Three long lines of
people form queues to gain entry into a concert. How can the queues speed up so
that a person doesn’t have to wait ‘forever’?
First-come
first-served is the usual response to long queues. But Danish researchers suggest
another way (Quartz, September 7, 2015). Researchers at the University of
Southern Denmark published their study in the journal Discussion Papers on Business and Economics.
The Danish researchers
think the first-come first-served principle is a ‘curse.’ They think the
first-come first-served model makes people arrive early, which means that they
wait for a long time. They say it is not a good incentive to get to the queue
first.
What would happen if
people could line up at any time – i.e. remove the incentive of getting to the
queue early? Theoretically the researchers wanted to try a last-come
first-served model.
Researchers found that
a last-come first served model was more efficient. With this model, people are
forced to change their behaviour in order to arrive at the queues at a slower
rate. When people who arrived last are served first there is less bottleneck
and less congestion in queues.
In another study also
published in the journal Discussion
Papers on Business and Economics, researchers examined three queuing
systems: (1) first-come first-served, (2) last-come first-served, and (3)
service-in-random-order from the queue.
To test the three
scenarios 144 volunteers were asked to queue according to the three options. The
‘starting’ point was the first-come first-served scenario, and an average
waiting time was recorded (scenario 1). When participants were told that they
would be served at random from the queue (scenario 3), the average waiting time
decreased. The waiting time decreased further under the last-come first-served
system (scenario 2) – this was because most people did not want to risk
arriving too early only to be served first.
However, when
researchers measured how fair participants felt about each of the three queuing
systems, the first-come first-served model (scenario 1) was considered to be
the fairest system. The last-come first-served system (scenario 2) was regarded
as the least fairest system of queuing.
So is it best to fair
or best to be efficient? Even when participants were told the results of all
three scenarios, they still preferred the traditional first-come first-served
method of queuing.
Comments
Post a Comment