This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia]

On: 03 June 2014, At: 02:00

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Foodservice Business

Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfbr20

Reducing Customer Wait Time at a Fast

Food Restaurant on Campus
a

Qamar Iqbal , Lawrence E. Whitman & Don Malzahn

Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering , Wichita

State University , Wichita , KS , USA
Published online: 28 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Qamar Iqbal , Lawrence E. Whitman & Don Malzahn (2012) Reducing Customer
Wait Time at a Fast Food Restaurant on Campus, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 15:4,
319-334, DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2012.706176
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2012.706176

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 15:319334, 2012

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1537-8020 print/1537-8039 online
DOI: 10.1080/15378020.2012.706176

Reducing Customer Wait Time at a Fast Food

Restaurant on Campus
QAMAR IQBAL, LAWRENCE E. WHITMAN, and DON MALZAHN

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,

Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, USA

In a typical fast food restaurant, the customer expects to receive service quickly. A restaurant manager will want to keep the customers
wait time to a minimum. If a customers wait time is higher than
their expectation, their satisfaction level will decrease. Most believe
that improving a customers wait time will increase operating cost.
Therefore, this results in a tradeoff between customers wait time
and cost of operation. A study is conducted at a restaurant on the
Wichita State University campus to improve its service time. A simulation model is used to analyze the system. A survey is conducted
to determine the customers expected wait time. The result of the
study is to recommend adding one more server during peak hours
to improve customer wait time. An economic cost analysis is also
provided to discuss the cost impact of adding one more server.
KEYWORDS customer wait time, simulation, net present value,
break-even point

INTRODUCTION
Customers do not expect a long wait time at a fast food restaurant (Chou &
Liu, 1999). Customer wait time is considered one of the key characteristics of
a fast-food restaurant. Therefore, customer wait time is directly linked to customer satisfaction. Any effort to improve customer wait time will enhance
customer satisfaction. Lee and Lambert (2007) point out those customeroriented efforts often focus on what management thinks and believes rather
than what the customer would like. Lee and Lambert (2007) also argue that
Address correspondence to Qamar Iqbal, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing
Engineering, Wichita State University, 1845 Fairmount, Wichita, KS 67360, USA. E-mail:
qxiqbal@wichita.edu
319

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

320

Q. Iqbal et al.

relationships between customer wait time, perception of service quality, and

customer satisfaction are very important. This will assist food service managers in making decisions for managing optimal wait time without sacrificing
service quality or customer satisfaction or creating high costs.
The purpose of this study is to provide a solution for management
to reduce customer wait time at a restaurant, which is also economically
feasible. A detailed analysis of a number of variables (or parameters) relating
to service operations (e.g., number of servers, service time, customer arrival
rate, type of customers and their proportion, total customer wait time, and
queue behavior) is presented. Additionally, modern computer simulation
software is used for further analysis.
The results of this study is consistent with previous research performed
by Chou and Liu (1999), and Curin, Vosko, Chan, and Tsimhoni (2005) which
shows that adding one more server reduces customer wait time. However,
they do not provide any economic analysis to support that having additional servers are economically feasible. A survey is also conducted to find
customers expected, perceived, and reasonable wait time. Customer expectations regarding wait time is important for improving the satisfaction (Lee
& Lambert, 2000).
The study comprised two parts. The first part deals with the development of a simulation model to identify the effect of adding additional server
at customer wait time. The second part of this study presents an economic
analysis to assess the improvement. Net present value breakeven point is
calculated which shows how many years it will take to earn back the initial
investment. The paper is structured as follows: in Section 2, the literature
review is presented; in Section 3, the simulation model is presented and
simulation results are discussed; in Section 4, an economic analysis is presented to support the improvement suggested in Section 3; the last section
summarizes the results of simulation and economic analysis.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Katz, Larson, and Larson (1991) point out that customers view wait time
negatively. As a result customers may leave the line or not return to the
company (Friedman & Friedman, 1997). Maister (1984) argues that wait time
is subjective and based on personal experience. Some research explores how
people make decisions, feel toward wait, and judge service providers during
waiting (Dube, Schmitt, & Leclerc, 1991; Hui & Tse, 1996). The perception
of wait time increases when people pay more attention to the passage of
time (Zakay, 1989). It is also observed that providing information about wait
time significantly improves customers evaluation of service.
Some researchers focused on the impact of perceived wait time
compared to actual wait time. Davis and Heineke (1998) concluded that

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

Reducing Customer Wait Time at a Restaurant

321

actual wait time was a stronger influence on customer satisfaction than

perceived wait time. Tom and Lucey (1995) points out that either perception
management or operations management should be used to manage the wait
time.
Lee and Lambert (2001) discussed the impact of customer perceived
wait time and actual wait time. They found out that length of perceived wait
time is negatively correlated with service quality and customer satisfaction,
only when a customers perceived wait time was longer than their expectations of reasonable wait time. Although when customers perceived wait
times were the same or shorter than their expectation of reasonable wait
time, actual wait time still negatively influenced service quality. Actual wait
time was not significantly related to customer satisfaction.
Lee and Lambert (2007) used a simulation model to identify whether
wait time could be managed effectively to improve customer satisfaction
in a cafeteria. They concluded that a simulation model is an effective tool
to evaluate wait time levels for each service station, to examine customer
average wait time, and to estimate the impact of operational changes. They
further argue that understanding the relationships between wait time, satisfaction and service quality is a strong foundation for effective wait time
management.
Chou and Liu (1999) built a simulation model to improve the wait
time in a fast-food restaurant. They concluded that no significant evidence
indicates that a one line queuing system is better than multi-line queuing system. Adding one more server during peak hours will improve the customer
average wait time.
Curin et al. (2005) also used a simulation study to improve the service
time at a fast food restaurant on campus. They divided customers into two
types. Type 1 customers order donuts, muffins, and/or beverages. Their
orders are taken and filled by the cashiers at the cash register at server 1.
Type 2 customers order soups, sandwiches, and/or bagels. First they pay at
the cash register at server 1 then they enter a second queue where server
2 prepares the items for them. Their results show that adding one more
server will improve customer time the most for both types of customers.
Adding a runner also has the potential to reduce wait time spent in the
system for both types of customers. A runner is described as a person who
prepares small orders filled by cashiers to allow cashiers to focus only on
taking orders. Adding a second arrival queue reduces type 1 customers wait
time but increases type 2 customers wait time.

METHOD
Various mathematical modeling tools are available to address the queuing
problem which includes queuing models and simulation. Kneebone (2003)

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

322

Q. Iqbal et al.

defines simulation in simple words It is the act of mimicking a real object,

event, or process by assuming its appearance or outward qualities (p. 269).
Simulations are often used to understand and describe the behavior of
the system (Shannon, 1975). It also allows analyzing every aspect of the
proposed behavior of the system prior to committing resources to their
acquisition (Banks, 1998). Simulation also helps in answering what-if questions when the new system is designed or improvement is made in the
existing system.
For customer service and system efficiency research, simulation has
been widely used and has proven to be an effective tool to improve operations (Hwang & Lambert, 2009). This paper will describe an effort to
understand the existing system in order to improve customer wait time.
Simulation will serve this purpose. The paper first describes a model that
is developed to mimic the system and modify it to bring improvement in
service operations so as to reduce customer wait time.

Simulation Model
The simulation model is developed in Arena software. This software has
the advantage of using defined modules to easily build a model, contains
an input data analyzer that fits raw data to the most appropriate statistical distribution, and produces extensive output reports (Lee & Lambert,
2007). The construction of the model consists of three phases. In phase
1, customer arrival data is collected to identify the busiest time of the day
and the input analyzer enabled accurate input distributions for arrival and
service time. In phase 2, an arena simulation model is developed and validated. In phase 3, the model is modified to incorporate improvement in the
system.
The customer arrival data and service time are collected for one month
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Friday. Peak operating hours are from
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. The following graph describes the customer arrival
pattern.
Figure 1 shows that the busiest time of the day is from 12:00 p.m.
to 1:00 p.m. Entry and exit points are the natural entry and exit points to
the store. There are two entry and exit points when a customer enters the
Restaurant and leaves the shop.
There is only one queue in the current system. In normal hours only
one server is available at the cashier counter but during the busiest time,
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., two servers are in operation. Three types of customer are entering the system. Customer A type customers are those who
pay cash to receive the product, customer B type customers use a credit
card to buy items, and customer C type customers use a university card to
pay at the counter. The proportions of each type of customer are 42%, 34%,
and 24%.

323

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

Reducing Customer Wait Time at a Restaurant

FIGURE 1 Average customer arrival pattern (one month data, March 2010; color figure
available online).
TABLE 1 Arrival time distribution analysis
Arrival or service time
Customer Arrival
Cash customer
Credit card customer
Shocker card customer

Distributions
Arrival time
Service time
Service time
Service time

0.38
0.78
2.05
2.16

+
+
+
+

LOGN(0.137, 0.0845)
WEIB(0.11, 2.36)
0.36 BETA(1.53, 1.24)
0.37 BETA(2.12, 1.86)

KS Test P value
>0.15
>0.15
>0.15
>0.15

After acquiring data for customer arrival and service time, the input
analyzer is used to find the best fitting distribution as shown in Table 1.
Chi-square and Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) goodness-of-fit test can be
used to validate the input distribution. Since the KS test is preferred when data
is continuous, the KS test is used in this case to validate the input distribution
(Cirrone et al., 2004). Also, if the corresponding p-value is less than 0.05,
it shows that distribution is not a very good fit (Lee & Lambert, 2007). The
p-value is greater than 0.05 in our case, so the input distribution can be used.
During actual observation it is determined that the travel time of cashiers
is almost negligible. They are at the counter all the time during the busiest
time. Seldom is there any stock out of any item. This means customers do
not need to wait for any item. The wait time to pay the money at the counter
is the only component of wait time. So the assumptions to formulate models
are: (1) Customers are served on a first come first served basis, (2) travel
time of cashiers is ignored, (3) cash registers are operative and working,
(4) cashiers are available, and (5) all products are available on the shelf.
After building the model, as part of the verification procedure the model
is run to check for any errors. Model results are also checked by changing

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

324

Q. Iqbal et al.

the parameters in the model which includes changing the number of servers,
input and service distributions, and increasing the run length. Then model
output is checked to see if the output results made sense. No problems or
errors are encountered during this step. The validation process is performed
in the next step.
Before running the model, it is necessary to determine the required
number of replications. The output performance is the average wait time
in the system. The complete calculation is shown in the appendix. Initially
10 replications were used. The desired half width is set 12% of the mean.
So by using the half width formula the number of replications needed to
reach the desired half width is determined. Calculations show that 10 or more
replications are needed in order to achieve the desired half width. This means
the initial 10 replications are enough and no more replications are needed.
From the simulation the following output is obtained:
According to Pegden, Shannon, and Sadowski (1995) validation can be
conducted through direct comparison between real world data and simulation output data. In a real observation, the average wait time of the
customers is found to be 10.11 min and the standard deviation is 2.03 min.
As both servers are busy and have a high utilization, a longer wait time
results, which is less than ideal. Customer arrivals are faster than they are
served at the counter. This significantly adds to customer wait time. The
hypothesis test to validate the simulation data is shown in the appendix.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Simulation results in Table 2 and Table 3 showed that the average wait
time in the system is almost 11 min during peak hours. This wait time is
TABLE 2 Simulation output results
All time in
minutes

Average time in system

Customer served

Replication

Cash

Credit

Shocker

Cash

Credit

Shocker

Utilization

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

9.41
10.37
8.80
12.52
17.01
11.61
10.73
12.82
12.37
8.11

10.28
11.39
11.31
14.01
13.27
12.30
10.04
13.11
12.22
8.97

11.18
13.03
11.24
11.43
16.48
11.12
8.75
10.74
13.52
7.95

41
38
41
31
34
33
33
29
38
44

31
30
28
33
35
33
33
31
30
17

5
7
8
7
4
6
6
9
6
17

99.35
99.64
99.5
99.6
99.52
99.61
99.65
99.43
99.51
99.6

Note: Overall mean = 11.53 min, variance =4.63 min2 , standard deviation = 2.15 min.

325

Reducing Customer Wait Time at a Restaurant

TABLE 3 Comparison of current (two servers) and improved (three servers) system

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

For two servers

Average time in system

For three servers

Average time in system

Replication

Cash

Credit

Shocker

Cash

Credit

Shocker

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

9.41
10.37
8.80
12.52
17.01
11.61
10.73
12.82
12.37
8.11

10.28
11.39
11.31
14.01
13.27
12.30
10.04
13.11
12.22
8.97

11.18
13.03
11.24
11.43
16.48
11.12
8.75
10.74
13.52
7.95

1.94
1.48
2.82
2.59
2.02
3.89
2.17
2.91
2.46
1.07

3.18
2.62
4.19
4.01
3.27
4.78
3.44
4.18
3.84
2.37

3.42
3.01
4.37
4.11
3.09
5.93
3.57
3.59
3.76
2.69

Note: Mean (current) = 11.53 min, mean (improved) = 3.22 min.

high and should be reduced. A survey is conducted and questionnaire is

distributed to 200 customers asking their expected wait time, perceived wait,
and reasonable wait time. The survey results showed that customer expected
wait time is 6 min, perceived wait time is 9.5 min and reasonable wait time
is 8 min.
One more server during peak hours should be used to reduce customer
wait time. The result of the simulation is shown below.
The results show that adding one more server improves the customer
wait time dramatically. Hypothesis test results (shown in the appendix)
shows that the improved system is better than the current system with
respect to reducing customer wait time. The survey indicates that high wait
time has a negative effect on customer satisfaction. Some customers choose
not to stay on the line when wait time is high. Hwang and Lambert (2008)
shows that customer satisfaction increases as customers expected wait time
decreases. In our study adding one more server reduces customer wait time
more than their expected wait time. This is expected to increase customer
satisfaction and attract more customers. It is obvious that adding one more
server will add additional cost. An economic analysis is completed and discussed in the next section. The next section will also explore the effect of
reduction in wait time on payback period.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
It is necessary to do economic analysis to give management insight about
the economic feasibility of the improvement. If the cost of an additional
server is higher than the profits generated by it then it is not economically feasible. In order to test the economic feasibility of the investment Net

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

326

Q. Iqbal et al.

Present Value (NPV) Break-even Point is calculated which shows how many
years it will take to earn back the initial investment. Net Present Value is
defined as the present value of an investments future net cash flows minus
the initial investment. The break-even point of an investment is reached
when NPV is zero. Sensitivity analysis is also conducted using Palisade
risk and decision analysis software provided by Palisade Corporation.
Sensitivity graphs shows which input variables have more impact on output
variable (NPV).
Data on labor rate per hr ($8/hr), average purchase per customer
($4.93), average price increase per year (2.5%), and average labor rate
increase (2.5%) are provided by management of a restaurant on campus.
The investment cost of purchasing a new cash register is obtained online
and after discussion with a sales representative at www.cashregistersonline.
com. The purchase price of a cash register with good management reporting
capability ranges from $400 to $900. For our calculations Sharp ER-A420 is
selected which will serve the required purpose. This cash register can be
used only at peak hours to handle cash customers. Pretax profit margin
is obtained from National Restaurant Association news release June 22,
2010 which is 2%6%. Pretax cash flow sheet is prepared to calculate breakeven point. Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return (MARR) of 10%, 12%, and
15% are used in the calculations. MARR is defined as the rate of return on
a project a company is willing to accept before starting a project, given its
risk and the opportunity costs of forgoing other projects. The results of the
analysis are shown below.
Table 4 shows that in order to achieve a break-even point in 10 years,
at least 49 additional customers should be attracted per day. The results are
tested at a MARR of 10%, 12%, and 15%. A similar table is drawn for profit
margin 6%. A change in the MARR does not have a big impact on the breakeven point. However, a change in profit margin decreases or increases the
break-even point. For example, with profit margin 4% break-even point of
TABLE 4 NPV break-even points at variable MARR and pre-tax profit margin
With pre-tax profit margin 4%

With pre-tax profit margin 6%

New customers to be attracted

NPV breakeven (years)
10
8
6
4
2

New customers to be attracted

With
MARR
10%

With
MARR
12%

With
MARR
15%

NPV breakeven (years)

With
MARR
10%

With
MARR
12%

With
MARR
15%

49
50
52
54
57

50
51
52
54
57

50
51
52
54
58

10
8
6
4
2

33
34
35
36
38

33
34
35
36
38

33
34
35
36
38

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

Reducing Customer Wait Time at a Restaurant

327

FIGURE 2 Required customers for breakeven (NPV two years and five years; color figure
available online).

10 years is achieved when new customers are 49. The same break-even point
is achieved with only 33 customers when the profit margin increases to 6%.
Table 4 shows that as customer wait time decreases, customer purchases
increases. This increase in customer purchases results in a decrease in a
payback period.
In general the company wants a break-even as soon as possible. A similar analysis is conducted to achieve breakeven five years and two years.
The results are summarized in the following graph.
Figure 2 shows that as the cost of adding a new server increase, more
customers should be attracted to achieve breakeven two or five years.
Management at A restaurant advised that cash registers which are installed
at A restaurant are expensive. Its purchasing, installation and maintenance
cost is almost $7,000. In this case, the restaurant needs to attract a minimum of 150 additional customers per day (or increase the average purchase
of customers). This could be done via introducing new items on the shelf
which includes ice cream, coffee, and so on. Figure 3 shows how quickly
breakeven point drops as average customer purchase increases. For the sake
of understanding the implication of average purchase of customers on break
even point we used a constant value of 50 new purchases produced by new
or existing customers.
Figure 3 shows that as the purchase per customer increases, the
breakeven point is achieved at a faster pace. This decrease in breakeven
point is exponential which means that the pace of decrease in breakeven
point decreases as customer purchase increases. At higher value of customer purchase any increase in customer purchase has minimal effect of the
breakeven point.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

328

Q. Iqbal et al.

FIGURE 3 NPV break-even point drop as average customer purchase increase (color figure
available online).

CONCLUSION
In this article, a simulation model is used to address the customer wait time
at a food restaurant on campus. Currently, the system operates with two
servers and one customer queue. During the busiest hours the customer
wait time increases dramatically. This issue is addressed by adding one more
server during peak operating hours. Simulation results show that adding one
more server will reduce the customer wait time considerably. At the same
time adding one more server will require initial investment and labor cost.
An economic analysis is presented to give management insight on factors
which affect the profit obtained by adding more servers.
This research is equally valid for other restaurants where customer wait
time is high. The research suggests that to reduce customer wait time, adding
additional servers will increase the business value. But the improvement
made by adding a new server should also be economically justifiable. The
company must attract a certain number of additional customers each day to
justify the cost of adding and running a new server. The breakeven point
reduces with an increase in the number of customers and the average purchase per customer. A restaurant can add new items and/or give discounts to
encourage them to buy more items. Economic analysis must accompany any
decisions made by management. This will help them determine if adding a
new server is worth the initial cost.

REFERENCES
Banks, J. (1998). Handbook of simulation. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
Cash Registers Online Inc. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.cashregistersonline.
com/default.asp

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

Reducing Customer Wait Time at a Restaurant

329

Chou, C. Y., & Liu, H. R. (1999). Simulation study on the queuing system in a fastfood restaurant. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, 3(2), 2336.
Cirrone, G. A. P., Donadio, S., Guatelli, S., Mantero, A., Mascialino, B., Parlati, S.,
et al. (2004). A goodness-of-fit statistical toolkit. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear
Science, 51(5), 20562063.
Curin, S. A., Vosko, J. S., Chan, E. W., & Tsimhoni, O. (2005). Reducing service time
at a busy fast food restaurant on campus. In M. E. Kuhl, N. M. Steiger, F. B.
Armstrong, & J. A. Joines (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation
Conference (pp. 26292635). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.
Davis, M. M., & Heineke, J. (1998). How disconfirmation, perception and actual waiting times impact customer satisfaction. International Journal of Service Industry
Management, 9(1), 6473.
Dube, L., Schmitt, B. H., & Leclerc, F. (1991). Consumers affective response to delays
at different phase of a service delivery. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
21(19), 810820.
Friedman, H. H., & Friedman, L. W. (1997). Reducing the wait in waiting-line
systems: waiting line segmentation. Business Horizons, 40(4), 5458.
Hui, M. K., & Tse, D. K. (1996). What to tell consumers in waits of different lengths:
An integrative model of service evaluation. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 8190.
Hwang, J., & Lambert, C. U. (2009). The use of acceptable customer waiting times
for capacity management in a multistage restaurant. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 33(4), 547561.
Hwang, J., & Lambert, C. U. (2008). The interaction of major resources and their
influence on waiting time in a multi-stage restaurant. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 27, 541551.
Katz, K. L., Larson, B. M., & Larson, R. C. (1991). Prescription for the waiting-inline blues: Entertain, enlighten, and engage. Sloan Management Review, 32(2),
4453.
Kneebone, R. (2003). Simulation in surgical training: educational issues and practical
implications. Medical Education, 37, 267277.
Lee, W., & Lambert, C. (2000). Impact of waiting time on evaluation of service quality and customer satisfaction in foodservice operations. Foodservice Research
International, 12, 241254.
Lee, K. W., & Lambert, C. U. (2007). Using simulation to manage waiting time in a
cafeteria. Information Technology in Hospitality, 4, 127141.
Maister, D. (1984). The psychology of waiting in lines. In J. Czepiel, M. Solomon,
& C. Supernant (Eds.), The service encounter (pp. 113123). Lexington, MA:
Lexington.
Pegden, C. C., Shannon, R. E., & Sadowski, R. P. (1995). Introduction to simulation
using SIMAN . Hightstown, NJ: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Shannon, R. E. (1975). Systems simulation: The art and science. Englewood, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Tom, G., & Lucey, S. (1995). Waiting time delays and customer satisfaction in
supermarkets. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(5), 2029.
Zakay, D. (1989). An integrated model of time estimation. In I. Levin & D. Zakay
(Eds.), Time and human cognition: A life span perspective. Amsterdam: NorthHolland.

330

Q. Iqbal et al.

APPENDIX
A1 Inter Arrival Validation Hypothesis Test
Results from Arena Input Analyzer:
Distribution: Lognormal
Expression: 0.38 + LOGN(0.137, 0.0845)

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

KS Test:
Test statistic = 0.0986
Corresponding p value > 0.15
Data summary
Number of data points = 122
Sample mean = 0.516
Standard deviation = 0.0753
Number of intervals = 11
Hypothesis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Data belongs to a Lognormal distribution

H0 : Data follows LOGN (0.137, 0.0845)
H1 : Data does not follow LOGN (0.137, 0.0845)
= 0.05
KSmax = MAX ( D+, D)
Reject if KSmax > KS (.05,122) KS (.05,122) = 1.36/sqrt(122) = 0.123
KSmax = 0.0986
We fail to reject H0 and conclude that data follows Lognormal distribution

A2 Service Time Hypothesis Test

(1) Cash Customers
Results from Arena Input Analyzer:
Distribution: Weibull
Expression: 0.78 + WEIB(0.11, 2.36)
KS Test
Test statistic = 0.138
Corresponding p value > 0.15
Data summary

Reducing Customer Wait Time at a Restaurant

331

Number of data points = 51

Sample mean = 0.877
Standard deviation = 0.0447
Number of intervals = 7

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

Hypothesis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Data belongs to a Weibull distribution

H0 : Data follows WEIB(0.11, 2.36)
H1 : Data does not follow WEIB(0.11, 2.36)
= 0.05
KSmax = MAX ( D+, D)
Reject if KSmax > KS (.05,51) KS (.05,51) = 1.36/sqrt(51) = 0.190
KSmax = 0.138
We fail to reject H0 and conclude that data follows Weibull distribution

(2) Credit card customers

Results from Arena Input Analyzer:
Distribution: Beta
Expression: 2.05 + 0.36

BETA(1.53, 1.24)

KS Test
Test statistic = 0.105
Corresponding p value > 0.15
Data summary
Number of data points = 41
Sample mean = 2.25
Standard deviation = 0.0922
Number of intervals = 6
Hypothesis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Data belongs to a BETA distribution

H0 : Data follows BETA(1.53, 1.24)
H1 : Data does not follow BETA(1.53, 1.24)
= 0.05
KSmax = MAX ( D+, D)
Reject if KSmax > KS (.05,41) KS (.05,41) = 1.36/sqrt(41) = 0.212
KSmax = 0.105
We fail to reject H0 and conclude that data follows BETA distribution

332

Q. Iqbal et al.

(3) Shocker card customers

Results from Arena Input Analyzer:
Distribution: Beta
Expression: 2.16 + 0.37

BETA(2.12, 1.86)

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

KS Test
Test statistic = 0.111
Corresponding p value > 0.15
Data summary
Number of data points = 30
Sample mean = 2.36
Standard deviation = 0.0828
Number of intervals = 5
Hypothesis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Data belongs to a BETA distribution

H0 : Data follows BETA(2.12, 1.86)
H1 : Data does not follow BETA(2.12, 1.86)
= 0.05
KSmax = MAX ( D+, D)
Reject if KSmax > KS (.05,30) KS (.05,30) = 0.24
KSmax = 0.111
We fail to reject H0 and conclude that data follows BETA distribution

A3 Number of Replications
From Table 2, simulation gives the following results:
Mean = 11.53 min,
Standard deviation = 2.153 min
The half width formula is given as,
hd = Z/2 S/sqrt(nd ),
where hd and nd are desired half width and desired number of replications
respectively. The formula can be used to calculate desired number of
replications once desired half width is known.
Since we want to set desired half width at 12% of the mean. So hd will
be 0.12 11.53 = 1.3836.

333

Reducing Customer Wait Time at a Restaurant

Substitute the values in the equation results,

1.3836 = 1.96 2.153/sqrt(nd )
nd = 9.302.
So 10 or more replications will be required to achieve the desired half width.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

A4 Simulation Model Validation With Real Observation

Mean (simulation)
Mean (real)
Std dev (simulation)
Std dev (real)

11.53 min
10.58 min
2.153 min
2.03 min

Sp = 2.09 min
Hypothesis
Ho: 1 2 = 0
Ha: 1 2  = 0
= 0.05
Tc = (Xsim Xreal) 0 / Sp sqrt(1/n1 + 1/n2) = 1.76
Reject H0 : if Tc > T (/2, n1 + n2 2)
T (/2, n1 + n2 2) = T (0.025, 58) = 2
6. Since Tc < T (/2, n1 + n2 2)
7. So Fail to reject H0 and conclude that this is valid simulation model
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

A5 Hypothesis Test to Compare Current and Improved System

For two servers
Average time in system

For three servers

Average time in system

Replication

Cash

Credit

Shocker

Cash

Credit

Shocker

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

9.41
10.37
8.80
12.52
17.01
11.61
10.73
12.82
12.37
8.11

10.28
11.39
11.31
14.01
13.27
12.30
10.04
13.11
12.22
8.97

11.18
13.03
11.24
11.43
16.48
11.12
8.75
10.74
13.52
7.95

1.94
1.48
2.82
2.59
2.02
3.89
2.17
2.91
2.46
1.07

3.18
2.62
4.19
4.01
3.27
4.78
3.44
4.18
3.84
2.37

3.42
3.01
4.37
4.11
3.09
5.93
3.57
3.59
3.76
2.69

334

Q. Iqbal et al.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 02:00 03 June 2014

Mean (current)
Mean (improved)
Variance (current)
Variance (Imp)
Std Dev (current)
Std Dev (Imp)

11.53
3.22
4.63
1.04
2.15
1.02

Sp = 1.68

Hypothesis:
H0 : 1 3 = 0
Ha: 1 3  = 0
= 0.05
Tc = (Xcur Ximp) 0 / Sp sqrt(1/n1 + 1/n3) = 19.15
Reject H0 : if Tc > T(/2, n1 + n3-2)
T (/2, n1 + n3 2) = T (0.025, 58) = 2
6. Since Tc > T (/2, n1 + n3 2)
7. So reject H0 and conclude that means are not equal

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

To test if improved system is better

H0 : 1 3 <= 0
Ha: 1 3 > 0
= 0.05
Tc = (Xcur Ximp) 0 / Sp sqrt(1/n1 + 1/n3) = 19.15
Reject H0 : if Tc > T (, n1 + n3 2)
T (, n1 + n3 2) = T (0.05, 58) = 1.67
6. Since Tc > T (, n1 + n3 2)
7. Reject H0 and conclude that Imp system has lower mean which means
improved system reduce waiting time considerably
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.