Self-Check: A Lesson in Mistaken Assumptions

It was a reasonable assumption that the well-educated, technology-savvy community of Hanover, N.H., home to Dartmouth College, would be a willing adopter of the first self-checkout station at its public library. It was a reasonable assumption that a planned expansion and renovation, which would almost

double the size of the library without a corresponding increase in staffing levels, would require a self-check option to handle the expected rise in circulation. It was also reasonable to assume that staff members who have worked with technology for many years would accept a self-check station as a valuable backup during busy times. But all of these reasonable assumptions were just wrong.

In 2007, Library Journal and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foun-dation named Hanover's Howe Library one of four "Best Small Libraries in America." Hanover is an affluent community with a long history of support for the public library. In fact, the town's taxpayers support two: Howe and Etna Library, a small, independent institution in the village of Etna.

Howe Library is a partnership of the nonprofit Howe Library Corp. and the town of Hanover. The town, through annual appropriations, supports most of the operating budget. The Howe Library Corp., through private contributions, supplies necessary support to library collections and programs. The corporation is also responsible for the recent capital campaign to fund Howe's expansion and remodeling. This quasi-public structure has benefited the community to such an extent that, despite its small size, it has become a community resource for area towns in both New Hampshire and Vermont. In fact, with a collection of more than 73,000 items, it's the largest public library in the local New Hampshire-Vermont area.

In 1996, the corporation began expansion planning in earnest. The library had reached capacity both for collections and the infrastructure to support and expand technology. By the time construction began in 2003, the public access network consisted of nine PCs. The expansion not only doubled the footprint of the library, it also doubled the number of public computers. As head of the technical services and systems department, I was closely involved in the expansion process.

The Dilemma Surfaces

During the expansion-planning phase, we began to seriously consider self-check. While third-party self-check systems were far too expensive for a library of our size and budget, the corporation began setting aside funds toward a future self-check purchase.

As part of our upgrade to Innovative Interfaces, Inc.'s Millennium modules in 2001, we decided to look at the company's recently released self-check module. (We have been an Innovative library since 1995.) In 2002, a product demo left us unimpressed. Because the module was designed for a school library, it was missing some important functions that are critical to a public library application, primarily a printed receipt.

We encouraged Innovative to upgrade this module, but the company made no promises that it would do so in the near future. We waited patiently and were rewarded with the news that in the 2005 upgrade, Innovative would redevelop the self-check module with the needs of public libraries in mind. In addition, the upgraded product would not require the expensive API or SIP2 interface that a third-party system would.

This coincided nicely with our expansion plans. The library staff began preparing the construction budget's technology portion for approval by the corporation trustees. At this time, it became apparent that the staff was divided about the need for a self-check option. The circulation staffers' objections covered a number of related areas. They argued that most patrons enjoy the interaction with staff members and value the helpful and pleasant service that we offer. Also, because we rarely have lines at the circulation desk, patrons who are in a hurry generally don't have to wait for assistance. Since we're known for personal and efficient service, introducing a machine to perform this function would be out of place in our community. Some staffers felt strongly that our community is different from others that might be more accepting of an impersonal library experience.

The driving force behind the reluctance to embrace self-check was the real fear that self-service would result in a reduction of staffing at the circulation desk. The concern that we would be allowing machines to replace people has been the most difficult to address. While it has never been our intention for self-check to replace staff, library management has not been able to calm this fear. During the discussions about self-check with the library management team, the director assured staffers that the quality service for which we're well-known would continue to be a priority. Furthermore, selfcheck could never entirely replace the need for circulation staff since many patron interactions involve issues that self-check could not manage then, such as patrons who don't have their library cards in hand, expired registration, holds, fines, renewals, and check-in.

While the argument that patrons rarely have to wait in line at the circulation desk is correct, it does not address the inevitable increase in patron visits and circulation now that the expansion project is completed. During the expansion planning process, the town of Hanover was adamant that a larger library not result in an increase in staffing levels. Managing a building that almost doubled in size would require some creative thought, given existing staffing. The self-check option could be part of the solution.

There was also some staff concern about the increased potential for error if we allowed patrons to check out their own items. For example, patrons could easily miss one or two items when checking out stacks of children's books. Those of us who advocate selfcheck did not consider this to be a roadblock. We argued that while our error rate is not excessive (this is anecdotal only, since we do not have error-rate statistics), library staffers and bar code scanners are far from error-free. With proper oversight and instruction, patrons would have no trouble mastering the task. Some felt that the benefits that a self-check station provides would far outweigh the possibility of errors.

Ordering the Equipment

In early 2005, the library trustees approved the self-check module and equipment for the $5.5 million construction budget's technology expenditures. We promptly placed our order with Innovative for implementation that year.

We had reviewed the equipment recommendations for Innovative's self-check module while preparing the budget request. Touch screen monitors were new to us, so we looked for recommendations from other libraries that use self-check. The Innovative user group is an invaluable resource in this respect. We decided on the 3M MicroTouch M170. The setup was very easy, and it has been problem-free. We opted to order the same models of hands-free bar code scanner (Imageteam 3800LR Hand Held Linear Imager) and receipt printer (Citizen iDP) that we use at the circulation desk because we like their price, performance, and reliability.

Setup and Staff Training

Innovative's setup was flawless. The company customized the module according to the options we selected. Because items sometimes have a status of lost, missing, or checked out even if they're still on the shelves (for instance, such materials may not have been properly checked in), we chose to let patrons check out these items despite their status. We also wanted to let patrons view their current fines, checked-out items, and outstanding holds. We opted to require a password to close the module, which would prevent people from using the computer for other applications.

With the equipment in place and the module ready to go, we set up the self-check station in the technical services department for testing and employee training. Over the course of 2 weeks, staff members were asked to drop by for a training session, which took about 5 minutes for each person. The process is straightforward, completely user-friendly, and most importantly, very quick.

Introducing Patrons to the Self-Check Process

Now we were ready to roll out the self-check service to the public. Our rollout plan originally included assigning a staff member to stand at the selfcheck station and encourage patrons to give it a try. Staffers felt that the checkout process was just so easy that it was an unnecessary use of their time.

The self-check station's placement is a key factor for a number of reasons. It should be in a very prominent place where it cannot be missed and in close proximity to a service desk so that a staff member will be able to see if a user needs assistance. Another important consideration is to give patrons adequate space to stack their items. We chose to install the station on a stand-up counter with other public access computers. It's directly across from the information desk and close to but not in a direct line of sight of the circulation desk. And, importantly, there was ample room for patrons to place their items.

Our staff PR person designed and printed signs and bookmarks announcing the arrival of the new service. The "In a hurry?" advertising was clearly targeting self-check's express lane feature. We placed the "In a hurry?" signs on the backs of the circulation monitors so that patrons would be alerted to the self-service option if there were a line at the desk.

In addition to the signage, during the first week of our rollout, we brought in balloons, put out a basket of candy, and tried to create some fanfare to attract attention to the self-check station. We requested that staff members direct patrons to the self-check. In addition, the staffers asked patrons who approached the desk with their library cards if they would like to do it themselves. Also, in the event of a line, we asked the staff to offer the "express line" to anyone who didn't want to wait.

Technologically, the rollout phase went smoothly, the system operated perfectly, and the patrons who tried self-check were impressed with its simplicity. The promotional part was less successful. Some staff members consistently encouraged patrons to give the service a try, walking them over to the self-check station to get them started. But others would not refer anyone to the self-check, feeling that they were pushing people away.

New Location, Old Dilemmas

After a few weeks, it became apparent that the location we selected was not ideal. Many patrons, particularly those headed to the children's room or the AV area, didn't even pass by the self-check station. We moved it to its current home directly across from the circulation desk, where it can be easily monitored by the staff. Although this location is not perfect either, (there's not enough space to stack items), it's in the main traffic pattern.

After the location change, usage increased somewhat. Observant circulation staffers can now see when a patron is having trouble and can quickly step over to help. They can also easily step out from behind the desk and guide patrons to the station for a quick lesson. Some staffers do this as a matter of routine, while others are reluctant to encourage use of the self-check. Unfortunately, those staff members who were the most strongly opposed to self-check remain unconvinced that it's a good public service at our library. At times, it seems that the station suffers from benign neglect. If there's a problem with the self-check, it may go unnoticed for hours. For example, too often, I've found that the receipt printer is out of paper or the computer isn't even booted up.

Early on, we observed that children were gravitating to the self-check machine and very quickly learned the process. They often pull their parents over to the station, pleading to do the scanning themselves. We printed "I Checked It Out Myself-Howe Express Check-Out" stickers for them. Some staff members were willing to wear the stickers to help publicize the service.

Upon the official opening of our new library, we didn't see the expected, immediate bump in patron visits and circulation because of another major construction project in our neighborhood that made access to the library difficult. However, statistics do show that our circulation trend is up, increasing 8% in FY '06 and 10% in FY '07. Self-checkout accounted for a modest 9% of total checkouts in 2006, with an increase so far in 2007 (through October) to 14%. These statistics are surprisingly good considering that our selfcheck promotion has dwindled to a few signs indicating the machine's location. In addition, it's rare to hear a staff member recommend self-check to patrons even during the infrequent times when there are waits for service.

The most common problem patrons have when using the self-check is scanning the UPC bar code instead of the library bar code. We have traditionally placed the bar code on the back covers of books and on the front covers of AV items. The self-check monitor has stepby-step instructions that show an example of the library bar code, but most people don't read the instructions before checking out. Again, observant circulation staff members quickly step over to the self-check station when they see a patron scanning the wrong bar code or notice an error message on the screen. Some staffers closely monitor the self-check and therefore notice when patrons leave their account open or fail to take their receipt.

The concern that there would be a significant increase in checkout errors has proven to be unfounded. Although we don't have statistics on checkout errors specifically, we haven't observed a noticeable increase since the implementation of self-check. It's important to note that in our library, check-in errors are about as common as checkout errors (again there are no statistics, but experience does inform this opinion), and these are entirely staff-related.

The Mistaken Assumptions

Our first mistake was the placement of the self-check station. Fortunately, that was immediately obvious and we were able to address it right away. Because the current location has space limitations, library management is thinking about moving the station again to increase visibility. Our new director has proposed placing it on the circulation desk. However, circulation staffers are resistant to that location. (In our team-management system, staff opinions have more weight.) They revisit the same argument: We will send a poor message to the public that we are no longer providing personal service. But we really don't have long lines for service. And there continues to be an underlying concern that self-check will eventually result in staffing reductions.

Our second mistake was not putting more effort into training the public during our rollout phase. We should have assigned staff members to be at the selfcheck station, particularly during peak times, to encourage people to give it a try, and to offer training, especially for bar code identification. This would have increased awareness of the service.

We should remind staff members more frequently to recommend the selfservice option. We should also remind them to more closely monitor the selfcheck computer-particularly when patrons are using it-and to respond as quickly as possible at the first sign of a problem. Staff attention to the selfcheck seems to correspond to staff commitment to self-service. Unfortunately, accepting the reality of self-service is going to take some time.

It's fair to say that self-check will continue to be part of our service at the library. Howe's just-completed technology plan advises employing selfservice technology as a way to help fulfill the recommendations of our long-range plan. This includes many ideas for increasing services for adults and children. And with no increase in staffing levels in the near future, some employees may have to be shifted away from public desks in order to implement these new services. This does not mean that public desks will be unstaffed. But during nonpeak times, there may be only one staff member at the circulation desk.

Our new director has begun to plan for an additional self-check station, possibly at the children's desk. This location has a lot of merit, most obviously because children like the idea of helping themselves, and they have no trouble with the process.

An additional self-check will not be as controversial as the first one was among the staff. However, it's clear from the resistance to placing the current station on the circulation desk that some staffers don't think self-check is necessary at all. Our new director has extensive experience with self-check as she comes from an academic library that was completely self-service. Her commitment to this technology along with reassurances that we will maintain a priority for personal service will hopefully help to bring staffers around to the awareness that it will help us achieve our long-term goals.

SIDEBAR

Some staffers feel strongly that our community is different from others that might be more accepting of an impersonal library experience.

SIDEBAR

Products We Used

Circulation module: Innovative Interfaces, Inc.

www.iii.com

Tocich screen monitor: 3M MicroToach M170 LCD

http://sobtions.3m.com/wps/pontal/3M/en_US/3MToachSystem/TS/Solutions/TouchMonitors/M170

Receipt printer: Citizen iDP 3550

www.ipcprint.com

Ban code scanner: Imageteam 3800LR Hand Held Linear Imager

wwwhandheld.com/Site.aspx/na/en/home

AUTHOR_AFFILIATION

Pamela Soren Smith is the technical services / systems supervisor at Howe Library in Hanover, N.H. She is a graduate of the University of Vermont and holds an M.L.S. from the State University of New York-Albany. She has also worked in academic and school libraries. Her email address is Pamela.Smith@thehowe.org