IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v24y2022i3p1843-1858.html

On Designing a Socially Optimal Expedited Service and Its Impact on Individual Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Ricky Roet-Green

    (Simon Business School, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14620)

  • Aditya Shetty

    (Simon Business School, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14620)

Abstract

Problem definition : We consider the problem faced by a welfare-maximizing service provider who must make a decision on how to split a fixed quantity of resources between two variants of the service: a standard variant and an expedited variant. The service is mandatory, but customers can choose between the two variants. Choosing the expedited variant requires enrollment that incurs a fixed cost per period. Customers are strategic and have the same cost of waiting but are heterogeneous in the rate at which they use the service. Academic/practical relevance : The option of expedited security at U.S. airports (TSA PreCheck) is an instance where this problem arises. As has been the case with the PreCheck program, providers that offer expedited service may face criticism from customers, with the main concern being that the diversion of resources to expedited services increases wait time for regular customers. This has important policy implications for the provider, especially a government organization such as the TSA. Existing literature has focused on service differentiation as a means to maximize profit or overall social welfare, but its effect on individual customers has received little attention. Methodology : We find customer’s equilibrium decisions for any allocation choice made by the provider. Using the equilibrium result, we solve for the allocation choice that maximizes social welfare. Results : Even when customers behave strategically, an expedited service offered in parallel to a standard service cannot only increase overall welfare, but also do so for each customer individually. We also find that in a scenario where some customers lose out because of the expedited service, improving the efficiency of the expedited service is more effective than decreasing the enrollment cost to help those who are worse off. Managerial implications : The gains from offering expedited service do not have to come at the expense of regular customers. When they do, we provide recommendations for which decision levers are most effective at making the system fair.

Suggested Citation

  • Ricky Roet-Green & Aditya Shetty, 2022. "On Designing a Socially Optimal Expedited Service and Its Impact on Individual Welfare," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 1843-1858, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:24:y:2022:i:3:p:1843-1858
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2021.1040
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2021.1040
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2021.1040?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erica L. Plambeck & Qiong Wang, 2013. "Implications of Hyperbolic Discounting for Optimal Pricing and Scheduling of Unpleasant Services That Generate Future Benefits," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(8), pages 1927-1946, August.
    2. Ramandeep S. Randhawa & Sunil Kumar, 2008. "Usage Restriction and Subscription Services: Operational Benefits with Rational Users," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 429-447, December.
    3. Bin Hu & Saif Benjaafar, 2009. "Partitioning of Servers in Queueing Systems During Rush Hour," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 416-428, October.
    4. Michael H. Rothkopf & Paul Rech, 1987. "Perspectives on Queues: Combining Queues is Not Always Beneficial," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(6), pages 906-909, December.
    5. Pengfei Guo & Zhe George Zhang, 2013. "Strategic Queueing Behavior and Its Impact on System Performance in Service Systems with the Congestion-Based Staffing Policy," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 118-131, September.
    6. Philipp Afèche & Opher Baron & Joseph Milner & Ricky Roet-Green, 2019. "Pricing and Prioritizing Time-Sensitive Customers with Heterogeneous Demand Rates," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(4), pages 1184-1208, July.
    7. Haim Mendelson & Seungjin Whang, 1990. "Optimal Incentive-Compatible Priority Pricing for the M/M/1 Queue," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 870-883, October.
    8. I. Adiri & U. Yechiali, 1974. "Optimal Priority-Purchasing and Pricing Decisions in Nonmonopoly and Monopoly Queues," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1051-1066, October.
    9. Israel Luski, 1976. "On Partial Equilibrium in a Queuing System with Two Servers," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 43(3), pages 519-525.
    10. Richard C. Larson, 1987. "OR Forum—Perspectives on Queues: Social Justice and the Psychology of Queueing," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(6), pages 895-905, December.
    11. Levhari, David & Luski, Israel, 1978. "Duopoly pricing and waiting lines," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 17-35, February.
    12. Refael Hassin & Moshe Haviv, 1997. "Equilibrium Threshold Strategies: The Case of Queues with Priorities," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 45(6), pages 966-973, December.
    13. Gérard P. Cachon & Pnina Feldman, 2011. "Pricing Services Subject to Congestion: Charge Per-Use Fees or Sell Subscriptions?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 244-260, June.
    14. Joel M. Calabrese, 1992. "Optimal Workload Allocation in Open Networks of Multiserver Queues," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(12), pages 1792-1802, December.
    15. Nur Sunar & Yichen Tu & Serhan Ziya, 2021. "Pooled vs. Dedicated Queues when Customers Are Delay-Sensitive," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 3785-3802, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuval Brief & Refael Hassin, 2025. "A strategic double-ended queuing model for shared transportation," Queueing Systems: Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 109(3), pages 1-33, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philipp Afèche & Opher Baron & Joseph Milner & Ricky Roet-Green, 2019. "Pricing and Prioritizing Time-Sensitive Customers with Heterogeneous Demand Rates," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(4), pages 1184-1208, July.
    2. Sheng Zhu & Xuege Han & Jinting Wang & Zhongbin Wang, 2026. "Performance evaluation and equilibrium strategies for a mixed priority queueing system," Queueing Systems: Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 1-32, March.
    3. Zhongbin Wang & Shiliang Cui & Lei Fang, 2023. "Distance-Based Service Priority: An Innovative Mechanism to Increase System Throughput and Social Welfare," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 353-369, January.
    4. Zhao, Chen & Wang, Zhongbin, 2023. "The impact of line-sitting on a two-server queueing system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 308(2), pages 782-800.
    5. Gad Allon & Awi Federgruen, 2007. "Competition in Service Industries," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 37-55, February.
    6. Niu, Baozhuang & Li, Qiyang & Mu, Zihao & Chen, Lei & Ji, Ping, 2021. "Platform logistics or self-logistics? Restaurants’ cooperation with online food-delivery platform considering profitability and sustainability," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    7. Yaolei Wang & Ping Cao & Jingui Xie & Dongyuan Zhan, 2025. "Advance Selling and Upgrading in Priority Queues," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1664-1682, September.
    8. Costis Maglaras & Ciamac C. Moallemi & Hua Zheng, 2021. "Queueing Dynamics and State Space Collapse in Fragmented Limit Order Book Markets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 1324-1348, July.
    9. Zhongbin Wang & Luyi Yang & Shiliang Cui & Jinting Wang, 2021. "In-queue priority purchase: a dynamic game approach," Queueing Systems: Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 97(3), pages 343-381, April.
    10. Vishal V. Agrawal & Stylianos Kavadias & L. Beril Toktay, 2016. "The Limits of Planned Obsolescence for Conspicuous Durable Goods," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 216-226, May.
    11. Shiliang Cui & Xuanming Su & Senthil Veeraraghavan, 2019. "A Model of Rational Retrials in Queues," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 1699-1718, November.
    12. Abdullah Althenayyan & Sezer Ülkü & Luyi Yang & Shiliang Cui, 2025. "Not All Lines Are Skipped Equally: An Experimental Investigation of Line-Sitting and Express Lines," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 287-304, January.
    13. Arvind Sainathan, 2020. "Technical Note—Pricing and Prioritization in a Duopoly with Self-Selecting, Heterogeneous, Time-Sensitive Customers Under Low Utilization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 1364-1374, September.
    14. Andrew E. Frazelle & Elena Katok, 2024. "Paid Priority in Service Systems: Theory and Experiments," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 775-795, March.
    15. Erica L. Plambeck & Qiong Wang, 2013. "Implications of Hyperbolic Discounting for Optimal Pricing and Scheduling of Unpleasant Services That Generate Future Benefits," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(8), pages 1927-1946, August.
    16. Bodas, Tejas & Manjunath, D., 2019. "Revenue maximization in service systems with heterogeneous customers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(2), pages 686-698.
    17. Pnina Feldman & Ella Segev, 2022. "The Important Role of Time Limits When Consumers Choose Their Time in Service," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(9), pages 6666-6686, September.
    18. Melo, Emerson, 2014. "Price competition, free entry, and welfare in congested markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 53-72.
    19. Ruxian Wang & Maqbool Dada & Ozge Sahin, 2019. "Pricing Ancillary Service Subscriptions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4712-4732, October.
    20. Cary Deck & Erik O Kimbrough & Steeve Mongrain, 2014. "Paying for Express Checkout: Competition and Price Discrimination in Multi-Server Queuing Systems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:24:y:2022:i:3:p:1843-1858. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.