1. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net 1 Anat Rafaeli Technion ISRAEL A Psychologist Looks at Service and Waiting

2. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net2 Queue design and management evokes customer and employee reactions ! Please wait. I am temporarily out of motivation.

3. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net3 Multiple ways to design a wait

4. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net 4

5. 5

6. 6 Design and time in queue expectations : Design and time in queue expectations : How long do you expect to wait in different structure queues? F(1)=79.274 p= 0.000 Average Wait Expected Numbers – 39 minutes Single – 29 minutes Multiple – 19 minutes

7. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net7 Design and preferences: In which queue would you rather wait?  2 (2)=32.099 p= 0.000 N=101 Queue Preferation 56.6% 15.1% 23.6% 4.7% Numbered Queue Single Queue Multiple Queue Missing

8. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net8 Queue Paradox People PREFER queues in which they expect a LONGER wait Difficulties and Constraints of Intervening factors in regular real life queue A New Paradigm

9. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net9 Research Paradigm Laboratory yet real wait conditions. Experimental manipulation of queue design. Full control of all wait aspects. Measurement before, during and after wait.

10. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net10

11. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net11 Progress in queue by clicking on icon

12. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net12 Real Time Measurement: Anytime before, during and after wait

13. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net13 Queues and Pleasantness Satisfaction improves with progress in queue equally in all designs. Did you call for service?

14. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net14 Satisfaction Improves with Activity Positive AttitudesActivity in Queue F Mean **9.386* 2.93 Activity related to wait 2.82 Activity not related to wait 2.05 No activity

15. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net15 People Notice Fairness ! Multiple Queues with F-I-F-O violations more reported unfairness than Multiple Queues with no violations

16. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net16 Multiple Queue design with no FIFO violations is theoretically identical to a Single Queue

17. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net17 Symbolic Fairness Effects Multiple Queues with NO FAIRNESS violations MORE REPORTED UNFAIRNESS than Single Queues To what extent do you feel Irritated? To a great extent To a little extent Service stations Please answer the question

18. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net 18 Fairness Violations in Queues Where? Who? When? Why?

19. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net19 Interruptions far away from me? No effect on irritation F (1) = 0.803 n.s.

20. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net20 Interruption close to me? Queue is NOT fair!! Interruption far away Interruption Close By F (1) = 7.892 p<0.01 F (1) = 0.781 n.s.

21. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net21 Institutionalized Fairness Violations: VIP Multiple Queue

22. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net22 VIP Queues and Fairness Reported fairness significantly lower with VIP Queue than with Multiple Queue Mean VIP-Queue=2.7 Mean Multiple Queue=3.44 t (36 ) = 2.51, p<.05).

23. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net23 VIP Offer Fairness Effects After offer to pay for VIP service REPORTED FAIRNESS INCREASES although FIFO perceptions drop Before VIP Offer After VIP Offer Fair- ness 2.73.4P<.01 FIFO?4.13.0P<.01

24. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net24 Telephone Waiting: Anat Rafaeli and Nira Munichor Telephone waiting is an annoyance that can be reduced psychologically Music ? Apologies ? Queue information ? Service activities ?

25. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net25 Results Abandonment rate: Waiting evaluation: Hypothesis 1: There will be differences between reactions to different phone waiting time filler types χ² (3)= 12.035, p<.01, Phi=.27 F (3,63)=5.525, p<.005, η²=.21

26. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net26 Phi=.21P=.071χ² (1) = 3.26 %AbandonedN 69.4%36Music 48.6%37Activities Phi=.335p<.005χ² (1) = 8.441 Abandoned%N 69.4%36Music 35.9%39Information Hypothesis 2: Service-related-activities will produce more positive reactions than apology messages or music alone Hypothesis 3 : Queueing-information will produce more positive reactions than activities, apology messages or music alone Phi=.13n.sχ² (1) = 1.266 48.6%37Activities 35.9%39Information

27. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net27 Self Report: Waiting Evaluation P<.001Tukey’s HSD= 5.502 SDMeanN 745.2.583316 Apology 834.3.819413 Information (No significant differences between other conditions )

28. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net28 Time Fillers while Waiting Sense of Progress: Queue Info Activities while Waiting No Sense of Progress : Music Apologies Progress Toward Goal Improves Reactions

29. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net29 Monitoring and Employee Performance Anat Rafaeli Caroline Zeira Idit Avivi Hadass Admon

30. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net30 Perceived Fairness Quality Evaluation Emotional State Intent to Leave H1 H3 H2 Quality Evaluations perceived as More Fair and Produce Less Burnout Anat Rafaeli Idit Avivi √√√

31. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net31 Time Monitoring Hampers Performance Task Difficulty ANOVA ***F(1,119)=177.74 Time Monitoring ANOVA ***F(1,119)=16.9 Anat Rafaeli Caroline Zeira

32. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net32 Background >> hypothesis >> method Independent Variable: Open Monitoring? Anat Rafaeli Hadass Admon

33. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net 33 Employee Initiative in Telephone Service Anat Rafaeli Lital Ziklik Lorna Doucet

34. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net34 “Quality of Service”? The concept remains elusive because service is Inseparable (production - delivery AND employee – customer) Problem of customer expectations and behaviors !!

35. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net35 Critical factor is exceeding expectations.  Delight, Excite, Surprise or otherwise Amaze (Schneider and Bowen, 1999; Ziethaml and Bitner, 1996; ).

36. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net36 Multiple Ways to Surprise

37. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net37 Some may be Problematic

38. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net38 Research Context Calls to a retail bank (n=142) One call per employee and customer. Data sources: –Verbatim transcripts of calls –Quality Control Data –Telephone survey data (one day after)

39. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net39 Context Typical call involves … –account balance inquiries –account transaction inquiries –general product information inquiries –checkbook ordering –change of address requests. Calls last approximately 2 minutes (average 2.35 minutes; range of < 1 - 20 minutes) Calls involve average of 1597 characters (range of 268 – 5277)

40. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net40 “Going the Extra Mile” in Call Center Interactions

41. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net41 No. of different categories per call N = 66 Calls Types of Initiatives Per Call

42. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net42 Evidence of Different Categories

43. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net43 No. of Initiatives Per Call

44. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net44 Proportion of “Extra Mile” in Complete Call (by character count)

45. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net45 “ Please stay on the line. All of our customer service representatives are kidding around and throwing paper airplanes at each other. ” Effects of “Extra Mile” on Customer Satisfaction? On QA?

46. (c) Anat Rafaeli - http://Anat.Rafaeli.Net46 The End