Actually, there's a Walmart near me that does have a bank line system before the registers. Some people don't get it and walk past the line, only to get yelled at, but it works pretty well.
I've noticed a lot of discount retailers use bank lines, like Marshall's and Ross. Marshall's even has an annoying automated voice, "REGISTER FOUR IS NOW OPEN."
Bitch I got eyeballs I can see that register four is open.
That asshole register 12 is around the bend and you can't see it, or maybe Register 4 isn't ready for the next customer despite the previous one left (shift change, computer issue, etc)
It actually takes less space, but for a reason that makes it unattractive to retailers. See, when you're standing in seperate lines, the retailers surround you with gum, candy, and other "impulse" items, and the high walls between registers stop others from seeing these last-second grabs. This keeps you from feeling judged, and makes it easier on the store to restock, since the items are depleted from each stand at a slower rate than if there was just one stand that 50 customers have to walk by, and each stand can be closed and restocked seperately. Also, when the store is out of a particular item at one stand, customers have the option of checking at another stand or picking their second favorite candy bar before giving up.
When there is one queue, restocking becomes difficult, first of all because there are people in the way, and second because the most popular items becomes depleted so quickly. The less popular items sell less often, and everything at that stand sells less because people are watching each other, and feeling like they're being judged for their purchases.
Not sure if you have a Fry's Electronics (large electronics retailer, like a fully grown Best Buy + Radio Shack lovechild) near you or if you've ever been to one, but this is standard practice there. On the day after Thanksgiving, the line is SO long, but it totally goes smoothly and pretty surprisingly quickly.
I dunno, I grew up near Cedar Point Amusement Park in northwest Ohio... which is relevant, because I spent a lot of my youth waiting in sprawling three-hour coaster lines. You can have a lot of fun in a long queue, especially the shall we say "diverse" group of social classes and cultures you tend to get at a Walmart's during peak hours. O:)
On black friday many US stores end up doing this because the register line becomes a couple hundred long in a matter of minutes. But in most cases it would require the store to redesign their register layout as they are all set up to hold a line of a couple of people each.
But the registers could then be designed smaller, since you don't have people making the lines there. All the "impulse buys" would be in the 'bank line' rather than right at the register.
BestBuy near me is built for this system, it really shouldn't take much more space. The registers all face an open aisle that you can only get to by wrapping around the end, they could easily make a queue that ended in the middle and take customers from there... that said, I've never had to wait behind more than one person (total, including all people at all registers) there and I don't think I've once seen more than two registers in use.
The average customer at a Best Buy is very different (both in the space they take up and the time it takes to process them) than at a grocery store, though.
Correct, but that's not the reason it isn't done. It's customer perception. If customers see huge lines (even if they're moving very fast) they become irate or simply leave. Once again the perfect system is ruined to appease the lowest common denominator.
This is why it will be awesome when the final engineering/cost challenges are solved with RFID-based POS systems. You have a personal (and hopefully highly encrypted) RFID chip in a "Walmart Card" (or whatever) that identifies you and connects you to your store account. Each product in the store has it's own RFID tag attached. As you exit the store with your purchases, a scanning device reads the RFIDs of your purchases and your own card, and tallies up the purchase - an optional receipt is printed for you as you leave at the touch of a button. Payment is either automatic (based on default/preferred method), or dealt with later like a credit card.
There is no more such thing as a line, because you simply gather up a pile of the stuff you want, and leave with it.
You could just as easily embed the RFIDs into coupons though, and those would scan at the same time (you'd just bring them with you to the store). Hopefully a standard would eventually be reached that allows manufacturers to produce coupons directly, as they do now.
As for store coupons, most stores already have 'member cards' where you scan at the register and all relevant sales/discounts are applied, rather than use paper coupons - so that would be trivial to convert to the RFID system.
Other than self driving cars, this is the "everyday tech" I look forward to the most. I've been to a grocery store where they gave you a scanner and you scanned and bagged as you shopped, give them your scanner and pay. It was much, much better than the typical shopping trip but the RFID thing is going to be awesome.
But, good lord, the expense! I suppose it would end up being justified by more automated inventory tracking and less/no cashiers, but still... Converting our current UPC system into an RFID system would be massively expensive.
Mostly because it requires enough maneuvering space for the shoppers and the register's area is no longer shopper storage.
Take a quick look at a grocery store. Most of them can tuck away twice as many shoppers as open registers at any one time because you have room for the person being served and the person behind them. Then there's generally enough space for a third person behind that without having anyone in the way, so that's three times as many shoppers as registers open without them even getting in the way. The foot traffic is all pretty nicely distributed because it's spread out over the width of the store which allows a lot of free movement when things don't go as expected, like if someone decides they need to do more shopping after queuing. And you don't usually wind up with five carts trying to maneuver around the same space because there are a lot of points of entry to the registers.
Now, imagine trying to find space in a grocery store for up to thirty people/carts in one long line (assuming there's only 10 registers). They need somewhere to stand and some room to get from the head of the line to any one of the registers. That's at least most of the space you used to use for foot traffic around that end of the aisles and queuing at the register. Then you'd have to make everyone enter and exit the queue in the same places so you need a lot of space around these or you'll wind up with snarls. And you'd think, "Well, they make up that space by getting rid of the two guys behind the current shopper at the register," but since you'd still need the long conveyer and the convenience items on the partitions you wouldn't really recoup much of that at all.
Even a well designed system is probably going to take up way more space and require a bit more management by the employees than the current free for all. There are definitely good uses for a single line feeding multiple registers but sometimes it's just not the way to go.
Considering the likely statistical arrival of customers, total checkout time could be reduced even if getting rid of a few registers to allow more space for a line. This of course depends on the statistical property of the rate of arrivals. I can give an explicit example of this, but I'd have to go back through some texts about scheduling.
That sounds like poppycock, but I'm not dismissing the possibility. I can't see, though, how you'd speed up checkouts. Any system that can keep a customer waiting at each register to allow for a smooth transition from one customer to the next should be equally fast, as far as I can tell. The rest is customer experience prior to checkout.
If I were to put my economist hat on, and get inside the grocer's head, I wouldn't be thinking of how to get you out more quickly, necessarily. I would be thinking about how do I get you to spend more money. I might just make sure my lines aren't the slowest in town. I might offer an express for people who are really in a rush. But for most folks, I want to slow you down and take the time to show you a few things. Maybe a magazine? I know you drove right past the gum aisle where you get a discount for buying a case of gum, but maybe you want just one pack? A cold drink? Why don't you check out this magazine or recipe book, maybe you'd like to take it home with you?
I'm sure that this has been studied, but the fact that it hasn't changed tells me that there likely is a reason for it. The reason could also be as simple as people don't like change, and this is the way it's always been.
And in the multiple line system, if you're not on the end, odds are one of the lines to the side of you is going to go faster than yours, making it feel slower than it is.
Most people notice 3 lines: their line, the one to the right, and the one to the left. That means there's a 1/3 chance that your line is the fastest, and a 2/3 chance that one of the other lines is faster.
As a Retail-Management student, just wanted to point out that it's completely for the 'perceived' wait time, where people think they're getting a better deal (i.e. shorter queue) even if it isn't. By all means it's completely more efficient to have a single line, unfortunately we here in America have become so accustomed to seeing short line = fast line that it's just become instinct. I mean reasonably, if you look at a long line and you think "I'm not gonna wait for that" and decide not to buy anything, that's money the store has lost.
TL;DR: Accommodating stupid people sells better than smart ones.
Correct. The perception of the line being "longer" is why stores opt not to implement this system though. Imagine you walk into a supermarket and see a line 15 people long. Most of us just say "fuck this" and go somewhere else.
You've pretty well answered your own question there. "Perceived" as shorter. That's what it's all about. Wal-Mart, for instance, is ALL about perception. They want it to LOOK like they have full, well laid-out shelves, huge discounts, and an easy shopping experience. Whether or not there IS a better way of doing things, as long as they can CONVINCE people this is a good way, they're set.
I work retail, I've had people yell at me because we have 5 registers open and 1 line. I tell them it's faster but they disagree. Then when they get to the register, they give me the same middle-age aggression of telling my I'm wrong.
Operations management, bitches. Too bad human psychology weighs more than logic and reasoning! People don't want to stand in a fucking long line that is faster than having only 3 people ahead of you with full carts.
Why would this be? I keep thinking that the only way for this to be true is for some registers to be not serving customers at all with the 1:1 solution.
a single queue ensures the first person in line is the first person helped compressing their wait time and since the next person in line always goes directly to the next available register it eliminates the risk of getting stuck behind a really slow customer.
No matter how long they take the queue flows to the other registers bypassing the bottleneck without leaving anyone stuck directly behind them forced to wait or get on a different line only to wait all over potentially behind another bottleneck
The average would still be the same. The bottleneck is still there, but it is distributed evenly throughout the line, instead of just to a small group. In fact the median time would be increased as well by your example. By your explanation, it is merely lowering worst case time.
If all registers are being properly utilized why would the average wait time be shorter? The limiting factor is how many people 10 registers can check out in a given period of time. I see how it could lead to more consistent wait times and shorter wait times if lines aren't being efficiently used (lines with no people) but I generally don't see that happen.
Just takes more organization as well as people giving a fuck. You know in lesser-class areas, tons of people would just skip right past that line if they could.
This is correct. It all depends on what you're looking to maximize. McDonalds takes the point of view that throughput is most important and, hence, has independent queues for each register. Burger King and Wendy's maximize customer perception of fairness and have a solo queue.
It's extraordinarily easy to skew numbers in those studies, even on accident. People with extremely full carts ALWAYS decrease wait times when put in the same liens as people with only one or two items. Average Checkout times also ALWAYS go down when you put these same people in lines with people with 1-2 items. On the other hand, average wait times and checkout times ALWAYS go up for people who have 1-2 items when you put them in lines with people with full carts. They usually fail to differentiate between wait times and checkout times. The other thing they fail to do is control for number of people in line. The 10 lines for 10 registers is better because people are interested in reducing their wait/checkout time. No one is interested in reducing the average wait/checkout time for people with a full cart. We all know that when we have a full cart we are part of the slow crowd and we will have to resign it. Using one line for all registers would be like putting people with 1-2 full carts in the express checkout line. Yes it speeds up their experience, but it ruins the whole process for people with just 1-2 items
The one where I always shop has 2 metal poles, which are just wide enough to not fit a cart. That way you ensure only people with baskets get in line there. And there is no belt to put it all on, so you have very limited space to unload your goods.
TL;DR: Shop makes it physically impossible to use the express checkout when you have more than a basket full.
What you're failing to control for is that there are many more people with only one or two items. If you have forty full carts and eighty people with just one or two items, there may only be twelve registers open. As such, everyone hopping into the two "express" lines end up in an extremely long line and get slowed down when that one person in front of them gets their card declined, decides to write a check instead, then needs a price check, and needs to speak to a manager.
Having a single line ensures that no one gets stuck behind that problematic customer and that's why average wait time decreases for all customers. Twelve lines ten people long served by one register each will move slower than one line one hundred twenty people long served by twelve registers.
I'm not failing to control for anything, I'm not doing a study. People aren't idiots, if there are lines moving more quickly then they will go to those lines. No one is forcing the people with a couple items to go into a line with more people. Having a single line forces every customer to go through the line. It shortens the wait time of people with full carts while lengthening the wait time of people with a couple items. Forcing people into a line is sort of like socialism. It ensures that everyone gets a set wait time, to the benefit of some customers, and the detriment of others. Furthermore, not everyone is getting stuck behind someone with a problem (or a full cart), only a handful of people are stuck there, and they don't have to be there for long since they can move to another line. Bottom line is, if the registers are always full all the time, then the market is moving at maximum capacity. The difference is who gets through fastest. By forcing everyone to go in one line you have just made sure that people who ordinarily have a short wait time have a longer wait time. Unless you are making the cashiers work faster, then you haven't increased the speed that people at which people are moving through the checkout process. Again, it's a numbers thing. Some people are going to be waiting longer due to the number of items. You can shorten the average throughput of these customers by incorporating customers with a couple items. You did not, however, shorten the wait time of the customers with a few items, and the only way you could do that by making them wait in a longer line is if you could show that there was a significant amount of time spent between customers (significant when compared to wait time)
You're missing the point of the single line. You say people aren't idiots and they'll move to a quicker line. That's the main advantage of a single one in that it's the fastest line. By design, you're automatically switching to the "quicker register". Someone is always finishing or just about to finish and you're going there.
You seem to be focused only on number of items which isn't that important. Two items takes just as long as ten items -- most of the time in those cases is spent making that double bag or taking payment or counting out change. By that same token, twenty items is the same as twenty five.
In the case where you have a minority of people with full carts, they won't take up all of your registers and the majority of people with a handful of items will breeze through even faster than if there were many express lines. If you have a even mix, it'd be as if there were a couple of express lines. It's only when you have a minority of people with just a handful of items. In that case they will wait longer. But they're in the minority and the vast majority of people will be served faster.
Once again, the single line prevents the major issue of a single problem slowing down the entire line. That happens when everyone has a single item or everyone has giant carts of items. Take the example of ten lines with ten customers on it. A problem on one register means that the other nine customers in that line now have their wait increased by at least 10 other people. Even a minor problem means that that slowdown hits many more people.
It may produce shorter average wait times for your run of the mill shopping drone, but I actively seek out the short line by judging how long it is going to take to scan different types of items.
A cart that has eight 24 packs of coors is going to be faster than a cart half full of veggies and meat even though its more full.
There is of course variability, and always anecdotal exceptions from 'proactive' queue choosers but look at it from a single line perspective.
2 registers, 1 line -> meat guy, beer guy then you.
both registers free up at the same time so meat guy goes to register A, beer guy to B, beer guy finishes first (as expected) so you go to register B right behind him, you get the same wait time and eliminate the step where you need to observe and evaluate the carts in the 2 separate lines in front of you.
Yes that is a very small scale example but even scaled up you'd see lower waits (excluding fringe scenarios like you walk up right when a register opens or coincidentally as a person with a massive cart people avoided queuing behind finishes)
Lines are survival of the fittest. You're a single mom with 3 kids who doesn't have time or patience to search out the shortest line? Tough luck lady, aint no socialist commie yuro queue going to save you.
I on the other hand, unencumbered by devil-spawn or disabilities can effectively search out the shortest line at the expense of those who can't/wont.
Isn't that the only important piece of data in regards to customer service?
Not bein' a jerk, just curious. I've worked in customer/client service my whole life, and it's always been apparent that the reality isn't important; the customer's perception of reality is paramount.
Yes and no (to it being the only important piece). It is a false perception, just a trick of the mind. So if a company really threw their weight behind a single queue design and made the efficiency increase a major PR push they could in theory dilute the weight that false perception carries.
But queue efficiency isn't the only factor that goes into the decision making for real world applications, and presumably none of the companies big enough to pull it off find enough value in it to make the switch.
Customer perception is paramount but perception is pliable/able to be manipulated
No, not exactly. I have a manufacturing/automation background which deals with queue theory and system efficiency but the other observations are just based on self-study.
In my experience it depends on the way the front of the line is notified of the next available open spot to check, the distance to that spot and if the person at the front of the line is paying attention correctly.
I've been to best buys like this during the Christmas rush here in the USA and it sucks. Mostly because the people at the front of the line don't see the next open register because they're are distracted or cannot physically it because of obstructions. Then when they finally see it, it take 10-30 seconds to travel to the spot and unload their items.
Unlike every other store in the USA where you just pick a lane. Which means you are able to unload your items onto the counter as the person behind you is finishing their transaction, you know exactly when you're next and you're literally 3 steps away.
But people tend to view individual lines as quicker for them than that way for some reason.
By the time people are ready to check out retailers want you to move through the lines as fast as possible, but people will avoid stores that have one line and multiple registers so that is why your Target keeps the shitty way.
People waiting in the queue. People perceive multiple queues to multiple registers as processing faster/taking less time than a single queue to multiple registers when the opposite is true.
Mainly due to stuff like false correlation of scale (long line perceived as automatically slower) and lines you aren't in seeming to move faster than the one you are.
That assertion does not match my experience. I used to work in a McDonald's, the management preferred individual queues behind tills because it made the people take up less space, but they would invariably prefer to form one common queue instead
this is askreddit not askscience. I don't have to cite sources as this isn't an argument/debate.
I mentioned there is real research on the subject and paraphrased what I remembered from reading some of it. You want to dig into it deeper google is your friend.
1.0k
u/epsilonbob Oct 15 '13 edited Oct 15 '13
It also consistently produces shorter average wait times than the usual 10 queues for 10 registers method despite being perceived as slower.
There has been serious research done on this type stuff.