IMT CAFETERIA

-STUDY ON QUEUING SYSTEM

BY
J.SHIVALKAR HARSHITA CHINTAM POORNACHAND KALYAMPUDI

BACKGROUND STUDY OF THE SYSTEM: Institute of Management Technology Cafeteria employs two staffs and they sell items such as Biscuits, Chocolates, Cakes, Puffs, Sandwiches, Omlette and Noodles. One of the staffs(Staff 1) takes care by serving the students only Sandwiches, Omlettes and Noodles and the other staff (Staff 2) takes care of Biscuits, Chocolates and microwave oven related food. IMT Cafeteria imitates a system with two servers and two queue.

STAFF 1

STAFF 2

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT: Around 410 students study in IMT and the average waiting time of the students in the queue, average waiting time of students in the system, average staff service time ,probability of Staff being idle, average time between arrivals and the probability of the student waiting in the queue for both servers Staff 1 and Staff 2 are studied. DATA FINDINGS: The data found below has been collected using stopwatch timer on September 26th,2013 form evening 6:00 p.m to 8:00 p.m. Staff 1 service time(seconds) 396 630 417 569 556 603 623 604 483 279 388 562 630 Staff 2 service time(seconds) 6 9 72 87 17 48 31 94 37 132 9 56 108 Arrival time Seconds 206 343 389 562 724 1032 1166 1388 1459 1602 1631 1836 1902 Interarrival time seconds 0 137 46 173 162 308 134 222 71 143 29 205 66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

503 370 276 616 498 530 554 559 527 494 505 513

47 102 33 96 63 53 104 56 68 23 40 159

1959 2005 2218 2346 2579 2755 2822 2888 3184 3258 3435 3451

57 46 213 128 233 176 67 66 296 74 177 16

The numbers are in seconds which are continuous variables which would help to determine the distribution of arrival time and service time distribution well. The Student arrival time follows a Uniform Distribution which is show in below Fig 1.

Fig 2. Arrival time of Students

The Student inter-arrival time follows Normal, Uniform and Weibull distribution is shown below in Fig 2. Since all have same chi-square statistics. Uniform distribution was preferred to be taken.

Fig 2. Inter Arrival time of Students

Serivice time of Staffs: Staff 1 service time follows a triangular distribution shown in Fig 3 and Staff 2s service time too follows a triangular distribution shown in Fig 4.

Fig 3. Staff 1 service time

Fig 4. Staff 2 service time

METHODOLOGY: As the data of Interarrival time follows an Uniform distribution,Riskfunction of RiskUniform(60,1200) was kept. As the Service time followed Triangular distribution minimum,most likely and maximum seconds were kept for Service time of both the staffs and Risktriangular function was used.

Staff 1 Service Time Minimum most likely Maximum

seconds 276 507 630

Item Code 1 2 3

Item Maggi Sandwich Omlette

Staff 2 Service Time Minimum Most Likely Maximum

Seconds 6 62 159

Item code 1 2 3

Item Chocolates Cool Drinks Puff

Risk outptut function was added to these fields: Average Waiting Time for a student in system Average Waiting Time in Queue Average Staff Service Time Prob of idle server Avg time between arrivals Prob that a student waits in the queue

And the simulation was run for 1000 iterations with first 100 students. OUTPUT: The final output which was computed is shown in the below table Staff 1 939 Minutes Staff 2 15:39 98.199 Minutes 01:38

Average Waiting Time for a student in system Average Waiting Time in Queue Average Staff Service Time Prob of idle server Avg time between arrivals Prob that a student waits in the queue

445 07:25 494 08:14 22.33% 629 10:29 0.5725

8.87 00:09 89 01:29 57.43% 190.9088 03:11 0.1245

VALIDATION: Validation for Staff 1 model

6 Replication scenarios were considered and t-statistic was computed.

Mean(mu) Expected Mean Standard deviation t t(critical) 456 311.3333333 241.4635928 -1.467548428 2.571

Absolute value of t is lesser that t(critical) hence the Staff 1 model is valid. Validation for Staff 2 model Mean(mu) 4.8767 Expected Mean Rep 1 3.846153846 Standard deviation 2.556779443 t -0.987301521 t(critical) 2.571

Absolute value of t is lesser that t(critical) hence the Staff 2 model is valid. CONCLUSION: The average waiting time of a student in queue in Staff 1 model is comparatively greater than Staff 2 model, hence the Staff 1 model should additionally be employed by one more staff so that the average waiting of student in queue would drastically reduce to half or the Staff 2s probability of being idle is more than 50% so he should also take the work of Staff 1 to reduce the average waiting time of a student in queue and this would help the students community to get benefitted at greater level. ANNEXURE:

STAFF 1 MODEL

STAFF 2 MODEL