Jon Jackson, Associate Professor of Operations Management at Providence College, raises an interesting issue regarding waiting lines.
Queuing theory emerged in the early 20th century with the rise of telephone systems and has since become a core part of operations management education. Classic models like M/M/1 and Little’s Law—staples of Module D: Waiting-Line Models—help us analyze everything from grocery checkouts to airport security.
But in recent years, a shift has occurred, one that challenges our assumptions about what a “line” even is. Increasingly, companies are replacing physical queues with virtual ones. Customers now “get in line” via app or text, receive real-time updates, and arrive just in time for
service. Disney’s Virtual Queue and Yelp’s Waitlist are a well-known examples, but virtual queues are also popping up in healthcare (e.g., Canadian ERs) and government services (e.g., North Carolina DMVs).
From a customer-experience perspective, virtual queuing offers obvious benefits: more flexibility, reduced perceived waiting time, and greater comfort. But from an operational lens, it raises a deeper question: are we still managing a queue, or managing something entirely new?
At first glance, queues—physical or virtual—follow the same logic: customers arrive, wait, and are served. But virtual systems change how that waiting is experienced. In physical lines, customers can see how many people are ahead, assess progress, and make real-time decisions about balking or reneging. In virtual lines, those cues disappear.
Virtual queues also alter arrival rates. Traditional models assume random arrivals and FIFO service. But virtual systems can shape arrival patterns via notifications and estimated wait times. This introduces a hybrid between queuing and appointment systems.
Fairness and prioritization are evolving too. In physical lines, order is usually determined by arrival time. In virtual systems, paid priority (e.g., Disney Lightning Lane) complicates this logic.
Should we optimize for efficiency or fairness—or both? Even foundational concepts like Little’s Law may need rethinking. If a customer isn’t physically present, are they still “in” the system? Ultimately, virtual queuing is more than a customer-experience improvement. It’s a meaningful shift that invites us to revisit historical queuing models and the assumptions behind them.
Classroom Discussion Questions:
1. In a virtual queue, does a customer “enter the system” when he joins the queue virtually or when he physically arrives for service? How does your answer influence how we analyze the system?
2. How does paid priority—whether in virtual or physical queues—impact perceived fairness?