Service Engineering Created: April 1997

Last revision: April 2007

LITTLES LAW
A conservation law that applies to the following general setting:
Input: Continuous ow or discrete units (examples: granules of powder measured in tons,
tons of paper, number of customers, $1000s).
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, nite horizon);
System in steady state/in the long run (for example, over many cycles).
Quantities that are related via Littles law (long-run averages, or time-averages):
= 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.
Littles Law L = W
1
Littles Law for Retail calls, May 2002: US Bank
1
Littles Law for Retail calls, May 2002: US Bank

: Throughput Rate, Retail, May 2002; US Bank
Arrivals to offered Retail Total
May2002
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
days
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
a
s
e
s


W: Average Waiting Time, Retail, May 2002; US Bank (Wq)
Average Waiting Time, Retail
May 2002; US Bank
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
days
M
e
a
n
s
,

S
e
c
o
n
d
s


L: Average Queue Length, Retail, May 2002; US Bank (Lq)
# Customers in Queue (Average) Retail
May 2002; US Bank
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
days
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

i
n

Q
u
e
u
e
# Customers in Queue Little's Law


Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
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
* 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
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
* 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
Littles Law for Retail calls, August 16th, 2001: US Bank
2
Littles Law for Retail calls, August 16
th
, 2001: US Bank

: Throughput Rate, Retail, August 16
th
, 2001; US Bank
Arrivals to queue Retail
16 August 2001
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
Time (Resolution 30 min.)
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
a
s
e
s


W: Average Waiting Time, Retail, August 16
th
, 2001; US Bank
Average wait time(waiting) Retail
16 August 2001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
Time (Resolution 30 min.)
M
e
a
n
s
,

S
e
c
o
n
d
s


L: Average Queue Length, Retail, August 16
th
, 2001; US Bank
# Customers in Queue (Average) Retail
August 16, 2001; US Bank
0
5
10
15
20
25
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
time (resolution 30 min)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

i
n

Q
u
e
u
e
# 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
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
* 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
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
* 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
Littles Law for Private calls, May 4th, 2004: Israeli Telecom
3
Littles Law for Private calls, May 4
th
, 2004: Israeli Telecom

: Throughput Rate, Private, May 4
th
, 2004; Israeli Telecom
Arrivals to queue Private
4 May 2004
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
Time (Resolution 30 min.)
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
a
s
e
s


W: Average Waiting Time, Private, May 4
th
, 2004; Israeli Telecom
Average wait time(all) Private
4 May 2004
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
Time (Resolution 30 min.)
M
e
a
n
s
,

S
e
c
o
n
d
s


L: Average Queue Length, Private, May 4
th
, 2004; Israeli Telecom
# Customers in Queue (Average) Private
May 4, 2004; Israeli Telecom
0
5
10
15
20
25
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
time (resolution 30 min)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

i
n

Q
u
e
u
e
# 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
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
* 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
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
* 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
Littles Law for Telesales calls, October 10th, 2001: US Bank
4
Littles Law for Telesales calls, October 10
th
, 2001: US Bank

: Throughput Rate, Telesales, October 10
th
, 2001; US Bank
Arrivals to queue Telesales
10 October 2001
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
Time (Resolution 30 min.)
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
a
s
e
s


W: Average Waiting Time, Telesales, October 10
th
, 2001; US Bank
Average wait time(all) Telesales
10 October 2001
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
Time (Resolution 30 min.)
M
e
a
n
s
,

S
e
c
o
n
d
s


L: Average Queue Length, Telesales, October 10
th
, 2001; US Bank
# Customers in Queue (Average) Telesales
October 10, 2001; US Bank
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
time (resolution 30 min)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

i
n

Q
u
e
u
e
# 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
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
* 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
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
* 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
Littles Law for Russian calls, May 23rd, 2005: Israeli Telecom
5
Littles Law for Russian calls, May 23
rd
, 2005: Israeli Telecom

: Throughput Rate, Russian, May 23
rd
, 2005; Israeli Telecom
Arrivals to queue Russian
23 May 2005
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
Time (Resolution 30 min.)
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
a
s
e
s


W: Average Waiting Time, Russian, May 23
rd
, 2005; Israeli Telecom
Average wait time(all) Russian
23 May 2005
0
50
100
150
200
250
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
Time (Resolution 30 min.)
M
e
a
n
s
,

S
e
c
o
n
d
s


L: Average Queue Length, Russian, May 23
rd
, 2005; Israeli Telecom
# Customers in Queue (Average) Russian
May 23, 2005; Israeli Telecom
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
7:00 9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00
time (resolution 30 min)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

i
n

Q
u
e
u
e
# 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
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
* 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
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
* 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
Motivation 1: customers/hour, each charged $1/hour while remaining in the system.
Then 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 = 1/W is clear. When there are L in the system, on the average, = 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 (nite horizon): Consider a system that operates in a nite horizon
(interval of time), and think of customers that arrive and leave (discrete units).
Interval length is T.
Note: Littles 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: Littles 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 Serfozos treatment on page 18).
Graphical representation. N customers ow 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 gure below).
7
1
2
time
A(T)=N
# customers
0
W
7
1
2
time
L(t)
0
L(0)=0 L(T)=0
T 0
0 T
Note: Vertical cut = number of customers in the system.
S = Shaded area (units: customer hours), measures total waiting.
W =
S
N
, divides waiting among customers
(the customers view).
L =
S
T
, divides waiting over time
(the managers view).
=
N
T
, implies L = W
3
Note: Vertical cut = number of customers in the system.
S = Shaded area (units: customer hours), measures total waiting.
W =
S
N
, divides waiting among customers
(the customers view).
L =
S
T
, divides waiting over time
(the managers view).
=
N
T
, implies L = W
(which adds the servers view).
8
More formally:
Area =
_
T
0
L(t)dt =
A(T)

k=1
W
k
(whenever L(0) = L(T) = 0) .
Dene
L =
1
T
_
T
0
L(t)dt
W =
1
A(T)

A(T)
k=1
W
k
=
A(T)
T
_

_
=L = W
Examples
1. Management Strategy and Control: Only two out of the three , L, W deter-
mine a strategy; the third is implicitly determined.
Scenario: = demand (projected), W = goal (set), L = means of monitoring W.
2. Inventory Management
L = average inventory;
W = average time in inventory;
= average throughput rate.
The quantity 1/W = /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., = 5000 lbs./week;
W = L/ = 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 customers delay;
= 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
= 1500 customers/day = 100 customers/hour;
L = 50 customers;
W = L/ = 50/100 = 1/2 hours, average time in the restaurant.
3.2 Out of the 50 customers, 40 customers on the average are eating.
= 100, L = 50 40 = 10 customers at the service counter;
W = L/ = 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.
L
w
= average number of women in system = 36, 000 0.2 = 7, 200 women.

w
=
7200
37
= 194.6 women/month is the average number of new women employees
hired per month.
L
m
= 36, 000 0.8 = 28, 800 men,

m
=
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
36, 000
= 0.1128 100% = 11.28% labor turnover during a year
= 2.82% turnover during a 3-month period
(compared with 40% at fast food, for example,
and about 100% in many Call Centers).
5. Littles Law in Transportation Science
5.1 Cars ow 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
= 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 Littles Law:
Density =
Flow
Velocity
10
5.2 Cars ow 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])
= Flow
W =

V
time to traverse one detector
where V = Velocity, = av. car length.
By Littles Law:
Occupancy =
Flow car-length
Velocity
100%
Note: Occupancy = Density car-length.
5.3 Empirically, transportation ow reveals the following ow vs. occupancy
relation (ow vs. density would look the same):
From Causes and Cures of Highway Congestion,
Chao Chen, Zhanfeng Jia and Pravin Varaiya, 2001
Speed = 60 mph
Maximum
Flow
Free Flow,
100 %
Efficiency
Congestion,
Inefficient
Operation
Depth of
Congestion
Critical
Occupancy Level
5:30 am
6:45 am
9:00 am
.
Figure 6: Flow vs. occupancy on a section at postmile 37.18 on I-10W, midnight to noon
on October 3, 2000.
11
11
From The freeway congestion paradox,
Chao Chen and Pravin Varaiya, 2001.




6:10
12:00
11:00
7:00
6:00
5:30
5:25
5:10
4:00
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
Occupancy (%)
F
l
o
w

(
V
P
H
)
Maximum
Flow
Congestion Free Flow
60 mph
Depth of
Congestion
Recovery Phase
Critical Occupancy
Level
Figure 7: Model of congestion. If occupancy is maintained below critical level, section
operates at 100 % efciency and speed is at 60 mph.
a dynamic model that exhibits such transitions. Measurements of the recovery phase show
erratic uctuations as in Fig. 6. The model in turn supports the following hypothesis about
trafc behavior:
If a metering policy keeps occupancy below its critical level in every section,
efciency will be 100 %, speed will be maintained at 60 mph, and highway
congestion will be prevented. A consequence of the metering is that vehicles
will be stopped at the ramps for some time.
We call this the ideal ramp metering (IMP) principle. The IMP feedback strategy is to
monitor the occupancy downstream of each on-ramp and to throttle the ow from the on-
ramp whenever the occupancy exceeds its critical value. For a control-theoretic discussion
of this policy, see [6].
The gures in Table 1 are computed as follows. For each highway section we calculate
the critical occupancy level from PeMS data, as in Fig. 6. We assume that the pattern of
demand is unchanged. We now simulate the trafc ow using the model of Fig. 7 and
the IMP feedback strategy. In the simulation, vehicles will be held back at some ramps.
We calculate the total time spent by the vehicles at the ramps. The ramp delay is 124,000
vehicle-hours. There is a net savings of 280,000 vehicle-hours.
12
12
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
Occupancy
=
Velocity
Car-lenght
;
Flow
Density
= Velocity
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 trac 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 . A fraction P
ab
of them
abandons due to impatience. Individual abandonment rate is .
Let L
q
, W
q
denote, respectively, the average number of customers waiting to be
served, and the average queueing time (waiting for service). Then
P
ab
= L
q
.
But L
q
= W
q
, hence
P
ab
= W
q
.
Thus, the abandonment rate is proportional to the average waiting time. This has
been conrmed empirically for new (potential) customers. Indeed, (P
ab
, W
q
) were
observed and scatterplotted. The slope (via regression) can be used to estimate
customers (average) patience.
13
The data is from a bank call center. Each point corresponds to a 15-minute period of
a day (Sunday to Thursday), starting at 7:00am, ending at midnight, and averaged
over the whole year of 1999.
Why a positive y-intercept?
What about experienced customers?
7. Loan Application Flow from Managing Business Process Flows, by R.Anupindi,
S.Chopra, S.Deshmukh, J.Van Mieghem, E.Zemel, Chapter 3. (In Recitation.)
8. Process Flow: A supermarket receives from suppliers 300 tons of sh over the
course of a full year, which averages out to 25 tons per month. The average quantity
of sh held in freezer storage is 16.5 tons.
On average, how long does a ton of sh remain in freezer storage between the time
it is received and the time it is sent to the sales department?
W = L/ = 16.5/25 = 0.66 months, on average, is the period that a ton of sh
spends in the freezer.
How does one get L = 16.5? This comes out of the following inventory build-up
diagram by calculating the area below the graph:
Inventory/Queue Build-up Diagram.
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
36, 000
= 0.1128 100% = 11.28% labor turnover during a year
= 2.82% turnover during a 3-month period
(compared with 40% at fast food, for example
and about 100% in many Call Centers).
10. Process Flow: A supermarket receives from suppliers 300 tons of sh over the
course of a full year, which averages out to 25 tons per month. The average quantity
of sh held in freezer storage is 16.5 tons.
On average, how long does a ton of sh remain in freezer storage between the time
it is received and the time it is sent to the sales department?
W = L/ = 16.5/25 = 0.66 months, on average, is the period that a ton of sh
spends in the freezer.
How does one get L = 16.5? This comes out of the following inventory build-up
diagram by calculating the area below the graph:
Inventory/Queue Build-up Diagram.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
time (months)
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

L
(
t
)
17
4
12
+ 24
4
12
+ 12
2
12
+ 5
2
12
= 16.5
7
17
4
12
+ 24
4
12
+ 12
2
12
+ 5
2
12
=
17
3
+ 8 + 2 +
5
6
= 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 oor).
Scenario: A job shop with L
old
= 300 active jobs, W
old
= 20 weeks,
old
= 15
jobs/week.
Management familiar with Littles law and JIT principles imposes L
hope
150 active
jobs, in anticipation of
hope
= 15 jobs/week, W
hope
=
L
hope

hope
10 weeks.
It turns out, however, that
L
actual
150, W
actual
= 20 weeks,
actual
=
L
actual
W
actual
7.5 jobs/week.
What is lacking? Congestion curves (Strategic Q-theory): later.
10. Assembly Lines
L = average WIP;
W = average production time of a unit;
= average production rate.
The quantity
1

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 watches/min =
4
60
watches per second,
1/ = 15 seconds cycle time is the average time between consecutive assembly
completion (a watch is assembled every 15 seconds);
W = L/ = 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
= 10,000 claims/year = 200 claims/week;
W = 3 weeks;
L = W = 3 200 = 600 claims backlog on the average.
12. Cash Flow (Accounts Receivable): A company sells 300M$ worth of nished
goods per year. The average amount of accounts receivable is 45M$.
= 300M$/year;
L = 45M$;
W = L/ = 45/300 = 0.15 years = 1.8 months.
So it takes, on average, 1.8 months from the time a customer is billed until the time
payment is received.
13. Cash Flow: A paper mill processes 40M$ of raw material per year. Direct conver-
sion costs are 20M$ per year. Average inventory cost (raw material + conversion)
is 5M$.
= 40+20 = 60M$ 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 nished goods (example:
paper).
14. Loss Queues: Customers arrive at a service facility at rate . A fraction of them
are blocked (do not enter). The others join a queue and wait until being served.
Assuming existence of averages and ow conservation, let
= average service time,
= long-run time-average number of customers in service. (Think G/G/S/N.)
Then
= 1

(Any three of (, , , ) determine the fourth.)

By: system = servers, L = , W = , = (1 ).
Alternative scenario: An Internet site. (Think G/G/s/s.)
S = number of servers. Then = /S is servers utilization and
= 1
S

,
where (S, ) are known, is measured, hence and determine each other. One
could also use this to determine an appropriate S, given service level.
16
15. Littles Law in the Production of Justice.
5 Judges process 3 types of les.
System = drawer of a Judge.
Judges: Performance Analysis (, W)
3
0
01
3
0
01
01
0
3
01
3
0
0
3
01
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(6.2, 7.4) (13.5, 7.4)
(26.3, 4.5)
(12, 4.9)
(7.2, 4.6)
.
.
.
.
.



Judges: Performance Analysis

Case Type 0 Judge1
Case Type 01 Judge2
Case Type 3 Judge3
Judge4
Judge5

A
v
g
.

M
o
n
t
h
s

-

W

Avg. Cases / Month -
Judges: Performance Analysis (L)
(6.2, 7.4) (13.5, 7.4)
(26.3, 4.5)
(12, 4.9)
(7.2, 4.6)
3
0
01
3
0
01
01
0
3
01
3
0
0
3
01
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
.
.
.
.
.
45 100
118
59
33



Judges: Performance Analysis

Case Type 0 Judge1
Case Type 01 Judge2
Case Type 3 Judge3
Judge4
Judge5

A
v
g
.

M
o
n
t
h
s

-

W

Avg. Cases / Month -
17
Littles Formula. Deterministic Model.
Innite Horizon (Stidhams formulation)
Averages: L = W
L = number of units in the system;
= throughput rate;
W = sojourn time.
Rigorous formulation
The system is characterized by {(A
n
, D
n
), n 1}, where
A
n
time of the nth arrival.
D
n
departure-time of the nth arrival.
0 A
n
A
n+1
A
n
D
n
< .
Dene:
A(t) = number of arrivals until t;
D(t) = number of departures until t;
L(t) = number of units such that A
n
t < D
n
, i.e., number of units in the system;
W
n
= D
n
A
n
, sojourn time of the nth unit in the system.
Theorem. Assume that
= lim
t
1
t
A(t) = lim
t
1
t
D(t), 0 < < .
Then
lim
N
1
N
N

n=1
W
n
= W exists lim
T
1
T
_
T
0
L(t)dt = L exists,
in which case L = W.
18
Extension (Brumelle)
Associate with every n a corresponding function f
n
(t), t [A
n
, D
n
].
Assume that f
n
(t) = 0, if t [A
n
, D
n
].
Interpret f
n
(t) as income-rate at time t (average income per unit of time).
Dene
G
N
=
1
N
N

n=1
_

0
f
n
(t)dt (average income per customer);
H
T
=
1
T
_
T
0

n=1
f
n
(t)dt (average income per time unit).
Then,
lim
N
G
N
= G exists lim
T
H
T
= H exists,
in which case
H = G
19
Stochastic example: M/M/1
Model
Birth-and-death process, birth rate , death rate .
Assumption
=

< 1, answers existence of stationary (limit) distribution :

k
= (1 )
k
, k = 0, 1, 2, . . . (geometric distribution).
L =

k=0
k
k
=

1
=


.
Little: W =
1

L =
1

=
1

1
1
.
Check out:
W = (PASTA) =

k=0
E[sojourn time/k customers in system]
k
= (memoryless property) =

k=0
_
k

+
1

k
=
1

+
1

L = =
1

1
1
.
System = queue: L
q
= W
q
, W
q
= W
1

=
1

1
.
L
q
queue-length,
W
q
waiting-time.
System = server:
L =
1

,
L = = probability that the system is not empty (customer waits)
= proportion of time when the server is busy (trac intensity).
20
Stochastic Model (`a la Serfozo
1
)
{(A
n
, D
n
), n 1} random variables; limits are a.s. (with probability 1)
e.g. = lim
t
1
t
A(t) a.s. ;
1
T
_
T
0
L(t)dt L a.s., as T , etc.
Periodic System (Serfozo, pg. 17)
A system is periodically empty if there exist strictly increasing random times
n
,
such that
1.
n

n+1
i.e. lim
n

n+1
n
= 1 a.s. (implied, for example, by
n
/n c).
2. For all n, there exists t [
n
,
n+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, , W) implies existence of the third, as well as the relation L = W.
Typical application:
n
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 = G : Brumelles 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: A
n
arrival time;
W
n
waiting time (before service);
S
n
service time (D
n
= A
n
+W
n
+S
n
).
Let
f
n
(t) =
_

_
S
n
A
n
t < A
n
+W
n
S
n
+W
n
+A
n
t A
n
+W
n
t A
n
+W
n
+S
n
= D
n
0 otherwise.
f
n
(t) Remaining work associated with customer n:
f
n
(t) = S
n
while customer is waiting, then decreases at rate 1 while she is served.
G = lim
N
1
N
N

n=1
_

0
f
n
(t)dt = lim
1
N
N

1
_
S
n
W
n
+
1
2
S
2
n
_
= E(SW
q
) +
1
2
E(S
2
)
(assuming SLLN-behavior, which is o.k. if steady state exists).
H = lim
T
1
T
_
T
0

n=1
f
n
(t)dt = lim
1
T
_
T
0
V (t)dt = E(V )
V (t) Work load process (under FIFO in G/G/1, it is equal to virtual waiting time).
22
Brumelles Formula E(V ) =
_
E(SW
q
) +
1
2
E(S
2
)
_
If, as usually assumed in G/G/1, service times are independent of waiting times,
E(V ) =
_
E(S) E(W
q
) +
1
2
(S
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
V
d
= W
q
.
E(W
q
) =
_
E(S)E(W
q
) +
1
2
E(S
2
)
_
, which yields
E(W
q
) =
1
1 E(S)

1
2
E(S
2
)
=
1
1
1
2
E(S
2
) (using E(S) = )
=

1
1
2
E(S
2
)
E(S)
Khinchine Pollatcheck E(W
q
) = E(S)

1
1+C
2
S
2
_
C
2
=

2
E
2
_
Hall, Formula (5.64) (M/G/1)
Kingmans bound (G/G/1),
EW
q
ES


1
C
2
a
+C
2
S
2
- Upper bound,
Allen-Cunneen approx. - Asymptotically correct, as 1
Hall, Formula (5.70) (in Heavy Trac)
The following picture is based on call center data.
Service Level vs. Availability.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
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.)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

W
a
i
t
,

s
e
c
Average Wait Trendline
23