be rendered altogether dispensable. Billing problems, re-calls, over dues, checking materials with many items, i.e., kits, and the inevitable technical snafu all require the presence of staff members at, or near, the circulation desk. It is also clear that while patrons tend to accept self-checkout systems without much resistance—especially younger patrons-they do require rather extensive training and reinforcement to make sure that patron satisfaction is not compromised. But it is equally clear that the adoption of self-checkout systems must include a plan to lower circulation desk staffing levels. While self-checkout systems promise financial benefits, those can only be capitalized on the condition that libraries readjust the workflow at circulation desks. Clearly, without a change in the workflow, the self-checkout systems would amount to an expensive and dispensable toy. While workflow changes can be traumatic to any organization, they also present opportunities for improvements. On the other hand workflow changes may be interpreted simply as a chance to cut cost by eliminating personnel—a rather negative view of the potential at hand. But, on the other hand it can also represent an opportunity to give the circulation desk new roles to perform within libraries—a much more constructive view of the opportunities generated by adopting self-checkout systems. Reallocation of labor within the circulation department, in fact, opens up the opportunity to revisit the very nature of circulation departments, and to further the process of integration between the different areas withing libraries.

1. John Saunders. "Is Self-service a Dead Issue?" Service Point: Journal of the Branch and Mobile Libraries Group of the Library Association, (v. 27, 1983). See also J. Saunders "Mission imperceptible" Library Association Record, 88 (30)

7

March 1986. p. 126-127 and J. Saunders "Caveat emptor" Library Association Record, 88 (8) August 1986, p. 374-80.

2. Tim Williams "Self Service Experiment in Shropshire Libraries" Library Assessment and Rec. 92 (10) October 1999.

3. Pat Weaver-Meyers and Virginia Steel "Access Services: The Development of a Holistic Approach to Convenience Information Services: An Editorial Essay on the Future of Access Service" Collection Management. 17(1-2) 1992 p. 237-245.

4. For an example of these changing relationships see Stam, Deirdre C. "Responding to the Changing Relationship of Library Classroom in American Academic Institutions: The Drew University Library Team Approach to Management" in http://www.lib.pku.edu.cn/98conf/paper/b/DeirdreSTAM.htm.

5. For numerous discussions on self-checkout systems, their use and implementation see: http://www.escribe.com/library/circulation/search.html/qsubject=self+checkout

8