What do we know about material handling in library? An empirical assessment in the Nordic region

Abstract

Purpose

Libraries, as a peaceful arena for promoting knowledge and culture, are often challenged by various means, which are mostly linked to the material handling. However, literature shorts fall in either recognizing how material handling comes under threat or evaluating the influence of promising solutions on the library’s performance. Thus, this study aims to present a comprehensive understanding of material handling in the library through the identification of characteristics, key performance indicators (KPIs) and challenges of this driving factor.

Design/methodology/approach

This research benefits from a triangulation of qualitative methods, including systematic literature review, case study, in-depth semi-structured interview (SSI) and focus group meetings, to present a comprehensive understanding of material handling in the library.

Findings

The initial findings highlight the characteristics, i.e. incremental inventory, no packaging, open access order, etc., and the KPIs of material handling in the library: flexibility, productivity, service quality and cost. In addition, the challenges that limit the libraries’ performance are discovered based on field observation through five Nordic libraries (Norway and Finland), which are further studied for discovering the potential remedies. Corollaries advise that material handling challenges in the library are potentially tackled through three pillars, known as Triple E’s: employee, equipment and environment.

Originality/value

The performance of libraries is notably linked to the material handling processes and this agenda has received limited attention by academia. This study is among the initial research efforts in this context seeking to develop a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics, KPIs and challenges of material handling in the library and facilitate the improvement of library’s performance.

Citation

Jefroy, N. and Sgarbossa, F. (2024), "What do we know about material handling in library? An empirical assessment in the Nordic region", Digital Transformation and Society, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTS-05-2024-0076

1. Introduction and background

The library, as a not-for-profit organization, is responsible to an array of societal commitments to citizens and library visitors, so-called patrons, which position this entity to maximize its organizational performances and service provision (Brophy, 2006). This implies that libraries must embark on procedures and strategies set for enabling efficient and cost-effective operation management. Given the recent civil and digital advancements, libraries services are divided into two major categories: digital and physical. The former has a reference to the role of digitalization, i.e. e-books, bibliographical databases, etc. The latter, however, evokes the value of library’s environment in the provision of other forms of services, such as group educational meetings, collaborative learning, and so forth (Mainka et al., 2013). While previous scholars have made contributions to the realm of social functions of libraries, this sector is necessitated to best utilize the available resources to satisfy the patrons efficiently and effectively. This calls for another research stream from academia to further investigate the library operations.

Operations are the pivotal axle of organizations in service provision (Slack & Brandon-Jones, 2018), which are instruments for adding value to the utilized inputs through the transformation processes to create the needed outputs. While studies in this context majorly focus on service outputs, it is equally crucial to consider inputs and transformation processes, as underscored by Stevenson, Hojati, Cao, Mottaghi, and Bakhtiari (2017) and Slack and Brandon-Jones (2018), who classify inputs into “transforming” resources (e.g. staff and equipment) and “transformed” resources (e.g. customers). This classification further identifies three primary types of transformation processes – material, information, and customer processing – with material processing generally requiring the most resources and effort and is driven by moving materials (Paul, 2017). Brophy (2006) accommodated the “input-transformation-output” model to library systems, emphasizing the dependency of libraries on the efficient utilization of resources through effective material handling processes, equivalent to material processing as mentioned earlier. In this model, the material handling processes in libraries are responsible for deploying transforming resources, i.e. staff and equipment, to ensure the availability of transformed resources, i.e. books, etc., and fulfilling service requests. The outputs generated from these processes have both short- and long-term impacts on the operational efficiency. For instance, patron’s satisfaction may be adversely affected by prolonged waiting time in the queues as a consequence of inefficient manual material handling processes. This highlights the necessity of robust performance measurement system to enhance the utilization of the transforming resources in the library. Jafari, Sgarbossa, Nyland, and Sorheim (2023) further elaborated on this concept by identifying four primary operations for delivering library services: making materials available, organizing events, providing services and acquiring materials. Moreover, this study categorizes material handling processes into four taxonomies: sorting, moving, storing and controlling. The “input-transformation-output” model within the context of the library is demonstrated in Figure 1.

Material handling processes in the libraries demand notable human contribution, which not only necessitates the manual accomplishment of tasks but also turns material handling into a resource-intensive agenda (Jafari, Sgarbossa, Nyland et al., 2023; Jafari, Sgarbossa, & Peron, 2023). This endeavor implicates significant human effort and costs and subsequently impacts the overall performance of the library operations (Jafari, Sgarbossa, Nyland et al., 2023; Jafari, Sgarbossa et al., 2023). In such environment, librarians are compelled to increase the working hours, leading to ergonomic challenges, e.g. backache and wrist tunnel issues, and consequently diminishing the quality of their work (Gavgani, Nazari, & Jafarabadi, 2013). Hence, addressing the challenges related to the material handling processes in the libraries serves as a promising arena toward the improvement of the overall performance within an organization of this kind.

Although such challenges of material handling have been approached in other organizational contexts, it has received limited attention in the library context. For instance, Fragapane, Hvolby, Sgarbossa, and Strandhagen (2023) have investigated the use of digital technologies to increase the optimal frontier of material handling performance in the hospital. In a similar vein, Gupta, Kumar, Mishra, Semwal, and Siwach (2017) highlight the importance of advanced technologies in enhancing service efficiency at airports. This study demonstrates the influence of advanced material handling systems to lubricate the process accomplishment and achieve more effective oversight and coordination of operations. Scholarly contributions are not limited to the outlined instances and material handling challenges have received attention in other organizations contexts as well, such as production system (Azizi, Yazdi, & Humairi, 2018) and warehouse (Pugliese, Chou, Loske, Klumpp, & Montemanni, 2022). Nonetheless, the literature demonstrates trivial efforts to combat the material handling challenges in the library through the advantages delivered by digital technologies, and there is a lack of concrete knowledge of this concept in this organizational sector. In consequence, it is essential to consolidate the existing knowledge and facilitate an effective playground to formulate the performance and address the corresponding challenges of material handling in the library. Therefore, this study puts forward the idea of investigating the characteristics, key performance indicators (KPIs), challenges and room for improvement of the material handling in the library. To that end, the following research questions are developed:

RQ1.

What is the current knowledge regarding material handling in the library?

RQ2.

What are the characteristics of material handling in the library and relevant KPIs in this context?

RQ3.

What are the challenges of material handling in the library?

RQ4.

How can we address the challenges of material handling in the library?

To address the questions raised above, a triangulation of literature review, in-depth semi-structured interview (SSI), case study and focus group meetings were considered to primarily enable a reliable approach for data collection and, moreover, ensure the validity of findings and assessments. While the adopted methods and approaches for data analysis will be discussed in Section 2, the remainder of this study is organized as follows. Response to the first research question is described in Section 3, highlighting status of the art regarding material handling in the library. In response to the second research question, Section 4 presents insight into the material handling within the studied libraries and discusses the identified characteristics and KPIs accordingly. Section 5 illustrates the performance of material handling in the selected libraries, which is concluded by identifying the material handling challenges, in response to the third research question. In Section 6, we describe the pillars that contribute to improving material handling in the library in order to address the concern raised by the fourth research question. The summary of the study is presented in Section 7, followed by highlighting the limitations of research and setting the future agenda.

2. Research methods

The nature of this study necessitates considering a triangulation strategy, which serves as a promising approach for understanding a phenomenon and validating the empirical information (Patton, 1999; Carter, Bryant-Lukosius, Dicenso, Blythe, & Neville, 2014). Given the immaturity of material handling in the library compared to other similar entities, we commence this study by a rigorous literature review to better reflect and analyze the state-of-the-art developments within academia. The findings of the literature review contribute to capturing the gaps and areas where the academic efforts shortfall in connection with material handling in the library, as well as satisfying the concern raised by the research question one. The literature review results shape the ground for further research steps, revealing the limited knowledge surrounding the performance and characteristics of material handling in the library. This gives rise to the essence of conducting data collection from five Nordic libraries in Norway and Finland, which form diversity in their automation level, as a prominent driver of the material handling processes and in other of their indices, such as organization size, customer target population, and so forth. It is worthwhile to note that the empirical findings are not inclusive due to the limited number of libraries; nevertheless, the employed approach and yielded results are essential to the research context by forming the foundations for further research in other regions and expand the knowledge in the realm of library material handling. In pursuit of the second research question, an in-depth SSI is conducted with the experienced librarians to identify the distinct characteristics of material handling in the library through analysis of the corresponding processes being performed in the library environment. In case it is deemed necessary, each interview session is complemented by field observation to grasp on more empirical insights pertaining to the interview agenda. This package of knowledge, combined with inspirations from performance measurement studies in other organizational contexts, shapes the basis to establish a set of KPIs, which are further adjusted to the context of library and articulated with the help of focus group meetings with the interviewees and authors. Utilizing the established KPIs and collected empirical information, we approach the third research question to benchmark the material handling processes of the case studies and explore the challenges of material handling that commonly appear in the library environment. Having the challenges articulated, we extend the focus group meetings to make a coherent understanding of the issues and limitations associated with the mapped performance of the case studies. Hence, in response to research question four, we discover the mainstreams and major elements contributing to improving material handling in the library. In this regard, we pursue a structural coding approach to discover the elements and their relationships that have contributed to low performance or notable challenges (Krippendorff, 2018). Equivalently, this is in favor of identifying the factors contributing to the improvement of material handling in the library. The remainder of this section further elaborates on the employed methods discussed above.

2.1 Literature review

Presenting a wide picture of the body of knowledge regarding a phenomenon deserves an inclusive collection of research materials and a rigorous and unbiased literature study (Seuring & Gold, 2012; Templier & Paré, 2015). To analyze the available knowledge surrounding material handling in the library, it is essential to reflect this concern within the literature search procedure. The literature search is initiated by identifying the relevant keywords and their correct combination to ensure access to a wide range of studies. To that end, we opt for combining “material handling” and “intralogistics” with “library,” which yields the following search string: [“material handling” OR intralogistics] AND [library]. It is worth noting that considering “intralogistics” in the search process lies on the interchangeable perception of this concept as an alternative for material handling. The search process was accomplished on November 9th, 2023, utilizing the Scopus database, which serves as a reliable source of research material. Last but not the least, the following filters were considered to eliminate the irrelevant studies from the initial list of papers: (1) English language and (2) document type – including journal papers and conference proceedings. Other filters, e.g. publication year, subject area, etc., were found irrelevant to apply based on the scope of the first research question. The review procedure continues with the quality appraisal, which primarily aims at eliminating studies with weak thematic relevance to the scope of this research and encompasses two steps. The first round of quality appraisal – denoted as coarse sieve – aims at removing studies based on their contents associated with title, abstract and keywords. The core judgmental principle in this stage is to disregard studies not fitting the scope of material handling in the library. The second step – denoted as fine sieve – is established on the same judgment; however, it demands more meticulous effort to review the whole content of the papers approved in the previous step. Ultimately, the procedure of literature search yielded six research articles. To enable an explicit extraction of data, we register a record of all dimensions pertaining to the material handling in the library, and the results of data synthesis are provided in Appendix. It is worth noting to recall that the main goal is to present the knowledge breadth of the topic of interest, denoted as scoping review (Xiao & Watson, 2019; Azarian, Yu, Shiferaw, & Stevik, 2023), and therefore, the results are provided in a descriptive form without aiming at providing a critical judgment of the included studies with reference to any question or hypothesis.

2.2 In-depth individual semi-structured interviews

In-depth individual (IDI) interviews have shown notable capabilities in qualitative research and data collection (Patton, 1999; Carter et al., 2014; Denzin, 2017; Tracy, 2019). The IDI interview is widely referred to as a powerful tool for exploring and understanding the depth of the research topic, ranging from structured and controlled to unstructured and fluid (Patton, 1999; Fontana & Frey, 2000; Russell, Gregory, Ploeg, Dicenso, & Guyatt, 2005; Carter et al., 2014; Denzin, 2017; Schulze & Dallasega, 2023). In this study, SSIs were conducted in multiple libraries within Nordic countries, and the collected information was analyzed using the qualitative content analysis recommended by Mayring (2004). SSI employs a blend of closed- and open-ended questions. It pulls elements from both sets of questions and puts them into a distinctive package (Adams, 2015). The open-ended questions allow librarians to articulate their perspectives and thoughts freely, offering insights into the library system and the challenges faced by the respondents (Adams, 2015). These queries are designed to get a grasp on the prevailing conditions within libraries and the specific operational issues encountered by librarians. Conversely, the latter set of questions involves selecting responses from predetermined options (Krosnick, 2017), which assist in collecting general information about libraries by providing options to the interviewees, such as YES/NO inquiries about the existence of additional branches. To prepare for interview sessions, an interview guide (available in Appendix) was developed based on the findings from literature and discussions within focus group meetings including authors and two library’s leaders. The developed guide seeks to capture useful information corresponding to the material handling and the challenges that threaten these processes. The interviewees include an array of employees in each library, i.e. operation and resource managers, logistic leaders and operational staff involved in day-to-day material handling processes. Interviewees also expressed their thoughts and suggestions about the possibilities to improve material handling processes in their respective libraries. Observations also helped us to better capture the natural settings and actual human efforts required in operating each process.

2.3 Case study

Case study serves as a promising approach to perform an in-depth study of a phenomenon in its natural context and from the perspective of the participants involved in the phenomenon (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996; Saghiri, Mohammadipour, & Mirzabeiki, 2024). In general, two fundamental types of case study design exist: the single-case design and the multiple-case design. While the former allows for a thorough observation in a single organization, the latter derives conclusions from a group of cases that encompass the same phenomenon occurring in diverse situations (Yin, 1981; Voss, 2008; Kapetanopoulou & Tagaras, 2009). This study opts for multiple cases, which is beneficial in revealing and validating the challenges and requirements concerning material handling processes in the library. In this regard, five libraries are selected from Norway and Finland. To preserve the personal and organizational rights and to ensure confidentiality issues, interviewees’ identities and the name and city of the libraries are anonymized. Although the democratic and social administration mindset in the Nordic region has shown promising values (Askeland & Strauss, 2014), observations affirm variation in the service quality of public facilities. Despite this is a limitation for this study to include only Nordic countries, the authors have opted for libraries that have fundamental differences to prevent from studying several cases, which share significant features in common. To that end, the organizational capacity of the selected libraries varies in terms the number of employees and equipment. Secondly, the equipment and tools utilized in the studied libraries represent a wide range of digitalization and automation, which potentially impact the material handling and service provision. Last but not least, the population of the customer target, or equivalently, the city that libraries are situated in, differs in connection with the selected libraries. This element is decisive in terms of required effort to satisfy the patrons. It is worth mentioning that each library is linked to its downstream branches, and for simplicity and homogeneity of data, this study focuses on the main branch assigned to each library. Not to mention that focusing on the main branch is provides a richer dataset due to encountering a higher volume of demands and maintaining a larger inventory of materials. The main branches demand more resources, including operational staff, and often manage diverse schedules, such as public events. This circumstance corroborates the presence of various challenges and the need for improved material handling processes to elevate service provision.

3. State of the art: material handling in library operations

Material handling is an integral component of material flow and plays a pivotal role in the organizational productivity (Kulweic, 1991; Risteska, Spaseska, Risteska, & Odzaklieska, 2019). The underlying goals of effective material handling are to increase capacity, enhance working conditions and decrease costs and labor intensity, all of which contribute to improved operational performance and ultimately lead to greater customer satisfaction (Chopra & Meindl, 2007; Popović, Vidović, & Bjelić, 2014; Risteska et al., 2019). Material handling relies on two key aspects, including the choice of appropriate equipment and the allocation of equipment to the material handling processes (Sujono & Lashkari, 2007), where the physical characteristics of materials and/or articles, determine the equipment type and the means of handling the materials (Groover, 2015). In this regard, attention to subtle [but fundamental] features of the equipment is of significance.

In a recent study performed by Fragapane et al. (2023), the authors have investigated the impact of automated mobile robots (AMR) on material handling systems for sterile instrument logistics in hospitals. Their evaluation of the moving process using AMR demonstrated an ideal solution for hospitals to achieve heightened performance levels. In another study within the production floor, the authors aim to evaluate the automation level of the material handling system in the presence of mobile robots (Mahmood, Karjust, & Raamets, 2021). This study proposed a conceptual model based on 3D visualization and simulation to support the decision-making process associated with the movement of mobile robots in production logistics. The findings illustrate the significant improvements achieved in accuracy and punctuality of delivery time, along with decreasing the defects during the moving process. While the sphere of such studies is non-homogeneous, they commonly reveal the significance of digital technologies in response to the challenges of material handling. It is also worthwhile to highlight the recent scholarly findings pertaining to the library that show the impact of automated guided vehicle (AGV) and AMR are measured differently, given the variation of their smartness level (Jafari, Sgarbossa, Nyland et al., 2023). Therefore, use of automation technologies in the context of material handling calls for a more generic classification according to the available alternatives, and in this regard, we rely on the automation level of the material handling processes and present the following classification:

• (1)

  Manual. All material handling processes, i.e. moving, storing, etc., are operated by humans and often supported by basic equipment, e.g. simple bins, carts, pallets, etc.

• (2)

  Semi-automated. Semi-automated material handling processes fundamentally represent an interaction or synergic communication between human and automatically operated equipment. This approach majorly utilizes various alternatives of machinery instruments, such as powered conveyor systems, movable racks, AGVs and robotic systems that collaborate with humans or augment the capabilities of labors.

• (3)

  Automated. It is the highest level of automation in material handling processes and notably relies on computer-controlled machinery, robots and advanced technologies to perform material handling tasks without direct human intervention.

3.1 Literature analysis and gap identification

Despite inefficient material handling that has disturbed the performance of libraries, academic efforts fall short in addressing the prevailing challenges of this taxonomy. According to the literature, researchers have majorly focused on automating the book handling procedure, with some minor studies directed toward material management in libraries (Modler et al., 2012; Comsa, Maniu, Modler, Lovasz, & Ciupe, 2014; Li, Xie, Chen, & Tan, 2016; Mohammed et al., 2019; Vivek, Pradeesh, Natarajan, Pravin, & Prabhu, 2020; Jafari, Sgarbossa, Nyland et al., 2023). Although these contributions are valuable to improve the material handling, there is a lack of research work to develop the fundamental theories surrounding this topic. In effect, it is deemed essential to establish a theoretical foundation for material handling in the library to facilitate an environment for coherent research studies pertaining to the challenges of material handling and generate a practical guide for evaluating the performance of a library’s material handling. This gap highlights the contribution of this study, for which we aim to investigate and articulate the characteristics and challenges of material handling in the library. To realize this aim, and according to the knowledge gained from the literature regarding material handling, the following items are identified as the essential aspects to develop the described theoretical foundation:

• (1)

  Material. Evaluating the physical characteristics of the individual items that are the target of material handling processes.

• (2)

  Process. Identifying the primary processes associated with the material handling and the operational characteristics of each process.

• (3)

  Equipment. Assessing the characteristics of the equipment that are essential to the functioning of the material handling processes (Bouh & Riopel, 2015).

• (4)

  Environment. Analyzing the characteristics of the environment in which the material handling processes are to be accomplished (Bouh & Riopel, 2015), including both opportunities and limitations.

To elaborate on the proposed agenda, it is worth highlighting that the first aspect puts emphasis on meticulous identification of the materials and/or articles involved in material handling processes and comprehending their detailed physical characteristics to provide a smooth and efficient process and avoid adverse effects. In the library environment, books are the primary stream of articles that flow into the material handling processes and introduce differences in terms of physical characteristics. This aspect is followed by the essence of specifying the key processes that contribute to the material handling in the library. This agenda also calls for an accurate mapping of the characteristics of material handling processes, which are identified as moving, sorting, controlling and storing (Jafari, Sgarbossa, Nyland et al., 2023). For instance, moving primarily involves transporting books between two points, which demands time-efficiency, while sorting requires the element of flexibility and precision to place the books in their associated spots. In the same vein, this highlights the necessity of choosing the relevant equipment to accomplish these processes and accommodate their inherent characteristics. Last but not least, considerations regarding the environment of the library, particularly the atmosphere where the material handling processes, are being accomplished. This is a bilateral element that may either boost the possibilities of improving the material handling processes or impose hard constraints to incorporate novel solutions. Hence, the following section of this study analyzes the material handling processes that are accomplished in five libraries with accordance to the outlined criteria and puts forward to introduce a set of KPIs that assist in evaluating the performance of material handling in the library.

4. Characteristics of material handling in library and performance measurement

This section seeks to discover the characteristics of material handling processes in libraries, as well as to identify the relevant KPIs that are useful in measuring the performance of material handling processes. This is primarily initiated upon conducting an in-depth interview with the principal and operational staff of five libraries in the Nordic countries. The interview agenda is prepared to scrutinize the established material handling system in each library from various aspects, particularly according to the criteria and elements discussed in the previous section. This implies incorporating the identified material handling processes, i.e. sorting, moving, storing and controlling, and an array of dimensions, i.e. building, layout, challenging processes, form of processes and equipment, into the assessment process. The results of analyzing the material handling processes within the selected case studies are available in Appendix (Table 1). Furthermore, we used the gained knowledge as the fundamental input to the focus group meetings with the same group of people in order to identify the common characteristics of material handling processes and generate a practical set of KPIs for analyzing the material handling performance in the library.

4.1 Characteristics of material handling in library

Comprehending the circumstances and interactions within the material handling processes of the libraries primarily demands recognition of the operational compartments that shape the entire procedure of material handling. To better realize this hierarchy of processes, we refer to the discussion presented in Section 1, which states that libraries seek to ensure the provision of services by four underlying operations, among which “making materials available” has the highest priority (Jafari, Sgarbossa, Nyland et al., 2023). In connection to the “input-transformation-output” model, the field observation and case studies reveal that this operation entails the entire processes identified for material handling, i.e. sorting, moving, controlling and storing, which couples the quality of this operation with the performance of these processes. Therefore, the aforementioned processes are in action at several levels in order to make the books available for patrons. In simple terms, this operation is translated to placing the received books in their assigned positions and ensuring that they are correctly stored through controlling processes in order to satisfy newly received orders efficiently. Hence, the material handling processes are to be performed in an environment with efficient data exchange, and they exclusively interact to support the operation of “making books available.” Figure 2 briefly reflects these processes. In line with the most important operation of the library – making books available – this cognitive framework forms the basis to explore the dominant influential characteristics that shape the material handling in the library.

We initiate this discussion upon the framework presented in Section 3.1 to reflect the generic material handling status in libraries across material, process, equipment and environment. Although one may argue that, as opposed to a conventional logistics system, material handling in libraries does not manifest an array of various article types, the physical properties of books vary to a large extent. The copies of books are differentiated based on their size, weight, material cover, thickness and shape, ultimately resulting in a heterogeneous pool of physical characteristics associated with books. It is worth mentioning that books are delivered to the patrons without any packaging solutions, and this is referred to by the librarians as a potential element of damaging books. The material handling in libraries also stands out with regard to the life-time existence of books within the system inventory. In fact, once a new title [or copy] of a book enters the library, it will remain as a life-time asset or product. Consequently, the books (each copy or title) never leave the internal and external material flow of the library – the former refers to the material flow within the boundaries of the library building, e.g. moving the books between two points, storing the books on the shelves, etc., while the latter refers to the material flow outside the physical boundaries of the library, e.g. transportation of books between branches. Therefore, sorting, moving, storing and controlling books through various sections [and branches] are the constant essential processes. Moreover, staff are subjected to maintain a certain level of agility in their tasks, given the continuous change and update of the shelving systems, which is triggered by the most or least demanding and old or new books. Not to mention the flow of newly purchased books that demands adjustment of the shelving system and information database. This operational atmosphere calls for the essence of using flexible and agile equipment and shelving system to enhance the material handling performance. However, without compromising the value of recent trends pertaining to introducing digital or robotic solutions for the library sector, the observations corroborate a lag between the operational needs and such novel solutions. In practice and on the average level, libraries still utilize basic equipment that is not sufficient to operate the material handling processes to their full potential. The choice of equipment leads us to the quest of necessities and limitations that are uniquely introduced and imposed by the library environment. For instance, storage of books should be performed such that the books are fully protected for a long period of time, which not only demands suitable equipment but also signifies allocation of specific areas to this vital agenda. In addition, libraries are accountable to ensure providing patrons with a peaceful atmosphere, which implicitly imposes technical or operational limitations for incorporating equipment and tools. For example, using mobile robots throughout the rush hour may put the safety of patrons at risk.

Under the influence of such an environment, libraries must operate according to an open access model, where both patrons and staff have direct access to the product inventory and engage with the order-picking tasks. In this context, operationalizing such an order-picking process demands the librarians’ efforts to prepare the patron’s order by locating and picking the ordered book from the shelf and placing it in the reserved area. From an administerial perspective, this necessitates the accuracy and efficiency in placing the books on the correct shelve and spot to ensure the convenient access of patrons to the desired books. However, from an operational perspective, libraries suffer from significant efforts they are required to put into performing the receiving and put-away tasks to ensure the availability of books – equivalently reported by librarians as one of the most resource-intensive tasks. Needless to note that put-away [books in the shelves] consists of the entire process associated with material handling, i.e. sorting, moving, storing and controlling. In the same vein, it is dominantly reported by the interviewed librarians that preparing patron’s orders or put-away processes are often disturbed by the misplacement or misarrangement of the books within the shelves, which are unintentionally caused by patrons. Such a scenario strongly evokes the essence of a precise tracking system, given the fact that staff are subjected to perform redundant and time-consuming processes, which consequently limits their performance to a large extent, as stated by the librarians. Additionally, this challenge imposes notable operational barriers for controlling processes, which mandate frequent and thorough manual inspections. This has been reported as the major case in the studied libraries, and the most reported complaint in this context refers to the essence of meticulous scanning of books within the shelves in order to verify their position and possibly detect false arrangement and placement of books. We provide a summary of the material handling characteristics as presented in Figure 3.

4.2 Performance measurement and KPIs of material handling in library

Organizations thrive tounlock their utmost potential in the provision of services to not only maximize their customer satisfaction but also minimize their operational expenses. This agenda fundamentally lies on better performing the effective processes, which leads us to the realm of performance measurement (Neely, Gregory, & Platts, 1995). Similarly to other organizations, performance measurement is the central component of library management, which seeks to map “what is actually being achieved” to facilitate further required improvements of library performance (Brophy, 2006). The notion of “achievement” in this context highlights the core objectives of the library, which is commonly referred to as efficiency in service provision and resource allocation. To that essence, there are instances of efforts from scholars to provide insights about relevant measurement criteria in the library, including, but not limited to, economy, efficiency, effectiveness, productivity, user satisfaction and service quality (Hernon & Dugan, 2002; Brophy, 2006; Markless & Streatfield, 2013; Hernon, Altman, & Dugan, 2015; Matthews, 2017; Yim, Fellows, & Coward, 2020).

This study primarily put forward the idea of constructing a theoretical foundation of the core processes that are essential to the quality and efficiency of the service provision in the library sectors. This is deemed essential in precedence to identifying the relevant measurement criteria, interchangeably known as KPIs, since this comprehension provides the essential intellectual inputs to enrich the rational of deciding on the proper KPIs. In this regard, the earlier discussions in this paper identified and articulated the processes of material handling in the library environment – in support of performing the operation “making books available” – and this guided the preliminary debates surrounding the exploration of relevant KPIs, which took place in the focus group meetings throughout the course of this study. In principle, the identified KPIs are expected to reflect the overall performance of the library – under the influence of the material handling processes, and as a concise rule, the KPIs must be relevant, objective and measurable. Given the knowledge gained from studying the material handling in the library and the academic efforts pertaining to performance measurement in other organizational contexts, a series of KPIs were identified and further elaborated and adjusted for library practices through focus group meetings. The identified KPIs are clustered into four dimensions (see Table 1): flexibility, productivity, service quality and cost.

The primary determinant of library performance measurement lies in the collective capability of material handling resources (staff and equipment) to operate effectively amid fluctuating demand, a characteristic referred to as agility (Inman, Sale, Green Jr, & Whitten, 2011; Blome, Schoenherr, & Rexhausen, 2013). Librarians frequently report the challenge of organizing material handling resources in response to regular changes in demand patterns, highlighting flexibility as a critical performance element (Fragapane et al., 2023). Within this dimension, it is essential to consider the impact of layout setup – comprising both mobile and fixed equipment – on adapting to demand changes. Thus, layout adjustment seeks to assess the effort required to adjust the library layout in response to changes in demand or service requests. Productivity serves as the second performance dimension with accordance to two drivers: capacity and process efficiency. The former pertains to the capacity of material handling resources, while the latter measures the ratio of value-added to non-value-added time, addressing concerns about redundant tasks that may reduce librarians' efficiency. Service quality is another critical dimension of library performance, defined by “what to deliver” and “how to deliver” the requested services (Hernon & Dugan, 2002; Hernon et al., 2015; Matthews, 2017). Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman (1988) emphasize the strong connection between service quality and customer satisfaction by introducing the SERVQUAL model designed to measure the gaps between customer expectations and their perceptions of service quality. Service quality is determined by delivering the exact requested book through an efficient communication channel with patrons and, more importantly, by satisfying the patrons in a timely fashion manner, which are translated to accuracy and responsiveness (Asthana & Dwivedi, 2020). Given libraries as a public and not-for-profit entity, expenses play an important role in the overall performance, which is driven by two key elements: establishment and operational and maintenance costs. Establishment costs are associated with implementing and adjusting material handling setups and equipment. Operational and maintenance costs are incurred by operating the material handling setup including wages necessary materials to exploit the equipment and maintain the utilized equipment. These identified KPIs will be exemplified throughout the next section as a basis for benchmarking to assess the studied libraries.

5. Challenges of material handling in library

This study primarily put forward to establish a theoretical foundation to better comprehend the material handling processes and circumstances in the library sector, for which a variety of libraries were used to conduct empirical studies. According to the objectives set in this paper, this phase is followed by benchmarking the performance of the analyzed case studies across the established set of KPIs, which is also a promising approach to capture the status quo of material handling in libraries (Behn, 2003). Thereby, this section sheds light on the performance of the prevalent material handling within libraries by giving insights into four influential dimensions, namely flexibility, productivity, service quality and costs.

To collect useful and inclusive empirical data, it is vital to consider that the selected libraries differ in terms of organizational size and automation level, by which staff and equipment – also referred to as transforming resources – have direct impact on the material handling performance. In this context, previous studies also corroborate that the choice of material handling equipment is of significance to relax the physical efforts of labors and simultaneously enhance the material handling performance (Chan, Ip, & Lau, 2001; Soufi, David, & Yahouni, 2021). This collectively highlights the impact of transforming resources on the performance of libraries across the developed KPIs, which will be explained further in this section. The individual value of KPIs is captured upon a qualitative trinary spectrum including low, medium and high. According to the results, it is observed that the performance of two case studies – library A and library B – is almost the same, and thus, they are demonstrated as a one bundled library. It is worth noting that the utilized equipment in the aforementioned case studies is mostly similar.

The flexibility of each library was analyzed using two KPIs: agility and layout adjustment. In libraries A and B, staff are mainly responsible for material handling processes and are relied on the sorting machines. The analyses indicate that staffs’ schedules are flexible to accommodate new demands, unlike the sorting machines that require more adjustment time, and their limited capacity disrupts the sorting and controlling processes as workload increases. However, these libraries benefit from adjustable layouts, allowing them to incorporate new or expanded layout setups. Library C, by contrast, employs three sorting machines for controlling and sorting processes, requiring longer setup times in response to demand changes and resulting in prolonged waiting times. The use of automated elevators and conveyor belts facilitates vertical book movement between floors. On the one hand, the fixed layout of this library introduces rigidity and precludes any alterations to pickup and delivery points. On the other hand, the collaboration between staff and AMRs enhances the adaptability of material handling processes to new demands. In library D, the sorting machine reduces overall facility adaptability, although both staff and AMRs have the potential to adjust their tasks within the constraints of a fixed layout. Library E faces significant challenges due to a shortage of human resources and equipment, resulting in a reduced capacity to effectively respond to new demands and adapt to changes in locations. Additionally, limited space for material handling and a rigid layout setup further extend the difficulty of making necessary adjustments. This analysis reveals that the introduction of digital technologies is neither the most promising or effective solution. For instance, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots in the fast-food industry for handling customer orders has often resulted in customer dissatisfaction and incorrect deliveries, illustrating the limitations of technology in certain contexts (Guardian, 2024).

The productivity of each library was scrutinized in terms of capacity and process efficiency. The low level of capacity is evident in libraries A, B and E, highlighting the significant involvement of staff in book processing tasks. The use of the sequential processing method requires staff to handle books individually, leading to continuous backlogs. Observations indicate that staff spend a significant amount of time on repetitive and non-value-adding activities. Despite the presence of sorting machines, manual and double sorting remain necessary in these libraries, further impeding efficiency. In contrast, library C achieves high capacity and process efficiency through the combination of sorting machines, automated elevators and conveyor belts. These solutions enable the simultaneous control, sorting and movement of a considerable volume of books without human intervention. Library D, however, faces capacity limitations due to its reliance on a single sorting machine. Nevertheless, the inclusion of advanced equipment, such as collaborative robot (cobot) arms, AMRs and buffer zone belts, has positively impacted the library’s process efficiency. The use of digital technologies to manage repetitive tasks not only reduces time and effort but also enhances overall productivity. A noteworthy example outside the library context is the deployment of “Amazon Robotics,” which has significantly improved process efficiency and productivity by eliminating the need for manual lifting and transportation of heavy items (Jain & Sharma, 2017).

Service quality is analyzed with respect to accuracy and responsiveness. Despite the utilization of sorting machines in libraries A, B and E, the automated control and sorting processes are compromised by their low accuracy, necessitating manual intervention of staff. Consequently, there exists the risk of misplacement and disorganization of books prior to distribution. Furthermore, manual material handling demands significant time and effort, resulting in a reduced level of responsiveness. Conversely, the adoption of advanced equipment in both libraries C and D has yielded a higher degree of accuracy. However, library D exhibits a lower responsiveness level compared to library C. In library C, books experience initial sorting at a central sorter before being transferred to their respective floor for further machine-assisted sorting. This dual sorting approach minimizes incorrect deliveries and enables prompt control, sorting and movement of books upon receipt. In contrast, books in library D experience prolonged waiting times in the buffer zone belt before being distributed. Digital technologies are potentially useful to enhance both accuracy and responsiveness. The agenda, however, is dependent on the relevance of the selected technologies to the targeted tasks. In their comparative study of two digital technologies, Fragapane et al. (2023) demonstrated the impact of digitalization on service quality. While AMRs and AGVs exhibited comparable levels of accuracy, AMRs significantly outperformed AGVs in terms of responsiveness – due to a higher level of smartness.

As a non-profit organization, the library prioritizes cost as the foremost performance criterion. In this study, this dimension is assessed upon the costs incurred by the establishment and operation and/or maintenance of material handling systems. In libraries A, B and E, where sorting machines constitute the main advanced equipment, establishment costs are minimal. However, operation and maintenance costs in such a scenario are notably high due to the sorting machines being outdated, resulting in elevated maintenance expenses and a substantial effort put in by staff for material handling processes. In library C, the incorporation of three sorting machines, automated elevators, conveyor belts, IT infrastructure and restructuring the building have incurred significant establishment expenses. Moreover, the ongoing electricity and maintenance costs associated with the outlined advanced equipment push the limits of material handling expenses, which do not favor having a minimal cost rate. In library D, the utilization of less costly equipment shapes the ground for lower expenses, both in terms of establishment and operation and/or maintenance. Comparatively, these costs are less than those incurred in library C. The cost indicator is an important decision-making driver that impacts the technology adoption policies, and it is not limited to the library environment. For instance, General Electric’s (GE) adoption of digital twin technology has significantly reduced the maintenance and operational expenses. By creating digital replicas of physical assets, GE monitors equipment in real time, enabling predictive maintenance that minimizes downtime, improves efficiency and lowers maintenance costs (Boreham, 2024).

Improper material handling can disrupt the overall library’s performance and result in significant productivity losses and increased costs, along with unacceptably extended response times to patron’s demands (Sujono & Lashkari, 2007). To that essence, a thorough analysis of five libraries was presented in this section, and the results are briefly illustrated in Figure 4 in a comparative fashion. The primary impression from this assessment refers to the challenges of material handling, which have been dominant in the case studies. These challenges primarily emanate from the employed methods and utilized resources for performing the material handling processes. As previously elaborated, based on the degree of human intervention and equipment automation in operating a process, material handling processes could be categorized into manual, semi-automated and automated processes. This potentially introduces the ground for encountering multifaceted challenges. For example, storing the books is mostly accomplished manually, leading to high operation time and ergonomic difficulties. This has been the case in almost the entire studied libraries, and it has resulted in three major challenges pertaining to storing, including labor and time-intensive, non-value-adding tasks and misplacement of the books. For instance, it is reported as a common challenge that books are misplaced due to a lack of navigating information and tools for placing the books. In some cases, the misplacement of books is not resolved and leads to losing the book, even though it is inside the library. Furthermore, a considerable human effort is needed to re-organize the items on the shelves, which are among the non-value-adding activities. The increment of automation is possibly the response to some of the inefficiencies. In this regard, double sorting and controlling books by staff in the semi-automated sorting and controlling processes could potentially engender adverse results, including non-value-adding duties, reworking, delays and ultimately errors. For instance, the staff in libraries A, B and E are required to scan all the books, which have been processed by the sorting machine prior to storage in order to ensure that no book is misplaced or incorrectly transferred to the other branches. Not to mention that human errors and a lack of navigating infrastructure introduce the challenge of misplacement as discussed earlier. In contrast, the advanced sorting machines in libraries C and D eliminate the need for staff to repeat these processes. It is worth noting that none of the studied libraries possess adequate equipment for effectively controlling and navigating the stored books on the shelves. This deficiency directly impacts the library’s performance, particularly in terms of productivity and service quality. Similarly to the challenges associated with the storing, all the case studies reported the challenges they encounter corresponding to finding the exact location of the books, leading to low accuracy and redundant tasks for staff. In addition to the previously mentioned consequences, manual and semi-automated moving processes result in late responses, limited capacity and incorrect deliveries of books. However, the use of AMRs for moving books in library D has demonstrated promising impacts to combat the challenges associated with both manual and semi-automated material handling processes. Table 2 presents a collective overview of the major challenges that impact the material handling processes in the libraries.

6. The pillars for improving material handling in library

Employing a thorough qualitative approach favored the previous section to elucidate the performance of material handling in five studied libraries, which ultimately paved the way to identify the most common challenges that libraries encounter in accomplishing the material handling processes. Nevertheless, the manifested challenges are not inclusive and could be divergent as a result of the compound structure of material handling implemented in each library and the inherent differences in each environment, e.g. atmosphere, type of equipment, etc. Thus, it is deemed essential to explore the root causes of the discussed challenges and, more importantly, to identify the possible remedies. This calls for a more abstract evaluation of the discovered challenges and extracting the core elements that contribute to tackling the potential threats in the realm of material handling in the library. Equivalently, and as explained in Section 2, we take advantage of the structural coding approach through focus group meetings to discover the mainstream of the drivers that constitute the identified challenges. Hence, this section introduces a tripartite framework, equivalently recognized as the pillars of material handling in the library, which suggests that improving the material handling processes of a library is tied to an optimal combination of three components, namely employee, equipment and environment: the so-called “Tripple E’s.” Consequently, the optimal frontier of the material handling processes in a library is majorly driven by the best trade-off between the aforementioned pillars, which are described in the remainder of this section.

• (1)

  Employee. Librarians and operational staff were found to be highly flexible and agile to adapt with the upcoming changes; however, their contribution level to multiple processes introduces the risk of low performance with respect to productivity and service quality. They are responsible for performing several processes simultaneously, e.g. organizing activities for patrons, suggesting books, teaching how to search or use Internet, etc., and thus, they would not be able to concentrate only on processing a book. This reduces the accuracy level and increases the time for making a book available to patrons. To mitigate such risks and address these challenges, it is imperative to separate the operational staff – responsible for providing various services, such as assisting patrons, checking materials in and out and organizing programs – from the material handling staff – responsible for operating material handling processes. This division ensures that material handling staff focus on their designated responsibilities without being distracted by operational tasks. Moreover, considerable level of human effort in contribution to the material handling processes results in elevated expenses for the library. Not to mention that humans cannot be entirely replaced by equipment, although the utilization of appropriate equipment can greatly streamline the processes. For example, manual storing process – which diminishes productivity and service quality – is largely attributed to the limited automation of equipment in the preceding processes. In corollary, it is imperative to assign dedicated staff to the material handing processes and establishing a seamless connection between human and equipment – in case of using advanced digital solutions – in order to realize a higher level of efficiency.

• (2)

  Equipment. The significance of advanced equipment in enhancing the performance of material handling has been underscored in various studies. Yao, Alkan, Ahmad, and Harrison (2020) emphasize AGVs as flexible and agile instruments for moving materials in shop-floor logistics. Fragapane et al. (2023) demonstrated the impact of handling sterile instruments with AGVs and AMRs on hospital performance. Natarajarathinam, Somy, and Johnson (2011) analyzed the efficiency of conveyor system as crucial equipment for handling materials in industry. Similarly, the assessment of material handling performance within the context of a library underlined that selection and implementation of appropriate advanced equipment play a key role in enhancing productivity, service quality and cost-effectiveness. Thanks to the high degree of accuracy and intelligence, advanced equipment enables libraries to process large volumes of books, increase agility and responsiveness in responding to patrons' demand and ultimately lubricate the interaction between material handling processes. For instance, the deployment of AMR not only streamlines the movement process but also accelerates the control process. Although the handling capacity of AMR limits the number of books that can be moved in each round of operation, this solution provides libraries with a high degree of flexibility, process efficiency, accuracy and operational costs. Sorting machines, when integrated with connected conveyor belts and automated elevators, significantly contribute to the improvement of service quality and productivity. However, the crucial factor determining their performance is the level of accuracy associated with the sorting machines. In particular, the case studies affirmed that the operational accuracy of sorting machines limits their reliability and service quality. On the other side, experience shows that sorting machines with high operational accuracy reduce the need for staff involvement and consequently address variety of challenges. It is noteworthy to note that utilizing advanced equipment not only favors better performing the specific processes linked to them but also positively influences the subsequent processes. For example, equipping a library with an efficient sorting machine benefits both sorting and storing processes. In such cases, once the books are filtered upon specific categories and/or genres, staff are no longer subjected to search the location of each individual book, which contributes to improving the responsiveness. Nevertheless, the selection of advanced equipment may be limited by specific environmental factors within libraries. To that essence, the primary consideration prior to the selection of the desired equipment is to thoroughly assess the operational aspects of the targeted processes and the specific environmental properties surrounding the ideated equipment.

• (3)

  Environment. Environmental variables, particularly building characteristics and facility layout, play a critical role in determining the method of material handling processes and the selection of resources. The library environment has a major impact on flexibility and other elements contributing to the performance of the material handling. On the one hand, it is observed that utilizing new equipment often necessitates modifying the structure of the library building – such as using conveyor belts and automated elevators in library C – while the library environment may potentially impose limitations to that agenda. On the other hand, library buildings are typically a publicly owned facility, and their structural modifications are limited by strict rules and conditions. Thus, the library’s environment and structural characteristics have a direct impact on the choice of equipment. The analysis of library E corroborates the environmental restrictions, indicating that the shortage of sufficient space has constrained the material handling performance in terms of flexibility and, more importantly, has limited the selection of available equipment for operating each process. In such scenarios, one is recommended to make decisions upon the automation of the material handling processes using mobile solutions, e.g. AMR, drone, etc., provided that the library environment facilitates the conditions needed to use such gadgets. In the same vein, library D exemplifies a high degree of flexibility within a fixed layout setup by taking advantage of AMRs, even though the combination of fixed layouts preclude the chance of high flexibility. Thus, choosing advanced equipment may help to resolve the environmental barriers. Yet, the library environment limits some aspects of such solutions; for instance, the height of the library’s ceiling often imposes operational difficulties in using drones. Another example refers to the use of AMRs, which is not only contingent on the availability of IT infrastructure but also relies on the existence and location of elevators to serve as a conclusive solution in the library environment. In practice, AMRs must be able to access elevators and communicate with them to move between and any barriers in the building structure may disrupt this synchronization. In corollary, decisions regarding the equipment are conditioned upon the library’s layout and environmental characteristics.

The identified pillars are majorly common in most libraries’ environments. However, their extent and practice bear the fundamental differences in the material handling performance. For instance, as a rule of thumb, automation potentially leads to higher efficiency, while the case studies and their specific characteristics showed that interaction between human and machine, as well as the choice of equipment, is a significant interweaving elements, with regards to automation and efficiency expectations. Therefore, the analysis of Triple E drivers and their impacts on the material handling of libraries are often context-based and, as outlined earlier, are subjected to a trade-off between the introduced pillars. To that essence, the remainder of this section provides a judgmental discussion to reflect the Triple E’s principle within the studied libraries.

The prevailing challenging processes in libraries A, B and E are, respectively, semi-automated sorting and controlling, manual moving and manual storing. Considering the environmental characteristics, the semi-automated sorting process in libraries A and B serves the potential of being automated by installing advanced sorting machines, which are capable of sorting and controlling books accurately and without human intervention. However, due to the environmental barriers, library E demands significant architectural modifications to enable automating the sorting processes – similarly to library A and B – and this also entails substantial costs for placing sorting machines on each floor to suppress the environmental barriers. Alternatively, to maintain the semi-automated sorting and controlling, library E needs to assign material handling staff to these processes in order to tackle issues such as delay, misplacing, disordering and so forth. In such situations, and depending on the environmental conditions, mobile robots have the potential to reduce the required time, effort and costs associated with operating the moving process and, consequently, provide a higher degree of automation. Furthermore, they offer a viable opportunity for accelerating the controlling process and addressing the challenge of navigating books within the library. Manual sorting and semi-automated controlling have been reported as the main challenging processes in libraries C and D. As stated earlier, manual storing is the only method used for performing this process, and herein, the collaboration between human and equipment is essential. While implementing advanced sorting machines could make this process easier, it is suggested to assign staff to this specific process. Moreover, using advanced equipment, such as digital shelves for storing, mobile robots and drones for controlling and navigating, could improve the controlling process. Under this hardware development, the enhancement of productivity and service quality are the immediate outcomes.

7. Conclusion

The provision of library services is influenced by sophisticated operational challenges and limited attention to this issue from both academicians and practitioners is due to the shortage of concrete theoretical knowledge about the operations of this public organization in pursuit of better performance. Thus, this study put forward a thorough theoretical comprehension of the library operations by paying attention to the material handling, which embraces the central processes contributing to the library services and performance. To achieve this goal, we employed a triangulation of qualitative techniques to explore the characteristics, KPIs and challenges of material handling in the library and presented a trinary framework to facilitate improving the library’s performance. In this regard, four questions were developed, which are concisely addressed as follows:

• (1)

  Research question 1: The extant knowledge surrounding material handling in the library exhibits a central focus on automating the placement of books on the shelves, as well as controlling the book status within the library environment, which are yet at early stages. Although there is a trace of research efforts in terms of better understanding the library operations, the literature falls short in providing a wide and inclusive understanding of this realm. This necessitates putting scholarly effort into addressing the requirements of uplifting the understanding of material handling in the library. To that essence, an agenda was set for this research in order to investigate the characteristics of material handling in the library with reference to four thematic elements, namely material, process, equipment and environment.

• (2)

  Research question 2: In-depth SSIs and field observations with the selected libraries favored in capturing a wide range of characteristics, such as open access order picking, dynamic shelving systems, closed circuit of material handling and so forth, that led to material handling in the library standing out distinct from other service-oriented organizations. Additionally, the interview sessions were complemented by the focus group meetings to further develop and adjust the identified relevant KPIs that play an instructive and practical role in improving the material handling in the libraries, and the results were presented in four clusters: flexibility, productivity, service quality and cost.

• (3)

  Research question 3: Field observations of case studies and interviews with their representatives assisted in mapping the performance of each library with respect to the developed KPIs. This assessment facilitated a structured evaluation of libraries performance and, more importantly, illuminated the challenges that commonly influence the material handling processes.

• (4)

  Research question 4: Insights from the identified challenges and performance of the libraries fed the discussion of focus group meetings following the aim of addressing the challenges. To that end, three pillars were identified as essential to exploit the rooms for improvement: employee, equipment and environment, known as the Triple E’s.

Identifying the characteristics of material handling in the library, exploring the KPIs and/or means of monitoring and/or improving the library performance and detecting the challenges that disturb the material handling are the central efforts to generate a comprehensive understanding of material handling in the library. This effort initially demands identification of the underlying processes under the veins of material handling in the library, which is addressed in literature (Jafari, Sgarbossa, Nyland et al., 2023): sorting, moving, storing controlling. Based on developing theoretical and practical knowledge regarding the characteristics of material handling in the library, we further investigated the aforementioned processes across the challenges that threaten the library’s performance. Misplacement of books, low-effective equipment and resource-intensive, just to name a few, are among the dominant challenges that are majorly attributed to the sorting, controlling, moving and storing, respectively. In the same vein, assessment of the studied libraries with respect to the generated KPIs demonstrated that shortage of human resources who are overloaded with non-value-adding tasks and lack of advanced and appropriate equipment – based on the library environment and environmental properties of the building – shape the core aspects of challenges that demand further attention to improve the performance of the material handling. Hence, the Triple E’s framework was introduced for drawing attention to the pillars of material handling in the library and paving the way for further improvements upon three elements: employee, equipment and environment. Nevertheless, further discussion emphasized that assessments and improvements are primarily context-based – there is no unique prescription – and more importantly, libraries are subjected to figure out the optimal performance by finding the efficient frontier of the trade-off between the outlined pillars.

The context-based feature, outlined above, leads us to the first limitation of this study. As a matter of fact, the identified challenges and characteristics are based on the knowledge gained from a certain number of libraries in the Nordic region. This is worth considering due to the fact that labor costs in the countries in this category are extremely high, which ultimately imposes various limitations. To that essence, it is of significance to extend this study by putting more libraries outside the Nordic region into question to enrich the manifested findings. Thus, the discovered challenges and characteristics are not conclusive in nature. In this regard, it is also noteworthy that the KPIs were developed upon the identified characteristics of the case studies, as well as the opinions of the experts and librarians involved in this research. Therefore, it is possible to extend the list of KPIs that capture further dimensions, which could be decisive in the library’s performance. Last but not least, there are possibly more research works regarding material handling in the library that were not captured throughout the literature review process, given the sole attention to the Scopus database and documents published in English. Based on the discussed limitations, we initially recommend directing further research toward considering other libraries specifically outside the Nordic region to enrich the developed theoretical foundation with more diversity of characteristics and challenges pertaining to material handling in the library. This is particularly helpful in enhancing the generalizability of findings and contributing to the expansion of knowledge surrounding material handling in the library. Furthermore, and based on the clustered challenges presented in this study, enhancing material handling processes by taking advantage of advanced technologies serves as a promising direction. To that essence, we recommend the investigation of utilizing mobile robot solutions to address the difficulties and challenges associated with moving and sorting. In this context, further research regarding the operational and technical aspects of mobile robots in the library is essential.

Figures

Figure 1

The application of “input-transformation-output” model in the library

Figure 2

The arrangement of material handling processes in support of making books available

Figure 3

Characteristics of material handling in the library

Figure 4

The comparative results of analyzing material handling performance in the libraries

Table 1

KPIs for the library performance measurement in connection to material handling

Dimension	KPI	Description
Flexibility	Agility	Capability in effective response to the changes in demand pattern
	Layout adjustment	The degree of effort required to modify and adjust the layout in response to the imposed situation
Productivity	Capacity	The ratio of the processed books to the received books
	Process efficiency	The ratio of value-added to non-value-added time
Service quality	Accuracy	The proportion of correct storing or deliveries
	Responsiveness	The time for total material handling processes including sorting, moving, storing, and controlling
Cost	Establishment	The cost of setting up and modifying the material handling system and equipment
	Operation and maintenance	The cost of operating material handling processes and maintaining the material handling equipment

Table 2

Major challenges of material handling in libraries

Challenges	Sorting	Controlling	Moving	Storing
Labor and time intensive	✓	✓	✓	✓
Rework	✓
Non-value-adding tasks	✓	✓	✓	✓
Misplacement of books				✓
Low effective equipment	✓
Late response in making books available			✓
Low accuracy	✓	✓
Low capability in book navigation		✓

Funding: This research was supported by “SmartLIB” project (No: 331791) (https://prosjektbanken.forskningsradet.no/project/FORISS/331791) at NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Conflicts of interest: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.