Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Management Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://pubsonline.informs.org
This article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use
or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisher
approval, unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact permissions@informs.org.
The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the article’s accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness
for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, or
inclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, or
support of claims made of that product, publication, or service.
INFORMS is the largest professional society in the world for professionals in the fields of operations research, management
science, and analytics.
For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Vol. 59, No. 12, December 2013, pp. 2727–2746
ISSN 0025-1909 (print) ISSN 1526-5501 (online) http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1730
© 2013 INFORMS
Che-Lin Su
Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637,
che-lin.su@chicagobooth.edu
W e model the decision-making process of callers in call centers as an optimal stopping problem. After each
waiting period, a caller decides whether to abandon a call or continue to wait. The utility of a caller is
modeled as a function of her waiting cost and reward for service. We use a random-coefficients model to capture
the heterogeneity of the callers and estimate the cost and reward parameters of the callers using the data from
individual calls made to an Israeli call center. We also conduct a series of counterfactual analyses that explore the
effects of changes in service discipline on resulting waiting times and abandonment rates. Our analysis reveals
that modeling endogenous caller behavior can be important when major changes (such as a change in service
discipline) are implemented and that using a model with an exogenously specified abandonment distribution
may be misleading.
Key words: queues; abandonment; dynamic programming
History: Received August 3, 2011; accepted January 30, 2013, by Assaf Zeevi, stochastic models and simulation.
Published online in Articles in Advance August 19, 2013.
As reviewed in Hassin and Haviv (2003), different parameters using the maximum likelihood estimation
assumptions are required to induce rational abandon- (MLE) approach.
ments while waiting. In Hassin and Haviv (1995), a The main contribution of this paper is to develop
reward from service that may drop to zero induces a simple model that endogenizes and explains the
rational abandonments. Mandelbaum and Shimkin abandonment behavior of callers. Using our model,
(2000) incorporate a fault state upon arrival, which we estimate callers’ cost and reward parameters and
means callers arriving in that state will never be conduct a counterfactual analysis. More specifically,
served. In this extended model, callers may abandon in a series of experiments, we change the service dis-
while waiting because they are worried that they may cipline of the call center and compare our model (with
be trapped in the fault state. endogenous abandonments due to forward-looking
In a similar study, Shimkin and Mandelbaum callers) with a model where an exogenously specified
(2004) consider nonlinear delay costs with no fault abandonment distribution (obtained from the data)
state. Under suitable conditions on waiting costs, is used. For small changes, where we only change
the authors study the equilibrium in which callers the parameters of the existing priority scheme, for
decide upon arrival when to abandon. The abandon- example, the exogenous modeling appears to be suf-
ment times of the callers are optima of their utility ficient. However, our comparisons show the impor-
functions. In both Mandelbaum and Shimkin (2000) tance of endogenizing customer behavior in settings
and Shimkin and Mandelbaum (2004), the authors where major policy changes are made.
model the system as a Markovian queue with a gen- Our model also makes a methodological contribu-
eral abandonment time distribution (an M/M/m + G tion to the analysis of queuing systems with abandon-
queue) and find the waiting-time distribution of the ments. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first
callers resulting from the equilibrium between the attempt to apply a structural estimation approach in
offered waiting-time distribution of the system and the call center operations context. Furthermore, it is
the patience time distribution of the callers. the first empirical demonstration of the effect of mod-
The work of Mandelbaum and Shimkin is an eling endogenous customer abandonment behavior in
important antecedent of this paper. Indeed, our queues. Indeed, our framework can be modified suit-
formulation builds on the following observation ably to study various other queuing systems (with
made by Shimkin and Mandelbaum (2004, p. 122): abandonments), e.g., those arising in settings such as
“It is plausible that abandonment decisions are taken in the delivery of healthcare services, made-to-order
online based on the customer’s assessment of the cur- manufacturing, etc.
rent situation and the utility of further wait.” The rest of this paper is structured as follows.
In our model, callers receive a reward from service Section 2 reviews the literature. Section 3 charac-
and incur a delay cost, which is linear to their waiting terizes the model of the decision-making process of
time, along the lines of Naor (1969). Moreover, callers callers. Section 4 describes the data. Section 5 explains
are heterogeneous in their reward and cost param- the estimation method and provides the estimation
eters, which is captured via a random-coefficients results and their interpretation. Section 6 describes
the counterfactual analysis. Section 7 offers conclud-
model. No information about the duration of waiting
ing remarks.
is conveyed to the callers as they wait in the queue,
i.e., there is no delay announcement. Callers are for-
ward looking and make wait or abandon decisions 2. Literature Review
dynamically as they wait. To be more specific, we The behavioral aspects of waiting have been stud-
assume that the waiting cost is sunk; i.e., waiting costs ied extensively. Mostly, waiting is shown to have a
incurred in the past are irrelevant to future decisions. negative effect on individuals. Leclerc et al. (1995)
Hence, a caller only considers the expected future study whether people treat waiting as losing mone-
utility associated with her actions. A caller’s utility tary utility. In an experiment, they show that individ-
depends on her reward, delay cost, and idiosyncratic uals’ marginal cost of waiting is a concave function
random shocks, representing (external) events that when the waiting time is large, e.g., 20 minutes to
affect the caller’s utility. The idiosyncratic shocks cor- five hours. Suck and Holling (1997) model the effect of
respond to the unobserved variables in the empirical waiting-time duration and variability on stress caused
industrial organization literature (see, e.g., Rust 1987), by waiting. They show that an increase in either the
which are observed by the caller but not recorded in duration or variability of the waiting time results in
the data. Using standard terminology in the opera- more stressful conditions for the customers. Bitran
tions research literature, each caller solves an opti- et al. (2008) study the implications of the psychology
mal stopping problem, where stopping corresponds of waiting for the design of queuing systems and pro-
to abandoning. We estimate callers’ cost and reward vide a comprehensive review.
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS 2729
The same waiting experience can have different that the customers’ waiting cost is linear and the cus-
effects on different people, depending on how it is tomers’ utility from service becomes zero if they do
perceived. Indeed, a stream of research in the behav- not receive service within a fixed time after arrival.
ioral literature analyzes the effect of time perception The authors show that the optimal behavior of the
on the behavior of callers. Hornik (1984) studies the customers is one of the two abandonment profiles:
difference between the perceived waiting time and abandoning upon arrival or abandoning when the ser-
the actual waiting time of the customers. The author vice utility drops to zero.
verifies the existence of this difference empirically. As reviewed in the introduction, Mandelbaum and
Chebat et al. (1993) state that musical and visual Shimkin (2000) and Shimkin and Mandelbaum (2004)
cues, e.g., playing music, may decrease customers’ analyze rational abandonment behavior of impatient
perception of the time spent waiting and thus reduce customers in a Markovian queue with a general aban-
customers’ dissatisfaction from waiting. According to donment time distribution (an M/M/m + G queue).
experiments in Munichor and Rafaeli (2007), a sense In both papers, the authors assume that the wait-
of progressing in the queue enhances the mood of cus- ing cost and service utility of the callers are given,
tomers while waiting. In Zakay (1989), the author sug- and customers depending on these parameters act
gests that the perceived waiting time is longer when rationally and decide upon arrival when to aban-
a customer is more conscious about the passage of don if they do not receive service. Our work differs
time. The author also states that conveying the delay from Mandelbaum and Shimkin (2000) and Shimkin
information may shorten the perceived waiting time and Mandelbaum (2004). An important difference
because it decreases the customer’s need to pay atten- is that callers make their decisions dynamically in
tion to the passage of time. our model, not just upon arrival. In essence, each
A growing body of literature studies the effect of caller solves an optimal stopping problem where
delay information on callers’ behavior and the per- “stopping” means abandoning. Another important
formance of the service center. We refer the reader difference is that we do not undertake a queuing
to Whitt (1999), Guo and Zipkin (2007), Jouini et al. theoretical analysis to derive the equilibrium wait-
(2011), Armony et al. (2009), and references therein ing time. Rather, we deduce the equilibrium distri-
for a detailed account of that literature. In the data, bution of the waiting time from the observed data
no delay information is provided to callers, consistent and assume that it is common knowledge among the
with our model. callers and the call center provider; callers acquire this
Apart from the delay information, instruments such knowledge through their past experiences of contact-
as price can be used to control the customers’ behav- ing the call center.
ior and decision in waiting situations. Naor (1969) We assume that the callers’ utility depends on the
is one of the first papers in the queuing context to waiting cost, reward, and their idiosyncratic random
model customers as utility maximizing agents whose shocks, which resemble the random utility models
actions can be modulated via pricing. Naor (1969) one sees in the structural estimation literature; see
models a system where imposing tolls affects cus- Berry et al. (1995). In that literature, two of the most
tomers’ decision to join the queue or to balk. Mendel- relevant papers to our work are Rust (1987) and Nair
son (1985) studies how queuing delays and pricing (2007). Rust (1987) studies the estimation of struc-
change the behavior of customers and their arrival tural parameters of a regenerative optimal stopping
rate. The author shows that a manager can maxi- model where a maintenance manager in each period
mize the value of the services to the organization or of time has to decide between two actions: (1) replac-
minimize the costs by choosing the proper price and ing the engine of a bus and incurring the cost of
capacity. overhaul or (2) not replacing the engine and incur-
A closely related area is the equilibrium analysis of ring the cost of unexpected failure. In Nair (2007),
abandonments by rational customers, who maximize the author examines the effect of consumers’ forward-
their utilities in choosing between waiting and aban- looking behavior on profit of the firms selling video
doning. Zohar et al. (2002) provide a model of ratio- games. The author proposes a dynamic consumer
nal abandonments suggesting that customers adapt choice model where consumers can buy the product
their patience to their anticipated waiting time. The and exit the market or wait to buy the product at a
authors assume that customers’ patience follows a lower price. The author also models the profit of the
parametric distribution, where its parameters are only firm and suggests that firms may lose profit by not
affected by anticipated waiting time of the customers, taking the forward-looking behavior of the callers into
and it depends on neither customers’ utility from account when setting prices. Similarly, our counterfac-
receiving service nor their waiting cost. Hassin and tual analysis illustrates how disregarding endogenous
Haviv (1995) study the abandonment profile of ratio- abandonment behavior can lead to erroneous assess-
nal customers in the setting of a single-server Marko- ment of service levels while making choices of service
vian queue with abandonments. The authors assume discipline in a call center.
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
2730 Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS
3. The Model where it 4d5 denotes the idiosyncratic shock incurred
In this section, we present a dynamic model of the by choosing action d. The term v4t1 ri 1 ci 1 d5 is the
decision-making process of callers. In each period as nominal utility and is independent of the idiosyn-
callers wait in the queue, they face the decision to cratic stochastic shocks. We let d = 1 if a caller chooses
either abandon the call or continue to wait. If a caller to abandon in that period and zero otherwise.
chooses to abandon, she will do so immediately at Because caller i will exit the queue at the beginning
the beginning of the period; if the caller chooses to of the period if she chooses to abandon the call, the
wait, she will stay in the system for that period. As nominal utility of caller i abandoning in period t is
the caller waits, she may enter service in which case zero, i.e.,
she incurs the waiting cost for that period, receives
v4t1 ri 1 ci 1 15 = 00 (3)
the reward associated with the service, and exits the
queue. Otherwise, the caller incurs a waiting cost for If caller i decides to wait, the nominal utility of wait-
that period and then decides again whether to aban- ing is given by
don or continue to wait as she enters the next period.
We assume that callers know the probability of receiv- v4t1ri 1ci 105 = −ci +4t5ri +41−4t55
ing service in a period t, which is conditional on not h i
being served yet. Callers also know that they will ·Ɛ max u4t +11ri 1ci 1i4t+15 4d51 d5 1 (4)
d∈801 19
receive service before period T if they do not aban-
don. Furthermore, no information about the duration
where 4t5 is the probability of receiving service in
of waiting is conveyed to the callers; i.e., there is no
period t conditional on not being served yet and
delay announcement.
4T 5 = 1; i.e., all callers receive service within T peri-
In our model, callers are forward looking. In each
ods. We assume that 4 · 5 is the equilibrium outcome
period, they compare the expected utility of wait-
ing, which consists of utilities from the current and of the system, where callers correctly anticipate the
future periods and the expected utility of abandon- service probabilities based on their past experiences
ment. They then choose the action that maximizes of contacting the call center. Furthermore, the proba-
their expected utility. We assume that the waiting cost bility of receiving service 4 · 5 is common knowledge
is sunk; i.e., waiting costs incurred in the past are among the callers. The first term on the right-hand
irrelevant to future decisions. Hence, a caller only side of (4) is the waiting cost for the current period.
considers the expected future utility associated with The second term is the expected utility from receiving
her actions. service in period t. Finally, the last term is the future
We next describe the model primitives. Let ci be value of waiting. We refer to the expectation in (4) as
caller i’s cost of waiting for one period, and let ri be the integrated value function, denoted by V 4t1 ri 1 ci 5.
caller i’s reward from receiving service. The callers The expectation is taken with respect to the condi-
are heterogeneous in their rewards and waiting costs. tional distribution of i4t+15 given it , where stands
More specifically, the reward ri and the unit waiting for 44051 4155. Assuming it 4d5 is independent and
cost ci of caller i are given by identically distributed (iid) across different callers,
periods, and actions, we denote caller i’s integrated
ri = exp4mr + r y1i 51
(1) value function as
ci = exp4mc + c y2i 51 ZZ
V 4t1 ri 1 ci 5 = max u4t + 11 ri 1 ci 1 4d51 d5
where y1i and y2i are draws from independent and d∈801 19
identical standard normal distributions. In other · g44055g44155 d405 d4151 (5)
words, callers’ reward and cost parameters have log-
normal distributions. The parameters mr and mc are
where g44d55 is the probability density function (pdf)
the means for ln4ri 5 and ln4ci 5, respectively. Similarly,
of the error term 4d5 for d = 01 1.
the parameters r and c are the standard deviations
Given ri and ci , caller i’s optimal decision in
for ln4ri 5 and ln4ci 5.1
period t is given by
The utility of caller i for choosing action d in
period t is given by
dit = arg max u4t1 ri 1 ci 1 it 4d51 d50 (6)
d∈801 19
u4t1 ri 1 ci 1 it 4d51 d5 = v4t1 ri 1 ci 1 d5 + it 4d51 (2)
1
The following proposition (see Appendix A for its
The mean and standard deviation of p callers’ rewards are given
by exp4mr + r2 /25 and exp4mr + r2 /25 exp4r2 5 − 1, respectively.
proof) characterizes callers’ choice probabilities under
Similarly, for callers’ costs, these statistics are exp4mc + c2 /25 and the assumption that the idiosyncratic shocks have iid
type I extreme value distribution. (See Appendix A
p
exp4mc + c2 /25 exp4c2 5 − 1.
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS 2731
7AITING TIME MMSS
time may have higher priority points than a newly different times of the day. We verify this by making
arriving high-type caller because of the dynamic use of available agent data. Figure 4 provides aver-
priority point updates. We observe the effect of age staff numbers during the day on Mondays (other
these dynamic priority increases in waiting-time his- working days exhibit a similar pattern), showing that
tograms. In particular, we observe peaks at multiples the time interval we focus on represents a highly
of 60 seconds, corresponding to the dynamic priority staffed interval, thus ensuring reasonable abandon-
point updates. An example for medium-priority calls ment rates.
on May 12, 2008, in Figure 1 illustrates the pattern. Finally, we focus on calls with a wait duration rang-
Dynamic priority updates are not recorded in the ing between 0 and 960 seconds. Calls with waiting
data. Although we know the update mechanism, we times longer than 960 seconds constitute fewer than
do not make use of this in our estimation. Rather, 0.01% of our observations and have been eliminated
we use the resulting service probabilities directly as to reduce the length of the time horizon in our estima-
estimated from the data. This estimation is described tion. Data from weeks with a holiday were excluded
in §5. from the analysis (these are April 20–26, May 4–10,
The average arrival pattern for calls on working June 8–14, and September 28–30) as potential outliers.
days is shown in Figure 2. To focus on the relatively In summary, our analysis focuses on 1,323,071 calls
busy hours of the day, we restrict our analysis to calls with the private service type, received on weekdays
between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. on each weekday. during weeks without a holiday in the interval April–
The abandonment rate during the day for July 17, September 2008, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., having
2008, is plotted in Figure 3. This pattern suggests entered the system through the VRU and proceeded
that there may be different staffing patterns during to a wait in the queue and having normal termination,
100.0
50.0
0.0
0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00
Time of the day
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS 2733
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00
Time of the day
May 2008
300.0
June 2008
250.0
July 2008
100.0
50.0
0.0
0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00
Time of the day
transfer, short abandonment, and abandonment as an discuss the cross-validation and out-of-sample tests to
outcome. We are focusing on the subcall starting with examine the ability of our model to predict the aban-
the wait in the queue and including the encounter donment behavior of callers.
with the first agent. The summary statistics for this
portion of the data are given in Table 2. 5.1. Identification
As can be seen in Figure 5, our data exhibit significant
intertemporal variation in the service probabilities
5. Estimation 4t5. This observation, along with the fact that wait-
In this section, we first discuss the identification of ing times vary across different callers (see the waiting-
callers’ parameters from the data. Next, we describe time histograms of the priority groups in the data
the estimation methodology and results. Finally, we in §6), allows us to identify the reward and cost
Table 2 Summary Statistics for the Portion of the Data Used in the Analysis
High priority
0.9
Medium priority
0.8 Low priority
No priority
Service probability ((t ))
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Waiting time (sec.)
parameters separately. To see the intuition behind of N binary random variables where success proba-
this, note from Equations (7)–(9) in Proposition 1 that bilities are random variables (as determined through
the probability of abandoning in period t depends on ri 1 ci in Equations (1) and (7)). Therefore, the total
the terms 84s5ri − ci 9s=t00T and is given by number of abandonments in period t exhibits more
variation under heterogeneity. In other words, the
Pit 413 ri 1 ci 5 degree of variation (or volatility) in the abandon-
= t 4t5ri −ci 14t +15ri −ci 100014T 5ri −ci 1 (10) ment behavior of callers helps us identify the variance
parameters r 1 c . Nonetheless, our model is flexible
where t is a suitably defined function that does not enough to allow r = c = 0. Indeed, we find that
depend on ri and ci . Equation (10) shows that if there this is the case for all but no-priority callers (Table 3).
were no variation in 4t5, i.e., 4t5 = for all t, then However, allowing heterogeneity can be critical, as
we could only identify the difference between ri illustrated in §6.
and ci . This follows because the abandonment prob- 5.2. Estimation Methodology and Results
ability Pit 413 ri 1 ci 5 would then be solely a function of The estimation of callers’ parameters is carried out
ri − ci , which would prevent the identification of in two stages. We first estimate the probability of
the reward and cost parameters separately. However, receiving service 4t5. Next, given that probability, we
since callers’ waiting times exhibit sufficient variabil- construct the likelihood function of callers’ observed
ity, we can identify the abandonment probabilities decisions in the data and maximize it to estimate the
in each period as given in (10), from which we can parameters.2
identify the reward and cost parameters separately We estimate 4t5, the probability of receiving
given the intertemporal variation in service probabil- service in period t (which is conditional on not
ities 4t5. being served yet), directly from the data. This direct
Moreover, heterogeneity in callers’ cost and reward approach allows us to capture all operational aspects
(i.e., r , c ) is identified by the variation in the aban- of the call center for the interval under analysis. Given
donment behavior of callers in a given period. To see the cumulative distribution of a caller’s waiting time
this, consider N callers who have waited for t peri- (time spent in the queue before receiving service),
ods, and recall that the abandonment probability in denoted by F , 4t5 is given by
period t is given by (7). If there is no heterogene- F 4t + 15 − F 4t5
ity (i.e., r = c = 0), then each caller has the same 4t5 = 0 (11)
1 − F 4t5
abandonment probability. Hence, the total number
of abandonments in period t is a binomial random 2
This is similar to the approach taken in Rust (1987), where the
variable. In contrast, under heterogeneity, callers will author first estimates the transition probabilities in mileage directly
have different abandonment probabilities, and the from the data and then uses those fixed transition probabilities to
total number of abandonments in period t is the sum estimate the structural parameters.
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS 2735
Table 3 Estimation Results Let Paban 4t5 denote the ex ante probability of aban-
doning in period t, which is given by
Priority group mr mc r c
5.3. Cross-Validation and Out-of-Sample Tests Priority group Relative error (%) Absolute error (%)
We use ten-fold cross-validation with stratification to High priority 0029 6.15E−03
examine the ability of the model to predict the aban- Medium priority 0005 1.86E−03
donment behavior of callers (Kohavi 1995). The vali- Low priority 0004 2.35E−03
No priority 0015 0.03
dation is done for each priority group in isolation.
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS 2737
Figure 6 Predicted Abandonments maban 4t5, Actual Abandonments aaban 4t5, and maban 4t5 ± 2aban 4t5 over Time for the Priority Groups
Number of abandonments
60 aaban(t )
50 maban(t ) 150
40 maban(t ) + 2aban(t)
30 maban(t ) – 2aban(t) 100
20
10 50
0
0
–10 –10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Waiting time (sec.) Waiting time (sec.)
Number of abandonments
120 700
100 600
80 500
400
60
300
40
200
20
100
0 0
–10 –10
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Waiting time (sec.) Waiting time (sec.)
Table 6 Out-of-Sample Testing of the Model Across Different Weeks Table 7 Out-of-Sample Testing of the Model Across
Peak (9 a.m.–2 p.m.) vs. Off-Peak (2 p.m.–6 p.m.) Hours
Priority group Relative error (%) Absolute error (%)
Priority group Relative error (%) Absolute error (%)
High priority 20002 0038
Medium priority 8091 0026 High priority 14000 0046
Low priority 5047 0032 Medium priority 4004 0018
No priority 3072 1003 Low priority 10090 0076
No priority 9040 2030
Table 9 Bhattacharyya Distance for Comparing Caller Similarity in has a novel feature in that the callers decide dynam-
Peak vs. Off-Peak Hours ically to abandon a call or to continue to wait by
Distance between Distance between computing their expected utilities under each choice.
peak callers and peak callers and Consistent with §5, in the simulation the callers make
Priority group 2 p.m.–6 p.m. callers 6 p.m.–10 p.m. callers their decision to wait or to abandon every five sec-
onds. Consequently, the unit of time in the simulation
High priority 0020 0048
Medium priority 0029 0047 is five seconds. The expected utility computation on
Low priority 0035 0053 the callers’ part requires the knowledge of the equi-
librium service probabilities 44t51 t ≥ 05. Although
more similar to those of the callers who contacted these can be computed readily from the data for the
during 2 p.m.–6 p.m. current service discipline, they need to be recalculated
when a new service discipline is considered. Comput-
To assess the similarity of callers during different
ing these equilibrium service probabilities (for a new
hours, we adopt the Bhattacharyya distance (between
policy) seems intractable analytically. Therefore, we
probability distributions), which is widely used in
use the following iterative procedure, which seems
information theory literature (Bhattacharyya 1943).
to work well. First, given a new policy, we simulate
To be specific, for discrete probability distribution p
the system as if no one abandons calls to obtain an
and q over the domain X, the Bhattacharyya distance
estimate of service probabilities 4 0 4t51 t ≥ 05. In the
is given by
next step, we allow the callers to abandon using 0 4 · 5
and simulate the system to get the new estimates of
√
X
DB 4p1 q5 = − ln p4x5q4x5 3 service probabilities 4 1 4t51 t ≥ 05. We repeat this pro-
x∈X
cedure until both the average waiting time and the
see, for example, Kailath (1967) and Basseville (1989). abandonment rate converge for all priority groups.
In our context, probability distributions p and q corre- The first step of the simulation study is to recon-
spond to the identity of a random caller during peak struct the existing as is performance of the call cen-
and off-peak hours, respectively. To be more specific, ter. However, there are challenges to performing this
p4x5 denotes the probability that a randomly selected task accurately. The difficulty stems in part from the
peak-hour caller is caller x. In our data set, callers in variation in the data across different days (because
high-, medium-, and low-priority groups are identi- of the inherent uncertainty). Therefore, we choose to
fied. Therefore, we can calculate the distance for those replicate the aggregate performance over all days,
priority groups to assess the similarity of the callers which presents challenges too, mainly because it is
in different hours, as shown in Table 9. not immediately clear what number of agents should
The distances in Table 9 show that callers during be used in our simulation. In particular, the number
peak hours are more similar to those calling during of agents in the data vary across days (and hours
2 p.m.–6 p.m. (in the sense of overlap) than those call- within a day). Moreover, the agents handle not just
the first subcalls we focus on but also the subsequent
ing during 6 p.m.–10 p.m. This explains the contrast
subcalls (in addition to other types of calls we do not
between the prediction accuracies reported in Tables 7
consider). Consequently, to determine the number of
and 8. In conclusion, the out-of-sample tests provide
agents, we vary the number of agents between 105
further support that our model offers accurate pre-
and 165. We pick the number of agents to be 133, for
dictions, provided that the caller demographics in the
which the waiting time and abandonment statistics
two samples are similar.
are closest to those in the data.4 In what follows, this
Building on the estimation results, in the next sec-
constitutes the base case for our simulation study.
tion, we provide a counterfactual analysis to assess
The simulated system consists of four queues and
the impact of policy changes.
one pool of agents. Each queue corresponds to one
of the priority groups in the data. Recall that the ser-
6. Counterfactual Analysis vice discipline currently used by the call center is a
This section provides a simulation study of the call periodic point-update priority policy. In the simula-
center using the estimated reward and cost param- tion, this policy is used to determine priority points of
eters. The ultimate objective is to perform what-if callers as a function of their priority type and waiting
analyses to assess the impact of changes in the ser-
4
vice discipline. The aforementioned assumptions will Under each staffing level being considered, the waiting time and
be maintained throughout this section unless stated abandonment rate for each priority group is simulated. These val-
ues are compared with the values observed in the aggregated data
otherwise. and a weighted relative error, where weights are taken as the size
The simulation study is constructed along the lines of the priority groups relative to the size of the entire data, is con-
of the usual discrete-event simulations. However, it sidered as the comparison metric.
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS 2739
× 104
8
7 High-priority group
Medium-priority group
6 Low-priority group
No-priority group
5
Frequency
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Waiting time (sec.)
Figure 8 Waiting-Time Histograms of the Priority Groups in the Simulation Results of the Current Policy
× 104
8
7 High-priority group
Medium-priority group
6 Low-priority group
No-priority group
5
Frequency
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Waiting time (sec.)
time. The periodicity of the priority updates is also priority policy gives the highest priority to the high-
reflected in the waiting-time histograms of the various priority group, next to the medium-priority group,
groups, as shown in Figure 7. The simulation of the then to the low-priority group. The lowest priority is
current policy yields a similar pattern of periodicity; given to the no-priority group. The threshold policy
see Figure 8. acts like the static priority policy when the number of
To illustrate the usefulness of our approach, we no-priority calls waiting is less than or equal to the
consider assessing the impact of policy changes to threshold. Otherwise, the no-priority calls have the
the service discipline. To this end, in addition to the highest priority and the other groups preserve their
current policy, we consider the following policies:5 relative priority levels amongst themselves. The aver-
first-come, first-served (FCFS) policy, a static (and age waiting times and the abandonment rates under
nonpreemptive) priority policy, and a threshold pol- these policies are given in the top panel of Table 10.
icy. Under the FCFS policy, calls are served in the As expected, the waiting times under the FCFS policy
order they arrive irrespective of their group. The static are similar across different priority groups though the
abandonment rates differ.
Recall that the callers are forward looking in our
5
We also considered changing the frequency and the size of pri- model and their behavior may change as the service
ority point updates to the current policy. The frequency changes
did not change the average waiting times or abandonment rates.
discipline changes. To shed light on this, we also con-
The impact of changes to the size of updates were as one would sider modeling the abandonment behavior of callers
predict. using an exogenous time-to-abandon distribution.
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
2740 Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS
Figure 9 Hazard Rates of the Priority Groups for Time to Abandon in the Data
0.040
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Waiting time (sec.)
To this end, we first estimate the exogenous distri- attention on the threshold policy (described above)
bution from the data. Because the abandonments are for simplicity. Setting the threshold at 15 improves
censored (by the callers’ entering service), we use the the waiting times and lowers the abandonment rates
Kaplan–Meier estimate. The hazard rates of time to somewhat for the no-priority group. For the low-
abandon are as shown in Figure 9. Treating these as priority group, this leads to significantly higher wait-
if they were constant, we use a geometric distribu- ing times and abandonment rates; see the top panel
tion for the time to abandon, where the probability of of Table 10. (The impact on the other two groups is
abandonment is estimated using the 25% quartile of small.)
the Kaplan–Meier estimate of the cumulative distri- Under the threshold policy (with 15 as the thresh-
bution function.6 The lower panel of Table 10 shows old), the model with exogenous abandonment dis-
the average waiting times and the abandonment rates tribution underestimates the service degradation to
resulting from the model with exogenous abandon- the low-priority group (in terms of waiting times,
ment distribution under the static priority and thresh- 236.75 sec. versus 265.50 sec.); see Table 10.7 Next,
old policies. we clarify the source of discrepancy for the low-
Comparisons between the endogenous model with priority group (which sheds light on what happens
strategic customers and the model using an exoge- to other classes as well). Recall that the delay cost c
nous time to abandon lead to the four major observa- is negligible for the low-priority group; see Table 4.
tions below. Substituting c = 0 in Equation (9) shows that the
First, if a caller has a negligible waiting cost, her integrated value function is V 4t5 > r for all t. Then
probability of abandoning decreases as the service it is straightforward to conclude from Equations (7)
probability gets worse. For such callers, the exoge- and (8) that as the service quality worsens (i.e., 4t5
nous model will underestimate waiting times relative decreases), the probability of abandoning decreases.
to the endogenous model, under policies that deteri- Intuitively, as the service probability decreases, the
orate service probability for these callers. probability of getting served in later periods increases,
As can be seen in Table 10, the no-priority group and the callers are willing to wait longer to receive
suffers from long waiting times and high abandon- service (because their waiting costs are negligible).
ment rates under the current policy or the static The decreased abandonment probability and service
priority policy. Recall that callers in this group are degradation lead to higher queue lengths.
Given this observation, comparing the current pol-
unidentified and some are new customers. There-
icy with the threshold policy (with 15 as the thresh-
fore, the call center may wish to improve the service
old) reveals that the service quality gets worse for the
quality they receive for retention purposes. Although
low-priority calls when switching from the current
there is a large number of alternatives for improv-
ing the service quality of no-priority callers, we focus
7
To test the significance of the differences between the results of
the exogenous and endogenous models, we use the two-sample
6
Brown et al. (2005) observe that the Kaplan–Meier estimates may t-test (Snedecor and Cochran 1989). Under the threshold policy
be biased under heavy censoring. Therefore, following Brown et al. with 15 as the threshold for the average waiting time of the low-
(2005), we use the first quartile when estimating the probability of priority callers, the difference is significant with 90% confidence
abandoning. (t-statistic = 1075).
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS 2741
Table 10 Average Waiting Times and Abandonment Rates of Different Caller Groups Under Various
Service Disciplines for the Endogenous and Exogenous Models
Endogenous model
Current policy 5049 0022 17013 0091 64056 6025 147029 37067
FCFS policy 80067 7051 83023 5039 83047 8018 75078 23032
Static priority policy 5046 0022 8047 0039 24039 2046 183069 41077
Threshold policy (th = 15) 7002 0028 17082 0090 265050 21055 82016 24097
Threshold policy (th = 5) 7066 0034 23036 1017 517047 37078 32059 11010
Exogenous model
Static priority policy 5037 0073 8026 0086 23064 2048 160061 40051
Threshold policy (th = 15) 7007 0091 17091 1089 236075 24042 82049 20070
Threshold policy (th = 5) 7054 1009 22054 2031 366047 38029 32061 8028
Note. For each group, the first and the second column show the average waiting times and the abandonment rates,
respectively.
policy to the threshold policy; see the top panel of consider the reversed strict priority policy, in which
Table 10. Hence, we expect lower probability of aban- the priority order of the groups in the static priority
doning, i.e., callers abandon more slowly (especially policy is reversed. Although this policy is not prac-
early on). This, in turn, leads to longer queue lengths tical, it is of theoretical interest because it provides
and waiting times. Figure 10 shows the abandon- additional insights. For the high-priority group, the
ment probability of the low-priority callers under the comparisons under the reversed strict priority pol-
current policy and the threshold policy with 15 as icy show the model with exogenous abandonment
the threshold. On the other hand, in the model with distribution significantly overestimates the waiting
exogenously given abandonment distributions, the times and somewhat underestimates the abandon-
callers’ abandonment probability is estimated from ment rates (397.79 sec. versus 89.06 sec. and 57.66%
the current policy, which is higher than that in our versus 62.98%).10
model.8 Thus, in the exogenous model, callers aban- Switching to the reversed strict priority degrades
don sooner, which leads to lower waiting times. the service quality for the high-priority group. The
Therefore, the prediction of the model with exoge-
model with exogenous abandonment distributions
nous abandonment distribution can be off substan-
works precisely as explained above. In contrast, given
tially. This is demonstrated further by setting the
positive delay costs, callers anticipate the significant
threshold to 5 (366.47 sec. versus 517.47 sec.).9
future delay costs (embedded in the integrated value
Second, if a caller has a significant waiting cost,
her probability of abandoning increases as the ser- function) in our model and they choose to abandon
vice quality degrades. For such callers, the exogenous early with high probability. This effect is illustrated
model will overestimate waiting times relative to the in Figure 11, which shows the abandonment probabil-
endogenous model under policies that deteriorate ser- ity of the high-priority callers under the current pol-
vice probability for these callers. icy and the reversed strict priority policy. This effect
The fact that the probability of abandoning goes leads to significantly shorter queue lengths and wait-
down as the service quality degrades for the low- ing times than those in the model with exogenous
priority group (in our model) may seem counterintu- abandonments. Comparing the abandonment rates in
itive at first. However, what drives this result is that the two models requires trading off the counteracting
the delay cost for the low-priority group is negligi- forces: shorter queue lengths but a significantly higher
ble. Indeed, if callers have significant delay costs, the probability of abandoning during each period in our
implication will be different. model. The net effect leads to a higher, albeit compa-
To better understand the effect of service degra- rable, abandonment rate in our model. This will be
dation on callers with significant waiting costs, we elaborated on further below.
8
Moreover, the abandonment probability estimated from the data 10
Under the reversed strict priority policy for the average waiting
is extrapolated beyond what is observed under the current policy. time of the high-priority callers, the difference between the results
9
Under the threshold policy with 5 as the threshold for the average of the exogenous and endogenous models is significant with 90%
waiting time of the low-priority callers, the difference between the confidence (t-statistic = 29087). For the abandonment rate of the
results of the exogenous and the endogenous models is significant high-priority callers, the difference is significant with 90% confi-
with 90% confidence (t-statistic = 9028). dence (t-statistic = 2099).
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
2742 Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS
Figure 10 Abandonment Probability of the Low-Priority Callers in the Endogenous Model Under the Current Policy and the Threshold Policy with
15 as the Threshold
× 10–3
4.8
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Waiting time (sec.)
Figure 11 Abandonment Probability of the High-Priority Callers in the Endogenous Model Under the Current Policy and the Reversed Strict
Priority Policy
0.040
0.035
Current policy
Abandonment probability
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Waiting time (sec.)
Third, when there is heterogeneity in the callers’ Indeed, the no-priority group can be seen as a mix of
waiting cost, both the first and the second observa- callers from the low- and high-priority groups quali-
tions made immediately above are present. In this tatively as far as their delay cost is considered. Hence,
case, it is the heterogeneity in the cost estimate and we expect to see a decrease in the abandonment prob-
its composition that will determine which effect will ability for those callers who have negligible delay
dominate for such callers. (See Appendix D for a dis- costs under service degradation. On the contrary, we
cussion about the impact of callers’ heterogeneity.) expect to see an increase in the abandonment proba-
The comparison of the results for the no-priority
bility if the caller has a high delay cost.
group under the endogenous versus the exogenous
A simple plot of the probability density function
abandonment time distribution reveals a surprising
of the waiting cost for the no-priority group reveals
result and exemplifies the usefulness of the random
coefficients model. Although the mean waiting cost that the great majority of no-priority callers have neg-
of the no-priority group is positive, the callers in ligible waiting costs. Hence, we expect their behav-
that group do not behave like the callers in the ior to be similar to those callers in the low-priority
high-priority group, who have positive waiting costs group (see the first observation made above). Indeed,
too. Note, however, that the waiting cost for the comparing the average waiting time of the no-priority
no-priority group exhibits significant heterogeneity callers for the two models (with the endogenous ver-
(whereas that for the high-priority group does not). sus exogenous abandonment distribution) under the
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS 2743
static priority rule verifies this intuition (160.61 sec. a model with exogenously given abandonment dis-
versus 183.69 sec.).11 tributions may lead to waiting-time estimates that
In addition, comparing the two models under the can be off significantly. This would be problem-
threshold policy, we expect the abandonment prob- atic in a setting like call center outsourcing where
ability to be higher for the model with the endoge- service-level measures on waiting-time distributions
nous abandonment distribution because the threshold are used. The estimates of the abandonment rate are
policy improves the service for the no-priority group less problematic because of the counteracting forces
(relative to the current policy). The threshold pol- of queue length and the probability of abandoning
icy will ensure that the queue lengths for the no- as explained above. Our modeling approach offers
priority group in both models will be close to the another potential advantage: its ability to estimate
threshold and, hence, close to each other. Combin- what happens when extrapolation is needed. Con-
ing these two suggests that the overall abandonment sider a promotional campaign that increases the num-
rate will be determined by the (per period) probabil- ber of high-priority calls significantly. Simulating the
ity of abandoning, which is higher in the model with system performance in this case may require under-
the endogenous abandonment distribution. Compar- standing callers’ abandonment patterns in a regime
ing the results for the two models under the threshold where waiting times are longer than those observed in
policies verifies this intuition; see Table 10 (20.70% the data. This is challenging to do nonparametrically,
versus 24.97% for th = 15 and 8.28% versus 11.10% for whereas our approach can be helpful in studying such
th = 5).12 situations.
Fourth, the effect of forward-looking callers is
more prominent in waiting-time estimates than aban-
donment rate estimates. Consider the two forces
7. Concluding Remarks
This paper studies the patience of callers in call center
that contribute to the overall abandonment rate:
queues. Understanding customer patience behavior
queue length and the probability of abandoning in a
is essential in call center management. The individ-
period. For the low-priority group, our endogenous
ual level decision-modeling approach we take herein
model suggests longer queues and lower probabil-
allows us to draw a natural bridge between observed
ity of abandoning, whereas the model with exoge-
behavior (in the data) and subsequent modeling of
nous abandonment distribution has shorter queues
strategic customers in queues. The callers’ valuation
and higher probability of abandoning. However, the
for the service obtained and their cost for waiting
simulation results show that the abandonment rates are empirically estimated from call center data using
(which can be approximated by the product of the a structural estimation approach. The estimation can
two) are comparable. This suggests that the waiting- be used within models that explore the management
time estimates are likely to be off significantly if of informational or delay announcements, dynamic
one ignores the endogenous caller behavior, but the routing or priority-type choices, and, more generally,
difference in the abandonment rate estimates will as part of a call center’s overall customer relationship
be smaller. Nonetheless, when the threshold is 15, efforts.
the abandonment rate of the low-priority group is To illustrate this, the estimation results are used
higher under the exogenous abandonment distribu- to study the role endogenous abandonment behavior
tion because the effect of the higher abandonment modeling plays in call center performance analysis.
probability dominates. A comparison is made between the proposed model
In many contexts such as making outsourcing deci- with endogenous abandonment behavior and one
sions, designing service-level agreements, and ser- where the abandonment distribution is exogenously
vice contracting, the ex ante performance analysis of determined from the data, as is typically done in the
the call center by simulation is essential. Our model literature. In a series of experiments that contrast the
highlights the importance of modeling callers’ behav- performance under the service discipline in place at
ior endogenously. Namely, we observe that using the call center, with several different alternatives, it
is shown that the two models can lead to signifi-
11
Under the static priority policy for the average waiting time of cantly different results in terms of waiting-time per-
the no-priority callers, the difference between the results of the formance. These examples highlight the importance
exogenous and endogenous models is significant with 90% confi- of modeling callers as strategic agents for managerial
dence (t-statistic = 3099).
decisions that are based on caller waiting times (like
12
Under the threshold policy with 15 and 5 as the thresholds for the delay announcements or service-level agreements in
abandonment rate of the no-priority callers, the difference between
the results of the exogenous and endogenous models is significant
outsourcing).
with 90% confidence (t-statistics = 16086 (th = 15) and t-statistics = A growing literature in operations management
14056 (th = 5)). deals with models where customers are modeled
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
2744 Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS
as strategic decision makers; see Hassin and Haviv for technical convenience, we will set = −, where
(2003). Empirical analyses for such models is mostly is Euler’s constant. From (A1), by Ben-Akiva and Lerman
lacking in the operations management literature. Our (1985, §5.2) and the fact that v4t1 ri 1 ci 1 15 = 0, we obtain the
paper illustrates how customer preference parameters formula for the choice probability as follows:
can be estimated for such models making use of struc- exp4v4t1 ri 1 ci 1 dit 55
tural estimation. Although we focus on the estimation Pit 4dit 3 ri 1 ci 5 =
exp4v4t1 ri 1 ci 1 155 + exp4v4t1 ri 1 ci 1 055
of a linear utility model in a queuing wait situation,
exp4v4t1 ri 1 ci 1 dit 55
the technique is not restricted to our specific model = 0 (A2)
1 + exp4v4t1 ri 1 ci 1 055
or setting.
Our analysis points to several future research What remains is to derive the recursive formula for the
directions worth exploring. In our estimation, the integrated value function. Recall from (5) that the integrated
equilibrium service probability, 4t5, is estimated value function is given by
directly from the data. Although this is a reasonable h i
V 4t1 ri 1 ci 5 = Ɛ max u4t + 11 ri 1 ci 1 i4t+15 4d51 d5 1
approach for our estimation, in a call center with d∈801 19
delay announcements, the equilibrium service proba- where the expectation is taken over the distribution of
bilities that take into account caller reactions need to i4t+15 415 and i4t+15 405. By Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1985,
be recomputed for counterfactual studies. Also, our §5.2), maxd∈801 19 u4t + 11 ri 1 ci 1 i4t+15 4d51 d5 has type I extreme
model assumes that callers make decisions at discrete value distribution with scale parameter 1 and location
time periods. We analyzed the effect of the length of parameter + log4ev1 + ev0 5, where vk = v4t + 11 ri 1 ci 1 k51
these periods in our estimation, but the question of k = 01 10 Therefore, we have
what decision period length is the most appropriate h i
V 4t1 ri 1 ci 5 = Ɛ max u4t + 11 ri 1 ci 1 i4t+15 4d51 d5
for a given setting remains to be answered. This is a d∈801 19
topic for experimental investigation that is beyond the = + log4ev1 + ev0 5 + 0 (A3)
scope of our analysis. In our model, we assume that
the callers’ waiting cost has a linear form and that For technical convenience, we assume that the location
the reward and cost parameters are independent. We parameter for the distribution of the idiosyncratic shocks
also assume that the idiosyncratic shocks have type I is equal to −. Then, by definitions of v1 and v0 and (A3),
extreme value distribution. It would be worth exam- it follows that
ining these assumptions in future research. V 4t1 ri 1 ci 5 = log exp4v4t + 11 ri 1 ci 1 155
Acknowledgments + exp4v4t + 11 ri 1 ci 1 055 0 (A4)
The authors thank the Service Enterprise Engineering
By substituting the values of the nominal utilities into (A4),
(SEE) lab at the Technion (http://ie.technion.ac.il/Labs/
the integrated value function can be written as follows:
Serveng/) for generously providing the data and ongoing
technical support regarding the data in preparation of this V 4t1 ri 1 ci 5 = log 1 + exp −ci + 4t + 15ri
paper. The authors are especially indebted to Avi Mandel-
+ 41 − 4t + 155V 4t + 11 ri 1 ci 5 1 (A5)
baum, Valery Trofimov, Igor Gavako, and Ella Nadjharov,
who not only provided a clean data set but also helped which provides the recursive formula for the integrated
them understand the intricacies of the data and with further value function. To conclude the proof, note that for period
structuring of the data. T − 11 the integrated value function is given by
Appendix A. Proofs V 4T − 11 ri 1 ci 5 = log 1 + exp −ci + 4T − 1 + 15ri
Proof of Proposition 1. We first derive the formula for
choice probabilities Pit 4dit 3 ri 1 ci 5 and then the recursive for- +41−4T −1+155V 4T 1ri 1ci 5 0 (A6)
mula for the integrated value function V 4t1 ri 1 ci 5. Since 4T 5 = 1, from (A5) and (A6), the integrated value
Recall that caller i takes action dit if the utility of choosing functions in period T − 1 and consequently all earlier peri-
dit is higher than the utility of taking the reverse action, ods do not depend on V 4T 1 ri 1 ci 5, and for convenience, we
1 − dit ; that is, assume that V 4T 1 ri 1 ci 5 = 0 for all i.
u4t1 ri 1 ci 1 it 4dit 51 dit 5 = v4t1 ri 1 ci 1 dit 5 + it 4dit 5
> v4t1 ri 1 ci 1 1 − dit 5 + it 41 − dit 5 Appendix B. Kaplan–Meier Estimator
= u4t1 ri 1 ci 1 it 41 − dit 51 1 − dit 50 Because some callers abandon the queue, and we cannot
observe the actual waiting times of all callers, the data is
Therefore, we have
ZZ censored. Therefore, we use the Kaplan–Meier estimator
Pit 4dit 3 ri 1 ci 5 = 8it 4dit 5−it 41−dit 5>v4t1 ri 1 ci 1 1−dit 5−v4t1 ri 1 ci 1 dit 59 to estimate the cumulative distribution of callers’ waiting
times, which is denoted by F 4t5.
× g4it 4055g4it 4155 dit 405 dit 4150 (A1) Recall that N denotes the number of callers in the data.
We assume that the idiosyncratic shocks have iid type I Suppose that t1 < t2 < · · · < tm are the ordered waiting times
extreme value distribution with scale parameter 1 and of the callers who receive service, where m is the number
location parameter ∈ with the pdf exp4−44d5 − 55 · of distinct waiting times. Note that m ≤ N because some
exp4− exp4−44d5 − 555 for d = 01 1. As will be seen below, callers may receive service at the same time.
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS 2745
Suppose that nj callers have not received service or aban- Table D.1 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Reward and Cost
doned the queue just prior to tj 1 j ∈ 811 0 0 0 1 m9. In addition, Parameters for the High-Priority Group in Cases 1 and 2
j denotes the number of callers who receive service at tj .
Reward and cost r -mean c-mean
The conditional probability that a caller receives service parameter sets ($) ($/minute) r -st. dev. c-st. dev.
after tj given that the caller has not received service before
tj is given by qj = 1 − j /nj . Denote by S4t5 the probability Parameters estimated 60309 10067 4.52E−05 3.09E−05
that a caller’s waiting time exceeds t. The Kaplan–Meier from the data
estimation of S4t5 for t ∈ 6tk 1 tk+1 5 is given by Ŝ4t5 = kj=1 qj .
Q Case 1 60309 10067 4.52E−05 10579
Case 2 60309 10067 4.52E−05 50069
Let Fˆ 4t5 denote the Kaplan–Meier estimation for F 4t5. Then,
Fˆ 4t5 = 1 − Ŝ4t5.
Table D.2 Average Waiting Times and Abandonment Rates of
Appendix C. Monte Carlo Experiments Different Caller Groups in Cases 1 and 2
To test the capability of the proposed estimation method to
identify the true parameters of the callers, we use Monte High Medium Low No
Carlo experiments. To do so, we first generate simulated priority priority priority priority
Reversed strict
data sets assuming certain values for the structural param- priority policy Sec. % ab. Sec. % ab. Sec. % ab. Sec. % ab.
eters. We denote these values by true values. Then, we esti-
mate the parameters of the simulated data sets, construct Parameters estimated 89006 62098 41008 2045 7068 0077 5046 1094
the 95% confidence intervals, and check whether the true from the data
values are in the corresponding confidence intervals. Case 1 152043 60094 46010 2074 7072 0076 5053 1094
Case 2 276097 60024 45090 2065 8000 0085 5068 2004
To implement the Monte Carlo experiment, we consider
the following true values for the structural parameters:
mr = 108, mc = −3, r = 0020 and c = 1. We set the maxi- estimated parameters of the simulated data sets. These
mum waiting time of the callers T to 120 periods. In addi- results as well as a series of extensive Monte Carlo experi-
tion, for the waiting-time distribution and probability of ments (available from the authors) show that our estimation
receiving service, F 4t5 and 4t5, we use those from the data method can recover the true parameter values from the data.
(suitably truncated), which are estimated using the Kaplan-
Meier estimator (see Appendix B). We generate 40 simulated Appendix D. The Impact of Callers’
data sets such that each data set contains 100,000 callers. Heterogeneity on System Performance
To simulate the abandonment behavior of the callers, for The estimation results (Table 4 in §5.2) show that there is
each caller, we draw y1 and y2 from the standard normal little heterogeneity in the high-, medium-, and low-priority
distribution. Then, we find r and c of the callers making groups, whereas there is significant heterogeneity in the no-
use of the assumed true values of the structural parameters priority group. To study the impact of increased heterogene-
and, consequently, can calculate the integrated value func- ity on system performance, we consider two scenarios (see
tion and the nominal utilities of the callers. Next, we add iid cases 1 and 2 in Table D.1), where we vary the degree of
type I extreme value distributed random shocks to the nom- heterogeneity in the high-priority group. To be more spe-
inal utilities to find the utilities of waiting and abandoning. cific, we change the variance of the cost parameter for the
With the probability of receiving service 4t5 and the high-priority group13 while keeping all other parameters the
utilities of waiting and abandoning, we can decide if the same as the estimated ones for simplicity. We focus attention
simulated caller receives service, abandons the queue, or on the reversed strict priority policy because under that pol-
continues to wait as follows: icy the high-priority callers experience long delays. Hence,
1. Draw a random variable x from the uniform distribu- the effect of heterogeneity is significant. The resulting aver-
tion between 0 and 1. If x ≤ 4t5, the caller receives service age waiting times and abandonment rates of different caller
and we end the procedure. groups are shown in Table D.2.
2. If x > 4t5, compare the utilities of waiting and Table D.2 shows that the average waiting time of the
abandoning. If the utility of abandoning is larger, the caller high-priority callers increases with the amount of hetero-
abandons the queue and we end the procedure. If not, the geneity. This indicates that the heterogeneity impacts sys-
caller continues to wait and we repeat steps 1 and 2 for the tem performance. To see the reason behind this, consider
next period. the probability density function of the waiting cost for the
high-priority callers (Figure D.1). It shows that increas-
Table C.1 shows the mean, standard deviation, and upper
ing heterogeneity increases the proportion of high-priority
and lower bounds of the 95% confidence intervals for the
callers with negligible waiting costs. Following the first
major observation in §6, callers with a negligible wait-
Table C.1 Results of the Monte Carlo Experiment ing cost stay longer in the system if the service quality
degrades. Therefore, by increasing the amount of hetero-
Structural parameter mr r mc c
geneity, the proportion of the callers who tend to stay longer
True value 1080 0020 −3000 1000 in the system increases, which contributes to the increase in
Mean (simulated data) 1079 0018 −3017 1011 the average waiting time of the high-priority callers.
Standard deviation (simulated data) 0002 0004 0009 0006
Upper bound of the 95% confidence interval 1082 0026 −2098 1024 13
Case 1 corresponds to a moderate degree of heterogeneity, and
Lower bound of the 95% confidence interval 1076 0010 −3035 0098
Case 2 corresponds to a high degree of heterogeneity.
Akşin et al.: Structural Estimation of Callers’ Delay Sensitivity in Call Centers
2746 Management Science 59(12), pp. 2727–2746, © 2013 INFORMS
Figure D.1 Probability Density Function of the Waiting Cost of the High-Priority Callers in Cases 1 and 2
60
Case 1
Case 2
50
40
Probability density
30
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Waiting cost ($/minute)
References Jouini O, Dallery Y, Aksin Z (2011) Call centers with delay infor-
Aksin Z, Armony M, Mehrotra V (2007) The modern call center: mation: Models and insights. Manufacturing Service Oper. Man-
A multi-disciplinary perspective on operations management agement 13(4):534–548.
research. Production Oper. Management 16(6):665–668. Judd K (1998) Numerical Methods in Economics (MIT Press,
Armony M, Shimkin N, Whitt W (2009) The impact of delay Cambridge, MA).
announcements in many-server queues with abandonment. Kailath T (1967) The divergence and Bhattacharyya distance mea-
Oper. Res. 57(1):66–81. sures in signal selection. IEEE Trans. Comm. Tech. 15(1):52–60.
Basseville M (1989) Distance measures for signal processing and Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incom-
pattern recognition. Signal Process 18(4):349–369. plete observations. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 53(282):457–481.
Ben-Akiva M, Lerman S (1985) Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Kohavi R (1995) A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for
Application to Travel Demand (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA). accuracy estimation and model selection. IJCAI’95 Proc. 14th
Berry S, Levinsohn J, Pakes A (1995) Automobile prices in market Internat. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence (Morgan Kaufmann,
equilibrium. Econometrica 63(4):841–890. San Francisco).
Bhattacharyya A (1943) On a measure of divergence between two Leclerc F, Schmitt B, Dube L (1995) Waiting time and decision mak-
statistical populations defined by their probability distirbu- ing: Is time like money? J. Consumer Res. 22(1):110–119.
tions. Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 35:99–109. Mandelbaum A, Shimkin N (2000) A model for rational abandon-
Bitran GR, Ferrer J-C, Rocha e Oliviera P (2008) Managing cus- ments from invisible queues. Queueing Systems: Theory Appl.
tomer experiences: Perspectives on the temporal aspects of 36(1–3):141–173.
service encounters. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management Mendelson H (1985) Pricing computer services: Queueing effects.
10(1):61–83. Comm. ACM 28(3):312–321.
Brown L, Gans N, Mandelbaum A, Sakov A, Shen H, Zeltyn S, Munichor N, Rafaeli A (2007) Numbers or apologies? Customer
Zhao L (2005) Statistical analysis of a telephone call cen- reactions to tele-waiting time fillers. J. Appl. Psych. 92(2):
ter: A queueing-science perspective. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 511–518.
100(469):36–50. Nair H (2007) Intertemporal price discrimination with forward-
Byrd RH, Nocedal J, Waltz RA (2006) Knitro: An integrated package looking consumers: Application to the US market for console
for nonlinear optimization. di Pillo G, Roma M, eds. Large-Scale video-games. Quant. Marketing Econom. 5(3):239–292.
Nonlinear Optimization (Springer-Verlag, New York), 35–39. Naor P (1969) The regulation of queue size by levying tolls.
Chebat JC, Gelinas-Chebat C, Filiatrault P (1993) Interactive effects Econometrica 37(1):15–24.
of musical and visual cues on time perception: An appli- Rust J (1987) Optimal replacement of gmc bus engines: An empiri-
cation to waiting lines in banks. Perceptual and Motor Skills cal model of harold zurcher. Econometrica 55(5):999–1033.
77(3):995–1020. Shimkin N, Mandelbaum A (2004) Rational abandonment from
Gans N, Koole G, Mandelbaum A (2003) Telephone call centers: tele-queues: Nonlinear waiting costs with heterogeneous pref-
Tutorial, review and research prospects. Manufacturing Service erences. Queueing Systems: Theory Appl. 47(1–2):117–146.
Oper. Management 5(2):73–141. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1989) Statistical Methods (Iowa State
Guo P, Zipkin P (2007) Analysis and comparison of queues University Press, Ames, IA).
with different levels of delay information. Management Sci. Su C-L, Judd K (2012) Constrained optimization approaches to esti-
53(6):962–970. mation of structural models. Econometrica 80(5):2231–2267.
Hassin R, Haviv M (1995) Equilibrium strategies for queues with Suck R, Holling H (1997) Stress caused by waiting: A theoreti-
impatient customers. Oper. Res. Lett. 17(1):41–45. cal evaluation of a mathematical model. J. Math. Psych. 41(3):
Hassin R, Haviv M (2003) To Queue or Not to Queue: Equilibrium 280–286.
Behavior in Queueing Systems (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Whitt W (1999) Improving service by informing customers about
Norwell, MA). anticipated delays. Management Sci. 45(2):192–207.
Hornik J (1984) Subjective vs. objective time measures: A note on Zakay D (1989) An integrated model of time estimation. Levin I,
the perception of time in consumer behavior. J. Consumer Res. Zakay D, eds. Time and Human Cognition: A Life Span Perspective
11(1):615–618. (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 365–395.
Horowitz JL (2001) The bootstrap. Hackman JJ, Leamer E, eds. Zohar E, Mandelbaum A, Shimkin N (2002) Adaptive behavior of
Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 5 (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam), impatient customers in tele-queues: Theory and empirical sup-
3159–3228. port. Management Sci. 48(4):566–583.