queueing theory: part 1

This entry is part 1 of 21 in the series queueing theory

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

a queueing system is a model with the following structure: customers arrive and join a queue to wait for service given by n servers. after receiving service, the customer exits the system. a fundamental result of queueing theory is little’s law.

theorem: for a queueing system in steady state, the average length of the queue is equivalent to the average arrival rate multiplied by the average waiting time. in other words,

L = λW

at amazon, i used little’s law all the time. in dynamic systems with n+ dependencies, it is very helpful to know where the bottlenecks of the system are and how to increase efficiencies, reduce time traps, and eliminate waste in order to increase material flow. in other words, we want product to flow as fast as possible: click-to-ship.

here’s an example:

say there’s a warehouse with 4000 pallets of product that turns ~4 times per year. do we have enough labor to support these transactions? using little’s law, we get

4,000 = λ(.25year)

so,

λ = 16,000 pallets/year

assuming a 10 hour shift per day of about 250 working days per year, there is roughly 2,000 working hours. this means, then,

λ = 8 pallets/hour

the analysis above is critically important to estimate the labor force required to move pallets, receive product, move product, and get work done, in general.

there are many more applications of queueing theory that i will explicate and share in the next while. queueing theory is a critical, underused, but very valuable principle in business.

Series NavigationOn Queueing, Oil Change, and Customer Experience»

Short URL: http://bit.ly/hleg

Share This Post:



  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • Suggest to Techmeme via Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • LinkedIn
  • email

2-pizza teams (10)
3 C's (3)
5S (38)
A3 Report (9)
adoption (7)
agile/software (59)
ajax (4)
amazon (53)
apple (3)
apple iphone (7)
axiom (3)
Aza Raskin (9)
backcountry.com (2)
berlin (1)
bill gates (1)
bill marriott (1)
blog tag (1)
book reviews (4)
bullwhip effect (5)
business (394)
business plans (3)
busm361 (13)
BzzAgent (12)
call center and queueing (11)
car buying (2)
Carbonite (1)
change management (5)
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 (7)
customer experience (10)
customer obsession (52)
customer recovery function (1)
customer segmentation (8)
customer service (17)
design thinking (14)
digg (4)
drum-buffer-rope (38)
dublin (1)
dynamic systems (24)
eBay (6)
economics (3)
efficiency (4)
ethnography (29)
family (18)
featuritis (15)
flexibility (1)
forecasting (2)
four performance dimensions (2)
Fun With The 2×2 Matrix (1)
game theory (7)
Gemba (67)
genchi genbutsu (68)
general (135)
germany (1)
google (15)
heijunka (65)
holidays (1)
hoshin kanri (1)
how to be a human (1)
IDEO (2)
image uploading (1)
iphone (5)
ishikawa (69)
IT at Toyota (67)
just-in-time (4)
kaizen (4)
kanban (46)
law of instinct (1)
Leadership (43)
lean (165)
Lean Consumption Maps (98)
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 (68)
nba fines (1)
net promoter score (nps) (1)
obeya (39)
Off-Topic (1)
onstar (1)
operations (108)
pageviews (3)
pareto principle (39)
patent (1)
peanut butter manifesto (2)
philosophy (3)
Poka-Yoke (6)
poppendieck (3)
powerpoint sucks (2)
private equity (4)
process measures (6)
product development (20)
productivity (4)
quality (41)
quasimodal design (1)
queueing theory (41)
Raffle (1)
rational choice (2)
regression analysis (18)
respect for people (6)
root cause analysis (60)
sarah+palin (2)
seth godin (1)
simplicity principle (10)
six sigma (128)
snowboarding (2)
social media (3)
spam (1)
statistical process control (46)
strategy (46)
suburban (1)
supply chain (24)
takt time (8)
teaching (2)
team size (9)
technology (104)
the beer distribution game (1)
the profit tree (7)
The Visual Factory (11)
theory of constraints (41)
time (2)
timeline (3)
tony+hsieh (11)
toyota (75)
travel (1)
trump bankruptcy (1)
turnaround (5)
twitter (8)
uspto (1)
utah deal flow (2)
variation (69)
venture capital (1)
Visual Management (11)
waste (59)
website traffic (2)
Wing Chun (2)
wisdom of crowds (1)
wisdom teeth (1)
word-of-mouth marketing (18)
yahoo (2)
zappos.com (12)
zero defects (3)

WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton 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

If you found this article interesting, please digg it at: http://digg.com/technology/queueing_theory so more people will find it.

[...] June 15, 2006 at 6:03 am · Filed under business Earlier, we discussed Queueing Theory and Little’s Law. [...]

Little’s Law is an incredbly helpful tool for operations. I highly recommend the Hopp and Spearman book “Factory Physics”, which spends a lot of time on Little’s Law.

Another way of thinking about this is:

Throughput = WIP / CT

WIP = Work in Process

You have to be careful with Little’s Law and resist the temptation to think “all I have to do to increase Throughput is to increase WIP”. It doesn’t work that way, not that Peter was implying that. I’m just saying that’s a common mis-application of Little’s Law.

When you start with zero WIP, you will have zero throughput. Makes sense, right? At first, as WIP increases, your throughput will increase somewhat linearly. But, as capacity utilization reaches 80% or so, throughput levels out and Cycle Time explodes. That’s why really busy systems (factories, emergency rooms, etc.) have very long waiting times. The Cycle Time explosion is made worse with variation. The more variation you have in customer demand and service time, the worse the Cycle Time explosion is. That’s why leveling (heijunka) is key…. on to Peter’s second post, I’m looking forward to reading it.

This Industrial Engineer is just happy to see anyone discussing Little’s Law.

One problem with your analysis there is that you’re assuming demand (and labor needs) are constant throughout the year. I’m certain that wouldn’t be the case for Amazon or any retailer.

[...] I previously wrote on Queueing Theory and titled those posts as Queueing Theory: Part 1 and Queueing Theory: Part 2. Today, I’ll briefly explain how to set-up a model in Microsoft Excel to simulate a Single-Server Queue. [...]

[...] shmula queueing theory: part 1a queueing system is a model with the following structure: customers arrive and join a queue to wait for service given by n servers. after receiving service, the customer exits the system. a [...]

[...] queueing theory: part 1 [...]

[...] queueing theory: part 1 [...]

[...] queueing theory: part 1 [...]

[...] queueing theory: part 1 [...]

[...] An Ajax-y Google The Pareto Principle “The Long Tail” Ad Naseaum Lean for Software On Time-traps and Waste All Articles on Operations Agile & Team Size Featuritis & The Customer Click-to-Ship Optimization On Game Theory & Digg Queueing Theory, #1 Amazon.com Insider Stories Totalitarian Powerpoint Rejecting Google’s Job Offer Disruptive Company Interviews The State of the Craposphere  M&A Mashup: Google, Yahoo, Microsoft  Theory of Constraints & Drum, Buffer, Rope  Root Cause Analysis [...]

[...] Company Interviews The State of the Craposphere  M&A Mashup: Google, Yahoo, Microsoft  Theory of Constraints & Drum, Buffer, Rope  Root CauseAnalysis [...]

“assuming a 10 hour shift per day of about 250 working days per year, there is roughly 2,000 working hours.”

This works only if the 10 is in octal notation.

[...] Queueing Theory: Part 1 [...]

[...] Queueing Theory: Part 1 [...]

[...] Queueing Theory: Part 1 [...]

Refreshing!

“…as capacity utilization reaches 80% or so, throughput levels out and Cycle Time explodes. That’s why really busy systems (factories, emergency rooms, etc.) have very long waiting times…”

No, that’s not the reason. The reason that ERs, restaraunts, and Post Offices have long wait times is that utilization (or demand) has gone over 100% throughput capacity. The service can no longer serve in the rate as people arrive. Since the service provider has not planned for or reacted to the higher demand, the length of the line grows.

should read…
…can no longer serve at the rate that people arrive…

Leave a comment

(required)

(required)


Additional comments powered by BackType