Queueing Model

11-1
 A Basic Queueing System

Served Customers

Queueing System

Queue
C S
Customers CCCCCCC C S Service
C S facility
C S

Served Customers

11-2
Examples of Commercial Service Systems
That Are Queueing Systems

Type of System Customers Server(s)

Barber shop People Barber
Bank teller services People Teller
ATM machine service People ATM machine
Checkout at a store People Checkout clerk
Plumbing services Clogged pipes Plumber
Ticket window at a movie theater People Cashier
Check-in counter at an airport People Airline agent
Brokerage service People Stock broker
Gas station Cars Pump
Call center for ordering goods People Telephone agent
Call center for technical assistance People Technical representative
Travel agency People Travel agent
Automobile repair shop Car owners Mechanic
Vending services People Vending machine
Dental services People Dentist
Roofing Services Roofs Roofer

11-3
 Herr Cutter’s Barber Shop

• Herr Cutter is a German barber who runs a one-man barber shop.

• Herr Cutter opens his shop at 8:00 A.M.

• The table shows his queueing system in action over a typical morning.

Time of Haicut Duration Haircut

Customer Arrival Begins of Haircut Ends
1 8:03 8:03 17 minutes 8:20
2 8:15 8:20 21 minutes 8:41
3 8:25 8:41 19 minutes 9:00
4 8:30 9:00 15 minutes 9:15
5 9:05 9:15 20 minutes 9:35
6 9:43 — — —

11-4
 Arrivals

• The time between consecutive arrivals to a queueing system are called the
interarrival times.

• The expected number of arrivals per unit time is referred to as the mean
arrival rate.

• The symbol used for the mean arrival rate is

l = Mean arrival rate for customers coming to the queueing system
where l is the Greek letter lambda.

• The mean of the probability distribution of interarrival times is

1 / l = Expected interarrival time

• Most queueing models assume that the form of the probability distribution of
interarrival times is an exponential distribution.

11-5
The Exponential Distribution for Interarrival Times
P(x)

x
0 Mean Interarrival Time

11-6
 The Exponential Distribution for Service Times

• Not always follow exponential distribution, depends on the nature of the

system

• E.g. In the bank

– Long service times are occasional
– Most customer has small amount of business transaction
– Exponential distribution is suitable

• E.g In the ATM

– Most of the customers have same amount of service time
 The Queue

• The number of customers in the queue (or queue size) is the number of
customers waiting for service to begin.
• The number of customers in the system is the number in the queue plus the
number currently being served.
• The queue capacity is the maximum number of customers that can be held in
the queue.
• An infinite queue is one in which, for all practical purposes, an unlimited
number of customers can be held there.
• When the capacity is small enough that it needs to be taken into account, then
the queue is called a finite queue.
• The queue discipline refers to the order in which members of the queue are
selected to begin service.
– The most common is first-come, first-served (FCFS).
– Other possibilities include random selection, some priority procedure, or even last-
come, first-served.

11-8
 Service

• When a customer enters service, the elapsed time from the beginning to the
end of the service is referred to as the service time.

• Basic queueing models assume that the service time has a particular
probability distribution.

• The symbol used for the mean of the service time distribution is

1 / m = Expected service time

where m is the Greek letter mu.

• The interpretation of m itself is the mean service rate.

m = Expected service completions per unit time for a single busy server

11-9
 Some Service-Time Distributions

• Exponential Distribution
– The most popular choice.
– Much easier to analyze than any other.
– Although it provides a good fit for interarrival times, this is much less true for
service times.
– Provides a better fit when the service provided is random than if it involves a fixed
set of tasks.
– Standard deviation: s = Mean

• Constant Service Times

– A better fit for systems that involve a fixed set of tasks.
– Standard deviation: s = 0.

11-10
 Labels for Queueing Models

To identify which probability distribution is being assumed for service times (and
for interarrival times), a queueing model conventionally is labeled as follows:

Distribution of service times

—/—/— Number of Servers

Distribution of interarrival times

The symbols used for the possible distributions are

M = Exponential distribution (Markovian)
D = Degenerate distribution (constant times)
GI = General interarrival-time distribution (any distribution)
G = General service-time distribution (any distribution)

11-11
 Choosing a Measure of Performance

• Managers who oversee queueing systems are mainly concerned with two
measures of performance:
– How many customers typically are waiting in the queueing system?
– How long do these customers typically have to wait?

• When customers are internal to the organization, the first measure tends to be
more important.
– Having such customers wait causes lost productivity.

• Commercial service systems tend to place greater importance on the second

measure.
– Outside customers are typically more concerned with how long they have to wait
than with how many customers are there.

11-12
 Defining the Measures of Performance

L = Expected number of customers in the system, including those being

served (the symbol L comes from Line Length).

Lq = Expected number of customers in the queue, which excludes customers

being served.

W = Expected waiting time in the system (including service time) for an

individual customer (the symbol W comes from Waiting time).

Wq = Expected waiting time in the queue (excludes service time) for an

individual customer.

These definitions assume that the queueing system is in a steady-state condition.

11-13
 Relationship between L, W, Lq, and Wq

• Since 1/m is the expected service time

W = Wq + 1/m

• Little’s formula states that

L = lW
and
Lq = lWq

• Combining the above relationships leads to

L = Lq + l/m

11-14
 Using Probabilities as Measures of Performance

• In addition to knowing what happens on the average, we may also be

interested in worst-case scenarios.
– What will be the maximum number of customers in the system? (Exceeded no more
than, say, 5% of the time.)
– What will be the maximum waiting time of customers in the system? (Exceeded no
more than, say, 5% of the time.)

• Statistics that are helpful to answer these types of questions are available for
some queueing systems:
– Pn = Steady-state probability of having exactly n customers in the system.
– P(W ≤ t) = Probability the time spent in the system will be no more than t.
– P(Wq ≤ t) = Probability the wait time will be no more than t.

• Examples of common goals:

– No more than three customers 95% of the time: P0 + P1 + P2 + P3 ≥ 0.95
– No more than 5% of customers wait more than 2 hours: P(W ≤ 2 hours) ≥ 0.95

11-15
 The Dupit Corp. Problem

• The Dupit Corporation is a longtime leader in the office photocopier

marketplace.

• Dupit’s service division is responsible for providing support to the customers

by promptly repairing the machines when needed. This is done by the
company’s service technical representatives, or tech reps.

• Current policy: Each tech rep’s territory is assigned enough machines so that
the tech rep will be active repairing machines (or traveling to the site) 75% of
the time.
– When working continuously, each tech rep should be able to repair an average of 4
machines per day (including travel time)
– Goal is to have 3 repair calls per working day for each tech representatives
– Machines average 50 workdays between repairs, so assign 150 machines per rep.
– Under this policy, company has nearly 10,000 tech reps, with a total payroll
approx. $600 million per year

• Proposed New Service Standard: The average waiting time before the repair
process begins from six hours to two hours
11-17
 Alternative Approaches to the Problem

• Approach Suggested by John Phixitt: Modify the current policy by

decreasing the percentage of time that tech reps are expected to be repairing
machines.

• Approach Suggested by the Vice President for Engineering: Provide new

equipment to tech reps that would reduce the time required for repairs.

• Approach Suggested by the Chief Financial Officer: Replace the current

one-person tech rep territories by larger territories served by multiple tech
reps.

• Approach Suggested by the Vice President for Marketing: Give owners of

the new printer-copier priority for receiving repairs over the company’s other
customers.

11-18
 The Queueing System for Each Tech Rep

• The customers: The machines needing repair.

• Customer arrivals: The calls to the tech rep requesting repairs.

• The queue: The machines waiting for repair to begin at their sites.

• The server: The tech rep.

• Service time: The total time the tech rep is tied up with a machine, either
traveling to the machine site or repairing the machine. (Thus, a machine is
viewed as leaving the queue and entering service when the tech rep begins the
trip to the machine site.)

11-19
 Notation for Single-Server Queueing Models

• l = Mean arrival rate for customers

= Expected number of arrivals per unit time

1/l = expected interarrival time

• m = Mean service rate (for a continuously busy server)

= Expected number of service completions per unit time

1/m = expected service time

• r = the utilization factor

= the average fraction of time that a server is busy serving customers
=l/m

11-20
 The M/M/1 Model

• Assumptions
1. Interarrival times have an exponential distribution with a mean of 1/l.
2. Service times have an exponential distribution with a mean of 1/m.
3. The queueing system has one server.

• The expected number of customers in the system is

L = r / (1 – r) = l / (m – l)
• The expected waiting time in the system is
W = (1 / l)L = 1 / (m – l)
• The expected waiting time in the queue is
Wq = W – 1/m = l / [m(m – l)]
• The expected number of customers in the queue is
Lq = lWq = l2 / [m(m – l)] = r2 / (1 – r)

11-21
 The M/M/1 Model

• The probability of having exactly n customers in the system is

Pn = (1 – r)rn
Thus,
P0 = 1 – r
P1 = (1 – r)r
P2 = (1 – r)r2
:
:
• The probability that the waiting time in the system exceeds t is
P(W > t) = e–m(1–r)t for t ≥ 0
• The probability that the waiting time in the queue exceeds t is
P(Wq > t) = re–m(1–r)t for t ≥ 0

11-22
M/M/1 Queueing Model for the Dupit’s Current Policy

B C D E G H
3 Data Results
4 l 3 (mean arrival rate) L= 3
5 m 4 (mean service rate) Lq = 2.25
6 s= 1 (# servers)
7 W= 1
8 Pr(W > t) = 0.368 Wq = 0.75
9 when t = 1
10 r 0.75
11 Prob(W q > t) = 0.276
12 when t = 1 n Pn
13 0 0.25
14 1 0.1875
15 2 0.1406
16 3 0.1055
17 4 0.0791
18 5 0.0593
19 6 0.0445
20 7 0.0334
21 8 0.0250
22 9 0.0188
23 10 0.0141

11-23
 John Phixitt’s Approach (Reduce Machines/Rep)

• The proposed new service standard is that the average waiting time before
service begins be two hours (i.e., Wq ≤ 1/4 day).

• John Phixitt’s suggested approach is to lower the tech rep’s utilization factor
sufficiently to meet the new service requirement.

Lower r = l / m, until Wq ≤ 1/4 day,

where
l = (Number of machines assigned to tech rep) / 50.

11-24
M/M/1 Model for John Phixitt’s Suggested Approach
(Reduce Machines/Rep)

B C D E G H
3 Data Results
4 l 2 (mean arrival rate) L= 1
5 m 4 (mean service rate) Lq = 0.5
6 s= 1 (# servers)
7 W= 0.5
8 Pr(W > t) = 0.135 Wq = 0.25
9 when t = 1
10 r 0.5
11 Prob(W q > t) = 0.068
12 when t = 1 n Pn
13 0 0.5
14 1 0.25
15 2 0.1250
16 3 0.0625
17 4 0.0313
18 5 0.0156
19 6 0.0078
20 7 0.0039
21 8 0.0020
22 9 0.0010
23 10 0.0005

11-25
 Additional Cost for M/M/1 model

• Recall that company’s payroll for 10,000 tech reps currently $600 million
annually.

• Each tech reps receive about $60,000 annualy

• Decreasing the number of machines assigned to each tech rep from 150 to 100
would require hiring nearly 5,000 more tech reps to cover all the machines.
– Total machine to be repaired every 50 days approx. 1,500,000
– By assigning each tech rep with 2 machine per day, company should hire 5000
more tech rep

• The additional payroll would be about $300 million

 The M/G/1 Model
• Assumptions
1. Interarrival times have an exponential distribution with a mean of 1/l.
2. Service times can have any probability distribution. You only need the mean (1/m)
and standard deviation (s).
3. The queueing system has one server.

• The probability of zero customers in the system is

P0 = 1 – r
• The expected number of customers in the queue is
Lq = [l2s2 + r2] / [2(1 – r)]
• The expected number of customers in the system is
L = Lq + r
• The expected waiting time in the queue is
Wq = Lq / l
• The expected waiting time in the system is
W = Wq + 1/m

11-27
 VP for Engineering Approach (New Equipment)

• The proposed new service standard is that the average waiting time before
service begins be two hours (i.e., Wq ≤ 1/4 day).

• The Vice President for Engineering has suggested providing tech reps with
new state-of-the-art equipment that would reduce the time required for the
longer repairs.

• After gathering more information, they estimate the new equipment would
have the following effect on the service-time distribution:
– Decrease the mean from 1/4 day to 1/5 day.
– Decrease the standard deviation from 1/4 day to 1/10 day.

11-28
M/G/1 Model for the VP of Engineering Approach
(New Equipment)

B C D E F G
3 Data Results
4 l 3 (mean arrival rate) L= 1.163
5 1/m  0.2 (expected service time) Lq = 0.563
6 s 0.1 (standard deviation)
7 s= 1 (# servers) W= 0.388
8 Wq = 0.188
9
10 r 0.6
11
12 P0 = 0.4

11-29
 Additional Cost for M/G/1 model

• To provide each tech rep with new state of the art equipment to reduce
variance in repairing time, cost would be $500 million
– Each machine cost about $50,000
 The M/M/s Model
• Assumptions
1. Interarrival times have an exponential distribution with a mean of 1/l.
2. Service times have an exponential distribution with a mean of 1/m.
3. Any number of servers (denoted by s).

• With multiple servers, the formula for the utilization factor becomes

r = l / sm

but still represents that average fraction of time that individual servers are
busy.

11-31
Values of L for the M/M/s Model for Various Values of s
Steady-state expected number of customers in the queueing system
100

10 s = 25
s = 20
s = 15
s = 10
s =7
s =5
s =4
s =3

0.5 s =2

0.2 s =1

0.1
0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0
Utilization factor rl
sm

11-32
 CFO Suggested Approach (Combine Into Teams)

• The proposed new service standard is that the average waiting time before
service begins be two hours (i.e., Wq ≤ 1/4 day).

• The Chief Financial Officer has suggested combining the current one-person
tech rep territories into larger territories that would be served jointly by
multiple tech reps.

• A territory with two tech reps:

– Number of machines = 300 (versus 150 before)
– Mean arrival rate = l = 6 (versus l = 3 before)
– Mean service rate = m = 4 (as before)
– Number of servers = s = 2 (versus s = 1 before)
– Utilization factor = r = l/sm = 0.75 (as before)

11-33
M/M/s Model for the CFO’s Suggested Approach
(Combine Into Teams of Two)

B C D E G H
3 Data Results
4 l 6 (mean arrival rate) L= 3.4286
5 m 4 (mean service rate) Lq = 1.9286
6 s= 2 (# servers)
7 W= 0.5714
8 Pr(W > t) = 0.169 Wq = 0.3214
9 when t = 1
10 r 0.75
11 Prob(W q > t) = 0.087
12 when t = 1 n Pn
13 0 0.1429
14 1 0.2143
15 2 0.1607
16 3 0.1205
17 4 0.0904
18 5 0.0678
19 6 0.0509
20 7 0.0381
21 8 0.0286
22 9 0.0215
23 10 0.0161

11-34
 The M/M/s Model
• The probability of zero customers in the system is

• The expected number of customers in the queue is

Lq = lm(l/m)s Po / (s-1)! (sm - l)2
• The expected number of customers in the system is
L = Lq + (l/m)
• The expected waiting time in the queue is
Wq = Lq / l
• The expected waiting time in the system is
W=L/l
• The probability that the waiting time in the queue exceeds t is
 CFO Suggested Approach (Teams of Three)

• The Chief Financial Officer has suggested combining the current one-person
tech rep territories into larger territories that would be served jointly by
multiple tech reps.

• A territory with three tech reps:

– Number of machines = 450 (versus 150 before)
– Mean arrival rate = l = 9 (versus l = 3 before)
– Mean service rate = m = 4 (as before)
– Number of servers = s = 3 (versus s = 1 before)
– Utilization factor = r = l/sm = 0.75 (as before)

11-36
M/M/s Model for the CFO’s Suggested Approach
(Combine Into Teams of Three)

B C D E G H
3 Data Results
4 l 9 (mean arrival rate) L= 3.9533
5 m 4 (mean service rate) Lq = 1.7033
6 s= 3 (# servers)
7 W= 0.4393
8 Pr(W > t) = 0.090 Wq = 0.1893
9 when t = 1
10 r 0.75
11 Prob(W q > t) = 0.028
12 when t = 1 n Pn
13 0 0.0748
14 1 0.1682
15 2 0.1893
16 3 0.1419
17 4 0.1065
18 5 0.0798
19 6 0.0599
20 7 0.0449
21 8 0.0337
22 9 0.0253
23 10 0.0189

11-37
Comparison of Wq with Territories of Different Sizes

Number of Number of
Tech Reps Machines l m s r Wq

1 150 3 4 1 0.75 0.75 workday (6 hours)

2 300 6 4 2 0.75 0.321 workday (2.57 hours)

3 450 9 4 3 0.75 0.189 workday (1.51 hours)

11-38
Values of L for the M/D/s Model for Various Values of s
Steady-state expected number of customers in the queueing system
100

s = 25
10
s = 20
s = 15
s = 10
s =7
s =5
1.0 s =4
s =3
s =2
s =1

0.1
0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0
Utilization factor rl
sm

11-39
 Priority Queueing Models

• General Assumptions:
– There are two or more categories of customers. Each category is assigned to a
priority class. Customers in priority class 1 are given priority over customers in
priority class 2. Priority class 2 has priority over priority class 3, etc.
– After deferring to higher priority customers, the customers within each priority
class are served on a first-come-fist-served basis.

• Two types of priorities

– Nonpreemptive priorities: Once a server has begun serving a customer, the
service must be completed (even if a higher priority customer arrives). However,
once service is completed, priorities are applied to select the next one to begin
service.
– Preemptive priorities: The lowest priority customer being served is preempted
(ejected back into the queue) whenever a higher priority customer enters the
queueing system.

11-40
 Preemptive Priorities Queueing Model

• Additional Assumptions
1. Preemptive priorities are used as previously described.
2. For priority class i (i = 1, 2, … , n), the interarrival times of the customers in that
class have an exponential distribution with a mean of 1/li.
3. All service times have an exponential distribution with a mean of 1/m, regardless of
the priority class involved.
4. The queueing system has a single server.

• The utilization factor for the server is

r = (l1 + l2 + … + ln) / m

11-41
 Nonpreemptive Priorities Queueing Model

• Additional Assumptions
1. Nonpreemptive priorities are used as previously described.
2. For priority class i (i = 1, 2, … , n), the interarrival times of the customers in that
class have an exponential distribution with a mean of 1/li.
3. All service times have an exponential distribution with a mean of 1/m, regardless of
the priority class involved.
4. The queueing system can have any number of servers.

• The utilization factor for the servers is

r = (l1 + l2 + … + ln) / sm

11-42
VP of Marketing Approach (Priority for New Copiers)

• The proposed new service standard is that the average waiting time before
service begins be two hours (i.e., Wq ≤ 1/4 day).

• The Vice President of Marketing has proposed giving the printer-copiers

priority over other machines for receiving service. The rationale for this
proposal is that the printer-copier performs so many vital functions that its
owners cannot tolerate being without it as long as other machines.

• The mean arrival rates for the two classes of copiers are
– l1 = 1 customer (printer-copier) per workday (now)
– l2 = 2 customers (other machines) per workday (now)

• The proportion of printer-copiers is expected to increase, so in a couple years

– l1 = 1.5 customers (printer-copiers) per workday (later)
– l2 = 1.5 customers (other machines) per workday (later)

11-43
 Nonpreemptive Priorities Model for
VP of Marketing’s Approach (Current Arrival Rates)

B C D E F G
3 Data
4 n= 2 (# of priority classes)
5 m 4 (mean service rate)
6 s= 1 (# servers)
7
8 Results
9 li L Lq W Wq
10 Priority Class 1 1 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25
11 Priority Class 2 2 2.5 2 1.25 1
12 Priority Class 3 1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
13 Priority Class 4 1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
14 Priority Class 5 1 1.75 1.5 1.75 1.5
15
16 l 3
17 r 0.75

11-44
 Nonpreemptive Priorities Model for
VP of Marketing’s Approach (Future Arrival Rates)

B C D E F G
3 Data
4 n= 2 (# of priority classes)
5 m 4 (mean service rate)
6 s= 1 (# servers)
7
8 Results
9 li L Lq W Wq
10 Priority Class 1 1.5 0.825 0.45 0.55 0.3
11 Priority Class 2 1.5 2.175 1.8 1.45 1.2
12 Priority Class 3 1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
13 Priority Class 4 1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
14 Priority Class 5 1 1.75 1.5 1.75 1.5
15
16 l 3
17 r 0.75

11-45
Expected Waiting Times with Nonpreemptive Priorities

s When l1 l2 m r Wq for Printer Copiers Wq for Other Machines

1 Now 1 2 4 0.75 0.25 workday (2 hrs.) 1 workday (8 hrs.)

1 Later 1.5 1.5 4 0.75 0.3 workday (2.4 hrs.) 1.2 workday (9.6 hrs.)

2 Now 2 4 4 0.75 0.107 workday (0.86 hr.) 0.439 workday (3.43 hrs.)

2 Later 3 3 4 0.75 0.129 workday (1.03 hrs.) 0.514 workday (4.11 hrs.)

3 Now 3 6 4 0.75 0.063 workday (0.50 hr.) 0.252 workday (2.02 hrs.)

3 Later 4.5 4.5 4 0.75 0.076 workday (0.61 hr.) 0.303 workday (2.42 hrs.)

11-46
 The Four Approaches Under Considerations

Proposer Proposal Additional Cost

John Phixitt Maintain one-person territories, but $300 million per year
reduce number of machines assigned
to each from 150 to 100
VP for Engineering Keep current one-person territories, One-time cost of $500
but provide new state-of-the-art million
equipment to the tech-reps

Chief Financial Officer Change to three-person territories None, except

disadvantages of larger
territories
VP for Marketing Change to two-person territories None, except
with priority given to the printer- disadvantages of larger
copiers for repairs territories

Decision: Adopt fourth proposal (except for sparsely populated areas where
second proposal should be adopted).

11-47
 Some Insights About Designing Queueing Systems

1. When designing a single-server queueing system, beware that giving a

relatively high utilization factor (workload) to the server provides surprisingly
poor performance for the system.

2. Decreasing the variability of service times (without any change in the mean)
improves the performance of a queueing system substantially.

3. Multiple-server queueing systems can perform satisfactorily with somewhat

higher utilization factors than can single-server queueing systems. For
example, pooling servers by combining separate single-server queueing
systems into one multiple-server queueing system greatly improves the
measures of performance.

4. Applying priorities when selecting customers to begin service can greatly

improve the measures of performance for high-priority customers.

11-48
Economic Analysis of the Number of Servers to Provide

• In many cases, the consequences of making customers wait can be expressed

as a waiting cost.

• The manager is interested in minimizing the total cost.

TC = Expected total cost per unit time
SC = Expected service cost per unit time
WC = Expected waiting cost per unit time
The objective is then to choose the number of servers so as to
Minimize TC = SC + WC

• When each server costs the same (Cs = cost of server per unit time),
SC = Cs s

• When the waiting cost is proportional to the amount of waiting (Cw = waiting
cost per unit time for each customer),
WC = Cw L

11-49
 Acme Machine Shop

• The Acme Machine Shop has a tool crib for storing tool required by shop
mechanics.

• Two clerks run the tool crib.

• The estimates of the mean arrival rate l and the mean service rate (per server)
m are
l = 120 customers per hour
m = 80 customers per hour

• The total cost to the company of each tool crib clerk is $20/hour, so Cs = $20.

• While mechanics are busy, their value to Acme is $48/hour, so Cw = $48.

• Choose s so as to Minimize TC = $20s + $48L.

11-50
 Excel Template for Choosing the Number of Servers

B C D E F G
3 Data Results
4 l 120 (mean arrival rate) L= 1.736842105
5 m 80 (mean service rate) Lq = 0.236842105
6 s= 3 (# servers)
7 W= 0.014473684
8 Pr(W > t) = 0.02581732 Wq = 0.001973684
9 when t = 0.05
10 r 0.5
11 Prob(W q > t) = 0.00058707
12 when t = 0.05 n Pn
13 0 0.210526316
14 Economic Analysis: 1 0.315789474
15 Cs = $20.00 (cost / server / unit time) 2 0.236842105
16 Cw = $48.00 (waiting cost / unit time) 3 0.118421053
17 4 0.059210526
18 Cost of Service $60.00 5 0.029605263
19 Cost of Waiting $83.37 6 0.014802632
20 Total Cost $143.37 7 0.007401316

11-51
 Comparing Expected Cost vs. Number of Clerks

H I J K L M N
1 Data Table for Expected Total Cost of Alternatives
2
3 Cost of Cost of Total
4 s r L Service Waiting Cost
5 0.50 1.74 $60.00 $83.37 $143.37
6 1 1.50 #N/A $20.00 #N/A #N/A
7 2 0.75 3.43 $40.00 $164.57 $204.57
8 3 0.50 1.74 $60.00 $83.37 $143.37
9 4 0.38 1.54 $80.00 $74.15 $154.15
10 5 0.30 1.51 $100.00 $72.41 $172.41

$250
Cost of
$200

Cost ($/hour)
Service
$150 Cost of
$100 Waiting
Total Cost
$50

$0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Number of Servers (s)

11-52