1 / 17

Staffing and Routing in Large-Scale Service Systems with Heterogeneous-Servers

Staffing and Routing in Large-Scale Service Systems with Heterogeneous-Servers. Mor Armony Stern School of Business, NYU INFORMS 2009 . Joint work with Avi Mandelbaum. TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: A A A A A A A A A A A A A.

prue
Download Presentation

Staffing and Routing in Large-Scale Service Systems with Heterogeneous-Servers

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. Staffing and Routing in Large-Scale Service Systems with Heterogeneous-Servers Mor Armony Stern School of Business, NYU INFORMS 2009 Joint work with Avi Mandelbaum TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: AAAAAAAAAAAAA

  2. Motivation: Call Centers

  3. The Inverted-V Model  • Calls arrive at rate  (Poisson process). • K server pools. • Service times in pool k are exponential • with rate k and are non-preemptive • Customers abandon from the queue • with rate q q … NK N1 1 K Experienced employees on average process requests faster than new hires. Gans, Mandelbaum and Shen (2007)

  4. Our Focus Routing: When an incoming call arrives to an empty queue, which agent pool should take the call? Staffing: How many servers should be working in each pool?  q … NK N1 1 K

  5. Background: Human Effects in Large-Scale Service Systems M/M/N+M M/M/N Halfin & Whitt ’81 Borst et al ’04 M/M/N+M+ M/M/N+ Garnett et al ’02 Mandelbaum & Zeltyn ’08 M/M/N++

  6. Why Consider Abadonment? Even little abandonment can have a significant effect on performance: • An unstable M/M/N system (r>1) becomes stable with abandonment. • Example (Mandelbaum & Zeltyn ‘08): Consider l=2000/hr, m=20/hr. Service level target: “80% of customers should be served within 30 seconds”: • 106 agents (q=0) • 95 agents (q=20 (average patience of 3 minutes), P(ab)=6.9%) • 84 agents (q=60 (average patience of 1 minute), P(ab)=16.8%)

  7. Problem Formulation our focus • Challenges: • Asymptotic regimes: QED, ED, ED+QED are all relevant • Asymptotic optimality: No natural lower bound on staffing • Assumptions: For delay related constraints, FCFS is sub-optimal. Work conservation assumption required when q>m.

  8. Asymptotic Regimes(Mandelbaum & Zeltyn 07) Baron & Milner 07

  9. Solution approach Original Joint Staffing and Routing problem: Our approach: 1. Given a “sensible” staffing vector, solve the routing problem: • 2. Show that the proposed staffing vector is • is asymptotically feasible. • Minimize staffing cost over the asymptotically feasible • region.

  10. The Routing Problem For a given staffing vector: • Proposition: The preemptive Faster Server First (FSF) policy is optimal within FCFS policies if either of these assumptions holds: • q ≤ min{m1,…,mK}, or • Only work-conserving policies are allowed.

  11. Asymptotically Optimal Routingin the QED Regime (T=0) Proposition: The non-preemptive routing policy FSF is asymptotically optimal in the QED regime Proof: State-space collapse: in the limit faster servers are always busy.  The preemptive and non-preemptive policies are asymptotically the same

  12. The ED+QED Asymptotic Regime  q … NK N1 Routing solution: All work conserving policies are asymptotically optimal Proof: All these policies are asymptotically equivalent to the preemptive FSF. 1 K

  13. Asymptotically Feasible Region N2 N1 m1N1+m2N2 ≥ (1-D)l+d√l

  14. Asymptotically Optimal Staffing N2 N1 m1N1+m2N2 ≥ (1-D)l+d√l

  15. Asymptotic Optimality Definition M/M/N+G (M&Z): |N-N*|=o(√l) L model w/o abandonment (QED): Natural lower bound Centering factor: Stability bound L model w/abandonment: No natural lower bound. Centering factor: Fluid level solution

  16. Asymptotically Optimal StaffingFocus: C(N)=c1N1p+…+cKNKp • Let C=inf {C(N) | ¹1N1+…¹KNk=(1-D)¸} • Definition (Asymptotic Optimality) • N* Asymptotically Feasible and • (C(N*)-C)/(C(N)- C) = 1 (in the limit) If d=0, replace 2. by C(N*)-C(N)=o(lp-1/2)

  17. Summary: M/M/N+ in ED+QED • Simple Routing: All work-conserving policies • Staffing: Square-root “safety” capacity (ED+QED regime as an outcome) • Challenges: • FCFS assumption • Robust definition of asymptotic optimality • Opportunities: • General Skill-based routing in ED+QED

More Related