Queueing Systems with Synergistic Servers
|
|
- Lesley Marsh
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Queueing Systems with Synergistic Servers Sigrún Andradóttir and Hayriye Ayhan H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA , U.S.A. Douglas G. Down Department of Computing and Software McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L7, Canada May 27, 2009 Abstract We consider tandem lines with finite buffers and flexible, heterogeneous servers who are synergistic in that they work more effectively in teams than on their own. Our objective is to determine how the servers should be assigned dynamically to tasks in order to maximize the long-run average throughput. In particular, we investigate when it is better to take advantage of synergy among servers, rather than exploiting the servers special skills, to achieve the best possible system throughput. For Markovian systems with two stations and two servers, we provide a complete characterization of the optimal policy and show that depending on how well the servers work together, the optimal policy either takes full advantage of servers special skills, or full advantage of server synergy (and hence there is no middle ground in this case). Moreover, for a class of Markovian systems, we provide sufficient conditions that guarantee that the optimal policy should take full advantage of server synergy at all times. Finally, we show that when there is no tradeoff between server synergy and servers special skills (because the servers are generalists who are eually skilled at all tasks), the optimal policy has servers working in teams of two or more at all times. 1 Introduction In the last decade, there has been a growing interest in ueues with flexible servers. However, past research in this area has assumed that when servers work together, their service rates are additive. This assumption is obviously restrictive because servers may gain or lose efficiency when they collaborate. In this paper, we focus on the case where the servers become more effective when they collaborate (i.e., the servers are synergistic), which could for example be due to increased motivation among the servers when they work in a team or due to their having complementary skills. Our objective is to understand when it is important to take advantage of synergy among 1
2 servers, as opposed to exploiting their special skills by assigning them to tasks that they are good at, to improve the system throughput. More specifically, we focus on a ueueing network with N 1 stations and M 1 flexible servers. There is an infinite amount of raw material in front of station 1, infinite room for departing customers after station N, and a finite buffer between stations j and j + 1, for j {1,..., N 1}, whose size is denoted by B j. The system operates under manufacturing blocking. At any given time, there can be at most one customer at each station and each server can work on at most one customer. We assume that server i {1, 2,..., M} works at a deterministic rate µ ij [0, ) at station j {1, 2,..., N}. Thus, server i is trained to work at station j if µ ij > 0 and the server s skill at station j is measured by the magnitude of µ ij. Several servers can work together on a single customer, in which case the combined rate of a server team is proportional to the sum of the rates of the individual servers. Thus, if servers i 1,..., i k {1,..., M} are simultaneously assigned to station j {1,..., N}, the service rate is eual to α k r=1 µ i r j. We assume that 1 α <, which implies that the servers are synergistic with α being a measure of the magnitude of the servers synergy. The service reuirements of different customers at each station j {1,..., N} are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables whose rate we take to be eual to 1 without loss of generality, and the service reuirements at different stations are independent of each other. We assume that travel and set-up times are negligible. Under these assumptions, our objective is to determine the dynamic server assignment policy that maximizes the long-run average throughput. Our main contribution is the complete characterization of the optimal server assignment policy for systems with exponential service reuirements, N = 2 stations, and M = 2 servers. However, some of our results are for more general systems. There is a significant amount of literature on ueues with flexible servers. In the interest of space, we do not provide a complete literature review here, but refer the interested reader to Hopp and Van Oyen [9] for a comprehensive review of the literature in this area, and to Akşin, Armony, and Mehrotra [3], Akşin, Karaesmen, and Örmeci [4], and Gans, Koole, and Mandelbaum [8] for thorough reviews of the literature on flexible servers in call centers. This paper is most closely related to other works that employ Markov decision process techniues and sample path analysis in determining effective server allocation schemes, see for example Ahn, Duenyas, and Zhang [1], Ahn and Righter [2], Andradóttir and Ayhan [5], Andradóttir, Ayhan, and Down [6, 7], Kaufman, Ahn, and Lewis [10], Örmeci [12], Sennott, Van Oyen, and Iravani [14], Van Oyen, Gel, and Hopp [16], and Wu, Lewis, and Veatch [17]. However, as mentioned above, there is no previous work in the literature on ueues with flexible, synergistic servers (to the best of our knowledge). All the existing papers on ueues with flexible servers assume that when servers collaborate on a single customer, the service rates are additive (i.e., α = 1). The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we provide a complete characterization of the optimal policy for Markovian systems with two stations and two servers and for all 1 α <. In Section 3, we consider both more general Markovian networks and also systems with generalist 2
3 servers (i.e., µ ij = µ i γ j for all i {1,..., M} and j {1,..., N}) and general service reuirement distributions. Section 4 is devoted to the proof of the main result in Section 2. Finally, Section 5 summarizes our findings and provides some directions for future research. 2 Two Station Markovian Systems with Two Servers In this section, we characterize the optimal policy for a Markovian tandem line with N = 2 stations and M = 2 synergistic servers. We use Π to denote the set of all server assignment policies under consideration (which will be defined later) and D π (t) to denote the number of departures under policy π by time t 0. Define T π = lim sup t IE[D π (t)] t as the long-run average throughput corresponding to the server assignment policy π Π. Our objective is to solve the following optimization problem max T π. (1) π Π We start with the description of a continuous time Markov chain model for systems with N stations, M servers, and exponentially distributed service reuirements. For all π Π and t 0, let X π (t) = {X π,1 (t),..., X π,n 1 (t)}, where X π,j (t) {0,..., B j +2} denotes the number of customers that have been processed at station j at time t but are either waiting to be processed by station j + 1 or in process at station j + 1 at time t. Let S denote the state space of {X π (t)}. We assume that the class Π of server assignment policies under consideration consists of Markovian stationary deterministic policies corresponding to the state space S, and that the set of possible actions is given by A = {a σ1...σ M : σ i {0, 1,..., N}, i = 1,..., M}, where for all i {1,..., M}, σ i = 0 when server i is idle and σ i = j {1,..., N} when server i is assigned to station j. Finally, we use Σ j to denote M i=1 µ ij, for all j = 1,..., N, so that ασ j is the combined service rate of servers 1,..., M when they collaborate at station j. For the remainder of this section, we assume N = 2 and we set B 1 = B for notational convenience. Then it is clear that for π Π, {X π (t)} is a birth-death process with state space S = {0,..., B + 2} and that there exists a scalar π α 2 i=1 max 1 j 2 µ ij < such that the transition rates { π (s, s )} of {X π (t)} satisfy s S,s s π(s, s ) π for all s S. Hence, {X π (t)} is uniformizable. Let {Y π (k)} be the corresponding discrete time Markov chain, so that {Y π (k)} has state space S and transition probabilities p π (s, s ) = π (s, s )/ π if s s and p π (s, s) = 1 s S,s s π(s, s )/ π for all s S. Using the analysis in Section 3 of Andradóttir, Ayhan, and Down [6], one can show that the original optimization problem in (1) can be translated into an euivalent (discrete time) Markov decision problem. More specifically, for all i S, let { π (i, i 1) if i {1,..., B + 2}, R π (i) = 0 if i = 0, 3
4 be the departure rate from state i under policy π. Then the optimization problem (1) has the same solution as the Markov decision problem [ max π Π lim IE K 1 K ] K R π (Y π (k 1)). k=1 In other words, maximizing the steady-state throughput of the original ueueing system is euivalent to maximizing the steady-state departure rate for the associated embedded (discrete time) Markov chain. The next theorem provides a complete characterization of the optimal server assignment policy for Markovian systems with N = 2 stations and M = 2 synergistic servers. For notational convenience, we set { µ11 C 22 = max + µ 22, µ 21 + µ } 12. Σ 1 Σ 2 Σ 1 Σ 2 Note that C 22 1 since µ 11 Σ 1 + µ 22 Σ 2 + µ 21 Σ 1 + µ 12 Σ 2 = 2. The proof of Theorem 2.1 appears in Section 4. Theorem 2.1 For a Markovian system of two stations and two servers, we have (i) If 1 α C 22 and µ 11 µ 22 µ 21 µ 12 (µ 21 µ 12 µ 11 µ 22 ), then the policy that assigns server 1 (2) to station 1 and server 2 (1) to station 2 unless station 1 is blocked or station 2 is starved and assigns both servers to station 1 when station 2 is starved and to station 2 when station 1 is blocked is optimal. Moreover, this is the uniue optimal policy in the class of Markovian stationary deterministic policies if µ 11 µ 22 > µ 21 µ 12 (µ 21 µ 12 < µ 11 µ 22 ) and α < C 22. (ii) If α > C 22, then the expedite policy (which assigns all available servers to a single team that will follow each customer from the first to the last station and only starts work on a new customer once all work on the previous customer has been completed) is the uniue optimal policy in the class of Markovian stationary deterministic policies. Note that the uniueness of the optimal policy in Theorem 2.1 is subject to the interpretation that assigning a server to a station where there is no work is euivalent to idling him, and that the expedite policy can be executed in various ways as long as the two servers work together as a team at all times. Also, note that C 22 = µ 11 Σ 1 + µ 22 Σ 2 when µ 11 µ 22 µ 21 µ 12, and C 22 = µ 21 Σ 1 + µ 12 Σ 2 when µ 21 µ 12 µ 11 µ 22. One can observe that if α C 22, the optimal policy stated in Theorem 2.1 assigns servers to their primary stations (which are determined by the sign of µ 11 µ 22 µ 21 µ 12 ) unless they have no work at these stations. Thus, the servers are allowed to collaborate only if their primary stations are blocked or starved. On the other hand if α > C 22, the optimal policy has the servers work as a team at all times. Thus, the optimal policy switches from one that takes full advantage of servers skills in that the servers avoid collaboration unless they have no work at their primary assignments, to one that takes full advantage of server synergy (i.e., there is no middle ground). It is also important to point out that the expedite policy minimizes the WIP (Work In Process), since the number of customers in the system is always one. Thus, in a Markovian system with two 4
5 stations and two servers, one can simultaneously maximize the throughput and minimize the WIP if the synergy among the servers is sufficiently large. Theorem 2.1 states that for Markovian systems with two stations and two synergistic servers, it suffices to consider two policies. The next proposition uantifies the loss in throughput performance if one employs the wrong policy in Theorem 2.1, implying that it is important to use the correct policy for any given value of α. Proposition 2.1 Consider a Markovian tandem ueue with two stations and two servers. Assume that Σ 1 > 0 and Σ 2 > 0. If α C 22, using the expedite policy instead of the optimal policy described in part (i) of Theorem 2.1 can reduce the throughout performance by at most a factor of 2 (and this bound is tight). On the other hand, if α > C 22, using the policy described in part (i) of Theorem 2.1 rather than the expedite policy can yield arbitrarily worse throughout performance. Proof: We first obtain an expression for the ratio of the throughputs of the two policies described in parts (i) and (ii) of Theorem 2.1. As mentioned in the proof of Theorem 2.1 in Section 4, the uantity g 0 specified in euation (12) is the long-run average throughput of the optimal policy when α C 22 and µ 11 µ 22 µ 21 µ 12. Similarly, one can compute the throughput of the expedite policy (which is optimal when α > C 22 ) as T expedite = ασ 1Σ 2 Σ 1 +Σ 2. Then g 0 T expedite = (Σ 1 + Σ 2 ) B+1 j=0 µj 11 µb+1 j 22 ασ 1 Σ B 2 j=0 µj 11 µb j 22 + µ B+1 22 Σ 2 + µ B+1. (2) 11 Σ 1 Using the argument in Remark 4.1 of Andradóttir and Ayhan [5], one can verify that g 0 is nondecreasing in the buffer size B. Thus, g 0 /T expedite is nondecreasing in B and nonincreasing in α. This implies that lim B = g 0 T expedite max{µ 11, µ 22 }(Σ 1 + Σ 2 ) ασ 1 Σ 2 + (max{µ 11, µ 22 } min{µ 11, µ 22 })(1I(µ 11 > µ 22 )Σ 1 + 1I(µ 22 > µ 11 )Σ 2 ) max{µ 11, µ 22 }(Σ 1 + Σ 2 ) Σ 1 Σ 2 + (max{µ 11, µ 22 } min{µ 11, µ 22 })(1I(µ 11 > µ 22 )Σ 1 + 1I(µ 22 > µ 11 )Σ 2 ), (3) where 1I(E) = 1 if E occurs and 1I(E) = 0 otherwise. The bound in (3) is obtained by replacing α with 1. First assume that µ 11 µ 22. Then g 0 T expedite µ 11 (Σ 1 + Σ 2 ) Σ 1 Σ 2 + (µ 11 µ 22 )Σ 1 2. (4) The second ineuality in (4) follows immediately from the following contradiction argument. If µ 11 (Σ 1 + Σ 2 ) Σ 1 Σ 2 + (µ 11 µ 22 )Σ 1 > 2, 5
6 then we need to have µ µ 11µ 21 + µ 11 µ 12 < µ 11 µ 22 2µ 21 µ 12, which is not possible because µ µ 11µ 21 + µ 11 µ 12 µ 11 µ 22 and µ 21 µ Note that since µ 11 µ 22, But µ 11 (Σ 1 + Σ 2 ) Σ 1 Σ 2 + (µ 11 µ 22 )Σ 1 2µ µ 11µ 21 + µ 11 µ 12 µ µ 11µ 21 + µ 11 µ 12 + µ 21 µ 12. 2µ 2 11 lim + µ 11µ 21 + µ 11 µ 12 µ 11 µ µ = 2, 11µ 21 + µ 11 µ 12 + µ 21 µ 12 which yields the desired result (i.e., the bound 2 is tight for α = 1 as B and µ 11 = µ 22 ). The same arguments can be used to obtain the tight upper bound of 2 when µ 11 µ 22. On the other hand, it immediately follows from the expression in (2) that employing the policy described in part (i) of Theorem 2.1 when α > C 22 yields arbitrarily worse throughput performance as α gets larger. Replacing µ 11 (µ 21 ) with µ 21 (µ 11 ) and µ 22 (µ 12 ) with µ 12 (µ 22 ) in the above expressions provides the ratio of g 0 to T expedite when µ 21 µ 12 µ 11 µ 22, and using the arguments above, one can obtain the same results in this case. 3 Results for More General Systems In this section, we first focus on more general Markovian tandem ueues with synergistic servers. After providing various results for these systems, we characterize the class of optimal server assignment policies for tandem lines with general service reuirement distributions and generalist servers. Our results for these two models are reported in Sections 3.1 and 3.2, respectively. 3.1 Markovian Systems with Synergistic Servers To analyze more general Markovian systems, we will need the following notation. Denote the number of servers at each station j {1,..., N} under action a σ1...σ M as n j (a σ1...σ M ) = M i=1 1I(σ i = j). Similarly, for all j {1,..., N}, r j (a σ1...σ M ) = M i=1 1I(σ i = j)µ ij is the cumulative service rate at station j under action a σ1...σ M (not taking into account the synergy among servers). For all a A, define N 1 (a) = {j : n j (a) = 1}, N 1+ (a) = {j : n j (a) 1}, and N 2+ (a) = {j : n j (a) 2}. Thus, N 1 (a), N 1+ (a), and N 2+ (a) denote the sets of stations with exactly one server, at least one server, and at least two servers under action a, respectively, and N 1 (a) N 2+ (a) = N 1+ (a). Finally, for notational convenience, we set R(a) = l N 1 (a) r l(a) + α l N 2+ (a) r l(a) for all a A. The next theorem states that a fully cross-trained server should never idle. Note that this generalizes Proposition 2.1 of Andradóttir and Ayhan [5] which implies the optimality of nonidling policies for Markovian systems with two stations in tandem, servers capable of working at both stations, and α = 1. 6
7 Theorem 3.1 Consider a Markovian tandem line with N 1 stations and M 1 servers. Suppose server i is such that µ ij > 0 for all j {1,..., N}. If µ kj α > for all k {1,..., M}, k i, and j {1,..., N}, (5) µ ij + µ kj then the optimal policy should not allow server i to idle. Note that the condition in euation (5) guarantees that when server i works with any server k at any station j, their rate as a team is faster than the individual service rate of server k at that station. Moreover, the lower bound on α in euation (5) is strictly less than 1, implying that the servers need not be synergistic for the result of Theorem 3.1 to hold (clearly, the condition is satisfied if the servers are synergistic). Proof: Let d denote a Markovian stationary deterministic policy that uses the decision rule d at each decision epoch with d(s) A for all s S. Moreover, assume that under the decision rule d, there exists s 0 S such that d(s 0 ) = a and σ i = 0 under a. Without loss of generality, we assume that N 1+ (a) and R(a) 0 (because otherwise s 0 is an absorbing state and the long-run average throughout euals zero). For all j = 1,..., N, let the action a j be the same as a except that σ i = j under a j. Note that αr l (a l ) r l (a) > 0 for all l N 1 (a) and r l (a l ) r l (a) > 0 for all l N 2+ (a) under our assumptions (see (5)). Now consider the Markovian stationary randomized policy (d ) such that d (s) = d(s) for all s S \ {s 0 } and where and p j = K(a) = d (s 0 ) = a j with probability p j for all j N 1+ (a), R(a j )r j (a) l N 1 (a) l j m N 1+ (a) R(a m )r m (a) (αr l (a l ) r l (a)) l N 2+ (a)(r l (a l ) r l (a)) l j 0 K(a) l N 1 (a) l m (αr l (a l ) r l (a)) l N 2+ (a) l m (r l (a l ) r l (a)) > 0. Thus, d (s 0 ) is a randomized action that does not allow server i to idle in state s 0. Moreover, R(a) + αr j (a j ) r j (a) if j N 1 (a), R(a j ) = R(a) + α(r j (a j ) r j (a)) if j N 2+ (a), and hence K(a) = R(a) [ l N 1 (a) m N 1+ (a) r m (a) (αr l (a l ) r l (a)) l N 1 (a) l m l N 2+ (a) (αr l (a l ) r l (a)) 7 (r l (a l ) r l (a)) l N 2+ (a) l m ] (r l (a l ) r l (a)) +. (6)
8 The transition probabilities out of state s 0 for the underlying Markov chain are the same under decision rules d and d. In order to see this, consider the transition probability out of state s 0 corresponding to a service completion at station j N 1 (a). Clearly, this probability is eual to r j (a)/r(a) under decision rule d. Under decision rule d, this transition probability euals p j αr j (a j ) R(a j ) + m N 1+ (a) l j p m r j (a) R(a m ) αr j (a j ) = p j R(a j ) p r j (a) j R(a j ) + = r j (a) = r j(a) R(a), [ m N 1+ (a) p m r j (a) R(a m ) l N 1 (a) (αr l(a l ) r l (a)) l N 2+ (a) (r l(a l ) r l (a)) K(a) m N 1+ (a) r m(a) l N 1 (a) l m (αr l (a l ) r l (a)) l N 2+ (a)(r l (a l ) r l (a))] K(a) l m + where the last euality follows from (6). Similarly, one can show that the transition probabilities are the same when j N 2+ (a) (both are eual to αr j (a)/r(a)). However, the total rate out of state s 0 under decision rule d is R(a), and similarly, the total rate out of state s 0 under decision rule d is eual to ( j N 1+ (a) p ) j 1 K(a) R(a j = ) j N 1+ (a) r j(a) l N 1 (a)(αr l (a l ) r l (a)) l N 2+ (a)(r l (a l ) r l (a)) l j l j R(a) l N = R(a) + 1 (a) (αr l(a l ) r l (a)) l N 2+ (a) (r l(a l ) r l (a)) j N 1+ (a) r j(a) l N 1 (a)(αr l (a l ) r l (a)) l N 2+ (a)(r l (a l ) r l (a)) l j l j > R(a), where the last euality again follows from (6). The derivations above and a simple sample path argument show that (d ) has a larger long-run average throughput than d. But Lemma of Puterman [13] implies that there exists a policy in Π whose throughput performance is at least as good as that of (d ). Repeating the same argument for all states where server i idles under the decision rule d, it is clear that there is a Markovian stationary deterministic policy that does not allow server i to idle with long-run average throughput strictly larger than the throughput of d, and the proof is complete. Note that the result in Theorem 3.1 is not necessarily correct if µ ij = 0 for some j {1,..., N}. In order to see this, consider a Markovian tandem line with N = 2 stations, M = 3 servers, and B = 1, so that S = {0, 1, 2, 3}. Suppose that α = 1, µ 11 = 3, µ 12 = µ 21 = µ 32 = 1, µ 22 = 8, and 8
9 µ 31 = 0. Consider the stationary policy δ such that all servers work at station 1 if s = 0, server 2 works at station 1, servers 1 and 3 work at station 2 if s = 1, δ(s) = server 1 works at station 1, server 2 works at station 2, and server 3 idles if s = 2, all servers work at station 2 if s = 3. Let (δ ) be the same as δ in all states except s = 2 where δ (2) = server 1 works at station 1, servers 2 and 3 work at station 2. Thus, (δ ) does not allow server 3 to idle. But then we have T (δ ) < T δ Next we study fully collaborative policies. We call a policy fully collaborative if all servers work in teams of two or more at all times under this policy. Note that the team formations need not be static. The next theorem shows that if α is large enough, the optimal policy is fully collaborative for a certain class of Markovian systems. Theorem 3.2 Consider a Markovian tandem line with N = 2 stations and M 2 servers or N > 2 stations and 2 M 4 servers. Suppose µ ij > 0 for all i {1,..., M} and all j {1,..., N}. Then if α > max a A r j (a) j N 1 (a) Σ j r l (a) Σ l 1 l N 2+ (a) (with the convention that summation over an empty set is eual to 0), then the optimal policy is fully collaborative. Proof: Let d denote a Markovian stationary deterministic policy that uses the decision rule d at each decision epoch with d(s) A for all s S. Assume that under the decision rule d, there exists s 0 S such that d(s 0 ) = a with N 1 (a). Without loss of generality, we assume that N 1+ (a) and R(a) 0 (because otherwise s 0 is absorbing and the throughput is zero). Now consider the Markovian stationary randomized policy (d ) such that d (s) = d(s) for all s S \ {s 0 } and where d (s 0 ) = a j,j,...,j with probability p j for all j N 1+ (a), p j = r j (a) R(a) αr j (a) R(a) Thus, d (s 0 ) is a randomized, fully collaborative action. if j N 1 (a), if j N 2+ (a). We now show that the transition probabilities out of state s 0 for the underlying Markov chain are the same under decision rules d and d. Consider the transition probability out of state s 0 9
10 corresponding to a service completion at station j N 1 (a). Clearly, this probability is eual to r j (a)/r(a) under decision rule d, and it euals p j = r j (a)/r(a) under decision rule d. Similarly, the transition probability out of state s 0 corresponding to a service completion at station j N 2+ (a) is eual to αr j (a)/r(a) under both decision rules. However, the total rate out of state s 0 under decision rule d is R(a), and, similarly, the total rate out of state s 0 under decision rule d is eual to 1 p j = j N 1+ (a) ασ j αr(a) r j (a) j N 1 (a) Σ j +. αr j (a) j N 2+ (a) Σ j Thus, we can conclude that if α > r j (a) j N 1 (a) Σ j 1 j N 2+ (a) r j (a) Σ j, (7) then the rate out of state s 0 under (d ) is larger than the rate under d. Note that the denominator of the expression in (7) is always positive because for all a A, N 2+ (a) can have at most one element when N 1 (a) and either N = 2 or M 4. Thus, if α is greater than the lower bound specified in (7), a simple sample path argument shows that (d ) has a larger long-run average throughput than d. But Lemma of Puterman [13] implies that there exists a policy in Π whose throughput performance is at least as good as that of (d ). Thus, there is a fully collaborative Markovian stationary deterministic policy whose long-run average throughput is strictly larger than the throughput of d when α is greater than the lower bound specified in (7). Taking the maximum over all possible server allocations in A with N 1 (a) yields the desired result (note that the numerator of the right-hand side in (7) euals zero when N 1 (a) = ). Note that for systems with N > 2 stations and M > 4 servers, the randomized fully collaborative decision rule defined in the proof of Theorem 3.2 may not yield a better throughput performance than a non-fully collaborative decision rule. Moreover, we would like to point out that if µ ij = 0 for some i {1,..., M} and j {1,..., N}, the optimal policy may not be fully collaborative even when α is large. For example, consider a Markovian tandem line with N = 2 stations, M = 3 servers, and B = 0, so that S = {0, 1, 2}. Suppose that µ 32 = 0 and all the other service rates are positive. Consider the stationary policy δ such that all servers work at station 1 if s = 0, δ(s) = servers 1 and 2 work at station 2, server 3 works at station 1 if s = 1, servers 1 and 2 work at station 2, server 3 is idle if s = 2. In this case, the only fully collaborative policy is the expedite policy. But T δ T expedite = ασ 1 Σ 2 2 µ 31 (ασ ασ 1Σ 2 + µ 31 Σ 1 )(Σ 1 + Σ 2 ), which is strictly bigger than 0 for all α > 0. 10
11 Note that the lower bound on α in Theorem 3.2 is always greater than or eual to 1. In order to see this, first consider systems with M = 2 servers and consider the allocations a 12 and a 21. Taking the maximum over these two allocations would yield C 22 1 (see the statement right before Theorem 2.1). For systems with M > 2, first consider the allocation where σ i = 1 and σ k = 2 for all k i and then consider the allocation σ i = 2 and σ k = 1 for all k i. The first allocation yields the bound (µ i1 Σ 2 )/(µ i2 Σ 1 ) and the second yields (µ i2 Σ 1 )/(µ i1 Σ 2 ), which again implies that α 1. Moreover, the lower bound on α in Theorem 3.2 is in general strictly bigger than one (for example when N = 2 and M 2, it is clear from the above that one needs to have µ 11 µ 12 = µ 21 µ 22 =... = µ M1 µ M2 for this bound to be eual to one). Thus, even when the servers are fully cross-trained and synergistic, the optimal policy is not fully collaborative for all α > 1 when the service rates are arbitrary (i.e., it takes advantage of the servers special skills for some α > 1). Hence, adding collaboration to a policy when α > 1 is not necessarily desirable (see also Theorem 2.1). However, if the servers are generalists, the lower bound is eual to one, as shown in Theorem 3.3 below. We would also like to point out that in general the bound in Theorem 3.2 is not tight. That is, one can easily construct systems where a fully collaborative policy outperforms all non-fully collaborative policies for values of α smaller than the bound specified in Theorem 3.2 (which one can also intuitively deduce from the proof of the theorem). For example, consider a system with N = 2 stations, M = 4 servers, and B = 0. Suppose that µ 11 = µ 21 = µ 22 = µ 42 = 1, µ 32 = 2, and µ 12 = µ 31 = µ 41 = 4. In this case, the lower bound in Theorem 3.2 is eual to 5, but the policy that assigns all servers to station 1 when station 2 is starved, all servers to station 2 when station 1 is blocked, and assigns servers 3 and 4 to station 1 and servers 1 and 2 to station 2 otherwise, has a better throughput than all non-idling, non-fully collaborative policies for all α 1. However, it follows from Theorem 2.1 in Section 2 that the bound is tight for systems with two stations and two servers. Note that it is not necessarily the case that increasing α will increase the long-run average throughput of a particular server allocation policy. For example, consider a Markovian tandem line with N = 2 stations, M = 3 servers, and B = 1. Suppose that µ 11 = 100, µ 12 = 1, µ 21 = µ 22 = µ 31 = 0.1, and µ 32 = 200. Note that in this case S = {0, 1, 2, 3}, and consider the stationary policy δ such that all servers work at station 1 if s = 0 servers 1 and 2 work at station 1, server 3 works at station 2 if s = 1, δ(s) = servers 2 and 3 work at station 1, server 1 works at station 2 if s = 2, all servers work at station 2 if s = 3. It is easy to compute the long-run average throughput of δ and to verify that it is decreasing in α when α [0.16, 3.11]. On the other hand, it is easy to verify that for a Markovian tandem line with N = 2 stations, M 2 servers, and B = 0, the long-run average throughput of any non-idling policy is increasing in α. As is mentioned in Section 2, in this case {X π (t)} is a birth-death process with state space 11
12 S = {0, 1, 2}. For a non-idling policy π and for all s S, let λ π (s) be the birth rate in state s and ν π (s) be the death rate in state s. Note that λ π (s) is non-increasing in s and ν π (s) is nondecreasing in s. It follows from Shantikumar and Yao [15] (see page 437 of [15]) that this network can be euivalently viewed as a two-node cyclic network with 1 customer circulating among the nodes, where node 1 models the death process and node 2 models the birth process. The result then follows from Lemma 14.B.10 of Shantikumar and Yao [15]. Similarly, consider a Markovian system with N 1 stations and M 1 servers. Then the longrun average throughput T π of a fully collaborative policy π is a strictly increasing function of α. This result follows immediately from the fact that since all the transition rates of the corresponding continuous time Markov chain under a fully collaborative policy π are multiplied by α, increasing α does not affect the stationary distribution of the continuous time Markov chain but increases the departure rate. Note that this result also holds for general Markovian ueueing networks with infinite buffers as long as the system is stable. 3.2 Systems with Generalist Servers So far, our focus has been on Markovian systems. We now consider systems with generalist servers where the service reuirements have arbitrary distributions. In systems with generalist servers, the service rate of each server at each station can be expressed as the product of two constants, one representing the server s speed at every task and the other representing the intrinsic difficulty of the task at the station. Thus, µ ij = µ i γ j for all i {1,..., M} and j {1,..., N}. Our objective is to generalize the result of Theorem 3.2 to systems with arbitrary service reuirement distributions and generalist servers. Moreover, Π may now include all possible server assignment policies. The next result states that when servers are generalists, the lower bound on α that guarantees that a fully collaborative policy is optimal is 1. This is not surprising because when the servers are generalists, there is no tradeoff between the servers special skills and server synergy. On the other hand, when α = 1 (i.e., the service rates are additive), it has been shown in Andradóttir, Ayhan, and Down [7] that any non-idling policy is optimal. Thus, when the servers are synergistic and generalists, the optimal policy is taking full advantage of this synergy, and a non-idling policy is no longer sufficient to achieve optimal throughput. Theorem 3.3 Assume that for each j = 1,..., N, the service reuirements S k,j of customer k 1 at station j are i.i.d. with mean 1. Moreover, assume that for all t 0, if there is a customer in service at station j at time t, then the expected remaining service reuirement at station j of that customer is bounded above by a scalar 1 S <. Finally, assume that service is either nonpreemptive or preemptive-resume. If µ ij = µ i γ j for all i = 1,..., M and j = 1,..., N and α > 1, then for all 0 B 1, B 2,..., B N 1 <, any fully collaborative policy π is optimal, with 12
13 long-run average throughput T π = α M i=1 µ i N j=1 1 γ j. Proof: Define A π (t) as the number of customers that have entered the system by time t under policy π Π. Then A π (t) = Q π (t) + D π (t), where Q π (t) denotes the number of customers in the system at time t under policy π Π. Since Q π (t) N 1 j=1 B j + N for all t 0 and for all π Π, we have T π = lim sup t IE[D π (t)] t = lim sup t IE[A π (t)]. (8) t Our model is euivalent to one where the service reuirements of successive customers at station j {1,..., N} are i.i.d. with mean 1/γ j and the service rates depend only on the server (i.e., µ ij = µ i for all i {1,..., M}). Let π be a fully collaborative policy and define W π,p (t) as the total work performed by time t for all servers under the policy π. Then W π,p (t) = α M i=1 µ it. Let S k = N j=1 S k,j/γ j be the total service reuirement (in the system) of customer k for all k 1. Let W π (t) = A π(t) k=1 S k and let W π,r (t) = W π (t) W π,p (t) be the total remaining service reuirement (work) at time t for the customers that entered the system by time t. We have N 1 IE[W π,r (t)] (N + B j ) S which implies that lim t IE[W π,r (t)]/t = 0 and j=1 IE[W π (t)] IE[W π,p (t)] lim = lim = α t t t t N j=1 1 γ j, M µ i. (9) For all n 0, let Z n = (S n,1,..., S n,n ). Since the event {A π (t) = n} is completely determined by the random vectors Z 1, Z 2,..., Z n 1 (and independent of Z n, Z n+1,...), A π (t) is a stopping time for the seuence of random vectors {Z n }. Moreover, for all t 0, A π (t) K π (t)+1, where K π (t) is the number of customers departing station 1 by time t if all servers work at station 1 at all times and there is unlimited room for completed customers after station 1. Since {K(t)} is a nondecreasing process with lim t IE[K(t)]/t = α M i=1 µ iγ 1 < (which follows from the elementary renewal theorem), we have IE[A π (t)] < for all t 0. Then from Wald s lemma, we have IE[W π (t)] = IE From (8), (9), and (10), we now have α M i=1 [ Aπ(t) i=1 ] S k = IE[A π (t)] k=1 IE[W π (t)] IE[A π (t)] µ i = lim = lim t t t t 13 N j=1 N j=1 1 γ j = T π 1 γ j. (10) N j=1 1 γ j,
14 which yields the desired throughput. The optimality of this throughput follows from euations (8), (9), and (10) and the fact that W π,p (t) α M i=1 µ it for all t 0 and for all server assignment policies π Π. 4 Proof of the Main Result In this section, we prove the main result of the paper given in Theorem 2.1. We start with the proof of part (i). We only provide the proof for the case µ 11 µ 22 µ 21 µ 12 (so that C 22 = µ 11 Σ 1 + µ 22 Σ 2 ) because the proof for the case µ 21 µ 12 µ 11 µ 22 simply follows by relabeling the servers. First suppose that µ 1j = µ 2j = 0 for some j {1, 2} (i.e., there is at least one station at which no server is capable of working). Then the long-run average throughput is zero under any policy and the policy described in part (i) of Theorem 2.1 is optimal. Thus, we can assume, without loss of generality, that there exist i 1, i 2 {1, 2}, such that µ i1 1 > 0 and µ i2 2 > 0, and hence Σ 1 > 0 and Σ 2 > 0. Similarly, if µ 11 µ 22 = µ 12 µ 21 = 0, Σ 1 > 0, and Σ 2 > 0, then we know that C 22 = 1 and that there exists i 1 {1, 2} such µ i1 1 = µ i1 2 = 0. But Theorem 2.1 of Andradóttir, Ayhan, and Down [7] implies that any policy, including the one stated in part (i) of Theorem 2.1, that does not allow server i 2 i 1 to idle is optimal. Since µ 11 µ 22 µ 21 µ 12, we have shown that we can assume, without loss of generality, that µ 11 > 0 and µ 22 > 0. The set A s of allowable actions in state s is given as {a 11 } for s = 0, A s = {a 11, a 12, a 21, a 22, a 00, a 01, a 02, a 10, a 20 } for s {1,..., B + 1}, {a 22 } for s = B + 2, where we use a sample path argument to eliminate actions that allow servers to idle in states s = 0 and s = B + 2 (see Lemma 2.1 of Kırkızlar, Andradóttir, and Ayhan [11]). Since the number of possible states and actions are both finite, the existence of an optimal Markovian stationary deterministic policy follows from Theorem of Puterman [13]. Under our assumptions on the service rates neither µ 11 nor µ 22 can be eual to zero. Conseuently, the policy described in part (i) of Theorem 2.1 corresponds to an irreducible Markov chain, and, hence, we have a communicating Markov decision process. Therefore, we use the policy iteration algorithm for communicating models (see pages 479 and 480 of Puterman [13]) to prove the optimality of the policy described in Theorem 2.1. Let P d denote the (B + 3) (B + 3) dimensional probability transition matrix corresponding to the policy described by decision rule d. Similarly, r d is the B + 3 dimensional reward vector corresponding to d, with r d (s) denoting the reward earned in state s under the policy corresponding to d, for all s S. 14
15 As the initial policy of the policy iteration algorithm, we choose a 11 for s = 0, d 0 (s) = a 12 for 1 s B + 1, a 22 for s = B + 2, corresponding to the policy described in part (i) of Theorem 2.1. Then 0 for s = 0, r d0 (s) = µ 22 for 1 s B + 1, ασ 2 for s = B + 2, and P d0 (s, s ) = ασ 1 for s = 0, s = 1, 1 ασ 1 for s = s = 0, µ 22 for 1 s B + 1, s = s 1, 1 µ 11+µ 22 for 1 s B + 1, s = s, µ 11 for 1 s B + 1, s = s + 1, ασ 2 for s = B + 2, s = B + 1, 1 ασ 2 for s = s = B + 2, where is the uniformization constant. Since the policy (d 0 ) (corresponding to the decision rule d 0 ) is irreducible, we find a scalar g 0 and a vector h 0 solving r δ0 g 0 e + (P δ0 I)h 0 = 0, (11) subject to h 0 (0) = 0, where e is a column vector of ones and I is the identity matrix. Then g 0 = ασ 1 Σ B+1 2 j=0 µj 11 µb+1 j 22 ασ 1 Σ B 2 j=0 µj 11 µb j 22 + µ B+1 22 Σ 2 + µ B+1, (12) 11 Σ 1 h 0 (0) = 0, and h 0 (s) = g ( 0 s 2 ασ 1 j=0 (j + 1)µ s j 2 22 µ j s+1 ) s 2 11 (ασ 1 µ 11 + µ 22 ) + s µ 22 j=0 (j + 1)µ s j 2 22 µ j s+1 11 for 1 s B + 2 constitute a solution to euation (11). Note that g 0 is the long-run average throughput of the policy (d 0 ) and h 0 denotes the bias vector under the policy (d 0 ) (see pages 338 and 339 of Puterman [13] for the interpretation of the bias vector). For all s S and a A s, let r(s, a) be the immediate reward obtained when action a is chosen in state s and let p(j s, a) be the probability of going to state j in one step when action a is chosen in state s. For the next step of the policy iteration algorithm, we choose { d 1 (s) arg max r(s, a) + } p(j s, a)h 0 (j), s S, a A s j S 15
16 setting d 1 (s) = d 0 (s) if possible. We now show that d 1 (s) = d 0 (s) for all s S. In particular, for all s S \ {0, B + 2} and a A s \ {d 0 (s)}, we will compute the differences (s, a) = r(s, d 0 (s)) + ( p(j s, d 0 (s))h 0 (j) r(s, a) + ) p(j s, a)h 0 (j) j S j S and show that the differences are non-negative. Note that for s = 0 and s = B + 2, there is nothing to prove because there is only one possible action in these states, namely d 0 (0) = a 11 and d 0 (B + 2) = a 22. For 1 s B + 1, we have that d 0 (s) = a 12. Since the set A s of all possible actions is large, in the interest of space, we will specify (s, a) only for actions a 11, a 21, and a 22. With some algebra we obtain (s, a 11 ) = ασ 1µ B+1 s 11 s 1 ( ) j=0 µj 11 µs 1 j 22 2µ11 µ 22 ασ 1 Σ 2 + µ 21 µ 22 + µ 11 µ 12 ασ 1 Σ 2 B j=0 µj 11 µb j 22 + µ B+1 22 Σ 2 + µ B+1 11 Σ 1 0 since α 2µ 11µ 22 +µ 21 µ 22 +µ 11 µ 12 Σ 1 Σ 2 = µ 11 Σ 1 + µ 22 Σ 2, and the expression is eual to zero only when α attains the upper bound. Similarly, (s, a 21 ) = where Γ(s, α) = Γ 1 (s, α) + Γ 2 (s, α) with Γ(s, α) ασ 1 Σ B 2 j=0 µj 11 µb j 22 + µ B+1 22 Σ 2 + µ B+1, 11 Σ 1 and Γ 1 (s, α) = Γ 2 (s, α) = B j=b s+1 B s j= 1 µ j 11 µb j 22 Σ 1 ( α(µ11 µ 21 )Σ 2 + µ 21 µ 22 µ 11 µ 12 ) µ j+1 11 µb j 1 22 Σ 2 ( α(µ22 µ 12 )Σ 1 + µ 11 µ 12 µ 21 µ 22 ). We next prove that Γ(s, α) 0 by showing that Γ 1 (s, α) 0 and Γ 2 (s, α) 0 when µ 11 µ 22 µ 21 µ 12 and 1 α C 22. Note that if µ 11 µ 21, then Γ 1 (s, α) is a non-decreasing function of α and Γ 1 (s, 1) = B j=b s+1 µ j 11 µb j 22 Σ 1 (µ 11 µ 22 µ 12 µ 21 ) 0 (where the euality is attained if and only if µ 11 µ 22 = µ 12 µ 21 ) implying that Γ 1 (s, α) 0 for all α 1. If µ 11 < µ 21, then Γ 1 (s, α) is a decreasing function of α. But ( Γ 1 s, µ 11 + µ ) 22 Σ 1 Σ 2 = 2 B j=b s+1 µ j+1 11 µb j 22 (µ 11 µ 22 µ 12 µ 21 ) 0 (where the euality is attained if and only if µ 11 µ 22 = µ 12 µ 21 ) implying that Γ 1 (s, α) 0 for all α C 22. Similarly, if µ 22 µ 12, Γ 2 (s, α) is a non-decreasing function of α and Γ 2 (s, 1) = B s j= 1 µ j+1 11 µb j 1 22 Σ 2 ( µ11 µ 22 µ 12 µ 21 ) 0 16
17 (where the euality is attained if and only if µ 11 µ 22 = µ 12 µ 21 ) implying that Γ 2 (s, α) 0 for all α 1. On the other hand, if µ 22 < µ 12, then Γ 2 (s, α) is a decreasing function of α. However, ( Γ 2 s, µ 11 + µ ) 22 Σ 1 Σ 2 = 2 B s j= 1 µ j+1 ( ) 11 µb j 22 µ11 µ 22 µ 12 µ 21 0 (where the euality is attained if and only if µ 11 µ 22 = µ 12 µ 21 ) implying that Γ 2 (s, α) 0 for all α C 22. Finally, (s, a 22 ) = ασ B+1 s 2 j=0 µ j ( ) 11 µb j 22 2µ11 µ 22 ασ 1 Σ 2 + µ 21 µ 22 + µ 11 µ 12 ασ 1 Σ B 2 j=0 µj 11 µb j 22 + µ B+1 22 Σ 2 + µ B Σ 1 because α 2µ 11µ 22 +µ 21 µ 22 +µ 11 µ 12 Σ 1 Σ 2 the upper bound. = C 22, and the expression is eual to zero only when α attains Proceeding as above, we have also shown that (s, a) 0 for a {a 00, a 01, a 02, a 10, a 20 }, with euality occurring only when µ 11 µ 22 = µ 12 µ 21 or α = C 22. This proves that d 1 (s) = d 0 (s) for all s S. By Theorem of Puterman [13] this proves that the policy described in part (i) of Theorem 2.1 is optimal. The proof of the uniueness of the optimal policy is similar to the uniueness proof in Theorem 3.1 of Andradóttir and Ayhan [5]. We now consider the proof of part (ii) of Theorem 2.1. Note that if µ ij > 0 for all i {1, 2} and j {1, 2}, then part (ii) of Theorem 2.1 follows directly from Theorem 3.2, but the proof below is valid even when µ ij = 0 for some i {1, 2} and j {1, 2}. Without loss of generality, we again only provide the proof for the case with µ 11 µ 22 µ 21 µ 12, Σ 1 > 0, and Σ 2 > 0 (so that C 22 = µ 11 Σ 1 + µ 22 Σ 2 ). Note that we again have a communicating Markov decision process (e.g., to go from state s 1 to some state s 2, assign both servers to station 1 for all s < s 2, both servers to station 2 for all s > s 2, and both servers to station 1 (2) if s 2 = 0 (s 2 > 0)). Thus, as in the proof of part (i), we use the policy iteration algorithm for communicating Markov decision processes. This time, as the initial policy of the policy iteration algorithm, we choose { d a11 for s = 0, 0(s) = a 22 for 1 s B + 2, corresponding to the policy described in part (ii) of Theorem 2.1. Then { 0 for s = 0, r d 0 (s) = ασ 2 for 1 s B + 2, and P d 0 (s, s ) = ασ 1 for s = 0, s = 1, 1 ασ 1 for s = s = 0, ασ 2 for 1 s B + 2, s = s 1, 1 ασ 2 for 1 s B + 2, s = s, 17
18 where is the uniformization constant. Since the policy (d 0 ) (corresponding to the decision rule d 0 ) has a unichain structure, we again find a scalar g 0 and a vector h 0 h 0 (0) = 0. Then h 0 (0) = 0, and g 0 = T expedite = ασ 1Σ 2 Σ 1 + Σ 2, solving (11) subject to h 0(s) = sσ 2 Σ 1 + Σ 2 for 1 s B + 2 constitute a solution to euation (11). For the next step of the policy iteration algorithm, we again choose { d 1(s) arg max r(s, a) + } p(j s, a)h 0(j), s S, a A s j S setting d 1 (s) = d 0 (s) if possible and show that d 1 (s) = d 0 (s) for all s S. In particular, for all s S \ {0, B + 2} and a A s \ {d 0 (s)}, we compute the differences (s, a) = r(s, d 0(s)) + ( p(j s, d 0(s))h 0(j) r(s, a) + ) p(j s, a)h 0(j) j S j S and show that the differences are non-negative. For 1 s B + 1, we have that d 0 (s) = a 22. In the interest of space, we will again specify (s, a) only for actions a 11, a 12, and a 21. With some algebra, we obtain (s, a 11 ) = 0, which implies that both actions a 11 and a 22 can be used in states 1 s B + 1 (see the comment on the execution of the expedite policy after the statement of Theorem 2.1). Similarly, (s, a 12 ) = ασ 1Σ 2 2µ 11 µ 22 µ 11 µ 12 µ 21 µ 22 Σ 1 + Σ 2 > 0 because α > 2µ 11µ 22 +µ 11 µ 12 +µ 21 µ 22 Σ 1 Σ 2 = C 22. Finally, (s, a 12 ) = ασ 1Σ 2 2µ 12 µ 21 µ 11 µ 12 µ 21 µ 22 Σ 1 + Σ 2 > 0 because α > C 22 2µ 12µ 21 +µ 11 µ 12 +µ 21 µ 22 Σ 1 Σ 2 = µ 21 Σ 1 + µ 12 Σ 2. We have also shown that (s, a) > 0 for a {a 00, a 01, a 02, a 10, a 20 }. This proves that d 1 (s) = d 0 (s) for all s S and, hence, the expedite policy is optimal. The proof of the uniueness of the optimal policy (subject to the interpretation that the expedite policy can be executed in various ways as long as the two servers work in a team at all times) is again similar to the uniueness proof in Theorem 3.1 of Andradóttir and Ayhan [5]. 18
19 5 Concluding Remarks We considered tandem lines with finite buffers and flexible synergistic servers where the combined rate of a server team is proportional to the sum of the rates of the individual servers. For Markovian systems with two stations in tandem and two servers, we have shown that the policy which is optimal for systems with additive service rates remains optimal if the synergy among servers is small. However, as the servers become more synergistic (so that collaboration gets more effective), the expedite policy becomes optimal. Thus, for Markovian systems with two stations and two servers, the optimal policy abruptly switches from one where the servers work together only if they have to (i.e., they have no work at their primary assignments) to one where they work together at all times. Moreover, employing the wrong one among these two policies can result in significant losses in throughput performance. For systems with generalist servers, arbitrary number of stations and servers, and general service reuirement distributions, we proved that any fully collaborative policy is optimal. Hence, when the servers have no special skills, the optimal policy always takes full advantage of the synergy among the servers. Finally, we were able to identify how much synergy is sufficient to guarantee that the optimal policy is non-idling or fully collaborative for certain classes of Markovian systems. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first to analyze systems with servers who work more effectively in teams than on their own. Our results suggest that when the combined rate of a team of synergistic servers is proportional to the sum of the rates of the individual servers, there is a tradeoff between exploiting synergies arising from the differences between workers and synergies arising from their collaboration, with collaboration becoming more desirable as the collaboration becomes more effective (not surprisingly). In the future, we will investigate if such structural results also hold for systems with more general models for the team service rates. In particular, we will allow the proportionality constant α to depend on both the team size and the station that the team is working at. Allowing α to depend on the team size is important because it takes into account the fact that there may be an optimal team size (e.g., it may be beneficial to assign two or three workers to a team, but assigning more than two or three workers to the team may yield diminishing returns) and allowing α to depend on the station captures the fact that collaboration may not be eually beneficial for all tasks. We are also interested in studying systems with different classes of servers with the synergy between servers in a team depending on the classes the servers belong to. Finally, we are currently studying systems where the servers are not synergistic (i.e., α < 1). This case seems more complex than the synergistic case, but our observations so far indicate that for systems with two stations in tandem and two servers, the optimal policy depends on whether one server is better than the other one at both stations or not, and may involve some server idling when α is small. 19
20 References [1] Ahn, H.-S., I. Duenyas, and R. Zhang. (1999) Optimal Scheduling of a 2-stage Tandem Queue with Parallel Servers, Advances in Applied Probability, 31, [2] Ahn, H.-S., and R. Righter. (2006) Dynamic Load Balancing with Flexible Workers, Advances in Applied Probability, 38, [3] Akşin, O. Z. M. Armony, and V. Mehrotra. (2007) The Modern Call-Center: A Multi- Disciplinary Perspective on Operations Management Research, Production and Operations Management, 16, [4] Akşin, O. Z., F. Karaesmen, and E. L. Örmeci. (2007) A Review of Workforce Cross-Training in Call Centers from an Operations Management Perspective, Chapter 8 in Workforce Cross Training Handbook, ed. D. Nembhard, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. [5] Andradóttir, S., and H. Ayhan. (2005) Throughput Maximization for Tandem Lines with Two Stations and Flexible Servers, Operations Research, 53, [6] Andradóttir, S., H. Ayhan, and D. G. Down. (2001) Server Assignment Policies for Maximizing the Steady-State Throughput of Finite Queueing Systems, Management Science, 47, [7] Andradóttir, S., H. Ayhan, and D. G. Down. (2007) Dynamic Assignment of Dedicated and Flexible Servers in Tandem Lines, Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences, 21, [8] Gans, N., G. Koole, and A. Mandelbaum. (2003) Telephone Call Centers: Tutorial, Review, and Research Prospects, Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 5, [9] Hopp, W. J., and M. P. Van Oyen. (2004) Agile Workforce Evaluation: A Framework for Cross-training and Coordination, IIE Transactions, 36, [10] Kaufman, D. L., H.-S., Ahn, and M. E. Lewis. (2005) On the Introduction of an Agile, Temporary Workforce into a Tandem Queueing System, Queueing Systems: Theory and Applications, 51, [11] Kırkızlar, H. E., S. Andradóttir, and H. Ayhan. (2009) Robustness of Effective Server Assignment Policies to Service Time Distributions, Naval Research Logistics, under revision. [12] Örmeci, E. L. (2004) Dynamic Admission Control in a Call Center with One Shared and Two Dedicated Service Facilities, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 49, [13] Puterman, M. L. (1994) Markov Decision Processes. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 20
Queueing Systems with Synergistic Servers
Queueing Systems with Synergistic Servers Sigrún Andradóttir and Hayriye Ayhan H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0205, U.S.A.
More informationMaximizing throughput in zero-buffer tandem lines with dedicated and flexible servers
Maximizing throughput in zero-buffer tandem lines with dedicated and flexible servers Mohammad H. Yarmand and Douglas G. Down Department of Computing and Software, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S
More informationOPTIMAL CONTROL OF A FLEXIBLE SERVER
Adv. Appl. Prob. 36, 139 170 (2004) Printed in Northern Ireland Applied Probability Trust 2004 OPTIMAL CONTROL OF A FLEXIBLE SERVER HYUN-SOO AHN, University of California, Berkeley IZAK DUENYAS, University
More informationA cµ Rule for Two-Tiered Parallel Servers
1 A cµ Rule for Two-Tiered Parallel Servers Soroush Saghafian, Michael H. Veatch. Abstract The cµ rule is known to be optimal in many queueing systems with memoryless service and inter-arrival times. We
More informationDynamic Control of a Tandem Queueing System with Abandonments
Dynamic Control of a Tandem Queueing System with Abandonments Gabriel Zayas-Cabán 1 Jungui Xie 2 Linda V. Green 3 Mark E. Lewis 1 1 Cornell University Ithaca, NY 2 University of Science and Technology
More informationPooling in tandem queueing networks with non-collaborative servers
DOI 10.1007/s11134-017-9543-0 Pooling in tandem queueing networks with non-collaborative servers Nilay Tanık Argon 1 Sigrún Andradóttir 2 Received: 22 September 2016 / Revised: 26 June 2017 Springer Science+Business
More informationOn the static assignment to parallel servers
On the static assignment to parallel servers Ger Koole Vrije Universiteit Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam The Netherlands Email: koole@cs.vu.nl, Url: www.cs.vu.nl/
More informationDynamic control of a tandem system with abandonments
Dynamic control of a tandem system with abandonments Gabriel Zayas-Cabán 1, Jingui Xie 2, Linda V. Green 3, and Mark E. Lewis 4 1 Center for Healthcare Engineering and Patient Safety University of Michigan
More informationOptimal and Heuristic Resource Allocation Policies in Serial Production Systems
Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses 12-2008 Optimal and Heuristic Resource Allocation Policies in Serial Production Systems Ramesh Arumugam Clemson University, rarumug@clemson.edu Follow this
More informationDynamically scheduling and maintaining a flexible server
Dynamically scheduling and maintaining a flexible server Jefferson Huang 1, Douglas G. Down 2, Mark E. Lewis 3, and Cheng-Hung Wu 4 1 Operations Research Department, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,
More informationOPTIMALITY OF RANDOMIZED TRUNK RESERVATION FOR A PROBLEM WITH MULTIPLE CONSTRAINTS
OPTIMALITY OF RANDOMIZED TRUNK RESERVATION FOR A PROBLEM WITH MULTIPLE CONSTRAINTS Xiaofei Fan-Orzechowski Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics State University of New York at Stony Brook Stony
More informationLIMITS FOR QUEUES AS THE WAITING ROOM GROWS. Bell Communications Research AT&T Bell Laboratories Red Bank, NJ Murray Hill, NJ 07974
LIMITS FOR QUEUES AS THE WAITING ROOM GROWS by Daniel P. Heyman Ward Whitt Bell Communications Research AT&T Bell Laboratories Red Bank, NJ 07701 Murray Hill, NJ 07974 May 11, 1988 ABSTRACT We study the
More informationStatistics 150: Spring 2007
Statistics 150: Spring 2007 April 23, 2008 0-1 1 Limiting Probabilities If the discrete-time Markov chain with transition probabilities p ij is irreducible and positive recurrent; then the limiting probabilities
More informationTime Reversibility and Burke s Theorem
Queuing Analysis: Time Reversibility and Burke s Theorem Hongwei Zhang http://www.cs.wayne.edu/~hzhang Acknowledgement: this lecture is partially based on the slides of Dr. Yannis A. Korilis. Outline Time-Reversal
More informationTutorial: Optimal Control of Queueing Networks
Department of Mathematics Tutorial: Optimal Control of Queueing Networks Mike Veatch Presented at INFORMS Austin November 7, 2010 1 Overview Network models MDP formulations: features, efficient formulations
More informationMaximum Pressure Policies in Stochastic Processing Networks
OPERATIONS RESEARCH Vol. 53, No. 2, March April 2005, pp. 197 218 issn 0030-364X eissn 1526-5463 05 5302 0197 informs doi 10.1287/opre.1040.0170 2005 INFORMS Maximum Pressure Policies in Stochastic Processing
More informationADMISSION CONTROL IN THE PRESENCE OF PRIORITIES: A SAMPLE PATH APPROACH
Chapter 1 ADMISSION CONTROL IN THE PRESENCE OF PRIORITIES: A SAMPLE PATH APPROACH Feng Chen Department of Statistics and Operations Research University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill chenf@email.unc.edu
More informationQueueing Theory I Summary! Little s Law! Queueing System Notation! Stationary Analysis of Elementary Queueing Systems " M/M/1 " M/M/m " M/M/1/K "
Queueing Theory I Summary Little s Law Queueing System Notation Stationary Analysis of Elementary Queueing Systems " M/M/1 " M/M/m " M/M/1/K " Little s Law a(t): the process that counts the number of arrivals
More informationPerformance Evaluation of Queuing Systems
Performance Evaluation of Queuing Systems Introduction to Queuing Systems System Performance Measures & Little s Law Equilibrium Solution of Birth-Death Processes Analysis of Single-Station Queuing Systems
More informationTCOM 501: Networking Theory & Fundamentals. Lecture 6 February 19, 2003 Prof. Yannis A. Korilis
TCOM 50: Networking Theory & Fundamentals Lecture 6 February 9, 003 Prof. Yannis A. Korilis 6- Topics Time-Reversal of Markov Chains Reversibility Truncating a Reversible Markov Chain Burke s Theorem Queues
More informationThe Transition Probability Function P ij (t)
The Transition Probability Function P ij (t) Consider a continuous time Markov chain {X(t), t 0}. We are interested in the probability that in t time units the process will be in state j, given that it
More informationCHARACTERIZING THE PERFORMANCE OF PROCESS FLEXIBILITY STRUCTURES. O. Zeynep Akşin and Fikri Karaesmen
CHARACTERIZING THE PERFORMANCE OF PROCESS FLEXIBILITY STRUCTURES O Zeynep Akşin and Fikri Karaesmen Graduate School of Business Koç University 34450, Istanbul TURKEY Department of Industrial Engineering
More informationMarkov decision processes and interval Markov chains: exploiting the connection
Markov decision processes and interval Markov chains: exploiting the connection Mingmei Teo Supervisors: Prof. Nigel Bean, Dr Joshua Ross University of Adelaide July 10, 2013 Intervals and interval arithmetic
More informationDesign and evaluation of overloaded service systems with skill based routing, under FCFS policies
Design and evaluation of overloaded service systems with skill based routing, under FCFS policies Ivo Adan Marko Boon Gideon Weiss April 2, 2013 Abstract We study an overloaded service system with servers
More informationQueueing systems. Renato Lo Cigno. Simulation and Performance Evaluation Queueing systems - Renato Lo Cigno 1
Queueing systems Renato Lo Cigno Simulation and Performance Evaluation 2014-15 Queueing systems - Renato Lo Cigno 1 Queues A Birth-Death process is well modeled by a queue Indeed queues can be used to
More informationSession-Based Queueing Systems
Session-Based Queueing Systems Modelling, Simulation, and Approximation Jeroen Horters Supervisor VU: Sandjai Bhulai Executive Summary Companies often offer services that require multiple steps on the
More informationOn the Scheduling of Operations in a Chat Contact Center
On the Scheduling of Operations in a Chat Contact Center Benjamin Legros a Oualid Jouini b a PSB Paris School of Business, Department of Economics, 59 rue ationale, 75013 Paris, France b Laboratoire Genie
More informationA PARAMETRIC DECOMPOSITION BASED APPROACH FOR MULTI-CLASS CLOSED QUEUING NETWORKS WITH SYNCHRONIZATION STATIONS
A PARAMETRIC DECOMPOSITION BASED APPROACH FOR MULTI-CLASS CLOSED QUEUING NETWORKS WITH SYNCHRONIZATION STATIONS Kumar Satyam and Ananth Krishnamurthy Department of Decision Sciences and Engineering Systems,
More informationRobustness and performance of threshold-based resource allocation policies
Robustness and performance of threshold-based resource allocation policies Takayuki Osogami Mor Harchol-Balter Alan Scheller-Wolf Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue,
More informationTechnical Appendix for: When Promotions Meet Operations: Cross-Selling and Its Effect on Call-Center Performance
Technical Appendix for: When Promotions Meet Operations: Cross-Selling and Its Effect on Call-Center Performance In this technical appendix we provide proofs for the various results stated in the manuscript
More informationAsymptotics for Polling Models with Limited Service Policies
Asymptotics for Polling Models with Limited Service Policies Woojin Chang School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332-0205 USA Douglas G. Down Department
More informationIEOR 6711: Stochastic Models I, Fall 2003, Professor Whitt. Solutions to Final Exam: Thursday, December 18.
IEOR 6711: Stochastic Models I, Fall 23, Professor Whitt Solutions to Final Exam: Thursday, December 18. Below are six questions with several parts. Do as much as you can. Show your work. 1. Two-Pump Gas
More informationZero-Inventory Conditions For a Two-Part-Type Make-to-Stock Production System
Zero-Inventory Conditions For a Two-Part-Type Make-to-Stock Production System MichaelH.Veatch Francis de Véricourt October 9, 2002 Abstract We consider the dynamic scheduling of a two-part-type make-tostock
More informationIEOR 6711, HMWK 5, Professor Sigman
IEOR 6711, HMWK 5, Professor Sigman 1. Semi-Markov processes: Consider an irreducible positive recurrent discrete-time Markov chain {X n } with transition matrix P (P i,j ), i, j S, and finite state space.
More informationPage 0 of 5 Final Examination Name. Closed book. 120 minutes. Cover page plus five pages of exam.
Final Examination Closed book. 120 minutes. Cover page plus five pages of exam. To receive full credit, show enough work to indicate your logic. Do not spend time calculating. You will receive full credit
More informationChapter 5. Continuous-Time Markov Chains. Prof. Shun-Ren Yang Department of Computer Science, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan
Chapter 5. Continuous-Time Markov Chains Prof. Shun-Ren Yang Department of Computer Science, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan Continuous-Time Markov Chains Consider a continuous-time stochastic process
More informationOn Finding Optimal Policies for Markovian Decision Processes Using Simulation
On Finding Optimal Policies for Markovian Decision Processes Using Simulation Apostolos N. Burnetas Case Western Reserve University Michael N. Katehakis Rutgers University February 1995 Abstract A simulation
More informationInfinite-Horizon Discounted Markov Decision Processes
Infinite-Horizon Discounted Markov Decision Processes Dan Zhang Leeds School of Business University of Colorado at Boulder Dan Zhang, Spring 2012 Infinite Horizon Discounted MDP 1 Outline The expected
More informationMULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS DECISION SCIENCE
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS DECISION SCIENCE 1. Decision Science approach is a. Multi-disciplinary b. Scientific c. Intuitive 2. For analyzing a problem, decision-makers should study a. Its qualitative aspects
More informationMDP Preliminaries. Nan Jiang. February 10, 2019
MDP Preliminaries Nan Jiang February 10, 2019 1 Markov Decision Processes In reinforcement learning, the interactions between the agent and the environment are often described by a Markov Decision Process
More informationMarkov Chains. X(t) is a Markov Process if, for arbitrary times t 1 < t 2 <... < t k < t k+1. If X(t) is discrete-valued. If X(t) is continuous-valued
Markov Chains X(t) is a Markov Process if, for arbitrary times t 1 < t 2
More informationMinimizing response times and queue lengths in systems of parallel queues
Minimizing response times and queue lengths in systems of parallel queues Ger Koole Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
More informationOperations Research Letters. Instability of FIFO in a simple queueing system with arbitrarily low loads
Operations Research Letters 37 (2009) 312 316 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Operations Research Letters journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/orl Instability of FIFO in a simple queueing
More informationA Call Center Model with Upgrades
A Call Center Model with Upgrades Douglas G. Down Department of Computing and Software McMaster University 128 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L7, Canada downd@mcmaster.ca Mark E. Lewis School of Operations
More informationIndividual, Class-based, and Social Optimal Admission Policies in Two-Priority Queues
Individual, Class-based, and Social Optimal Admission Policies in Two-Priority Queues Feng Chen, Vidyadhar G. Kulkarni Department of Statistics and Operations Research, University of North Carolina at
More informationQueueing Networks and Insensitivity
Lukáš Adam 29. 10. 2012 1 / 40 Table of contents 1 Jackson networks 2 Insensitivity in Erlang s Loss System 3 Quasi-Reversibility and Single-Node Symmetric Queues 4 Quasi-Reversibility in Networks 5 The
More informationSolutions to Homework Discrete Stochastic Processes MIT, Spring 2011
Exercise 6.5: Solutions to Homework 0 6.262 Discrete Stochastic Processes MIT, Spring 20 Consider the Markov process illustrated below. The transitions are labelled by the rate q ij at which those transitions
More informationCPSC 531: System Modeling and Simulation. Carey Williamson Department of Computer Science University of Calgary Fall 2017
CPSC 531: System Modeling and Simulation Carey Williamson Department of Computer Science University of Calgary Fall 2017 Motivating Quote for Queueing Models Good things come to those who wait - poet/writer
More informationTechnical Appendix for: When Promotions Meet Operations: Cross-Selling and Its Effect on Call-Center Performance
Technical Appendix for: When Promotions Meet Operations: Cross-Selling and Its Effect on Call-Center Performance In this technical appendix we provide proofs for the various results stated in the manuscript
More informationOn Polynomial Cases of the Unichain Classification Problem for Markov Decision Processes
On Polynomial Cases of the Unichain Classification Problem for Markov Decision Processes Eugene A. Feinberg Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics State University of New York at Stony Brook
More informationAppendix: Simple Methods for Shift Scheduling in Multi-Skill Call Centers
Appendix: Simple Methods for Shift Scheduling in Multi-Skill Call Centers Sandjai Bhulai, Ger Koole & Auke Pot Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands Supplementary Material
More informationIntro Refresher Reversibility Open networks Closed networks Multiclass networks Other networks. Queuing Networks. Florence Perronnin
Queuing Networks Florence Perronnin Polytech Grenoble - UGA March 23, 27 F. Perronnin (UGA) Queuing Networks March 23, 27 / 46 Outline Introduction to Queuing Networks 2 Refresher: M/M/ queue 3 Reversibility
More informationIEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 43, NO. 3, MARCH
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 43, NO. 3, MARCH 1998 315 Asymptotic Buffer Overflow Probabilities in Multiclass Multiplexers: An Optimal Control Approach Dimitris Bertsimas, Ioannis Ch. Paschalidis,
More informationCS 798: Homework Assignment 3 (Queueing Theory)
1.0 Little s law Assigned: October 6, 009 Patients arriving to the emergency room at the Grand River Hospital have a mean waiting time of three hours. It has been found that, averaged over the period of
More informationInfinite-Horizon Average Reward Markov Decision Processes
Infinite-Horizon Average Reward Markov Decision Processes Dan Zhang Leeds School of Business University of Colorado at Boulder Dan Zhang, Spring 2012 Infinite Horizon Average Reward MDP 1 Outline The average
More informationOn the Optimality of Randomized Deadlock Avoidance Policies
On the Optimality of Randomized Deadlock Avoidance Policies Spyros A. Reveliotis and Jin Young Choi School of Industrial & Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332 Abstract
More informationNear-Optimal Control of Queueing Systems via Approximate One-Step Policy Improvement
Near-Optimal Control of Queueing Systems via Approximate One-Step Policy Improvement Jefferson Huang March 21, 2018 Reinforcement Learning for Processing Networks Seminar Cornell University Performance
More informationSimplex Algorithm for Countable-state Discounted Markov Decision Processes
Simplex Algorithm for Countable-state Discounted Markov Decision Processes Ilbin Lee Marina A. Epelman H. Edwin Romeijn Robert L. Smith November 16, 2014 Abstract We consider discounted Markov Decision
More information[4] T. I. Seidman, \\First Come First Serve" is Unstable!," tech. rep., University of Maryland Baltimore County, 1993.
[2] C. J. Chase and P. J. Ramadge, \On real-time scheduling policies for exible manufacturing systems," IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. AC-37, pp. 491{496, April 1992. [3] S. H. Lu and P. R. Kumar,
More informationMaximum pressure policies for stochastic processing networks
Maximum pressure policies for stochastic processing networks Jim Dai Joint work with Wuqin Lin at Northwestern Univ. The 2011 Lunteren Conference Jim Dai (Georgia Tech) MPPs January 18, 2011 1 / 55 Outline
More informationOnline Supplement to Delay-Based Service Differentiation with Many Servers and Time-Varying Arrival Rates
Online Supplement to Delay-Based Service Differentiation with Many Servers and Time-Varying Arrival Rates Xu Sun and Ward Whitt Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, Columbia University
More informationDynamic Call Center Routing Policies Using Call Waiting and Agent Idle Times Online Supplement
Submitted to imanufacturing & Service Operations Management manuscript MSOM-11-370.R3 Dynamic Call Center Routing Policies Using Call Waiting and Agent Idle Times Online Supplement (Authors names blinded
More information1 Markov decision processes
2.997 Decision-Making in Large-Scale Systems February 4 MI, Spring 2004 Handout #1 Lecture Note 1 1 Markov decision processes In this class we will study discrete-time stochastic systems. We can describe
More information1 IEOR 4701: Continuous-Time Markov Chains
Copyright c 2006 by Karl Sigman 1 IEOR 4701: Continuous-Time Markov Chains A Markov chain in discrete time, {X n : n 0}, remains in any state for exactly one unit of time before making a transition (change
More informationA Simple Solution for the M/D/c Waiting Time Distribution
A Simple Solution for the M/D/c Waiting Time Distribution G.J.Franx, Universiteit van Amsterdam November 6, 998 Abstract A surprisingly simple and explicit expression for the waiting time distribution
More informationLecture notes for Analysis of Algorithms : Markov decision processes
Lecture notes for Analysis of Algorithms : Markov decision processes Lecturer: Thomas Dueholm Hansen June 6, 013 Abstract We give an introduction to infinite-horizon Markov decision processes (MDPs) with
More informationName of the Student:
SUBJECT NAME : Probability & Queueing Theory SUBJECT CODE : MA 6453 MATERIAL NAME : Part A questions REGULATION : R2013 UPDATED ON : November 2017 (Upto N/D 2017 QP) (Scan the above QR code for the direct
More informationUNIVERSITY OF YORK. MSc Examinations 2004 MATHEMATICS Networks. Time Allowed: 3 hours.
UNIVERSITY OF YORK MSc Examinations 2004 MATHEMATICS Networks Time Allowed: 3 hours. Answer 4 questions. Standard calculators will be provided but should be unnecessary. 1 Turn over 2 continued on next
More informationEfficient Nonlinear Optimizations of Queuing Systems
Efficient Nonlinear Optimizations of Queuing Systems Mung Chiang, Arak Sutivong, and Stephen Boyd Electrical Engineering Department, Stanford University, CA 9435 Abstract We present a systematic treatment
More informationBlind Fair Routing in Large-Scale Service Systems with Heterogeneous Customers and Servers
Blind Fair Routing in Large-Scale Service Systems with Heterogeneous Customers and Servers Mor Armony Amy R. Ward 2 October 6, 2 Abstract In a call center, arriving customers must be routed to available
More informationSystem occupancy of a two-class batch-service queue with class-dependent variable server capacity
System occupancy of a two-class batch-service queue with class-dependent variable server capacity Jens Baetens 1, Bart Steyaert 1, Dieter Claeys 1,2, and Herwig Bruneel 1 1 SMACS Research Group, Dept.
More informationStochastic Shortest Path Problems
Chapter 8 Stochastic Shortest Path Problems 1 In this chapter, we study a stochastic version of the shortest path problem of chapter 2, where only probabilities of transitions along different arcs can
More informationDynamic Call Center Routing Policies Using Call Waiting and Agent Idle Times Online Supplement
Dynamic Call Center Routing Policies Using Call Waiting and Agent Idle Times Online Supplement Wyean Chan DIRO, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal (Québec), H3C 3J7, CANADA,
More informationMotivated by models of tenant assignment in public housing, we study approximating deterministic fluid
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE Vol. 54, No. 8, August 2008, pp. 1513 1527 issn 0025-1909 eissn 1526-5501 08 5408 1513 informs doi 10.1287/mnsc.1080.0868 2008 INFORMS Fluid Models for Overloaded Multiclass Many-Server
More informationMotivation for introducing probabilities
for introducing probabilities Reaching the goals is often not sufficient: it is important that the expected costs do not outweigh the benefit of reaching the goals. 1 Objective: maximize benefits - costs.
More informationStability of queueing networks. Maury Bramson. University of Minnesota
Probability Surveys Vol. 5 (2008) 169 345 ISSN: 1549-5787 DOI: 10.1214/08-PS137 Stability of queueing networks Received June 2008. Maury Bramson University of Minnesota e-mail: bramson@math.umn.edu Contents
More informationA FAST MATRIX-ANALYTIC APPROXIMATION FOR THE TWO CLASS GI/G/1 NON-PREEMPTIVE PRIORITY QUEUE
A FAST MATRIX-ANAYTIC APPROXIMATION FOR TE TWO CASS GI/G/ NON-PREEMPTIVE PRIORITY QUEUE Gábor orváth Department of Telecommunication Budapest University of Technology and Economics. Budapest Pf. 9., ungary
More informationA monotonic property of the optimal admission control to an M/M/1 queue under periodic observations with average cost criterion
A monotonic property of the optimal admission control to an M/M/1 queue under periodic observations with average cost criterion Cao, Jianhua; Nyberg, Christian Published in: Seventeenth Nordic Teletraffic
More information2905 Queueing Theory and Simulation PART III: HIGHER DIMENSIONAL AND NON-MARKOVIAN QUEUES
295 Queueing Theory and Simulation PART III: HIGHER DIMENSIONAL AND NON-MARKOVIAN QUEUES 16 Queueing Systems with Two Types of Customers In this section, we discuss queueing systems with two types of customers.
More informationStability and Rare Events in Stochastic Models Sergey Foss Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh and Institute of Mathematics, Novosibirsk
Stability and Rare Events in Stochastic Models Sergey Foss Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh and Institute of Mathematics, Novosibirsk ANSAPW University of Queensland 8-11 July, 2013 1 Outline (I) Fluid
More informationSeries Expansions in Queues with Server
Series Expansions in Queues with Server Vacation Fazia Rahmoune and Djamil Aïssani Abstract This paper provides series expansions of the stationary distribution of finite Markov chains. The work presented
More informationA Joining Shortest Queue with MAP Inputs
The Eighth International Symposium on Operations Research and Its Applications (ISORA 09) Zhangjiajie, China, September 20 22, 2009 Copyright 2009 ORSC & APORC, pp. 25 32 A Joining Shortest Queue with
More information6 Solving Queueing Models
6 Solving Queueing Models 6.1 Introduction In this note we look at the solution of systems of queues, starting with simple isolated queues. The benefits of using predefined, easily classified queues will
More informationReinforcement Learning
Reinforcement Learning March May, 2013 Schedule Update Introduction 03/13/2015 (10:15-12:15) Sala conferenze MDPs 03/18/2015 (10:15-12:15) Sala conferenze Solving MDPs 03/20/2015 (10:15-12:15) Aula Alpha
More informationSTAT 380 Continuous Time Markov Chains
STAT 380 Continuous Time Markov Chains Richard Lockhart Simon Fraser University Spring 2018 Richard Lockhart (Simon Fraser University)STAT 380 Continuous Time Markov Chains Spring 2018 1 / 35 Continuous
More informationDYNAMIC ROUTING POLICIES FOR MULTISKILL CALL CENTERS
Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences, 23, 2009, 101 119. Printed in the U.S.A. doi:10.1017/s0269964809000096 DYNAMIC ROUTING POLICIES FOR MULTISKILL CALL CENTERS SANDJAI BHULAI VU
More informationA CALL-ROUTING PROBLEM WITH SERVICE-LEVEL CONSTRAINTS
A CALL-ROUTING PROBLEM WITH SERVICE-LEVEL CONSTRAINTS NOAH GANS OPIM Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6366, gans@wharton.upenn.edu YONG-PIN ZHOU
More informationMonotonicity Properties for Multiserver Queues with Reneging and Finite Waiting Lines
Monotonicity Properties for Multiserver Queues with Reneging and Finite Waiting Lines Oualid Jouini & Yves Dallery Laboratoire Génie Industriel, Ecole Centrale Paris Grande Voie des Vignes, 92295 Châtenay-Malabry
More informationTHE HEAVY-TRAFFIC BOTTLENECK PHENOMENON IN OPEN QUEUEING NETWORKS. S. Suresh and W. Whitt AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
THE HEAVY-TRAFFIC BOTTLENECK PHENOMENON IN OPEN QUEUEING NETWORKS by S. Suresh and W. Whitt AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974 ABSTRACT This note describes a simulation experiment involving
More informationA Semiconductor Wafer
M O T I V A T I O N Semi Conductor Wafer Fabs A Semiconductor Wafer Clean Oxidation PhotoLithography Photoresist Strip Ion Implantation or metal deosition Fabrication of a single oxide layer Etching MS&E324,
More informationA Queueing System with Queue Length Dependent Service Times, with Applications to Cell Discarding in ATM Networks
A Queueing System with Queue Length Dependent Service Times, with Applications to Cell Discarding in ATM Networks by Doo Il Choi, Charles Knessl and Charles Tier University of Illinois at Chicago 85 South
More informationOPTIMAL CONTROL OF PARALLEL QUEUES WITH BATCH SERVICE
Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences, 16, 2002, 289 307+ Printed in the U+S+A+ OPTIMAL CONTROL OF PARALLEL QUEUES WITH BATCH SERVICE CATHY H. XIA IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Yorktown,
More informationMarkov Decision Processes and Solving Finite Problems. February 8, 2017
Markov Decision Processes and Solving Finite Problems February 8, 2017 Overview of Upcoming Lectures Feb 8: Markov decision processes, value iteration, policy iteration Feb 13: Policy gradients Feb 15:
More informationCover Page. The handle holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation
Cover Page The handle http://hdlhandlenet/1887/39637 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation Author: Smit, Laurens Title: Steady-state analysis of large scale systems : the successive
More informationHITTING TIME IN AN ERLANG LOSS SYSTEM
Probability in the Engineering and Informational Sciences, 16, 2002, 167 184+ Printed in the U+S+A+ HITTING TIME IN AN ERLANG LOSS SYSTEM SHELDON M. ROSS Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations
More informationService-Level Differentiation in Many-Server Service Systems: A Solution Based on Fixed-Queue-Ratio Routing
Service-Level Differentiation in Many-Server Service Systems: A Solution Based on Fixed-Queue-Ratio Routing Itay Gurvich Ward Whitt October 13, 27 Abstract Motivated by telephone call centers, we study
More informationStrategic Dynamic Jockeying Between Two Parallel Queues
Strategic Dynamic Jockeying Between Two Parallel Queues Amin Dehghanian 1 and Jeffrey P. Kharoufeh 2 Department of Industrial Engineering University of Pittsburgh 1048 Benedum Hall 3700 O Hara Street Pittsburgh,
More informationChapter 11. Output Analysis for a Single Model Prof. Dr. Mesut Güneş Ch. 11 Output Analysis for a Single Model
Chapter Output Analysis for a Single Model. Contents Types of Simulation Stochastic Nature of Output Data Measures of Performance Output Analysis for Terminating Simulations Output Analysis for Steady-state
More informationSynchronized Queues with Deterministic Arrivals
Synchronized Queues with Deterministic Arrivals Dimitra Pinotsi and Michael A. Zazanis Department of Statistics Athens University of Economics and Business 76 Patission str., Athens 14 34, Greece Abstract
More informationStabilizing Customer Abandonment in Many-Server Queues with Time-Varying Arrivals
OPERATIONS RESEARCH Vol. 6, No. 6, November December 212, pp. 1551 1564 ISSN 3-364X (print) ISSN 1526-5463 (online) http://dx.doi.org/1.1287/opre.112.114 212 INFORMS Stabilizing Customer Abandonment in
More information