Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorThompson, Gary
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-12T21:05:35Z
dc.date.available2020-09-12T21:05:35Z
dc.date.issued2004-05-01
dc.identifier.other7734363
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1813/71864
dc.description.abstract[Excerpt] Having the right-size tables in a position to be combined with other tables to serve large parties can yield additional revenue at virtually no added cost. This article focuses on restaurants with walk-in customers (no reservations are taken), where a host or hostess seats the parties and where parties are seated separately. Restaurants of this kind are common in the United States (e.g., TGIF, Chili’s, Applebee’s). Specifically, this article examines the issue of which tables should be combinable with which other tables. “Combinability” is the ability to create a larger table from adjacent smaller tables. For example, combinability would allow two adjacent 4-top tables to be combined to seat parties of up eight people.’ In an earlier investigation I found that, in many cases, having tables dedicated to specific party sizes was preferable to having combinable tables. The reason for this was that placing tables on hold, while waiting for customers to depart an adjacent table that can then be combined with the empty on-hold table, imposes a non-productive idle time for the on-hold tables.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.rightsRequired Publisher Statement: © Cornell University. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
dc.subjectworkforce planning
dc.subjectlabor scheduling
dc.subjectstaffing
dc.subjectplanning
dc.titlePlanning-interval Duration in Labor-shift Scheduling
dc.typearticle
dc.description.legacydownloadsThompson18_Planning_interval_duration.pdf: 63 downloads, before Aug. 1, 2020.
local.authorAffiliationThompson, Gary: gmt1@cornell.edu Cornell University School of Hotel Administration


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Statistics