The Redesign
A 2000 word proposal for one change to the queue you measured, with the predicted effect worked out, plus an eight minute defence in week 12.
Due: 28 May 2027 · Weight: 35%
The task#
Propose one change to the queue you measured in week 1. Predict its effect on the mean wait, showing your arithmetic. Name the group that waits longer after the change. Defend it in front of the room.
This is the final piece and it is worth 35 percent, split between a written proposal worth 85 percent of the mark and a defence worth 15 percent. It uses the queue and the data from The Measured Queue, so it cannot be attempted on a queue you have not measured.
One change#
One change, not a programme. The following are each a single change:
- Open a second counter.
- Merge two parallel lines into one feeding both servers.
- Move the sign, or add one that states the current wait.
- Change the discipline from first come first served to shortest job first.
- Move the form filling to before the queue instead of after it.
- Add an appointment slot alongside the walk-in line.
- Change the opening hours.
A new building, a new app and a general reorganisation are not single changes and cannot be predicted from your data. If you are unsure whether your idea counts as one change, ask in the forum before week 10.
What to do#
- Start from your week 1 figures: arrival rate, service rate, utilisation, mean wait and the spread of service times.
- State what your change does to each of those inputs, and why.
- Work out the predicted mean wait after the change, using the methods from weeks 3, 4 and 9. Show every step. A predicted figure with no working available scores nothing on 35 percent of this piece.
- State the assumptions the prediction rests on, and which of them you are least confident about.
- Identify who waits longer after the change. Every change to a queue moves waiting rather than removing it, so this group exists. Name them, say how much longer, and show how you arrived at that figure.
- Test the change against the site as it actually is: cost, staffing, floor space, equipment, and who would have to agree to it.
- If you can trial the change, trial it and report what happened. A prediction that missed, with an account of why, scores higher than a prediction that happened to land with no analysis.
What to submit#
One PDF, through the assessment portal on this site, by 17:00 Friday of
week 12. Name it SLOP3068-A4-u1234567.pdf.
At most 2000 words. Diagrams, tables, figure captions, the reference list and appendices do not count towards that. Put your student number and your queue’s name at the top of the first page.
Proposal structure#
Use these six sections, in this order, with these headings.
| Section | What it contains | Indicative words |
|---|---|---|
| 1. The queue as it stands | Your week 1 figures, restated in a table, with the observation dates | 200 |
| 2. The change | What changes, in one paragraph, with a before and after diagram | 250 |
| 3. The prediction | The arithmetic in full, from your inputs to a predicted mean wait, and the assumptions it rests on | 550 |
| 4. Who waits longer | The group, the quantity, and how you arrived at it | 450 |
| 5. Feasibility | Cost, staffing, space, equipment and whose agreement is needed | 350 |
| 6. What you would measure next | The one figure that would tell you within a week whether the change worked | 200 |
If you ran a trial, add it as section 7 and put the raw sheets in an appendix.
The defence#
In the week 12 field session. Eight minutes, then five minutes of questions from the room. Slides are optional and capped at five. Bring one copy of your before and after diagram on paper.
You may invite the manager of the site you measured. Several students do each year and they ask better questions than we do. It is not required and it does not affect the mark.
The defence is marked on whether you can hold a position under a question you did not anticipate, and revise it when the question is a good one. Both of those earn marks. Polish does not.
If you cannot attend for a documented reason, contact Tessa before week 12 and an alternative time is arranged with two staff present.
What each criterion means#
The weights are in the table below this brief.
The prediction, and the working behind it. Every step from your week 1 inputs to the predicted wait is on the page and can be checked. Units are consistent. The assumptions are stated rather than buried.
Naming who the change costs. A specific group, a quantity attached to them, and a method behind that quantity. A proposal that claims the change helps everybody scores nothing here, and it is the most common way this piece loses marks.
Feasibility. The change is tested against the site you actually observed, not against a generic version of it. Cost and staffing are estimated rather than waved at, and the person who would have to approve it is named by role.
The defence. Holding the position, and changing it when the question warrants it.
Integrity and lateness#
The proposal takes the ordinary per-day late penalty. The defence happens in a room at a time and cannot be handed in late; if you cannot be there, ask for an extension rather than submitting late. See the policies page for academic integrity and the use of language models.
The spec
The brief poses the problem and leaves room for a response. The spec is the fixed part: what a marker checks. Some lines can be checked mechanically; the rest call for judgement.
- one change to the queue you measured for The Measured Queue
- a predicted mean wait after the change, with the arithmetic shown in full
- a named group who waits longer after the change, and by how much
- a feasibility section addressing cost, staffing, space and who has to agree
- a proposal of at most 2000 words as a PDF
- a defence in the week 12 field session, eight minutes plus five minutes of questions
How it is marked
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| The prediction, and the working behind it | 35% |
| Naming who the change costs | 30% |
| Feasibility against the real constraints of the site | 20% |
| The defence | 15% |