I bought my lunch today from Pret, where something interesting happened. One of the cashiers came around and separated the queue into two queues. I'm not sure if this was a result of his own initiative or company policy, but it was the first time I'd seen it happen in Pret. I've summarised the situation in the following diagrams, including US/UK terminology (because, well, I felt like).
So previously...
And then...
Let's excuse the fact that he should have actually formed three queues instead of two. I stood there wondering how helpful that exercise really was ie. moving from single channel queueing to multiple channel queueing. Sure, I was third in line now as opposed to fifth before, but I'm certain it was previously moving faster.
Queueing theory is a part of organisational behaviour and operations research, and I stumbled upon a great five page document specifically about this subject, using a McDonald's restaurant in Singapore as the test case:
Skipping to the conclusion (with deserved kudos on the quality of diagrams. Especially compared to mine):
Our simulation results show that a single-channel queue is more efficient than a multiple-channels queue.
If so, why does McDonalds still want to use the multiple-channels queuing system? From our observations, one reason is that in a multiple-channels queue the customers can hop from one queue to another. Another reason is the impression of shorter waiting time but our simulation result has proven it wrong. While hopping queues may seem to allow customers to get to the server faster, it is not always true. A customer can hop to a shorter queue but the service time needed by the customers in the queue may be longer thus resulting in an even longer waiting time. Another side effect is that it can lead to disorder during the crowded hours and the most recent incident is the fight at McDonalds during their Hello Kitty promotion.
I can't wait to take this to Pret on Monday.




Recent Comments