If you have ever wondered how materials handling automation could fit into your library environment, you might enjoy this study I did for a client.

I’m hoping you find the study useful because it describes all the factors that come into play making a strong argument for automated materials handling as a way to support better customer service and and improved work environment for staff.
While you’re at it, don’t miss this analysis I did for another client analyzing the benefits of automated check-in systems at a medium sized library (which already had some AMH components). This analysis showed that there are additional savings to be had by adding the automated check-in systems to the automation mix.

This is a slightly redacted version of a study I did (with Melissa Stockton of Quipu Group) on the library delivery system in Massachusetts. We evaluated delivery, sorting, and in-library practices and everything in between. Fascinating reading!

Statewide Library Delivery Study

Now this group is issuing an RFI to get some new ideas about how to optimize this operation. I provided some ideas in the report (centralized, automated sort for entire state) and they are looking for ideas about how to implement that, or maybe there are even better ideas out there.

Contact me if you have some ideas and want a copy of the RFI. We’re planning to distribute it to materials handling vendors, logistics and transportation companies, and some robotics companies. Other ideas???

(PDF)
Final report of a cost comparison of materials handling operations at two very similar libraries: one with automated self check-in and library sorter, and the other using manual materials handling. The report (PDF) demonstrates significant savings at the library with automated checkin.

I recently undertook an analysis of the cost savings (if any) of a client’s use of automated checkin. This was an interesting project for me because I wasn’t sure how it would turn out. Although I’m a big fan of automated checkin for many reasons, I wasn’t sure that it would result in clear cost savings for this particular client because they were already using automation in their central sort operation. The automated central sort system included a tote checkin feature — this means the receiving library only had to scan a tote (or bin) to checkin all the items in the tote. So, to justify the cost of the AMH equipment installed at the individual library, we had to compare it against another similiar sized library that was pretty darn efficient already.
There was a chance that I would find that the cost of their in-library sorter and the automated checkin system wasn’t justified. Wrong.
I found that I could show an ROI of under five years for the library AMH equipment. This was based on the price of the AMH system ($700,000) and the annual savings in staff time (and other costs) over the costs of the library without any AMH equipment onsite.
The two libraries that were compared in this study do approximately 1800 checkins per day and receive 500 totes of interlibrary material per day. With a smaller operation, the savings wouldn’t be so dramatic, but then the size and cost of the AMH equipment would also be less too.
Here’s the (full report) for your viewing pleasure….