This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]On: 05 October 2014, At: 16:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Technical Services QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsq20

Selecting and Implementing aNetworked Print-Cost RecoverySystemBruce G. Jeppesen aa Library Systems Division , Cleveland StateUniversity. , USAPublished online: 20 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Bruce G. Jeppesen (2000) Selecting and Implementing aNetworked Print-Cost Recovery System, Technical Services Quarterly, 18:1, 1-12, DOI:10.1300/J124v18n01_01

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J124v18n01_01

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 16:

33 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Selecting and Implementinga Networked Print-Cost

Recovery SystemBruce G. Jeppesen

ABSTRACT. When library catalogs became computerized, most li-braries, to improve efficiency, attached printers to the catalog terminalsand offered free citation and call-number printing. With the advent andsubsequent proliferation of online full-text resources, the demand forprinting from public computers has increased tremendously. Many li-braries cannot afford to subsidize free printing from public computers,and have looked for automated systems that can assist with recoveringthe cost of printouts. Libraries must face an ethical question as theyconsider whether recovering printing costs creates a barrier to freeaccess of information. If the decision is made to recover costs, librarieshave available to them a variety of print cost recovery systems.

Cleveland State University Library has recently selected and installed anetworked print cost recovery system in conjunction with the universi-ty’s implementation of a new university ID card system. The paperoutlines the selection and implementation process, and includes ob-servations after a semester of use. [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address:<getinfo@haworthpressinc. com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>� 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Fees for library service, microcomputers–patron use,cost recovery, college and university libraries–finance

INTRODUCTION

Libraries have long charged fees for database searching, interlibraryloan, and photocopying. In most cases these fees were collected to

Bruce G. Jeppesen is Head, Library Systems Division, Cleveland State University.

Technical Services Quarterly, Vol. 18(1) 2000� 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 16:

33 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

TECHNICAL SERVICES QUARTERLY2

offset expenses rather than to generate income (Budd, 1998). It wouldseem, then, that charging for printing from full-text databases wouldalso be a logical choice for most libraries. Clearly, ‘‘paper, ink, ribbon,and cartridge costs can mount, if there are no attempts to controlthem,’’ (Evans, 1995). In addition to the cost of supplies, library staffcan spend significant ‘‘time filling paper trays, replacing toner car-tridges, and clearing paper jams instead of assisting users with re-searching the library’s databases’’ (Moothart & Wess, 1999).

When personal computers (PCs) first burst upon the library scene,they did not necessarily come equipped with coin boxes. As theybecame the primary tools for accessing library holdings, and for themost part replaced card catalogs, charging for access to PCs wouldhave been an unnatural act for librarians. To improve services, mostlibraries began to attach printers to their online public-access catalogs(OPACs), allowing users to print citations, usually for free. Thus begana tradition of free printing from OPACs, at least in the minds of somelibrarians. As full-text databases became more common and usersbegan to print articles from those very same OPACs, the situationbecame more complex. Most libraries needed to find some way torecoup at least the cost of printing.

For many, the decision to charge for printouts raises ethical con-cerns. ‘‘Could charging a fee for printing present a potential barrier?’’(Vidmar, Berger, & Anderson, 1997). Indeed, any fees imposed by alibrary could be considered a barrier to access, but the ‘‘crux of thematter is that libraries cannot provide the same degree of services andresources if printing continues to be fully subsidized’’ (Vidmar, Berg-er, & Anderson, 1999). If the library chooses to absorb the cost ofprinting, and consequently must cut or reduce access to other materialsor services, is that not also a barrier of sorts? The justification forrecovering the cost of printing, then, depends on an interpretation ofwhat level of service is free, and what level of service requires a fee.‘‘Many libraries charge for an expanded service, such as a photocopyor a library-mediated online search, which benefits the individualrather than the public’’ (Park, 1997). The American Library Associa-tion also addresses the issue in its interpretation of the Library Bill ofRights, explaining, ‘‘[S]ome libraries will provide the text on thescreen at no charge, but might charge for printouts’’ (American Li-brary Association, 1999). In other words, if a library user can renderand read the full text of material on a computer screen for free, then

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 16:

33 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Bruce G. Jeppesen 3

the library is not creating a barrier to public access. If that user wishesto produce a printed version of this material using library equipmentand supplies, then the library may choose to recover the cost of pro-ducing that printout.

Initially, the methods librarians used to recover the cost of printingfrom PCs ranged from asking for donations for printing to attachingcoin or debit-card units on individual printers attached to selected PCs.Other solutions included allocating a number of free copies per userand/or allowing downloading to disk. Because of the high cost ofattaching printers to every PC and added noise and staff intervention,another common solution has been to set up a central print pointnetworked to selected PCs. Issues here ranged from collecting moneyto ensuring proper distribution of printouts. Clearly the best possibleand most cost-effective solution, provided that the library chooses tocharge for printouts, is one which makes collection of fees easy, handlesaccounting issues, minimizes manual sorting and distribution of print-outs, and reduces maintenance points for library personnel (Evans,1995).

Recently, a number of new networked printing options have be-come available. This article discusses the selection and implementa-tion of a networked, pay-for-printing solution for the Cleveland StateUniversity Library, as well as an analysis of operation after the experi-ence of one semester.

BACKGROUND

Founded in 1964, Cleveland State University is an urban, state-as-sisted university serving over 16,000 graduate and undergraduatecommuter students majoring in liberal arts and sciences, businessadministration, engineering, education, urban affairs, and law. As withmany institutions, coin-operated photocopy machines were alwaysmade available to users and, when the technology came along, thelibrary also added a debit-card system. Initially, printing from thelibrary’s OPACs was provided free on a limited number of dot-matrixprinters. However, with the simultaneous introduction of full-text data-bases and upgrades to laser printers, the university library decided tocharge a fee for printing from public computers. The continuing pro-liferation of full-text databases, electronic journals, and the advent ofelectronic course reserves had created a tremendous increase in printing,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 16:

33 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

TECHNICAL SERVICES QUARTERLY4

and to a certain degree, had shifted traffic from the photocopy machinesto the printers. Since the library had always recovered costs on photo-copying, and now needed to recover costs of printing, the photocopyfee structure that was already in place was also applied toward printingfrom PCs. To collect these fees, the same type of copy-card debitdevices that were in place for the photocopiers were installed on thepublic computers. This configuration involved connecting the deviceand a local printer to every public workstation. When adding newpublic workstations, a new copy card-debit device and laser printerhad to be purchased for each new computer. Maintaining such a sys-tem was both expensive and time consuming. Expansion was costlybecause adding a debit device and laser printer to each public printernearly doubled the cost. Loading paper, clearing paper jams, and re-placing toner cartridges on dozens of public printers was very timeconsuming for staff, and the maintenance contract fees on dozens ofdebit devices was very high.

SELECTING A NEW SYSTEMTO HANDLE PRINTING COSTS

In 1998, the university made the decision to implement a new IDcard system. The updated student ID would include a ‘‘chip’’ that couldstore monetary value and be used to make purchases at the cafeteria,vending machines, the bookstore, parking services, laundry services,and so on. University library administrators decided that this new cardshould also be used to pay for photocopying and printing in the library.

Upgrading the photocopy machines would be relatively simple, re-quiring only a switch from one card-debit device to another. Upgradingthe card-debit devices on the public computers would be equally simplebut very expensive since the number of devices to be replaced hadgrown to over forty. The cost to update these devices was very high,and staff time spent on printer maintenance would continue to be high.The new university ID system was being planned as an ‘‘offline’’system. This meant an additional burden for staff because the newuniversity card system would require staff to take weekly electronictransaction readings from every debit device in the building. The exist-ing debit system did not require such extensive staff involvement, so analternative solution was sought. A task force was formed to investigate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 16:

33 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Bruce G. Jeppesen 5

networked print-cost recovery systems and, if appropriate for the li-brary’s needs, select the best product for purchase and implementation.

The task force’s first step was to get information on how suchnetworked printing systems work. Most of these systems have similarfeatures and functionality. Users at public computers execute a printcommand just as if they are printing to a local printer. With somesystems, the user is prompted to enter a personal name, a uniqueprint-job name, and a password to secure the job so others cannot printit. The print job is then sent to a print queue on a central server to waitfor the user to release the job. Users can send multiple jobs to the printqueue, and when ready to print, move to a printing pay station torelease all of their jobs.

A typical pay station consists of a basic networked PC, a card-debitdevice, and a nearby networked laser printer. At this station, the userinserts a copy card (or in the library’s case, a student ID) into the debitdevice, and the pay station screen displays a complete list of all users’pending print jobs lined up to print. The same list can be viewed on anypay station in the building, so a student could choose to send a print jobon one floor and print it out later at a pay station on a different floor.Users locate and highlight (using a mouse or touch screen) their pend-ing job or jobs on the list. The system displays a summary of thenumber of pages of each job, along with the cost to print the entire job.

The station also displays the funds currently available on the user’scard or in the user’s account (most systems can operate with either anoffline system where value is stored on a card, or an online systemwhere the card provides real time access to an electronic account). Oncethe print job is highlighted, the user clicks on a ‘‘print’’ button, thesystem prompts for a password if the user set one (if no password is set,then anyone could potentially print the job), and the job is released tothe nearby printer. At the same time, the user’s card or account isdebited for the proper amount. If a user does not release a print job, thejob is simply discarded by the system after a waiting period.

The task force determined that a network printing solution wouldoffer a number of benefits over the library’s current arrangement.

� Each area of public computers would have a single printing paystation. This would mean that up to forty public computers couldshare a single printer at a central pay station, and this pay stationwould require only one debit device and one laser printer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 16:

33 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

TECHNICAL SERVICES QUARTERLY6

� Even though printing would require the user to move to a sepa-rate pay station, the new printer would be much faster than theold ones, and the time spent waiting for material to print wouldbe significantly reduced.

� Students would be able to see the cost of a print job before print-ing it, so they could avoid accidentally printing a document thatwas larger or more expensive than expected.

� If one printer stopped working, print jobs would be sent to otherpay stations in the building.

� Removal of the locally attached printers would free up space toadd more public computers, and this addition of computerswould be more economical because each new PC would not re-quire an additional debit device and laser printer.

� Fewer printers would need to be maintained.

The task force determined that a networked print-cost recoverysystem would be a very appropriate solution. The task force alsodetermined that any selected product would have to meet the followinglist of requirements.

Compatibility with the newly selected university ID card system.When the task force started this investigation, the university had notyet chosen a vendor for the new ID card system. Since some printsystems work only with cards supplied by the same vendor, a viableprint system would need to be capable of interfacing with a variety ofdebit devices and card types.

Flexibility to add additional or new types of printers (color laser,large format) in the future. The initial installation was to be verysimple, consisting of only three pay station computers with one high-speed, black-and-white laser printer at each pay station location. Theselected vendor should be able to adapt to a variety of printers sospecialized printers could be added, if desired. As the number ofpublic computers increased in the future, the print system shouldeasily accept an additional pay station or additional printers. The li-brary was considering adding at least one color laser printer at one ofthe existing pay stations.

Compatibility with Windows, DOS, and Macintosh public computers.Much of users’ printing comes from the Web, so printing from aWindows browser was essential. The library also offered a number ofWindows and DOS based CD-ROM databases, so the printing system

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 16:

33 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Bruce G. Jeppesen 7

would have to be able to handle printing from DOS as well. While thelibrary owned only one public Macintosh computer, the selected print-ing system should work with Macintosh if ever required.

Use of ‘‘off-the-shelf ’’ hardware and software for ease of mainte-nance, repair, and upgrades. Some printing systems use proprietarypay station kiosks that could be difficult to maintain or repair, andsome used proprietary queue-management software that could provedifficult. We wanted a system that would run on conventional PCs andwith Windows software. If any component failed, it could be easilyreplaced with minimal downtime. If the system used Microsoft NTsoftware and print queues, maintenance would be very simple.

Ability to produce reports to assist in reconciling transactions. Theuniversity’s new ID card system would completely change the waylibrary staff collected money from photocopy–and print-cost recoverysystems. The existing debit system was completely controlled by thelibrary. All of the machines that dispensed cards, added value to cards,and debited cards were ‘‘owned and operated’’ by the library. With thenew university ID system, ID cards were to be dispensed by the IDoffice, and the same office would handle adding monetary value to thecards. Library staff would have to collect transaction data from everyphotocopy and printer card-debit device in the building and transferthat data to the ID office accounting system. The library would then becompensated based on this transaction data. To ensure accuracy, aprint-cost recovery system with accurate reporting would be absolutelyessential.

Ability to provide security and confidentiality to users. Users shouldbe able to choose names for their print jobs and create optional pass-words to secure them.

Strong vendor installation and maintenance support. Ideally, theselected vendor would assist in the installation of the system and offerongoing technical support.

IMPLEMENTING UNIPRINT

The university library’s final decision was to purchase a UnipriNTcost recovery system. This product from PHAROS, Inc. met all crite-ria, and coincidentally, the ID card vendor chosen by the universityhad recently become a reseller of the UnipriNT product. The partner-ship between the ID card vendor and the print-system vendor would

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 16:

33 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

TECHNICAL SERVICES QUARTERLY8

help ensure compatibility with the new cards and card-related hard-ware.

UnipriNT is a software product, so purchase of the system hardwareand some software was the responsibility of the library. The selectedlaser printers were supported, but not necessarily recommended, bythe vendor. UnipriNT software supports a variety of printers. Beforethe PHAROS installer arrived, the library put the following infrastruc-ture in place:

� One server-class PC running Windows NT 4.0 with SP4 andSQL Server 7.0

� Three desktop pay station PCs running Windows 95, 98, or NT� Three HP Laserjet 8100N printers with 2,000 sheet feeders and

JetDirect cards� Seven LAN connections (one for the server, three for the pay-sta-

tion PCs, and three for the networked HP printers)

Installation at Cleveland State University was relatively simple witha single server, three pay stations, and three printers; it was done in asingle day. Larger installations could have multiple servers, multipleprinters serving each pay station, or a mixture of color and black-and-white printers. Library staff training took a single day also. Installationof the ‘‘popup’’ client (this allows the naming and passwording ofprint jobs) on every public workstation took several days. Larger ormore complex installations would probably require more time forinstallation and training.

Installation and testing of the system was compressed into an in-tense two weeks, and the system opened to the public only three weeksafter final installation. UnipriNT has performed very well. Most prob-lems were corrected by restarting the pay stations. These problemswere probably a Windows 95 issue rather than a UnipriNT issue. Withthe system running for close to a semester, over 33,000 pages havebeen printed with UnipriNT and problems have been very few.

Initial costs for all hardware and software were roughly the equiva-lent of purchasing individual card debit machines for each publiccomputer. In the long run, however, maintaining and expanding theUnipriNT system should be much more economical than dealing withdozens of card devices and small laser printers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 16:

33 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Bruce G. Jeppesen 9

CONCLUSION AND OBSERVATIONSON THE OPERATION AFTER ONE SEMESTER

Staff and students have adapted to and accepted the new systemvery readily. Since the university library was already charging forprinting, the transition to a new method of cost recovery was relativelyuneventful. Some users have been displeased with having to go to acentral pay station to print rather than being able to print to a locallyattached printer, but this inconvenience seems to be offset by the speedof the laser printers. Users are actually getting their print jobs in handfaster, and public PCs are freed up for other users much quicker nowthat users no longer must wait for smaller, slower printers.

Problems have been few, with the biggest difficulty having to dowith equipment related to the new ID cards. During the first fewweeks of the semester, the ID office machines that allowed users toadd value to their new ID cards had problems with dollar-bill jams andwith being unable to accept more money. A more aggressive collec-tion and maintenance schedule by the ID office and the recent additionof a second cash-to-card machine in the library have solved most ofthese problems.

Other problems can be attributed to users learning a new printingsystem. Users sometimes fail to properly fill in the popup form thatappears on the public computers when they print. Instead, they oftenclick on the browser’s ‘‘print’’ button and move to the pay station. Theprint job, they find, is not yet available because they did not name thejob and complete the required process. Some users encountered prob-lems when they gave their print job a password (creating passwords isset as an option rather than a requirement) and then forgot this pass-word before they arrived at the pay station. As user experience andfamiliarity with UnipriNT increases, these problems should be re-duced.

The initial cost of implementing the UnipriNT system was comparableto the cost to purchase forty new card-debit devices. Savings will berealized in decreased staff involvement with maintaining dozens ofsmall, light-duty laser printers. Savings will also be realized whenadding new public workstations that will not require a separate printerand card-debit device. Other benefits include faster printing for users,and quicker turnover on public workstations because users are nolonger waiting for print jobs from smaller, slower, locally attached

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 16:

33 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

TECHNICAL SERVICES QUARTERLY10

printers. So far, this networked print cost recovery system has met theneeds of the university library very well.

REFERENCES

American Library Association, Office of Intellectual Freedom. 1997. Questions andAnswers: Access to Electronic Information, Services and Networks: An Interpretationof the Library Bill of Rights. http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/oif_q&a.html> (December17, 1999).

Budd, John M. 1998. The Academic Library: Its Context, Its Purpose, and Its Operation.Englewood, Co: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Evans, G. Edward. 1995. Developing Library and Information Center Collections,3rd ed. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Moothart, Tom, and Lindsey Wess. 1999. Popularity has its costs: Charging forpublic printing. Colorado Libraries 25(1): 15-18.

Park, Betsy. 1997. Charging for printouts. The Bottom Line 10(4): 148-152.Vidmar, Dale J., M. Berger, and C. Anderson. 1997. Implementing a cost-recovery

system for printing. Reference Services Review 25(3-4): 97-101., M. Berger, and C. Anderson. 1999. Fee or free? Printing from public

workstations in the library. Computers in Libraries 18(5): 26-30.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 16:

33 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

Bruce G. Jeppesen 11

APPENDIXSome Vendors of Networked Print-Cost Recovery Systems

PHAROS Systems USA, Inc.1110 Nasa Road One, Suite 603Houston, TX 77058, USAPhone: (888) 864-7768Fax: (281) 333-3049http://www.pharos.com/

GoPrint Systems, Inc.5510 Greenbrier DriveSuite 102Dallas, TX 75209Phone: (214) 352-7799Fax: (214) 352-2273http://www.goprint.com/

APT (Applied Practical Technology)4690 Sardis StreetBurnaby, British Columbia V5H 1L3,CanadaPhone: (604) 433-5214Fax: (604) 433-4881http://biznet.maximizer.com/apt/

Software Metrics Inc.450 Phillip StreetWaterloo ON N2L 5J2CanadaPhone: (519) 885-2458Fax: (519) 746-7931http://www.metrics.com/

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 16:

33 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

TECHNICAL SERVICES QUARTERLY12

APPENDIX (continued)

ITC Systems, Inc.755-C West S.R. 434Longwood, FL 32750Phone: (407) 332-8303Fax: (407) 332-5340http://www.itcsystems.com/

USA Technologies, Inc.200 Plant AvenueWayne, PA 19087-3520Phone: (610) 989-0340Fax: (610) 989-0344http://www.usatech.com

XCP, Inc.40 Elm StreetDryden, NY 13053Toll Free: (800) 647-7020Fax: (607) 844-8031http://www.xcp.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 16:

33 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014