1 / 25

On Priority Queues with Impatient Customers:

On Priority Queues with Impatient Customers:. Seminar in Operations Research 01/01/2007. Exact and Asymptotic Analysis. Luba Rozenshmidt. Advisor: Prof. Avishai Mandelbaum. Flow of the Talk. Environments with heterogeneous customers Call Centers: Overview

odeda
Download Presentation

On Priority Queues with Impatient Customers:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On Priority Queues with Impatient Customers: Seminar in Operations Research 01/01/2007 Exact and Asymptotic Analysis Luba Rozenshmidt Advisor: Prof. Avishai Mandelbaum

  2. Flow of the Talk • Environments with heterogeneous customers • Call Centers: Overview • Background – exact and asymptotic results • Erlang-C with priorities • Erlang-A with priorities • Asymptotic results: the lowest priority • Asymptotic results: other priorities • Additional results and future research

  3. Environments with Priority Queues Customers differ by their needs, spoken languages, potential profit, urgency ... • Hospitals: patients – urgent, regular, surgical, … • Banks: customers – private, organizations, Platinum, Gold … • Supermarkets: cashiers – express, regular • Call Centers Examples

  4. Call Centers: Priority Queues with Impatient Customers • Call centers are the primary contact channel between service providers and their customers U.S. Statistics • Over 60% of annual business volume via the telephone • 70,000 – 200,000 call centers • 3 – 6.5 million employees (3% – 6% workforce) • 20% annual growth rate • $100 – $300 billion annual expenditures • 1000’s agents in a “single" call center (large systems) • Human aspects (impatience, abandonment).

  5. Erlang-C (M/M/N)       Background N 0 1 N+1 N-1 μ 2μ (N-1)μ Nμ Nμ Nμ • Arrivals : Poisson(λ) • Service: exp(μ) • Number of Servers: N • Utilization ρ (=λ/Nμ)<1 Steady State Erlang-C Formula

  6.      N N-1 0 1 N+1 μ 2μ (N-1)μ Nμ Nμ+θ Nμ+2θ Erlang-A (M/M/N+M) Background • Arrivals : Poisson(λ) • Service: exp(μ) • Number of Servers: N • Individual Patience:exp(θ) • Steady State always exists • Offered Load per server ρ=λ/Nμ Erlang-A Formula Note:

  7. Asymptotics: Background Define: = Offered Load. • Operational Regimes • ED • QD • QED ; Utilization  100%, P(Wait) ≈ 1. Short waiting time for agents, P(Wait) ≈ 0. Balance between high utilization of servers and service quality P(Wait) ≈ α, 0 < α < 1 Erlang-C: Halfin-Whitt, 1981 Erlang-A: Garnett-Mandelbaum-Reiman, 2002

  8. Erlang- A/C: Excursions N,N-1       • T = Avg. Busy Period • T = Avg. Idle Period N N+1 N-1 0 1 N-1,N Nμ μ 2μ (N-1)μ μ μ N N+1 Idle Period Busy Period lim rate rate lim

  9. Queues with Priorities • N i.i.d. servers • Kcustomer types, indexed k = 1, 2, …, K • Type j has apriorityover type k • FCFS within each type queue • where is offered load per server • allocated to class k • Type k • Poisson Arrivals at rateλ • Exponential service at rateμ • Exponential Patience with rate θ ( Total =M/M/N(+M)) k d High priority interrupts lower ones • Preemptive Priority • Non-Preemptive Priority Service interruptions not allowed

  10. Some Notation: Priority Queues avg. waiting time of type k under Preemptive priority avg. waiting time of k first typesunder Preemptive priority Similarly: avg. waiting time of all typesunder Preemptive priority avg. total number of delayed customers under Preemptive priority Similarly: Non-Preemptive

  11. Some Notation: Related M/M/N(+M) Systems avg. waiting time in M/M/N (+M)with arrival rate λ k avg. waiting time in M/M/N (+M) with arrival rate avg. waiting time in M/M/N (+M) with arrival rate Similarly:

  12. Preemptive Priority Example: K=2 Note: does not depend on service policy Calculation of average wait of classk, , k=1,2 1) 2)

  13. Expected Waiting Time – Recursion based on Little’s Law Preemptive Priority Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: The Same Recursion for M/M/N and M/M/N+M Queues!

  14. Non-Preemptive Priority:Erlang-C Queues Kella & Yechielly (1985) proofs via model with vacations: Here - fraction of time spent with types 1, …, k Explanation

  15. Non-Preemptive Priority:Erlang-C Queues By PASTA Erlang-C Diagram Avg. Queue length (given wait) M/M/N, Avg. Busy-Period duration M/M/1,

  16. Non-Preemptive Priority:Erlang-A Queues • The Highest Priority: (Delay probability does not depend on the service discipline)

  17. Non-Preemptive Priority:Transition-Rate Diagram   1 1  1 N,1,0 1,0,0 2,0,0 N-1,0,0 N,0,0 N,3,0 0,0,0 Nμ+θ N,2,0 Nμ+2θ Nμ μ 2μ 2 2 2 Nμ+θ θ θ θ 1 1 1 2 N,0,1 N,1,1 N,2,1 N,3,1 Nμ+θ L Nμ+2θ 2 2 Nμ+2θ 2θ 2θ 2θ 2 1 1 1 2 N,3,2 N,0,2 N,1,2 N,2,2 Nμ+θ Nμ+2θ 1 1 1 L 1 N,1 N,2 N,3 N,0 + Nμ+θ Nμ+2θ Nμ+3θ

  18. Non-Preemptive Priority: K Types Step 1: The Algorithm Step 2: ”Merge” the first k types to a single type with Step 3:

  19. Towards : Example K=2 Non-Preemptive Preemptive

  20. Many Servers QEDExample K=2 QED Assume: Type2isnot negligible: the same convergence rate! “QD | Wait” QD the same limit!

  21. Many Servers EDExample K=2 ED: Assume: Type2isnot negligible: the same convergence rate! (=1) the same limit!

  22. QED and ED with Abandonments: Summary of Results

  23. Many Servers , QED, ED Higher Priorities, Non-Preemptive: Erlang A = C Higher priorities in Erlang –A enjoy QD regime (given they wait) hence “Erlang-C” performance • Erlang-C • Erlang-A that is Erlang-A Erlang-C

  24. Additional Applications:Time-Varying Queues • Time-stable performance under time-varying arrivals • ISA = Iterative Staffing Algorithm (Feldman Z. et. al. ) • Comparison with common practice (PSA, Lagged PSA) in four real call-centers • Extension of ISA to priority queues • Analysis of the effect of service-time distribution (Log-Normal in practice)

  25. Future Research Preemptive and Non-preemptive priority • Waiting-time distribution with current assumptions • Analysis of waits with different service/abandonment rates • Waiting-time distribution with different service / abandonment rates • Theoretical explanation of stationary ISA performance • The impact of the service-time distribution in the QED regime Time-varying arrival rates Heavy-traffic approximations

More Related