MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175584692 · doi:10.1111/poms.13520

Customer Acquisition and Retention: A Fluid Approach for Staffing

2021· article· en· W3175584692 on OpenAlexaff
Eugene Furman, Adam Diamant, Mehmet Murat Kristal

Bibliographic record

VenueProduction and Operations Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingComputer scienceQueueThroughputQueueing theoryService qualityProxy (statistics)Service (business)Quality of serviceOperations researchComputer networkBusinessMarketingTelecommunicationsEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the trade‐off between acquisition and retention efforts when customers are sensitive to the quality of service they receive, that is, whether they get timely access to a company's resources when requested. We model the problem as a multi‐class queueing network with new and returning customers, time‐dependent arrivals, and abandonment. We derive its fluid approximation; a system of ordinary linear differential equations with continuous, piecewise smooth, right‐hand sides. Based on the fluid model, we propose a novel approach to determine optimal stationary staffing levels for new and returning customer queues in anticipation of future time‐varying dynamics. Using system accessibility as a proxy for service quality and staffing levels as a proxy for investment, we demonstrate how to apply our approach to two families of time‐varying arrival functions motivated by real‐world applications: an advertising campaign and a clinical setting. In a numerical study, we demonstrate that our approach creates staffing policies that maximize throughput while balancing acquisition and retention efforts more effectively (i.e., equitable abandonment from each customer class) than commonly used near‐stationary methods such as variants of square‐root staffing policies. Our model confirms that acquisition and retention efforts are intimately linked; this has been found in empirical studies but not captured in the operations literature. We suggest that in time‐varying environments, focusing on either alone is not sufficient to maintain high levels of throughput and service quality.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProduction and Operations ManagementSame topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207