Queueing Theory: Part 4

This post is part of a series on Queueing Theory. The other articles can be found here:

  1. Queueing Theory: Part 1
  2. Queueing Theory: Part 2
  3. Queueing Theory: Part 3
  4. Queueing Theory: Part 4
  5. What is Waste?
  6. On Time-Traps and Waste
  7. Call Centers as Queueing Systems
  8. Travel Time & Waste
  9. Little’s Law for Product Development

Some of the physics and technical aspects of Queues are covered in the articles above. Today, I’d like to spend a minute on the Psychology of Queues.

There are a few key behavioral responses or reactions to queues, or waiting. Below are the propositions:

  1. Unoccupied time feels longer than occupied time.
  2. Process-waits feel longer than in-process waits.
  3. Anxiety makes waits seem longer.
  4. Uncertain waits seem longer than known, finite waits.
  5. Unfair waits are longer than equitable waits.
  6. The more valuable the service, the longer the customer is willing to wait.
  7. Solo waits feel longer than group waits.

There are several aspects to managing the Physics of Queueing and the Psychology of Queueing.

Managing the Physics of Queueing

In large part, the Queueing articles above focus on the learning and understanding the quantitative aspects of Queueing System behavior. In a later post, I’ll spend some time on ways one can manage the Physics of Queueing — for example, how to manage Work-in-Process (WIP) or Things-in-Process (TIP) for non-manufacturing processes; identifying the right batch size; identifying and reducing or eliminating time-traps, etc.

Managing the Psychology of Queueing

After, I’ll spend a few minutes explaining ways in which a manager can manage the Psychology of Queueing — for example, visual taskboards, effective feedback loops, rapid and iterative software development with frequent and communicated release cycles are just some examples of how to effectively manage the Psychology of Queues.

Applications

In each treatment of Queueing, I will also show how to manage the Physics and Psychology of Queueing and show how you can apply them to Software Engineering, Manufacturing, Medicine, Call Centers, and Fulfillment.

Conclusion

Understanding the behavior of a system is what Queueing Theory and Little’s Law is all about. But, managing a Queue requires not just understanding the behavior of a system, but also in-depth knowledge of how to improve a system — improving both aspects of Queueing will mean a better, more efficient and cost-effective system and, more importantly, a much better customer experience.

*photo originally uploaded by picturejockey

Share This Post:



  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • del.icio.us
  • FriendFeed
  • Suggest to Techmeme via Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • StumbleUpon
  • LinkedIn
  • Slashdot
  • MySpace
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

2-pizza teams (9)
3 C's (3)
5S (37)
A3 Report (9)
adoption (6)
agile/software (59)
ajax (4)
amazon (50)
apple (2)
apple iphone (6)
axiom (3)
Aza Raskin (8)
backcountry.com (2)
berlin (1)
bill gates (1)
bill marriott (1)
blog tag (1)
book reviews (4)
bullwhip effect (5)
business (381)
business plans (3)
busm361 (13)
BzzAgent (12)
call center and queueing (11)
car buying (2)
Carbonite (1)
chicago (1)
click fraud (1)
click-to-ship (21)
clocky (2)
colin powell (2)
community (2)
company interviews (18)
company interviews (6)
complexity (32)
costs (8)
culture (1)
customer experience (4)
customer obsession (45)
customer segmentation (8)
customer service (13)
design thinking (11)
digg (4)
drum-buffer-rope (38)
dublin (1)
dynamic systems (24)
eBay (6)
economics (3)
efficiency (3)
ethnography (28)
family (18)
featuritis (15)
flexibility (1)
forecasting (2)
four performance dimensions (2)
Fun With The 2×2 Matrix (1)
game theory (7)
Gemba (60)
genchi genbutsu (65)
general (136)
germany (1)
google (15)
heijunka (64)
holidays (1)
how to be a human (1)
image uploading (1)
iphone (4)
ishikawa (67)
IT at Toyota (66)
just-in-time (4)
kaizen (1)
kanban (42)
law of instinct (1)
Leadership (33)
lean (148)
Lean Consumption Maps (94)
learning curve (1)
licketyship (1)
mark cuban (1)
martin luther king (1)
mary poppendieck (1)
metrics (73)
microsoft (6)
milton friedman (1)
moving average (1)
muda (64)
nba fines (1)
net promoter score (nps) (1)
obeya (36)
Off-Topic (1)
onstar (1)
operations (108)
pageviews (3)
pareto principle (38)
patent (1)
peanut butter manifesto (2)
philosophy (3)
Poka-Yoke (3)
poppendieck (3)
powerpoint sucks (2)
private equity (4)
process measures (5)
product development (19)
productivity (4)
quality (39)
queueing theory (40)
Raffle (1)
rational choice (2)
regression analysis (18)
respect for people (3)
root cause analysis (56)
sarah+palin (2)
seth godin (1)
simplicity principle (10)
six sigma (122)
snowboarding (2)
social media (3)
spam (1)
statistical process control (46)
strategy (44)
suburban (1)
supply chain (24)
takt time (8)
teaching (2)
team size (9)
technology (105)
the beer distribution game (1)
the profit tree (7)
The Visual Factory (11)
theory of constraints (41)
time (2)
timeline (3)
tony+hsieh (9)
toyota (73)
travel (1)
trump bankruptcy (1)
twitter (8)
uspto (1)
utah deal flow (2)
variation (69)
venture capital (1)
Visual Management (9)
waste (56)
website traffic (2)
Wing Chun (2)
wisdom of crowds (1)
wisdom teeth (1)
word-of-mouth marketing (18)
yahoo (2)
zappos.com (9)
zero defects (3)

WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck requires Flash Player 9 or better.


If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments

[...] Queueing Theory: Part 4 [...]

[...] Queueing Theory: Part 4 [...]

[...] Queueing Theory: Part 4 [...]

[...] Queueing Theory: Part 4 [...]

[...] Queueing Theory: Part 4 [...]

[...] Queueing Theory: Part 4 [...]

[...] Queueing Theory: Part 4 [...]

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)


Additional comments powered by BackType