Read the complete account and choose the answer supported by the text. Complete all 8 questions before selecting Check answers.
You can refer to the text throughout. Click any part of an answer card.
A shorter queue, a longer job
An original fictional account.
Paragraph P1When three self-service checkouts appeared in our neighbourhood food shop, I thought their success would be easy to judge. The queue seemed shorter, and people who knew the machines could pay without waiting for an assistant. As a writer for the local paper, I began a piece about a useful improvement. I had watched a busy lunchtime and seen genuine gains. My mistake was to suppose that the most visible change supplied a complete account of what the shop had improved.
Paragraph P2The manager showed me figures indicating that the average payment took less time than before. The measurement began when a shopper selected the payment button and ended when the receipt appeared. It excluded finding items on the screen, weighing loose produce and correcting scanning mistakes. The calculation was accurate for the interval it described. My draft had quietly enlarged that interval into the whole task of completing a purchase. A faster payment was evidence about payment; it was not yet evidence that every part of shopping had become quicker.
Paragraph P3Shopping with my uncle made the missing work visible. He could use the payment screen, but locating the correct variety of an apple took several attempts. At a staffed checkout, he had previously placed the fruit on the belt and let an assistant identify it. Nobody had removed that task. It had changed hands. The machine might still be a useful investment, but the time customers now spent doing work formerly done by staff belonged in any comparison of the two arrangements.
Paragraph P4An assistant, Leila, rejected my suggestion that the machines must have made her shift less demanding. She now moved between three screens, helping one person identify produce while another needed a mistaken scan removed. The old checkout had confined each interaction to one customer at a time. Her new work involved deciding whose interruption needed attention first. Staff numbers had stayed the same, but that fact told me little about the pace or nature of the work. Counting employees was not a substitute for asking what their jobs had become.
Paragraph P5None of this made the lunchtime gains imaginary. A regular customer who bought only packaged goods preferred scanning them at her own speed. She felt less hurried than when another shopper was waiting beside an assistant. I believed her, just as I believed my uncle's account. Treating one experience as the authentic one and the other as an exception would have solved the problem only on paper. The interesting question was why the same arrangement helped these customers differently, not which customer ought to speak for everyone.
Paragraph P6The manager pointed out that a staffed checkout remained available. In practice it opened only in the mornings, while my uncle usually shopped after work. An alternative listed among the shop's services was not necessarily an alternative someone could use. I did not think the shop had to preserve every previous arrangement unchanged. I did think that a claim about customer choice needed to consider the hours during which each route was offered, rather than the mere existence of two routes.
Paragraph P7After discussing the accounts, the manager added an assistant at the machines during the busiest evening periods. Customers could also request help identifying produce before beginning a scan. These were responses to particular difficulties, not evidence that the whole arrangement now worked equally well for everyone. I wanted to see whether the extra assistance reduced unfinished purchases and what it meant for Leila's other tasks. A plausible adjustment deserved to be tried; describing it as a complete solution would have skipped the very assessment my first article had missed.
Paragraph P8The piece I eventually published was neither a celebration of the machines nor a plea to remove them. It described whose work had become easier, whose tasks had changed and which effects still needed checking. The manager continued recording payment times, but also began looking at the complete purchase and asking staff about interruptions. Progress no longer appeared as a property of a machine considered on its own. It was a claim about an arrangement of people, work and access, which could be tested from more than one point of view.