How not to re-design a supermarket checkout
I work near a Coles Supermarket (for non-Australians: one of the two biggest supermarket chains). I go there most days. I notice when they change things. And lately, they’ve been changing things a lot.
The biggest change for shoppers like me (few items, frequent visits) has been the ‘12 items or less’ checkouts. The checkout area has been re-designed in such a way that has caused confusion, anxiety, and even fights between customers!
First, let me explain the old system: As a customer with only a few items to purchase, you approach the ‘12 items or less services lanes’, join the queue and wait your turn, knowing that you will be served in the order you joined the queue (first in, first out).
The revamped "12 items or less" checkout area at my local Coles Supermarket
The photo above is the new layout of the checkout area. As a customer with only a few items to purchase, you approach the ‘12 items or less services lanes’ (notice the subtle sign close to the roof). Stickers on the floor prompt you to select a register to queue for, and you wait your turn. Meanwhile, the person who chose to go in the queue next to you advances much more quickly. Soon, people who arrived five minutes after you have left the store, but you’re still standing there waiting to be served because the customer in front of you is counting out five dollars in five cent pieces!
Ok, I dramatised that scenario a little… but my point is that in the old system, a customer is served in their ‘rightful’ order – the first to arrive at the queue is the first to be served. In the new system, the order in which you are served is based on several variables: your skill at selecting a queue, the customers in front of you and the service assistant at the cash register.
Teething problems
In the several months since this new system was implemented, I have noted a variety of customer behaviours, despite the affordance measures implemented by Coles (stickers on the floor):
- when several checkouts were open, customers created a single, long line that led back into the aisles, blocking other customers from accessing the aisles
- customers getting frustrated with becoming stuck in a queue where the checkout operator is counting their money/performing a refund/selling cigarettes/assisting a troublesome customer
- customers (who have misunderstood how the queueing system works) questioning other customers’ place in one of the queues
- customers getting into a fight (verbal, not physical…luckily!) with each other about who should be served first
And I’m only there for a total of 20 minutes a week!
The real problem: service has become less efficient
Beyond the teething problems of this new system, my main issue is that service efficiency has decreased!
Most people I know don’t enjoy spending time waiting in queues, especially at the supermarket; they are looking to pay for their shopping items and leave as quickly as possible.
Maintaining one queue per open cash register means that the customer is forced to guess which lane will move the fastest. In order to do this, he/she will try to scan for the number of people in each queue, and the approximate size of their shopping basket.
A customer will often make the wrong choice and get stuck in a slow-moving queue. The customer may become frustrated or impatient, meaning that they leave the supermarket feeling upset or annoyed. This does not sound like the kind of experience Coles would want their customers to encounter. Instead of removing difficult choices, this checkout area re-design puts added pressure on the customer to make the right queue decision – this is not a good thing!
Queueing theory
At the heart of this issue is queueing theory – the mathematical study of waiting in line (yes, really!).
Queueing theory is used heavily in computer programming, and a good analogy for Coles’ queueing theory dilemma is presented by a Microsoft software developer, Eric Lippert. In his blog post, Queueing Theory in Action, he presents a case of two fast food outlets; one with four cash registers and four queues, and one with four cash registers and one long ’serpentine’ queue.
Where there are several queues, customers in any queue may perceive that they have chosen the slow queue, as the queue speeds up or slows down based on the transaction taking place. Customers may feel like it is ‘unfair’ that they are stuck in the slow-moving queue, while others who picked the ‘right’ queue proceed quickly to the cashier.
Almost the only downside of a single queue for multiple cash registers is that, at first glance, it may look bad.
Eric says:
“…by almost every relevant objective metric, by almost every relevant social factor, and in almost every common real-world business scenario the [single queue, multiple cash register system] is preferable”
This quick news excerpt from ABC News in America examines a supermarket using the single queue system, but with a twist.
The solution: Roll-back!
Given that queueing theory is such a well-known and respected concept, I don’t understand why Coles changed the system to the detriment of customers. The main issues associated with the single queue are that customers may consider the queue too long and decide not to purchase anything, or they may join the queue, then leave if they think it is not progressing fast enough. Having several shorter queues may appear as a faster means of getting served, but queueing theory would suggest that this is not true.
These days, time is considered such a precious commodity. I can’t see any other way to fix this checkout problem other than to re-instate the old system.
What do you think?
What do you think about this new checkout system? Surely the old system was better…? Can you offer any insight as to why Coles might have implemented this new system? Comments welcome below!
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Great post, Katherine.
You say “Almost the only downside of a single queue for multiple cash registers is that, at first glance, it may look bad.”
I have another one. It’s actually based on bank tellers and ticketed queues but may apply here as well:
If you’re at the teller, with a queue of three or more people breathing down your neck, you may be compelled to get a move on as you’re personally responsible for holding up the people behind you.
If all the other waiting customers are sitting comfortably with a ticket in hand, and could be called to any teller, you can take all the time you want as they’re likely to be called to another window.
I formed this little (scientifically completely unfounded) theory back in Switzerland when banks started introducing ticketing systems and I noticed longer waiting times than under the queueing system. Admittedly, the Swiss might actually care that they’re holding someone up. I doubt anyone else would.
I see this fubar all the time (cafes are notoriously bad at this kind of thing) – the system has introduced the opportunity of user error. In this case it’s re-introduced it. LOL!
another aspect of this is cultural – Edward T Hall talks a lot about queuing in his books (Beyond Culture is a good overview) and the different styles different cultures have. This comes back to the way that culture experiences space and time (which a queue renders quite well
I found this article from a retweet by another Aussie UX’er, and you’ll get no arguments from me on this, its not the best implimentation of a queuing strategy.
Sure, while removing the physical barriers creates additional physical space leading to emotional feelings of freedom and closeness – the practicalities show it can, and often does deliver the opposite result.
They done a somewhat similar thing at my local coles in Joondalup. Previously the queuing area for the express lanes was demarcated by metal pole barricades which had a waist height drinks fridge and newspaper stand in front of them. However, the limited floor space at the front of the store meant that queues would extend into the store entryway, and either up through bakery or F&V/Deli.
Now, they’ve removed all of this and it’s one big open – with none of the floor demarcation which you’ve referenced in this post. The queue forms naturally, and when it gets long will extend down into the store towards the checkouts, removing the customer movement issues which were previously occuring (and none of the arguments or issues with fast/slow moving checkout operators or customers either).
One of the other recent changes by Coles Group is in some Target stores in my neck of the woods. As you know, most discount department stores will have checkouts in the same vein as the supermarkets and you queue in the same way. The Target nearest to me (Joondalup) has bucked the trend, and introduced a single queue system for their main bank of checkouts (about 18-20 positions).
This seems to work effectivly, excepting the fact there’s no alert device to where the next open position is/when it becomes available so thus the same troublesome issues rear their head, with fellow alert customers having to point the person in front to the next checkout – or operators raising and waving their hands to grab the customers attention.
The one thing which I’m still wondering is how the Supermarkets, or in fact any other big retaillers go about testing and modelling such improvments. No doubt they take their jobs seriously, but were UX/UI/Service design techniques were employed when designing these changes – and if they weren’t and were used for a do-over, would it deliver a different result/outcome?
I’ve flicked your post on to a contact in Coles Marketing, who informs me its already been passed onto the Store Planners. Hopefully a few of them stop by to read it.
@Tom Thanks Tom! I’m just getting into blogging, so appreciate the comment. And don’t worry, most of my theories are scientifically unfounded too
You raise an interesting point…one that I had not really considered – perhaps it exposes me as a little selfish! I tend to think that once I have made it to the top of the queue, I will take the time I need – no more no less – to pay or discuss my issue or whatever the circumstance is.
@Jeremy Fubar –> I learnt a new word today…
I’ve started noting down a bit of reading list, so I shall add this one, thanks. Looks like it also talks about cross-cultural communication as well, which I also find quite interesting…and links back into Tom’s comment above.
@Michael I’m glad you found me! My stats tell me I did have some visitors from Coles, so it will be interesting to see if I note any changes in the future!
The old system at the Coles I was describing was similar to your old system, but, as you mention, all the physical objects were removed to create a feeling of increased openness and space (as I have noticed in the rest of the store). Sounds like your Target is a better system – maybe they could benefit from the line attendants in the Youtube video above! I’m sure the alert device you suggest wouldn’t be too hard to implement.
I have read a bit about Wesfarmers’ takeover of Coles, and I had heard that they have imported some experienced supermarket ‘gurus’ from the UK to turn Coles around. I know they are implementing some pretty big behind-the-scenes improvements, but what the customer sees and experiences has to be pretty important too!
Very true, and it’s a bigger issue than the average person realizes. The most important thing about a single-queue, multiple-register system is that the situation must be absolutely clear. If there are no signs, cordons, etc., as in many supermarkets and drugstores in my locale, then the result is some people queuing up in a single line, while others effectively cut in line by queuing up at the individual registers.
This is an annoying situation for people who are being cut off, and an embarrassing situation for those who don’t realize what they’re supposed to be doing. I’ve seen it result in yelling fights. It astounds me that stores don’t put more thought and effort managing the very important checkout process.
I suspect there’s a secondary problem too: after purchase the customers must step bac and cross the other lines to get out – there’s no flow through past each register. Seems like this could cause a lot of confusion as well.
B
Brendan – Thanks for stopping by!
You are quite correct… this happens very often. I got so distracted by my efficient queueing argument that I forgot to mention it. It’s especially bad when there are people with prams or trolleys that you have to climb over to leave the store…and then the people with prams and trolleys feel bad because they get in your way, etc, etc!
This reminded me of two different queuing arrangements for small purchases…
In Whole Foods Market in the US, they have multiple queues, however each queue is colour coded, and a computer manages demand across queues. An operator just presses next on their machine, and the computer selects the next available queue. This has the benefits of multiple queues, but without the problems described in this article.
At Superbarn, in Canberra, all the small purchase checkouts are in separate lanes, stacked 2 together to make them a bit smaller. Because each queue is a separate lane, people understand what is going on. It seems to me that Coles has not created enough visual space around the queues to show people what to do. A simple railing between each one might have fixed it, but then why bother with separate queues?
One of the things that improves customer service and creates a strong impression that a queue is moving at an acceptable rate is eye contact between the service provider and the person in the queue.
A wink and a smile from the person at the register that signals “I know you’re waiting. Thanks for being patient with this pokey customer in front of you” can really give satisfaction ratings a lift.
This relates back to what Tom was talking about in the first comment.
But thanks for an excellent post. You’ve certainly hit on an important cognitive problem.
This will be fun. It let’s me exercise my skill at choosing the fastest queue. Like Apu from The Simpskns was so good at when he took Marge to the supermarket. It’s a distracting game! No?
Another problem with Cole’s method is you don’t flow through the queue. It would be easier for someone to take unpaid items from someone behind them with them through the assumed “paid” exit.
I love this! I googled ‘queuing theory’ because I had just come back from – guess where – the SAME Coles Supermarket!
And I found your blog.
And just to add insult to injury, this week they have added little ‘ropes’ between the lines, to separate each queue from the next even more!
Only last week I sent Coles a “Tell us what you think” card on this very subject.
And to think that a couple of years ago, this very supermarket did get it right , with one queue for all four tills…
Our Target, until recently, had a rather nice queuing system where mini-queues would form and they’d each take turns getting shuttled to the next available cashier. Apparently this was just too much for people to understand and they went back to the old free-for-all system where you have to pick the right lane.
It seemed like progress but I think people just can’t take change. (or else they don’t understand basic queuing theory!!!)