Does a single-line result in shorter average queue time?












4












$begingroup$


Set-up:
Travelers are waiting in line to be processed by immigration officers. There are N officers, each with their own counter. No assumptions about line-switching, constant processing speed, homogeneous processing speed, or homogeneous entrance rate of travelers.



Scenario A: Travelers line up in one of 3 lines, each line leading to one of the 3 counters.



Scenario B: Travelers line up in a single line. The person at the head of the line will be directed to the next available officer.



Additional assumption: All officers will be at 100% utilization rate.



I argue that average queue time will be the same in both scenarios. Many co-workers, friends, and the following quotes disagree and believe that Scenario B (single-line) will result in a shorter average queue time.



Who's right?




"Finally, a single-line, multiple-server system has better performance in terms of waiting times than the same system with a line for each server." - Reid, Sanders; Operations Management



"Research has proven that a single line, multi-server waiting system is faster than the multiple line approach." - http://blog.lavi.com/2014/08/07/single-line-queue/



"A Long Line for a Shorter Wait at the Supermarket" - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/business/23checkout.html






queueing-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    McDonald's had tested this and their data says that multiple lines results in shorter average wait times. However, some line waiters find multiple lines more stressful as they start to worry about being in the slower line.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:03










  • $begingroup$
    I think your additional assumption weighs the scales somewhat — one likely advantage of Scenario B is that it does a better job of keeping the utilization rate up.
    $endgroup$
    – Micah
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:11












  • $begingroup$
    They are certainly not always the same, as you can show directly from a simple M/M/1 type example. In general, you can upper-bound the total "unfinished work" $U_{single}(t)$ at any time $t$ in the single line system by $U_{single}(t) leq U_{other}(t) + (n-1)L_{max}$, where $U_{other}(t)$ is the total unfinished work using any other (possibly multi-line) approach, $n$ is the number of (possibly time-varying) servers, and $L_{max}$ is the size of the largest job. This is equation (3) here: www-bcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/pdf_papers/…
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:16








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How can you assume $100$ percent utilization rate if there might be a point at which there are no more travelers? Note that in most such systems, it is never the case in Scenario B that a customer is waiting and a server is idle, but it is possible in Scenario A.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian Tung
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:36










  • $begingroup$
    In light of that, I wonder, @DougM, how that result obtains. Maybe the servers work faster because they're competing (in a friendly way, one hopes) to clear their lines faster than their colleagues.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian Tung
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:37
















4












$begingroup$


Set-up:
Travelers are waiting in line to be processed by immigration officers. There are N officers, each with their own counter. No assumptions about line-switching, constant processing speed, homogeneous processing speed, or homogeneous entrance rate of travelers.



Scenario A: Travelers line up in one of 3 lines, each line leading to one of the 3 counters.



Scenario B: Travelers line up in a single line. The person at the head of the line will be directed to the next available officer.



Additional assumption: All officers will be at 100% utilization rate.



I argue that average queue time will be the same in both scenarios. Many co-workers, friends, and the following quotes disagree and believe that Scenario B (single-line) will result in a shorter average queue time.



Who's right?




"Finally, a single-line, multiple-server system has better performance in terms of waiting times than the same system with a line for each server." - Reid, Sanders; Operations Management



"Research has proven that a single line, multi-server waiting system is faster than the multiple line approach." - http://blog.lavi.com/2014/08/07/single-line-queue/



"A Long Line for a Shorter Wait at the Supermarket" - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/business/23checkout.html






queueing-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    McDonald's had tested this and their data says that multiple lines results in shorter average wait times. However, some line waiters find multiple lines more stressful as they start to worry about being in the slower line.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:03










  • $begingroup$
    I think your additional assumption weighs the scales somewhat — one likely advantage of Scenario B is that it does a better job of keeping the utilization rate up.
    $endgroup$
    – Micah
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:11












  • $begingroup$
    They are certainly not always the same, as you can show directly from a simple M/M/1 type example. In general, you can upper-bound the total "unfinished work" $U_{single}(t)$ at any time $t$ in the single line system by $U_{single}(t) leq U_{other}(t) + (n-1)L_{max}$, where $U_{other}(t)$ is the total unfinished work using any other (possibly multi-line) approach, $n$ is the number of (possibly time-varying) servers, and $L_{max}$ is the size of the largest job. This is equation (3) here: www-bcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/pdf_papers/…
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:16








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How can you assume $100$ percent utilization rate if there might be a point at which there are no more travelers? Note that in most such systems, it is never the case in Scenario B that a customer is waiting and a server is idle, but it is possible in Scenario A.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian Tung
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:36










  • $begingroup$
    In light of that, I wonder, @DougM, how that result obtains. Maybe the servers work faster because they're competing (in a friendly way, one hopes) to clear their lines faster than their colleagues.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian Tung
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:37














4












4








4


2



$begingroup$


Set-up:
Travelers are waiting in line to be processed by immigration officers. There are N officers, each with their own counter. No assumptions about line-switching, constant processing speed, homogeneous processing speed, or homogeneous entrance rate of travelers.



Scenario A: Travelers line up in one of 3 lines, each line leading to one of the 3 counters.



Scenario B: Travelers line up in a single line. The person at the head of the line will be directed to the next available officer.



Additional assumption: All officers will be at 100% utilization rate.



I argue that average queue time will be the same in both scenarios. Many co-workers, friends, and the following quotes disagree and believe that Scenario B (single-line) will result in a shorter average queue time.



Who's right?




"Finally, a single-line, multiple-server system has better performance in terms of waiting times than the same system with a line for each server." - Reid, Sanders; Operations Management



"Research has proven that a single line, multi-server waiting system is faster than the multiple line approach." - http://blog.lavi.com/2014/08/07/single-line-queue/



"A Long Line for a Shorter Wait at the Supermarket" - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/business/23checkout.html






queueing-theory







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Set-up:
Travelers are waiting in line to be processed by immigration officers. There are N officers, each with their own counter. No assumptions about line-switching, constant processing speed, homogeneous processing speed, or homogeneous entrance rate of travelers.



Scenario A: Travelers line up in one of 3 lines, each line leading to one of the 3 counters.



Scenario B: Travelers line up in a single line. The person at the head of the line will be directed to the next available officer.



Additional assumption: All officers will be at 100% utilization rate.



I argue that average queue time will be the same in both scenarios. Many co-workers, friends, and the following quotes disagree and believe that Scenario B (single-line) will result in a shorter average queue time.



Who's right?




"Finally, a single-line, multiple-server system has better performance in terms of waiting times than the same system with a line for each server." - Reid, Sanders; Operations Management



"Research has proven that a single line, multi-server waiting system is faster than the multiple line approach." - http://blog.lavi.com/2014/08/07/single-line-queue/



"A Long Line for a Shorter Wait at the Supermarket" - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/business/23checkout.html






queueing-theory




queueing-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 27 '17 at 23:00









BerBer

212




212












  • $begingroup$
    McDonald's had tested this and their data says that multiple lines results in shorter average wait times. However, some line waiters find multiple lines more stressful as they start to worry about being in the slower line.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:03










  • $begingroup$
    I think your additional assumption weighs the scales somewhat — one likely advantage of Scenario B is that it does a better job of keeping the utilization rate up.
    $endgroup$
    – Micah
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:11












  • $begingroup$
    They are certainly not always the same, as you can show directly from a simple M/M/1 type example. In general, you can upper-bound the total "unfinished work" $U_{single}(t)$ at any time $t$ in the single line system by $U_{single}(t) leq U_{other}(t) + (n-1)L_{max}$, where $U_{other}(t)$ is the total unfinished work using any other (possibly multi-line) approach, $n$ is the number of (possibly time-varying) servers, and $L_{max}$ is the size of the largest job. This is equation (3) here: www-bcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/pdf_papers/…
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:16








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How can you assume $100$ percent utilization rate if there might be a point at which there are no more travelers? Note that in most such systems, it is never the case in Scenario B that a customer is waiting and a server is idle, but it is possible in Scenario A.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian Tung
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:36










  • $begingroup$
    In light of that, I wonder, @DougM, how that result obtains. Maybe the servers work faster because they're competing (in a friendly way, one hopes) to clear their lines faster than their colleagues.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian Tung
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:37


















  • $begingroup$
    McDonald's had tested this and their data says that multiple lines results in shorter average wait times. However, some line waiters find multiple lines more stressful as they start to worry about being in the slower line.
    $endgroup$
    – Doug M
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:03










  • $begingroup$
    I think your additional assumption weighs the scales somewhat — one likely advantage of Scenario B is that it does a better job of keeping the utilization rate up.
    $endgroup$
    – Micah
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:11












  • $begingroup$
    They are certainly not always the same, as you can show directly from a simple M/M/1 type example. In general, you can upper-bound the total "unfinished work" $U_{single}(t)$ at any time $t$ in the single line system by $U_{single}(t) leq U_{other}(t) + (n-1)L_{max}$, where $U_{other}(t)$ is the total unfinished work using any other (possibly multi-line) approach, $n$ is the number of (possibly time-varying) servers, and $L_{max}$ is the size of the largest job. This is equation (3) here: www-bcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/pdf_papers/…
    $endgroup$
    – Michael
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:16








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How can you assume $100$ percent utilization rate if there might be a point at which there are no more travelers? Note that in most such systems, it is never the case in Scenario B that a customer is waiting and a server is idle, but it is possible in Scenario A.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian Tung
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:36










  • $begingroup$
    In light of that, I wonder, @DougM, how that result obtains. Maybe the servers work faster because they're competing (in a friendly way, one hopes) to clear their lines faster than their colleagues.
    $endgroup$
    – Brian Tung
    Jan 27 '17 at 23:37
















$begingroup$
McDonald's had tested this and their data says that multiple lines results in shorter average wait times. However, some line waiters find multiple lines more stressful as they start to worry about being in the slower line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 27 '17 at 23:03




$begingroup$
McDonald's had tested this and their data says that multiple lines results in shorter average wait times. However, some line waiters find multiple lines more stressful as they start to worry about being in the slower line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 27 '17 at 23:03












$begingroup$
I think your additional assumption weighs the scales somewhat — one likely advantage of Scenario B is that it does a better job of keeping the utilization rate up.
$endgroup$
– Micah
Jan 27 '17 at 23:11






$begingroup$
I think your additional assumption weighs the scales somewhat — one likely advantage of Scenario B is that it does a better job of keeping the utilization rate up.
$endgroup$
– Micah
Jan 27 '17 at 23:11














$begingroup$
They are certainly not always the same, as you can show directly from a simple M/M/1 type example. In general, you can upper-bound the total "unfinished work" $U_{single}(t)$ at any time $t$ in the single line system by $U_{single}(t) leq U_{other}(t) + (n-1)L_{max}$, where $U_{other}(t)$ is the total unfinished work using any other (possibly multi-line) approach, $n$ is the number of (possibly time-varying) servers, and $L_{max}$ is the size of the largest job. This is equation (3) here: www-bcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/pdf_papers/…
$endgroup$
– Michael
Jan 27 '17 at 23:16






$begingroup$
They are certainly not always the same, as you can show directly from a simple M/M/1 type example. In general, you can upper-bound the total "unfinished work" $U_{single}(t)$ at any time $t$ in the single line system by $U_{single}(t) leq U_{other}(t) + (n-1)L_{max}$, where $U_{other}(t)$ is the total unfinished work using any other (possibly multi-line) approach, $n$ is the number of (possibly time-varying) servers, and $L_{max}$ is the size of the largest job. This is equation (3) here: www-bcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/pdf_papers/…
$endgroup$
– Michael
Jan 27 '17 at 23:16






1




1




$begingroup$
How can you assume $100$ percent utilization rate if there might be a point at which there are no more travelers? Note that in most such systems, it is never the case in Scenario B that a customer is waiting and a server is idle, but it is possible in Scenario A.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:36




$begingroup$
How can you assume $100$ percent utilization rate if there might be a point at which there are no more travelers? Note that in most such systems, it is never the case in Scenario B that a customer is waiting and a server is idle, but it is possible in Scenario A.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:36












$begingroup$
In light of that, I wonder, @DougM, how that result obtains. Maybe the servers work faster because they're competing (in a friendly way, one hopes) to clear their lines faster than their colleagues.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:37




$begingroup$
In light of that, I wonder, @DougM, how that result obtains. Maybe the servers work faster because they're competing (in a friendly way, one hopes) to clear their lines faster than their colleagues.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:37










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

The average waiting time (mathematical expectation) is the same but the variation of waiting time for a single line is smaller than that of multiple lines (easy to demonstrate mathematically). Thus a risk-averse person would prefer a single line. The intuition is: if you end up in a faster server your time of waiting is much shortened; if you end up in a slow server then your time of waiting is much prolonged (multiplied by the number of people ahead of you plus you). For a single line, your waiting time is simply the server's speed, it is not exacerbated.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2117151%2fdoes-a-single-line-result-in-shorter-average-queue-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    0












    $begingroup$

    The average waiting time (mathematical expectation) is the same but the variation of waiting time for a single line is smaller than that of multiple lines (easy to demonstrate mathematically). Thus a risk-averse person would prefer a single line. The intuition is: if you end up in a faster server your time of waiting is much shortened; if you end up in a slow server then your time of waiting is much prolonged (multiplied by the number of people ahead of you plus you). For a single line, your waiting time is simply the server's speed, it is not exacerbated.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      The average waiting time (mathematical expectation) is the same but the variation of waiting time for a single line is smaller than that of multiple lines (easy to demonstrate mathematically). Thus a risk-averse person would prefer a single line. The intuition is: if you end up in a faster server your time of waiting is much shortened; if you end up in a slow server then your time of waiting is much prolonged (multiplied by the number of people ahead of you plus you). For a single line, your waiting time is simply the server's speed, it is not exacerbated.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        The average waiting time (mathematical expectation) is the same but the variation of waiting time for a single line is smaller than that of multiple lines (easy to demonstrate mathematically). Thus a risk-averse person would prefer a single line. The intuition is: if you end up in a faster server your time of waiting is much shortened; if you end up in a slow server then your time of waiting is much prolonged (multiplied by the number of people ahead of you plus you). For a single line, your waiting time is simply the server's speed, it is not exacerbated.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        The average waiting time (mathematical expectation) is the same but the variation of waiting time for a single line is smaller than that of multiple lines (easy to demonstrate mathematically). Thus a risk-averse person would prefer a single line. The intuition is: if you end up in a faster server your time of waiting is much shortened; if you end up in a slow server then your time of waiting is much prolonged (multiplied by the number of people ahead of you plus you). For a single line, your waiting time is simply the server's speed, it is not exacerbated.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 2 '18 at 18:48









        Snow MountainSnow Mountain

        1




        1






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2117151%2fdoes-a-single-line-result-in-shorter-average-queue-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            Ellipse (mathématiques)

            Image
            Pour les articles homonymes, voir Ellipse. L'ellipse est le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante. Section du cône ou projection du cercle. En géométrie, une ellipse est une courbe plane fermée obtenue par l’intersection d’un cône de révolution avec un plan, à condition que celui-ci coupe l'axe de rotation du cône ou du cylindre : c'est une conique d'excentricité strictement comprise entre 0 et 1. On peut également la définir comme le lieu des points dont la somme des distances à deux points fixes, dits foyers, est constante (sa construction par la méthode du jardinier est très simple). Dans la vie courante, l’ellipse est la forme qu'on perçoit en regardant un cercle en perspective, ou la figure formée par l’ombre d'un disque sur une surface plane. On retrouve aussi, en première approximation [ 1 ] , des ellipses dans les trajectoires des corps célestes (planètes, comètes ou satellites arti...
            Read more

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Image
            up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2 ...
            Read more

            Mont Emei

            Image
            Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog...
            Read more