Service Engineering Created: April 1997

Last revision: April 2007

LITTLE’S LAW

A conservation law that applies to the following general setting:

Input: Continuous flow or discrete units (examples: granules of powder measured in tons,
tons of paper, number of customers, $1000’s).
System: Boundary is all that is required (very general, abstract).
Output: Same as input, call it throughput.

Two possible scenarios:

• System during a “cycle” (empty → empty, finite horizon);

• System in steady state/in the long run (for example, over many cycles).

Quantities that are related via Little’s law (long-run averages, or time-averages):

• λ = rate at which units arrive

(= long-run average rate at which units depart) = throughput-rate, whose units are
quantity/time-unit or #/time-unit;

• L = inventory/quantity/number in the system

(eg. WIP: Work-In-Process, customers);

• W = time a unit spends in the system = throughput time

(eg. hours) = sojourn time.

Little’s Law L = λW

1
 Little’s
Little’s LawLaw
forforRetail
Retail calls,
calls, May
May2002:
2002:USUS
Bank
Bank
λ: Throughput Rate, Retail, May 2002; US Bank
Arrivals to offered Retail Total
May2002

50000

45000

40000

Number of cases
35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
days

W: Average Waiting Time, Retail, May 2002; US Bank (Wq)

Average Waiting Time, Retail
May 2002; US Bank

40

35

30
Means, Seconds

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

days

L: Average Queue Length, Retail, May 2002; US Bank (Lq)

# Customers in Queue (Average) Retail
May 2002; US Bank

5
Average Number in Queue

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
days

# Customers in Queue Little's Law

Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
λ 38476 36144 37414 14194 7107 38587 33572 33220 33349 34009 14807 7141 41293 37653 36872 35266
W 5.6 3.3 8.0 10.0 6.1 2.6 1.9 1.9 1.8 3.8 10.5 4.8 3.5 3.4 6.8 4.2
λ*W 2.49 1.39 3.48 1.65 0.50 1.14 0.74 0.74 0.69 1.50 1.79 0.40 1.69 1.47 2.91 1.71
L 2.50 1.40 3.49 1.66 0.50 1.15 0.74 0.74 0.71 1.51 1.81 0.40 1.71 1.47 2.94 1.73

Date 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
λ 35338 15533 7530 40534 35493 34070 34005 32512 13100 5909 1558 43980 38163 38416 40284
W 5.4 27.6 8.1 3.0 2.1 2.1 3.2 3.5 2.3 6.4 37.0 6.5 2.7 2.5 3.2
λ*W 2.19 4.96 0.71 1.41 0.87 0.83 1.25 1.30 0.35 0.44 0.67 3.29 1.18 1.11 1.47
L 2.20 4.97 0.71 1.42 0.88 0.84 1.27 1.31 0.37 0.44 0.67 3.30 1.20 1.12 1.48

2
1
 th
Little’s
Little’s LawLaw
forfor Retailcalls,
Retail calls, August
August 16 , 2001:
16th, US Bank
2001: US Bank
λ: Throughput Rate, Retail, August 16th, 2001; US Bank
Arrivals to queue Retail
16 August 2001

2500

2000

Number of cases
1500

1000

500

0
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
Time (Resolution 30 min.)

W: Average Waiting Time, Retail, August 16th, 2001; US Bank

Average wait time(waiting) Retail
16 August 2001

70

60

50
Means, Seconds

40

30

20

10

0
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00

Time (Resolution 30 min.)

L: Average Queue Length, Retail, August 16th, 2001; US Bank

# Customers in Queue (Average) Retail
August 16, 2001; US Bank

25

20
Average Number in Queue

15

10

0
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
time (resolution 30 min)

# Customers in Queue Little's Law

Time 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00
λ 443 639 987 1291 1998 2166 2278 2231 2158 2135 2000 1408 1311 1303 1323 1285 1340
W 1.7 3.2 1.2 1.5 2.4 2.8 2.4 2.6 2.0 1.3 1.3 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.5
λ*W 0.42 1.14 0.68 1.06 2.72 3.42 3.01 3.18 2.44 1.55 1.47 0.64 0.72 0.72 0.62 0.59 1.09
L 0.42 1.14 0.68 1.06 2.72 3.40 3.02 3.17 2.41 1.59 1.48 0.64 0.72 0.72 0.62 0.57 1.11

Time 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30
λ 1258 1235 1157 942 788 752 803 619 485 437 421 386 336 311 274 251 193
W 3.5 3.6 15.8 4.2 2.4 4.9 51.9 10.0 3.5 1.7 1.3 2.1 3.3 1.4 2.0 14.3 32.6
λ*W 2.422 2.45 10.2 2.173 1.06 2.05 23.16 3.43 0.95 0.41 0.314 0.44 0.62 0.24 0.30 2.00 3.50
L 2.37 2.49 10.17 2.16 1.07 1.94 23.11 3.59 0.95 0.40 0.31 0.45 0.62 0.24 0.30 1.83 3.63

3
2
 th
Little’s
Little’s LawLaw
forfor Privatecalls,
Private calls, May
May 44th,
, 2004: Israeli
2004: Telecom
Israeli Telecom
λ: Throughput Rate, Private, May 4th, 2004; Israeli Telecom
Arrivals to queue Private
4 May 2004

600

500

Number of cases
400

300

200

100

0
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
Time (Resolution 30 min.)

W: Average Waiting Time, Private, May 4th, 2004; Israeli Telecom

Average wait time(all) Private
4 May 2004

90

80

70
Means, Seconds

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
Time (Resolution 30 min.)

L: Average Queue Length, Private, May 4th, 2004; Israeli Telecom

# Customers in Queue (Average) Private
May 4, 2004; Israeli Telecom

25

20
Average Number in Queue

15

10

0
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
time (resolution 30 min)

# Customers in Queue Little's Law

Time 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00
λ 84 133 245 341 368 417 397 447 429 474 505 455 513 451 426 418 437
W 0.5 0.4 0.8 47.9 48.8 61.5 11.3 55.6 40.0 81.9 15.8 15.3 32.6 10.8 31.3 2.9 22.5
λ*W 0.02 0.03 0.11 9.08 9.98 14.24 2.50 13.81 9.52 21.57 4.44 3.86 9.29 2.70 7.40 0.67 5.46
L 0.02 0.03 0.11 8.47 10.59 14.24 1.85 14.40 9.42 21.57 4.61 3.86 8.98 2.92 7.49 0.67 5.46

Time 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30
λ 449 452 458 486 534 508 557 433 450 448 408 389 347 285 274 208 147
W 7.2 5.1 17.1 25.8 15.6 18.9 35.8 3.0 18.3 59.5 24.1 47.7 23.6 32.5 65.3 59.5 1.3
λ*W 1.78 1.28 4.36 6.96 4.62 5.34 11.07 0.723 4.572 14.8 5.45 10.31 4.543 5.14 9.93 6.879 0.10
L 1.78 1.22 4.42 6.96 4.62 5.27 11.09 0.78 3.89 15.32 5.39 10.44 4.64 5.14 9.82 6.99 0.10

4
3
 th
Little’s
Little’s Law Law
forfor Telesalescalls,
Telesales calls,October
October 10 , 2001:
10th, US US
2001: Bank
Bank
λ: Throughput Rate, Telesales, October 10th, 2001; US Bank
Arrivals to queue Telesales
10 October 2001

500

450

400
Number of cases 350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00

Time (Resolution 30 min.)

W: Average Waiting Time, Telesales, October 10th, 2001; US Bank

Average wait time(all) Telesales
10 October 2001

700

600

500
Means, Seconds

400

300

200

100

0
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00

Time (Resolution 30 min.)

L: Average Queue Length, Telesales, October 10th, 2001; US Bank

# Customers in Queue (Average) Telesales
October 10, 2001; US Bank

200

180

160
Average Number in Queue

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
time (resolution 30 min)

# Customers in Queue Little's Law

Time 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00
λ 76 102 182 262 379 464 440 433 410 431 422 418 401 439 453 432 373
W 109.8 123.8 383.5 403.7 503.5 522.5 607.9 602.1 552.4 521.1 508.6 468.8 442.1 467.3 545.9 483.1 442.1
λ*W 4.63 7.01 38.77 58.76 106.01 134.69 148.60 144.84 125.82 124.77 119.23 108.86 98.48 113.98 137.39 115.93 91.61
L 4.28 6.91 31.73 54.36 96.50 140.70 168.10 174.34 166.14 146.13 154.48 137.47 118.29 121.44 144.07 146.01 119.83

Time 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30
λ 405 427 298 242 182 134 132 134 112 105 105 87 80 55 45 28 30
W 419.2 442.2 458.8 387.9 415.1 357.1 121.6 179.8 267.9 445.7 536.0 416.9 403.9 326.0 463.6 187.3 0.9
λ * W 94.31 104.89 75.96 52.15 41.97 26.58 8.92 13.38 16.67 26.00 31.27 20.15 17.95 9.96 11.59 2.91 0.02
L 107.86 101.22 111.60 82.93 42.23 32.32 10.57 13.24 18.67 21.07 32.50 24.10 20.33 10.69 11.13 4.35 0.02

5
4
 rd
Little’s
Little’s LawLaw
forfor Russiancalls,
Russian calls,May
May 23 , 2005:
23rd, Israeli
2005: Telecom
Israeli Telecom
λ: Throughput Rate, Russian, May 23rd, 2005; Israeli Telecom
Arrivals to queue Russian
23 May 2005

90

80

70

Number of cases 60

50

40

30

20

10

0
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00

Time (Resolution 30 min.)

W: Average Waiting Time, Russian, May 23rd, 2005; Israeli Telecom

Average wait time(all) Russian
23 May 2005

250

200
Means, Seconds

150

100

50

0
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
Time (Resolution 30 min.)

L: Average Queue Length, Russian, May 23rd, 2005; Israeli Telecom

# Customers in Queue (Average) Russian
May 23, 2005; Israeli Telecom

10

8
Average Number in Queue

0
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
time (resolution 30 min)

# Customers in Queue Little's Law

Time 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00
λ 12 12 22 46 59 59 36 52 43 56 81 61 80 46 67 56 50
W 16.9 1.3 11.4 166.0 148.9 88.7 7.9 27.4 0.7 3.9 20.3 74.9 125.4 46.3 41.4 47.9 37.7
λ*W 0.11 0.01 0.14 4.24 4.88 2.91 0.16 0.79 0.02 0.12 0.91 2.54 5.57 1.18 1.54 1.49 1.05
L 0.08 0.04 0.14 3.97 4.88 3.18 0.16 0.79 0.02 0.12 0.88 2.57 5.32 1.44 1.36 1.67 1.00

Time 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30 18:00 18:30 19:00 19:30 20:00 20:30 21:00 21:30 22:00 22:30 23:00 23:30
λ 57 52 62 70 75 79 68 68 60 55 55 56 56 43 27 14 6
W 65.7 22.4 79.2 156.6 118.6 139.3 143.6 150.2 179.2 151.3 209.5 219.5 224.7 88.4 33.7 107.0 0.7
λ*W 2.08 0.65 2.73 6.09 4.94 6.11 5.42 5.68 5.97 4.62 6.40 6.83 6.99 2.11 0.51 0.83 0.00
L 2.13 0.62 2.34 5.51 5.82 5.61 6.03 3.04 8.63 4.34 5.99 7.18 6.85 2.61 0.51 0.83 0.00

6
5
Motivation 1: λ customers/hour, each charged $1/hour while remaining in the system.
Then λ × W is the rate at which the system generates cash which, in turn, “clearly”
equals L.
Motivation 2: If there is always a single customer (L = 1) in the system, and every
customer remains in the system W hours on average (customers arrive one after the other),
then λ = 1/W is clear. When there are L in the system, on the average, λ = L/W is just
one leap of faith.
Hint at a stochastic version: think of i.i.d sojourn times and use the Strong Law of Large
Numbers.
Motivation 3 (finite horizon): Consider a system that operates in a finite horizon
(interval of time), and think of customers that arrive and leave (discrete units).
Interval length is T .
Note: Little’s Law will work if the system is empty at time 0, and empty at time T .
Motivation 4 (work in cycles): Consider a system that operates in cycles of equal
durations and has the same statistical behavior during each cycle.
Cycle length is T .
Note: Little’s Law will work if the system is at the same level (not necessarily 0) at the
beginning and at the end of the cycle, and if all the customers that are in the system at
the beginning of the cycle leave the system before the end of the cycle.
This happens, for instance, if there is a moment during the cycle when the system becomes
empty (see Example 10 on page 12, or Serfozo’s treatment on page 18).

Graphical representation. N customers flow though the system during a cycle.

A customer is represented by a rectangle of unit height, whose length equals the time the
customer spends in the system (see the figure below).

7
 W7

A(T)=N # customers

1
time
0

0 T

L(t)

1
time
0

0 T

L(0)=0 L(T)=0

Note: Vertical cut = number of customers in the system.

Note: Vertical cut = number of customers in the system.
S = Shaded area (units: customer × hours), measures total waiting.
S = Shaded area (units: customer × hours), measures total waiting.
S
W = , divides waiting among customers
N
S
W (the
= customer’s view). among customers
, divides waiting
N
S (the customer’s
L= , divides waiting over time view).
T
S manager’s view).
(the
L= , divides waiting over time
T
N (the manager’s view).
λ= , implies L = λ · W
T N
λ =(which
, adds the L
implies server’s
= λ · W view).
T
8
3
More formally:
Z T A(T )
X
Area = L(t)dt = Wk (whenever L(0) = L(T ) = 0) .
0 k=1

Define RT
1 
L= T 0 L(t)dt 



PA(T ) 
1
W = A(T ) k=1 Wk  =⇒ L = λW


A(T )

λ=

T

Examples

1. Management Strategy and Control: Only two out of the three λ, L, W deter-
mine a strategy; the third is implicitly determined.
Scenario: λ = demand (projected), W = goal (set), L = means of monitoring W .

2. Inventory Management

L = average inventory;
W = average time in inventory;
λ = average throughput rate.

The quantity 1/W = λ/L is often referred to as the turnover ratio.

Scenario: A fast food restaurant processes on the average 5000 lbs. of hamburger
per week. The observed inventory level of raw meat, over a long period of time,
averages 2500 lbs.
Data:
L = 2500 lbs., λ = 5000 lbs./week;
W = L/λ = 2500/5000 = 1/2 week is the average time spent by a pound of meat
in inventory; 1/W = 2 times per week is the inventory turnover ratio.

3. Services Management

L = average number of customers;

W = average customer’s delay;
λ = average customers’ throughput rate.

Scenario:
3.1 A restaurant processes on average 1500 customers per day (=15 hours). On
average, there are 50 customers waiting to place an order, waiting for an order to
arrive or eating.

9
 λ = 1500 customers/day = 100 customers/hour;
L = 50 customers;
W = L/λ = 50/100 = 1/2 hours, average time in the restaurant.

3.2 Out of the 50 customers, 40 customers on the average are eating.

λ = 100, L = 50 − 40 = 10 customers at the service counter;

W = L/λ = 10/100 hours = 6 minutes average wait at the counter.

4. Workforce Management: A certain Japanese company has 36,000 employees,

20% of whom are women. The average term of employment for a woman is 37
months, whereas for men it is 200 months. Assume that the total employment level
and the mix of men and women are stable over time.
Lw = average number of women in system = 36, 000 × 0.2 = 7, 200 women.
λw = 7200
37
= 194.6 women/month is the average number of new women employees
hired per month.
Lm = 36, 000 × 0.8 = 28, 800 men,
λm = 28,800
200
= 144 men/month.
Thus, the company hires an average of 194.6 + 144 = 338.6 new employees per
month, or equivalently, 338.6 × 12 = 4063.2 new employees per year.
4063.2
= 0.1128 × 100% = 11.28% labor turnover during a year
36, 000
= 2.82% turnover during a 3-month period
(compared with 40% at fast food, for example,
and about 100% in many Call Centers).

5. Little’s Law in Transportation Science

5.1 Cars flow through a highway. We wish to relate the 3 quantities: Highway
Density, Flow Rate, Car Velocity.

System = 1 km of highway
L = avg. number of cars in system (1 km) = Density
λ = Flow, in avg. number of cars per hour (in = out = through)
W = avg. time to travel 1 km, say in hours
1
⇒ W
= Velocity, in km/hr; denote it V .

By Little’s Law:
Flow
Density =
Velocity

10
5.2 Cars flow over a single-loop detector, that can measure Occupancy = % time
there is a car above the detector;
Flow = avg. # cars per hour.

System = Detector
L = Occupancy (E [Indicator])
λ = Flow
`
W = V
time to traverse one detector
where V = Velocity, ` = av. car length.

By Little’s Law:

Flow × car-length
Occupancy = × 100%
Velocity

Note: Occupancy = Density × car-length.

5.3 Empirically, transportation flow reveals the following “flow vs. occupancy”
relation (”flow vs. density” would look the same):

From “Causes and Cures of Highway Congestion”,

Chao Chen, Zhanfeng Jia and Pravin Varaiya, 2001
.

Free Flow, Congestion,

100 % Inefficient
Efficiency Operation
Maximum 5:30 am
Flow

6:45 am
9:00 am

Speed = 60 mph
Depth of
Congestion

Critical
Occupancy Level

Figure 6: Flow vs. occupancy on a section at postmile 37.18 on I-10W, midnight to noon
on October 3, 2000.

11
 From “The freeway congestion paradox”,
Chao Chen and Pravin Varaiya, 2001.

12:00

4:00 5:10
6:00

6:10 5:25

11:00 5:30

7:00

Figure 1 Congestion begins at 5:20 am. By 7:00 am, both speed and flow
have dropped dramatically.

From “Causes and Cures of Highway Congestion”,

Chao Chen, Zhanfeng Jia and Pravin Varaiya, 2001
Flow (VPH)

Free Flow Congestion

Maximum
Flow

Depth of
Recovery Phase Congestion
60 mph

Occupancy (%)
Critical Occupancy
Level

Figure 7: Model of congestion. If occupancy is maintained below critical level, section

operates at 100 % efficiency and speed is at 60 mph.

a dynamic model that exhibits such transitions. Measurements of the recovery phase show
erratic fluctuations as in Fig. 6. The model in turn supports the following hypothesis about
traffic behavior:

If a metering policy keeps occupancy below its critical level in every section,
12 be maintained at 60 mph, and highway
efficiency will be 100 %, speed will
congestion will be prevented. A consequence of the metering is that vehicles
will be stopped at the ramps for some time.
 The critical occupancy is the occupancy-level beyond which congestion starts
building up.
Note: For each point on the curve, the slope of the line connecting it with the
origin is proportional (equal) to the velocity; indeed:

Flow Velocity Flow

= ; = Velocity
Occupancy Car-lenght Density

This explains the (almost) straight line to the left of the critical occupancy: its slope
is the congestion-free velocity (60 miles/hr in California highways).
Note: with a single-loop detector covering N lanes, and assuming that traffic is
evenly divided among the lanes (though typically this is not the case), the Occu-
pancy should be calculated by using Flow/N , instead of merely Flow.

6. Abandonment: Calls arrive at a call center at rate α. A fraction Pab of them

abandons due to impatience. Individual abandonment rate is θ.
Let Lq , Wq denote, respectively, the average number of customers waiting to be
served, and the average queueing time (waiting for service). Then

α · Pab = θ · Lq .

But Lq = αWq , hence

Pab = θ · Wq .
Thus, the abandonment rate is proportional to the average waiting time. This has
been confirmed empirically for new (potential) customers. Indeed, (Pab , Wq ) were
observed and scatterplotted. The slope (via regression) can be used to estimate
customers’ (average) patience.

13
 Thus, the company hires an average of 194.6 + 144 = 338.6 new employees per
month, or equivalently, 338.6 × 12 = 4063.2 new employees per year.
The 4063.2
data is from a bank call center. Each point corresponds to a 15-minute period of
0.1128 × 100%
a day (Sunday=to Thursday), = 11.28%
starting labor
at 7:00am, turnover
ending duringand
at midnight, a year
averaged
over36,
the000
whole year of 1999.
= 2.82% turnover during a 3-month period
• Why a positive y-intercept?
(compared with 40% at fast food, for example
• What about experienced customers?
and about 100% in many Call Centers).

7. Loan Application Flow from Managing Business Process Flows, by R.Anupindi,

10. Process Flow: A supermarket receives from suppliers 300 tons of fish over the
S.Chopra, S.Deshmukh, J.Van Mieghem, E.Zemel, Chapter 3. (In Recitation.)
course of a full year, which averages out to 25 tons per month. The average quantity
of 8. Process
fish held inFlow:
freezerAstorage
supermarket receives
is 16.5 tons. from suppliers 300 tons of fish over the
course of how
On average, a fulllong
year,does
whichaaverages out to
ton of fish 25 tonsinper
remain month.
freezer The average
storage quantity
between the time
of fish held in freezer storage is 16.5 tons.
it is received and the time it is sent to the sales department?
On average, how long does a ton of fish remain in freezer storage between the time
W =itL/λ = 16.5/25
is received = time
and the 0.66itmonths,
is sent toon
theaverage, is the period that a ton of fish
sales department?
spends
W in
= the
L/λ freezer.
= 16.5/25 = 0.66 months, on average, is the period that a ton of fish
How spends
does one getfreezer.
in the L = 16.5? This comes out of the following inventory build-up
diagram
How by calculating
does one get L the area This
= 16.5? belowcomes
the graph:
out of the following inventory build-up
diagram by calculating the area below the graph:

Inventory/Queue
Inventory/Queue Build-up Diagram.
Build-up Diagram.
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
inventory L(t)

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

time (months)

4 4 2 2
17 × 12
+ 24 × 12
+ 12 × 12
+ 5× 12
=
17 5
17 × 4
3
12
+ + 24 ×8 12
4 + 12 ×
+ 2 2
12
++ 5 ×
6
2=
12
=16.5.
16.5

14
9. Shop Flow Control: JIT (Just-In-Time) principles advocate limiting the number
of active jobs (those that have been released to the shop floor).
Scenario: A job shop with Lold = 300 active jobs, Wold = 20 weeks, λold = 15
jobs/week.
Management familiar with Little’s law and JIT principles imposes Lhope ≤ 150 active
Lhope
jobs, in anticipation of λhope = 15 jobs/week, Whope = λhope ≤ 10 weeks.
It turns out, however, that
Lactual
Lactual ≤ 150, Wactual = 20 weeks, λactual = ≤ 7.5 jobs/week.
Wactual
What is lacking? Congestion curves (Strategic Q-theory): later.

10. Assembly Lines

L = average WIP;
W = average production time of a unit;
λ = average production rate.

The quantity λ1 is often called a cycle time.

Scenario: Watches are produced by an assembly line consisting of 20 workers. The
line produces 4 watches per minute.
Data:
L = 20 watches,
4
λ = 4 watches/min = 60 watches per second,
1/λ = 15 seconds cycle time is the average time between consecutive assembly
completion (a watch is assembled every 15 seconds);
W = L/λ = 20/4 = 5 minutes assembly time of a watch.

15
11. Insurance: An insurance company processes 10,000 claims per year. The average
processing time of a claim is 3 weeks. Assuming 50 weeks per year, we have

λ = 10,000 claims/year = 200 claims/week;

W = 3 weeks;
L = λW = 3 × 200 = 600 claims backlog on the average.

12. Cash Flow (Accounts Receivable): A company sells 300M$ worth of finished
goods per year. The average amount of accounts receivable is 45M$.

λ = 300M$/year;
L = 45M$;
W = L/λ = 45/300 = 0.15 years = 1.8 months.

So it takes, on average, 1.8 months from the time a customer is billed until the time
payment is received.
13. Cash Flow: A paper mill processes 40M$ of raw material per year. Direct conver-
sion costs are 20M$ per year. Average inventory cost (raw material + conversion)
is 5M$.

λ = 40+20 = 60M$ year;

L = 5M$;
W = 5/60 = 1/12 years = 1 month.

Thus, there is an average lag of one month between the time a dollar enters the
system in the form of raw material (example: logs) or conversion cost (example:
chemicals), and the time it leaves the system in the form of finished goods (example:
paper).
14. Loss Queues: Customers arrive at a service facility at rate α. A fraction β of them
are blocked (do not enter). The others join a queue and wait until being served.
Assuming existence of averages and flow conservation, let
τ = average service time,
ν = long-run time-average number of customers in service. (Think G/G/S/N.)
Then
ν
β =1− · (Any three of (α, β, τ, ν) determine the fourth.)
ατ
By: system = servers, L = ν, W = τ, λ = α(1 − β).

Alternative scenario: An Internet site. (Think G/G/s/s.)

S = number of servers. Then ρ = ν/S is servers’ utilization and
ρS
β =1− ,
ατ
where (S, τ ) are known, ρ is measured, hence α and β determine each other. One
could also use this to determine an appropriate S, given service level.

16
15. Little’s Law in the “Production of Justice”.

• 5 Judges “process” 3 types of files.

• System = “drawer” of a Judge.

Judges: Performance Analysis

Judges: Performance Analysis (λ, W )

Case Type 0 Judge1

10 Case Type 01 Judge2
Case Type 3 Judge3
9 Judge4
0 Judge5

8 0
01 . (6.2, 7.4) . (13.5, 7.4)
7 3 3
Avg. Months - W

01
6 3
3
(12, 4.9)
. 0
5 (7.2, 4.6) . 0 3
(26.3, 4.5)
01 0 .
4 01
01
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Avg. Cases / Month - λ

Judges: Judges: PerformanceAnalysis

Performance Analysis (L)

Case Type 0 Judge1

10 Case Type 01 Judge2
Case Type 3 Judge3
9 Judge4
0 Judge5

8 0
01 . (6.2,
45 7.4) . (13.5,
100 7.4)
7 3 3
Avg. Months - W

01
6 3
59 0
5 3 .
(12, 4.9)
3
(7.2, 4.6) . 33 0 118
(26.3, 4.5)
.
01 0
4 01
01
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Avg. Cases / Month - λ

17
 Little’s Formula. Deterministic Model.
Infinite Horizon (Stidham’s formulation)

Averages: L=λ·W

L = number of units in the system;

λ = throughput rate;
W = sojourn time.

Rigorous formulation
The system is characterized by {(An , Dn ), n ≥ 1}, where
An – time of the nth arrival.
Dn – departure-time of the nth arrival.

0 ≤ An ≤ An+1 An ≤ Dn < ∞ .
Define:
A(t) = number of arrivals until t;
D(t) = number of departures until t;
L(t) = number of units such that An ≤ t < Dn , i.e., number of units in the system;
Wn = Dn − An , sojourn time of the nth unit in the system.

Theorem. Assume that

1 1
λ = lim A(t) = lim D(t), 0<λ<∞.
t↑∞ t t↑∞ t

Then
N
1 X 1ZT
lim Wn = W exists ⇔ lim L(t)dt = L exists,
N ↑∞ N T ↑∞ T 0
n=1

in which case L = λW .

18
Extension (Brumelle)
Associate with every n a corresponding function fn (t), t ∈ [An , Dn ].
Assume that fn (t) = 0, if t 6∈ [An , Dn ].
Interpret fn (t) as income-rate at time t (average income per unit of time).
Define
N Z ∞
1 X
GN = fn (t)dt (average income per customer);
N n=1 0
∞
1ZTX
HT = fn (t)dt (average income per time unit).
T 0 n=1

Then,
lim GN = G exists ⇔ lim HT = H exists,
N ↑∞ T ↑∞

in which case

H =λ·G

19
 Stochastic example: M/M/1

Model
Birth-and-death process, birth rate λ, death rate µ.
Assumption
λ
ρ= µ
< 1, answers existence of stationary (limit) distribution π:

πk = (1 − ρ)ρk ,
k = 0, 1, 2, . . . (geometric distribution).
∞
X ρ λ
L = kπk = = .
k=0 1−ρ µ−λ

1 1 1 1
Little: W = L= = .
λ µ−λ µ 1−ρ
Check out:

∞
X
W = (PASTA) = E[sojourn time/k customers in system] πk
k=0
∞
" #
X k 1
= (memoryless property) = + πk
k=0 µ µ
1 1 1 1
= + L = ··· = .
µ µ µ 1−ρ

1 1 ρ
System = queue: Lq = λ Wq , Wq = W − µ
= µ 1−ρ
.
Lq – queue-length,
Wq – waiting-time.
System = server:
1
L=λ· ,
µ
L = ρ = probability that the system is not empty (customer waits)
= proportion of time when the server is busy (traffic intensity).

20
 Stochastic Model (à la Serfozo1 )
{(An , Dn ), n ≥ 1} random variables; limits are a.s. (with probability 1)

1 1ZT
e.g. λ = lim A(t) a.s. ; L(t)dt → L a.s., as T ↑ ∞, etc.
t↑∞ t T 0

“Periodic” System (Serfozo, pg. 17)

A system is periodically empty if there exist strictly increasing random times τn ↑ ∞,
such that

τn+1
1. τn ∼ τn+1 i.e. lim τn
= 1 a.s. (implied, for example, by τn /n → c).
n↑∞

2. For all n, there exists t ∈ [τn , τn+1 ) such that A(t) = D(t), i.e. L(t) = 0.

Theorem. If a system is periodically empty, the existence of any two positive limits out
of (L, λ, W ) implies existence of the third, as well as the relation L = λW .
Typical application: τn starts a “cycle” (eg. empty system; state 7), which gives rise
to a regenerative structure (eg. Markovian).

1
Introduction To Stochastic Networks, Springer 1999, Chapter 5

21
Application of H = λG : Brumelle’s formula (1971), in Whitt, pg. 257.

Framework: a single queue (think of G/G/1 ; G/G/S is o.k. as well).

Characteristics of customer n: An arrival time;

Wn waiting time (before service);
Sn service time (Dn = An + Wn + Sn ).

Let 
 Sn
 An ≤ t < An + Wn
fn (t) =  Sn + Wn + An − t An + Wn ≤ t ≤ An + Wn + Sn = Dn

0 otherwise.

fn (t) – Remaining work associated with customer n:

fn (t) = Sn while customer is waiting, then decreases at rate 1 while she is served.

N Z ∞ N 
1 X 1 X 1 1

G = lim fn (t)dt = lim Sn Wn + Sn2 = E(SWq ) + E(S 2 )
N ↑∞ N n=1 0 N 1 2 2

(assuming SLLN-behavior, which is o.k. if steady state exists).

∞
1ZTX 1ZT
H = lim fn (t)dt = lim V (t)dt = E(V )
T ↑∞ T 0 T 0
n=1

V (t) – Work load process (under FIFO in G/G/1, it is equal to virtual waiting time).

22
 h i
1
Brumelle’s Formula E(V ) = λ E(SWq ) + 2
E(S 2 )

If, as usually assumed in G/G/1, service times are independent of waiting times,
1
 
E(V ) = λ E(S) E(Wq ) + (S 2 ) .
2
If ASTA = arrivals see time averages, as in the case of Poisson arrivals, and if we have a
single-server queue with FIFO, then
d
V = Wq .

1
 
⇒ E(Wq ) = λ E(S)E(Wq ) + E(S 2 ) , which yields
2
1 1
E(Wq ) = · λE(S 2 )
1 − λE(S) 2
1 1
= λE(S 2 ) (using λE(S) = ρ)
1−ρ 2
ρ 1 E(S 2 )
=
1 − ρ 2 E(S)
2
ρ 1+CS
 
σ2
Khinchine Pollatcheck E(Wq ) = E(S) 1−ρ 2
C2 = E2
Hall, Formula (5.64) (M/G/1)

EWq ρ Ca2 + CS2

Kingman’s bound (G/G/1), ≈ - Upper bound,
ES 1−ρ 2
Allen-Cunneen approx. - Asymptotically correct, as ρ ↑ 1
Hall, Formula (5.70) (in Heavy Traffic)

The following picture is based on call center data.

Service Level vs. Availability.

350

300

250
Average Wait, sec

200

150

100

50

0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Utilization (Hourly Avg.)

Average Wait Trendline

23