Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ho95e.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ho95e!wcs
From: wcs@ho95e.UUCP (Bill.Stewart.4K435.x0705)
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: Re: UPC Scanners
Message-ID: <372@ho95e.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 31-Dec-85 20:40:51 EST
Article-I.D.: ho95e.372
Posted: Tue Dec 31 20:40:51 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 02:44:22 EST
References: <942@terak.UUCP> <69600004@hpcvla.UUCP>
Reply-To: wcs@ho95e.UUCP (Bill Stewart ( 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs ))
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 23

>< I find that scanner-equipped stores are actually significantly *slower*
>< than the old manual methods (and it appears that they use as many or
>< even more cashiers).

I used to do industrial engineering for the company that runs Pathmark
(a large New York/New Jersey area chain); other people in the
department were working on scanners while I was there.  The critical
factor seems to be the fraction of merchandise that will scan
successfully; the breakeven point was about 65-70%, which reflects the
mixture of labelled/non-labelled goods being sold, as well as the
accuracy of the scanning equipment and the skill of the cashier.

The scanners first went in at the high-volume stores, and have been
quite effective.  This may not be obvious, since Pathmark *always* has
longer, more annoying lines than the other stores in the area, but this
was true in their non-scanner stores as well.  Part of the problem is
that the stores that get the scanners are mostly the heavy-traffic
stores, but part of it is the "how-many-cashiers-to-use" algorithm.
Official policy was "If there are more than 3 people in line, add
another cashier", but in practice it seems to be "If you can walk near
the cashiers don't add anyone".
-- 
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G-202, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs