Without sounding like a bit of a Ludite, doesn't the automation of return services abstract ( no pun intended) some of the human element of interaction within the library - thus further distancing Librarians from the end users ( and further establish the mistaken stereotype of librarian guarding the books from the users )
Does it not also mean that job 'revalidation' and cuts are more likely if significant proportions of the service function can be re-assigned to machines.
Just a thought.
-----Original Message-----
From: A general Library and Information Science list for news and
discussion. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Lesha Fossey
Sent: 27 February 2007 10:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: self-checkin / self-return machines - problems?
We're looking to increase our self-service facilities and specifically
to introduce self-return machines
As far as I can see there are 2 options:
1) self-return machines (usually switchable issue/return machines) where
the student is alerted via the screen which bin to put the returned book
in (i.e. one bin for normal checkins, and one bin for books with holds
and other "problem" books)
2) self-return machines which physically take the books from the
students, and sort them automatically (i.e. out of the students' reach)
via a conveyor belt system or similar into one of a number of
library-configurable bins (e.g. by classmark/floor/location etc as well
as sorting holds)
Now machines of variety 2 (i.e. automatic returns sorting machines) seem
to cost at least 3x the cost of machines of variety 1. And of course a
strong business case would need to be made for that levek of spending!
I've seen automatic returns sorting machines in use, and thought they
were great. In that particular case, they'd started with student-sorted
machines, but found that owing to the resulting problems and workload
for staff they just couldn't cope, and they had therefore got the money
for automatic returns sorting machines. Problems they (and a couple of
other colleagues from difrerent libraries) have specifically
mentioned/experienced are;
- students realising that once hold books have been scanned (i.e.
checked in from their user record), there's nothing to make them
actually put the book in the correct bin, and therefore hold books were
being hidden within the library, causing daily problems when the
reserver came in to collect the book, which then couldn't be found.
(This has resulted in at least one library having its machines
reconfigured so that they won't check in items with holds at all, and
students are instead told to return these books to the Lending Desk
staff directly.)
- students putting books in the bins without checking them in at all,
and the books then being reshelved while still checked out and not
resensitised. (This type of problem has meant that in some libraries
*all* books in the returns bins are re-returned by library staff to make
sure that all are checked in on the LMS)
Of course, this level of extra work by library staff would count against
the cheaper cost of these "student-sorted" machines as opposed to
automatic sorting machines. So in my mind a pertinent question is, how
long would it take for a more expensive machine to pay for itself in
staff time savings?!
Therefore, in order to help me decide whether to make a case for an
automatic returns sorting machine, I'd like any feedback you can give me
on problems experienced by student-sorted self-returns machines (and
staff time implications), and/or benefits given by automatic returns
sorting machines.
I can summarise for the list if there's interest?
Thanks
Lesha
--
Lesha Fossey MA MCLIP
Assistant Librarian, Circulation Services
University of Exeter
Stocker Road TEL: 01392 263878
Exeter FAX: 01392 263871
EX4 4PT E-MAIL: [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer:
This Email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this Email in error, please notify us immediately, then delete this email. Emails checked for Viruses by Mailwall
|