Library of American University in Dubai - Assignment Example

Library of American University in Dubai Introduction According to Berry (2004a, p. 8), the library “is leading users to new technology as it develops.” In fact, Berry asserted that the best libraries “are living exhibits of the state of the art in modern information technology” (2004a, p. 8). Academic libraries, according to Robison (1991, p. 4), “are undergoing numerous changes as a result of automation. It has become increasingly more important that studies be conducted to evaluate the effects automation is having on library personnel, library users, and library budgets.” With Robison’s statement in mind, this work will focus on how patron satisfaction is affecting the use of a specific library technological tool, the self-checkout machine, at Library of American University in Dubai. The technological advancements of the electronic age have permeated all aspects of our everyday lives. Businesses in many parts of the world and most businesses in the industrialized countries have embraced some kind of technology in their daily operations. Libraries have certainly not been left out. Library administrators must be involved in ongoing decision making and planning to ensure that library equipment have appropriate capabilities to meet the purpose for which they are intended. Library automation is the process by which library operations are performed electronically. In particular, it performs tasks that people would normally do (Greenberg, 2002). The need for library automation has arisen because of the information explosion; many libraries are being inundated with unprecedented demands by their users. Almost all aspects of library services have been impacted by the technological advancements of the information age. In fact, libraries that recognize how technology can enhance their services and consequently improve patron satisfaction are destined for success. Today’s technological innovations have indeed overtaken traditional library services, as libraries have undergone major transformations moving them from the Stone Age to the Electronic Age. In order to be successful in their work, librarians are now required to take a fresh look at their profession. In some cases, libraries may experience an increase in patronage as more and more people take advantage of the innovative services that have been introduced to the library world. Almost every aspect of library services has been affected by technology. The growth of technology has forced library professionals to rethink the way information is collected, stored, and dispensed. As a result of the wide range of technological software and hardware available, innovative libraries are constantly looking to new technology such as the selfcheckout machine to minimize staff handling of library materials. This allows greater attention to be paid to patrons and important functions that are performed behind the scenes. In addition to the circulation services of the library, the administrative services, technical services, and reference services have all benefited from technology. However, the circulation of library materials is a core operation of most libraries. Without the circulation department, most academic libraries would not function efficiently, as faculty and students rely on library materials for meeting their day to day needs. Justification for the Suggestion It is important to question the extent to which self-checkout machines are used. As Cherry (1999, p. 2) noted, in any organization, services must be “continuously examined and evaluated, [and] the results of user satisfaction studies are indicators for change and for the development of policy within an organization.” Unfortunately, today’s libraries have been faced with explosion in information availability, increase in the expectations of patrons and financial constraints. Sloan (2005), stated that the availability of financial resources has become increasingly important for libraries in the last few years. Procuring the funds needed to support libraries sometimes can be difficult for universities, especially privately-owned ones such as AUD. According to English (1966, p. 242), at AUD, a permanent endowment is required to provide a good portion of teachers’ salaries, of scholarships, and of plant maintenance, equipment and supplies. And the endowment must be continually strengthened to take care of these permanent and basic needs which grow as the academic program is enlarged and as costs rise. Considering that the bulk of the financial resources needed to operate the many affairs of a privately-owned university may be received through endowments, library management must carefully evaluate technological resources before investing in them. The operational costs of supporting the many needs of a university are often high. For example, Robison (1991) noted the increasing expense of periodical subscriptions, index services, books, and automation, which makes the sharing of resources between libraries increasingly important. A privately-owned university such as AUD must continue to appeal for support in order to meet its various needs. In fact, English (1966, p. 242) recommended that AUD “must on occasion make extraordinary appeals for support from those who will benefit from its activities in ever-increasing measure.” Privately-owned academic library managers must therefore ask themselves critical questions such as the following: Are the machines that have been acquired to improve the efficiency of library services really doing their work? Are students and faculty maximizing the machines to enhance their library experience? Investing in library technological tools that are not maximized by users may cost universities dearly, especially when such tools are expensive. For example, the average cost of acquiring self-checkout technology is $16,000.00 or more, and its acquisition can only be justified if at least one of the following is true: 1. It decreases labor cost. 2. It fosters the reallocation of labor resources. 3. It increases total circulation volume. 4. It enhances patron satisfaction. This paper will focus on the last item mentioned above. The conclusion of the paper will reveal the overall level of patron satisfaction and will help library management in making decisions regarding the self-checkout technology. Librarians, according to Cherry (1999, p. 2), “want to know if their materials are being used, how they are being used and if users are satisfied with the materials and services offered through their campus library.” This paper will help librarians at AUD’s library find answers to these questions with regard to the self-checkout machine. The Library Self-Checkout Machine There has been very little specific empirical work done on the self-checkout machine, but a few empirical studies have been conducted on library automation in general. One such study was conducted by Cherry (1999) on the effects of automation on an academic library at Richard Bland College. In this study, Cherry found that library use by patrons increased due to automation and, furthermore, that there was a significant increase in Internet use, use of the Virtual Library of Virginia (VIVA), and use of the online catalog to search for materials after automation was in place. Also, a significant increase was seen in the total number of visitors as well as night attendance. Students, according to Cherry (p. 114), “realize that the online automated catalog was quicker to use and the automated catalog provided additional ways of searching for information.” Cherry’s research found that the circulation of books also increased as a result of library automation, despite the fact that it was hypothesized it would decrease. In a similar study conducted on the effects of automation on academic libraries, Robison (1991, p. 47) determined that “users found searching greatly facilitated, they enjoy access from a variety of places, and they like being able to see if an item is checked out. The data also revealed that circulation is increased as a result of automation.” The data “also revealed that automation affected the budget increasing maintenance costs, the need for more equipment, and the need for more computer supplies. The study also revealed that automation fostered growth in the total library budget” (Robison, p. 48). Using the Delphi study technique during data analysis, Robison constructed a list of the eight most important steps in the development and implementation of automated library procedures: 1. Vendor selection should be based on functionality, cost, existing local hardware and support, speed, and user friendliness; 2. It should have the full support of the administration; 3. It should facilitate on-site visits to libraries having integrated systems; 4. The library should select a committee of librarians to create a “wish list” of what they want; 5. Vendors should bring demonstrations to the library; 6. A committee of librarians should be selected and a computer center opened to study the systems; 7. There should be a dedicated staff and highly experienced person in technical services; and 8. Staff should draft detailed requests for proposals to be sent to vendors. As noted earlier, very little research has been conducted on self-checkout machines. In 2000, DeJoice and Sennyey (p. 5) reported that “although the technology has been in existence since the 1970s, the literature on the topic is both scant and surprisingly limited in scope.” This could be due in part to the fact that this technology, though developed in the 1970s, is still fairly new in libraries. The library circulation service in a traditional library setting entails library workers manually checking in and out materials for patrons. This process is very physical, as library assistants are charged with stamping every library material and every library card during the checkout and check-in processes. Without the aid of library automation, processing thousands of library materials manually for many library patrons can be a daunting and laborintensive task. It is also a very slow process as patrons wait in long lines for books and cards to be stamped. In today’s modern libraries, technology has made possible new ways of performing essential functions more efficiently. It enables librarians to select materials for the library and organize them so that they are easily accessible. As a result of a wide range of technological software and hardware now available, innovative libraries are constantly looking to technology to minimize the staff handling of library materials so that greater attention can be paid to the patrons and the important functions that are performed behind the scenes by circulation staff. Various circulation software has brought monumental changes to library circulation services. The use of scanners and receipt printers has made it possible for some libraries to eliminate the traditional circulation procedures. As a result of these innovative tools, circulation procedures are no longer as physically challenging and as time-consuming as they were in the past. Libraries unfortunately often face the realities of increased demand and expectations from users, limited resources and tremendous growth in the amount of information available. Additionally, they also face increased cost of acquiring, servicing and storing collections. As Robison (1991, p. 3) remarked, “there is a tremendous increase in the cost of automation especially in light of patrons’ needs.” This means that library management must strive to review its patrons’ needs and the usefulness of a particular library tool before acquiring and implementing it. A number of factors must be considered before implementing new technology such as the self-checkout system. This is especially so because the magnitude of the initial investment required for implementation; as noted by DeJoice and Sennyey (2000, p. 5), “ is almost impossible to reverse without incurring major financial loss.” Also, if the implementation of the self-checkout technology happens before sorting out the logistics that will allow for a smooth transition, the entire process may fail. The crucial factors that should be considered, according to DeJoice and Sennyey (2000, p. 6), are “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.” The self-checkout machine is an important tool that could relieve some of the duties of the circulation staff, but on the other hand, it could also require increased time in addressing problems and patron complaints. In fact, the self-checkout machine may not necessarily lead to unattended circulation desk, hence, the question, how much labor is saved by administrators when these machines are purchased. Unfortunately, most of these sophisticated machines have serious inefficiencies and can sometimes be a source of concern to both staff and users. Hence, library administrators need to do their homework by carefully weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the self-checkout machine before deciding to acquire these machines for their libraries. “The growth of self-service cash tills in banks, etc., has encouraged the public to operate relatively simple machinery for themselves” (Saunders, 1983, p. 8). Saunders further remarked that “the current practice of automation in libraries for issue/discharge . . . provides a relatively acceptable base for development to the further stage of self-issue” (p. 8). According to DeJoice and Sennyey (2000, p. 5), “libraries face the option of further automating their operations with self-checkout systems.” As library technology has evolved, “librarians have begun to turn over many of their usual tasks to their patrons. There are online catalog, self-checkout stations, remote access for placing holds, and self service hold shelves” (Winkelstein, 2005). It is important to note that the demands on today’s libraries are changing and increasing at an alarming rate. In fact, the high demand for library materials has resulted in a high circulation of materials. Robison (1991, p. 2) stated that “library collection development offices are confronted with a variety of issues as they examine ways to deal with the proliferation of the printed page.” Circulation rates are rising at the same time that new services are being offered, all of which call for additional manpower. “The same self-service technology that has revolutionized banking and the fast food industry now is transforming the way public libraries process materials” (Sarasota County Library System, 2004). The self-checkout system is comparable to the Automated Teller Machine (ATM) used in the banking industry. Deploying the self-checkout machines, according to Grant (2003, p. 1), means that instead of checking out books or picking up reserved items from a library employee behind a counter, customers now can do it themselves by scanning their library card, scanning the bar-code on each book or other items to be checked out, then pressing a keyboard button to print out a receipt. RFID is a type of self-checkout technology that not only checks materials out to patrons, but also allows patrons to check in materials. RFID for libraries remains an emerging technology. The RFID are the technologies that use radio waves to automatically identify individual items when used. Librarians recognize the RFID as a tool that helps in tracking materials, stops theft, and, most importantly, aids in checking out and returning books and other materials more rapidly. In fact, “RFID is gradually being considered as a possible savior, but salvation is expensive at 50 cents per book, $1.50 for DVDs. KCLS [Kings County Library System] has about four and a half million items” (Moffitt, 2004, p. 28). That cost, according to Moffitt, “is only for the RFID tags themselves and doesn’t include self-check stations, security gates, wands, and other expensive paraphernalia” (p. 28). DeJoice and Sennyey (2000, p. 5) identified three components of the self-checkout machines, (a) the self-checkout systems unit, (b) the self-checkout server, and (c) the integrated library system. According to DeJoice and Sennyey (p. 5), the self-checkout’s unit is composed of three integrated elements: a barcode reader, a desensitizer and a screen. The unit communicates the barcode, patron’s name, patron privilege and any error messages through the server. The server’s function is to assure communication between the integrated system and the self-checkout units. In order to be operational, the self-checkout system is connected directly to the computerized circulation module of a library. The self-checkout system is activated and ready to begin the checkout process when a patron’s library card is passed through an electronic scanner. It then records, tracks, and reports automatically all checkout transactions, and this information is communicated to the patrons through the computer screen. Hence, the units communicate the patron’s barcode found on the library card, the patron’s name, checkout privileges, and possible error messages through the server. Essentially, the main function of the server is to ensure communication between the integrated system and the self-checkout units. This means that all components involved must be compatible in order for the transaction to be successful. Rogers, (2002, p. 1) remarked that “Phiga Corporation introduced a new self-checkout system for libraries. Dubbed Flash Scan, the unit features flat-screen technology and offers an animated introduction to patrons of programs, community news, etc.” Just like bank ATMs, the self-checkout systems are technically designed with the common person in mind. In other words, they are relatively easy to use so that library patrons of all ages and backgrounds need little or no assistance. In some cases, easy to follow instructions appear on the computer screen of the self-check machine and direct library patrons on how to use the system. The patrons are given the prompt to slide library cards through the scanner when they are ready to use the machine. Upon completion, they are taken to the next prompt, which in some cases will be to enter the personal identification number (PIN). After the system verifies that the patron’s card is valid, the patron is prompted to place the desired material on the scanner. If the material is properly placed on the scanner, the material is checked out and a prompt that shows that the process has been successfully completed is displayed on the screen and a receipt is printed. The printed receipt will typically contain the customer’s name, titles of books, due date, time the items were checked out, and the date of the transaction. DeJoice and Sennyey (2000, p. 6) noted that 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. It is important to note that some of the steps highlighted above may not apply in all cases, as different systems operate according to different protocols. The self-checkout technology is a fairly new library tool designed to support circulation services. Technology, as noted by Gordon (2004, p. 46), “pervades every aspect of our life as librarians. Most library operations are inevitably intertwined with technology.” The addition of the self-checkout system seems to be a great idea as it is “indicative of the ways in which technology is transforming every library and every aspect of librarianship” (Gordon, p. 46). Advantages of the Self-Checkout Machine Fast Access The self-checkout technology “speeds up the checkout process, saving customers’ time. Instead of waiting in line for one of the limited staff service stations, customers can take care of their own checkout transactions and be on their way” (Sarasota County Library System, 2004). It is a time-saving medium for both patrons and staff alike. It gives patrons the opportunity to select library materials and check them out without waiting in long lines at the checkout desk. According to Grant (2004, p. 10), “people simply want to get through that transaction quickly so they can move on to find new materials to check out.” Staff Support The self-checkout technology moves library staff from behind the counter and frees them to have more useful interactions with patrons. McDonough (2004, p. 12) suggested that the self-checkout technology has also freed staff “from the repetitive, mundane task of routine checkout that contributes to staff dissatisfaction and burnout and allows staff the opportunity to get out from behind the desk and provide readers advisory and converse with customers.” In other words, it offers circulation staff time to accomplish many other important tasks, such as issuing cards to new patrons, processing incomplete items returned by patrons, updating customer records, processing bounced e-mail messages sent to customers, processing overdue items and notices, checking in library materials, and a host of other services performed by circulation staff. Additionally, because the self-checkout machines free library staff from serving every customer who walks through the library door, library staff is able to take advantage of staff development opportunities for their professional growth. If the traditional checkout lines are decreased due to the self-checkout technology, staff will most likely offer better services since they will no longer feel rushed when assisting patrons. In fact, Berry noted that “anyone who has tried to engage the clerks on the circulation desks at some large urban libraries knows that at busy times the encounter will be hostile, at best, or dysfunctional at worst” (2004b, p. 10). Staff will also be more available for answering patrons’ questions and solving problems. The physical demands of checking out many materials to patrons will also be somewhat reduced for circulation assistants. This is because the self-checkout technology will help in reducing workplace health concerns that staff members experience from repetitive strains. This means that soreness and fatigue related to repetitive strain injury during the traditional checkout process may be greatly reduced. Patron Privacy Some people appreciate the extra privacy that the self-checkout provides. One of the benefits of adopting the self-checkout machine in libraries is that it allows patrons the privacy of checking out materials that they might have been embarrassed to show circulation staff members. For this reason, self-checkout machines could provide patrons the confidentiality needed when borrowing materials on controversial subjects, such as topics related to health issues, gambling, sex, suicide, and so on. Safety Library staff perform many risky motions when checking out, checking in and sorting library materials. Using the self-checkout machines in place of staff can considerably decrease repetitive strain injury that could occur in the workplace. Self-Sufficiency The self-checkout machines allow patrons an added degree of self-sufficiency and make it possible for them to work at their own pace. It removes unnecessary interactions with chatty staff members, which is especially helpful when a patron is in a hurry. Finally, children enjoy the grown-up feeling and independence of checking out their own materials. Economical The self-checkout system could be a great money-saving venture, as it saves libraries money that ordinarily would have been channeled toward staff salaries and other benefit packages. The self-checkout technology helps library organizations in maximizing the return on investment with increased staff efficiency and improved customer service (Saunders, 1983). For example, many libraries now employ fewer staff because of the lower operational costs of the system. By controlling the growth of staff, libraries save taxpayers money. On this point, Saunders (p. 10) remarked that “by installing the self-service terminals . . . libraries can keep up with the increase in circulation without adding more staff.” DeJoice and Sennyey (2000, p. 6) argued that the self-checkout system facilitates “a paradigm shift” in human labor and that “the division of labor between librarians and the professional staff is ripe for reconsideration.” DeJoice and Sennyey added that “professional staff could be reassigned to free up librarians tasks often considered ‘traditional’ such as basic reference, library tours, etc., to perform function for which librarians have had scant time and which have often been neglected.” DeJoice and Sennyey (2000, p. 6) argued that changes in labor practices are imperative to the successful adoption of self-checkout machines: if self-checkout systems will not free circulation staff for other tasks, the central argument of 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. Furthermore, the self-checkout can likely pay for itself in a year’s time, even a semester’s time, depending on the wages of library staff and the number of hours the library is open per week (DeJoice and Sennyey). 24-Hour Service and Added Flexibility Unlike staff members, the self-checkout machines can operate continuously without taking breaks. This means that libraries can offer their patrons 24-hour service if needed (Bishop, 1999). The self-checkout machines hence provide staff and patrons with more choices and added flexibility. Given the fact that library patrons seem to be satisfied with using the self-checkout machine at the Library of American University in Dubai, library administrators should be interested in, among other things, fixing technical and other problems associated with the self-checkout machine. Recommendation and Conclusion These recommendations may assist the Library of AUD in ensuring that use of the self-checkout machine is maximized. 1. Library management should aggressively advertise the self-checkout machine so that all library patrons will know it exists. This could be achieved through (a) placing signs on reading tables throughout the library with the message, “Have you used the self-checkout machine?” and (b) periodically placing colorful balloons or other eye-catching materials on the machine to attract patrons. 2. The Library of American University in Dubai should include a self-checkout machine orientation as a part of the instruction sessions that are offered to new students. Additionally, utilizing volunteers periodically to demonstrate and explain to patrons how to use the self-checkout machine would also be useful. 3. The library should purchase a higher quality machine in order to decrease the frequency of machine malfunctions. Purchasing a better machine will ensure that it is dependable, and this in turn could increase usage. It is important to note that a significant number of suggestions for improvement offered by the participants related to the issue of machine malfunctioning. The patrons reported that the barcode scanner does not work well, and furthermore the demagnetizer is not powerful — which causes the alarm at the security gate to sound as the patron leaves. This is often a problem when patrons think that they have successfully checked out their materials only to be embarrassed at the gate. The embarrassment caused as a result of the alarm sounding may discourage many library patrons from using the machine again even though they like using it. This particular issue could conceivably be one of the foremost reasons for the decline in usage. In fact, one particular respondent stated that he does not use the machine anymore because the alarm sounded at the gate on four different occasions. Hence, even though library patrons like using the machine, the embarrassment caused by the security alarm could deter some patrons from continuing to use it. 4. In order to increase machine usage, some respondents suggested that the library invest in machines that have a fingerprint reader. This would mean that instead of using a library card, a patron would be identified by his or her fingerprint. Investing in this technology would enable people who forget or lose their library cards to have the opportunity to use the self-checkout machine. Implementing this type of technology could potentially increase usage, as the machine would not be restricted to only those people who physically have their library cards. 6. The library should ensure that the self-checkout machine has clear instructions. Some of the suggestions received for improvement stated that the self-checkout machine does not have clear instructions. One respondent said that the library should do away with conflicting instructions on how to swipe the barcodes. Some respondents pointed out that the barcodes should be placed in uniform locations, while another noted that the instructions in Spanish have many spelling errors. It can be inferred from the above paper that the self-checkout service is one of the valuable services provided to patrons at the Library of AUD. However, it is important to point out that this service can only be enhanced if it is implemented efficiently and with the users’ needs in mind. In other words, library management can improve the services of this machine by implementing some of the suggestions made by the real-life users of the technology. Since it has been determined that the patrons are happy with the self-checkout machine, implementing their suggestions for enhancement could hopefully lead to an increase in the use of the self-checkout machine at the Library of American University in Dubai. Works Cited Antelmanm, K.. Web lists and the decline of the library catalog. Library Computing, 18, 1999, 189–195. Arora, J. Network-enabled digitized collection at the Central Library, IIT Delhi. American Society of Information Science, 285, 2002, 23–27. Berry, J. The toughest challenge. Library Journal, 1296, 2004a. 8. Berry, J. Dehumanizing the library: We lose more than we save with self-service. Library Journal, 12913, 2004b.10. Bii, H. K., & Wanyama, P. Automation and its impact on the job satisfaction among the staff of the Margaret Thatcher, Moi University. Library Management, 22, 2001. 303– 310. Bishop, G. Newcirc Technologies unveils fast track patron self-checkout system. Information Today, 1999. 165. Boyd, S. A traditional library goes virtual. Online, 262, 2002. 41. Breeding, M. Migration down innovation up. Library Journal, 1296, 2004. 46–58. Campbell, J. It’s a tough job looking ahead when you’ve seen what’s dragging behind. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 17, 1991.148–151. Cherry, V. The effect of library automation at Richard Bland College: A program evaluation. Richmond: Virginia Commonwealth University. 1999. Christensen, L. B. Experimental methodology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 2001. Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. Business research methods. Boston: McGraw-Hill. 2003. Creswell, J. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2003. DeJoice, M., & Sennyey, P. Some issues in implementing library self-checkout systems: A management perspective. Illinois Libraries, 821, 2000.5–8. English, T. Emory University, 1915–1965: A semicentennial history. Decatur, GA: Emory University. 1966. Gardyasz, J. 2004. Self-checkout poised for more growth in greater Des Moines. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.businessrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID= 8&ArticleID=1400&sinsectpmID=9 Gessesse, K. Re-examining the role of the public services librarian in the new information age. Library Review, 46, 1997. 90–99. Gordon, R. Let’s use the technology we live. Library Journal, 1293, 2004. 46. Gorniak-Kocikowska, K. Revolution and the library. Library Trends, 49, 2001. 454–470. Goyal, P. Recent developments. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 21, 1998. 637– 655. Grant, C. Machines for the menial [Letter to the editor]. Library Journal. 2004. Grant, D. 2003. Self-checkout saving money at local libraries. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sitd/story/html/150878 Greenberg, J. Managing behavior in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 2002. Kapitzke, C. Information literacy: The changing library. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44, 2001. 450–456. Kent, S. The public library director in the dot . world. New Library World, 1031/2, 2002. 48–54. Library and information systems. Electronic Library, 172, 1999,2. Lwehabura, M. J., & Matovelo, D. S. Effective library management: Issues for managers and subordinates. New Library World, 101, 2002. 263–268. Martella, R. C., Nelson, R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. Research methods, learning to become a critical research consumer. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 1999. McCall, J. Self-checkout lives up to its name. Integrated Solutions. 2003, McDonald, M. 2003. Self-checkout use soars. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.detnews.com/2003/business/0310/15/b04-298129.htm McDonough, E. Craft a self-service plan [Letter to the editor]. Library Journal, 12916, x. 2004. Moffitt, J. Choosing the robot. netConnect: Supplement to the Library Journal. 2004, Mutula, S. IT developments in eastern and southern Africa: Implications for university libraries. Library Hi Tech, 18, 2000. 320–334. Norusis, M. SPSS 11.0: Guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 2002. Online Computer Library Center. n.d.. Services and databases. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.oclc.org/services Robison, C. Effects of automation on academic libraries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University. 1991. Rogers, M. Self-checkout from PHIGA Corporation. Library Journal, 12772002.. Saffady, W. The status of library automation at 2000. Library Technology Reports, 361. 2000. Sarasota County Library System. 2004. Library self-service checkout saves time, money and staff. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.co.sarasota.fl.is/latestnews Saunders, J. Is self-service a dead issue? Service Point: Journal of the Branch and Mobile Libraries group of the Library Association, 27. 1983. Sharmam, R. K., & Vishwanathan, K. R. Digital libraries: Development and challenges. Library Review, 501, 2001.10–15. Sloan, B. Evolution takes a leap. netConnect: Supplement to Library Journal, 1307. 2005. Stern, B., & Connaway, L. S. Shaping the future of libraries. New Library World, 100, 1999.297–301. Swartz, L. 2004, October. Making sense of RFID. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.libraryjournal.com/ article/CA456770 Thomas, S., & Ford, R. October 15. Fayetteville’s quest. netConnect: Supplement to the Library Journal, 2004, 23–27. Tolzmann, D., Hessel, A., & Reuben, P. The memory of mankind: The story of libraries since the dawn of history. New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press. 2001. Read More