IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/esm/wpaper/esmt-18-04_r1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Queueing systems with rationally inattentive customers

Author

Listed:
  • Caner Canyakmaz

    (ESMT Berlin)

  • Tamer Boyaci

    (ESMT Berlin)

Abstract

Problem description: Classical models of queueing systems with rational and strategic customers assume queues to be either fully visible or invisible while service parameters are known with certainty. In practice, however, people only have “partial information” on the service environment in the sense that they are not able to fully discern prevalent uncertainties. This is because assessing possible delays and rewards is costly as it requires time, attention, and cognitive capacity which are all limited. On the other hand, people are also adaptive and endogenously respond to information frictions. Methodology: We develop an equilibrium model for a single-server queueing system with customers having limited attention. Following the theory of rational inattention, we assume that customers optimize their learning strategies by deciding the type and amount of information to acquire and act accordingly while internalizing the associated costs. Results: We establish the existence and uniqueness of a customer equilibrium and delineate the impact of service characteristics and information costs. We numerically show that when customers allocate their attention to learn uncertain queue length, limited attention of customers improves throughput in a congested system that customers value reasonably highly, while it can be detrimental for less popular services that customers deem rather unrewarding. This is also reflected in social welfare if the firm's profit margin is high enough, although customer welfare always suffers from information costs. Managerial implications: Our results shed light on optimal information provision and physical design strategies of service firms and social planners by identifying service settings where they should be most cautious for customers' limited attention. Academic/practical relevance: We propose a microfounded framework for strategic customer behavior in queues that links beliefs, rewards, and information costs. It offers a holistic perspective on the impact of information prevalence (and information frictions) on operational performance and can be extended to analyze richer customer behavior and complex queue structures, rendering it a valuable tool for service design.

Suggested Citation

  • Caner Canyakmaz & Tamer Boyaci, 2018. "Queueing systems with rationally inattentive customers," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-18-04_R1, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 01 Oct 2020.
  • Handle: RePEc:esm:wpaper:esmt-18-04_r1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://static.esmt.org/publications/workingpapers/ESMT-18-04.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2018
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://static.esmt.org/publications/workingpapers/ESMT-18-04_R1.pdf
    File Function: Revised version, 2020
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hong Chen & Murray Frank, 1995. "Monopoly Pricing When Customers Queue," Industrial Organization 9504001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Lixin Huang & Hong Liu, 2007. "Rational Inattention and Portfolio Selection," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1999-2040, August.
    3. Wouter Dessein & Andrea Galeotti & Tano Santos, 2016. "Rational Inattention and Organizational Focus," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(6), pages 1522-1536, June.
    4. Senthil Veeraraghavan & Laurens Debo, 2009. "Joining Longer Queues: Information Externalities in Queue Choice," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 543-562, April.
    5. Hang Ren & Tingliang Huang & Kenan Arifoglu, 2018. "Managing Service Systems with Unknown Quality and Customer Anecdotal Reasoning," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 27(6), pages 1038-1051, June.
    6. Pengfei Guo & Paul Zipkin, 2007. "Analysis and Comparison of Queues with Different Levels of Delay Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(6), pages 962-970, June.
    7. Refael Hassin & Ricky Roet-Green, 2017. "The Impact of Inspection Cost on Equilibrium, Revenue, and Social Welfare in a Single-Server Queue," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 804-820, June.
    8. Matějka, Filip & Mackowiak, Bartosz & Wiederholt, Mirko, 2018. "Survey: Rational Inattention, a Disciplined Behavioral Model," CEPR Discussion Papers 13243, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Tingliang Huang & Gad Allon & Achal Bassamboo, 2013. "Bounded Rationality in Service Systems," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 263-279, May.
    10. Edelson, Noel M & Hildebrand, David K, 1975. "Congestion Tolls for Poisson Queuing Processes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(1), pages 81-92, January.
    11. Naor, P, 1969. "The Regulation of Queue Size by Levying Tolls," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(1), pages 15-24, January.
    12. Shiliang Cui & Senthil Veeraraghavan, 2016. "Blind Queues: The Impact of Consumer Beliefs on Revenues and Congestion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3656-3672, December.
    13. Sims, Christopher A., 2003. "Implications of rational inattention," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 665-690, April.
    14. Tingliang Huang & Ying-Ju Chen, 2015. "Service Systems with Experience-Based Anecdotal Reasoning Customers," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(5), pages 778-790, May.
    15. Rouba Ibrahim, 2018. "Sharing delay information in service systems: a literature survey," Queueing Systems: Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 49-79, June.
    16. Laurens G. Debo & Christine Parlour & Uday Rajan, 2012. "Signaling Quality via Queues," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(5), pages 876-891, May.
    17. Christopher A. Sims, 2006. "Rational Inattention: Beyond the Linear-Quadratic Case," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 158-163, May.
    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. Tamer Boyaci, & Caner Canyakmaz, & Francis de Véricourt,, 2020. "Human and machine: The impact of machine input on decision-making under cognitive limitations," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-20-02, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.

    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. Caner Canyakmaz & Tamer Boyaci, 2018. "Opaque queues: Service systems with rationally inattentive customers," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-18-04, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.
    2. Ming Hu & Yang Li & Jianfu Wang, 2018. "Efficient Ignorance: Information Heterogeneity in a Queue," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2650-2671, June.
    3. Pengfei Guo & Moshe Haviv & Zhenwei Luo & Yulan Wang, 2022. "Optimal queue length information disclosure when service quality is uncertain," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(5), pages 1912-1927, May.
    4. Dimitrios Logothetis & Antonis Economou, 2023. "The impact of information on transportation systems with strategic customers," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(7), pages 2189-2206, July.
    5. Jianfu Wang & Ming Hu, 2020. "Efficient Inaccuracy: User-Generated Information Sharing in a Queue," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4648-4666, October.
    6. Qiao‐Chu He & Ying‐Ju Chen & Rhonda Righter, 2020. "Learning with Projection Effects in Service Operations Systems," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(1), pages 90-100, January.
    7. Rouba Ibrahim, 2018. "Sharing delay information in service systems: a literature survey," Queueing Systems: Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 89(1), pages 49-79, June.
    8. Hassin, Refael & Roet-Green, Ricky, 2018. "Cascade equilibrium strategies in a two-server queueing system with inspection cost," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(3), pages 1014-1026.
    9. Opher Baron & Antonis Economou & Athanasia Manou, 2022. "Increasing social welfare with delays: Strategic customers in the M/G/1 orbit queue," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(7), pages 2907-2924, July.
    10. David Lingenbrink & Krishnamurthy Iyer, 2019. "Optimal Signaling Mechanisms in Unobservable Queues," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 1397-1416, September.
    11. Shiliang Cui & Zhongbin Wang & Luyi Yang, 2020. "The Economics of Line-Sitting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 227-242, January.
    12. Shiliang Cui & Senthil Veeraraghavan, 2016. "Blind Queues: The Impact of Consumer Beliefs on Revenues and Congestion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3656-3672, December.
    13. Zhongbin Wang & Jinting Wang, 2019. "Information heterogeneity in a retrial queue: throughput and social welfare maximization," Queueing Systems: Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 131-172, June.
    14. Canbolat, Pelin G., 2020. "Bounded rationality in clearing service systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 614-626.
    15. Opher Baron & Xiaole Chen & Yang Li, 2023. "Omnichannel Services: The False Premise and Operational Remedies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 865-884, February.
    16. Tesnim Naceur & Yezekael Hayel, 2020. "Deterministic state-based information disclosure policies and social welfare maximization in strategic queueing systems," Queueing Systems: Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 96(3), pages 303-328, December.
    17. Sezer Ülkü & Chris Hydock & Shiliang Cui, 2020. "Making the Wait Worthwhile: Experiments on the Effect of Queueing on Consumption," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(3), pages 1149-1171, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Olga Bountali & Apostolos Burnetas & Lerzan Örmeci, 2022. "Join, balk, or jettison? The effect of flexibility and ranking knowledge in systems with batch arrivals," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(9), pages 3505-3524, September.
    20. Czerny, Achim I. & Guo, Pengfei & Hassin, Refael, 2022. "Shall firms withhold exact waiting time information from their customers? A transport example," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 128-142.

    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:esm:wpaper:esmt-18-04_r1. 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: ESMT Faculty Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/emstbde.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.