The required reading by Gumus, Bubou, and Oladeinde described the performance of a single channel with two servers in terms of customer satisfaction. What are the general tradeoffs that are involved in waiting line decisions and with Blue Meadows Restaurant in particular? Who needs to be involved in assessing the cost of customers waiting for service? How has technology had an impact on analyzing waiting line systems? Visit a restaurant in your area to help formulate your answers accordingly. What are your observations?
Embed course material concepts, principles, and theories, which require supporting citations along with
at least one scholarly, peer-reviewed reference in supporting your answer unless the discussion calls for more. Keep in mind that these scholarly references can be found in the Saudi Digital Library by conducting an advanced search specific to scholarly references.
You need to reply to at least two peer discussion question post answers to this discussion question. These post replies need to be substantial and constructive in nature. They should add to the content of the post and evaluate/analyze that post answer. Normal course dialogue doesn’t fulfill these two peer replies, but is expected throughout the course. Answering all course questions is also required.
Use Saudi Electronic University academic writing standards and APA style guidelines.
The required reading by Gumus, Bubou, and Oladeinde described the performance of a single channel with two servers in terms of customer satisfaction. What are the general tradeoffs that are involved in waiting line decisions and with Blue Meadows Restaurant in particular? Who needs to be involved in assessing the cost of customers waiting for service? How has technology had an impact on analyzing waiting line systems? Visit a restaurant in your area to help formulate your answers accordingly. What are your observations? Embed course material concepts, principles, and theories, which require supporting citations along with at least one scholarly, peer-reviewed reference in supporting your answer unless the discussion calls for more. Keep in mind that these scholarly references can be found in the Saudi Digital Library by conducting an advanced search specific to scholarly references. You need to reply to at least two peer discussion question post answers to this discussion question. These post replies need to be substantial and constructive in nature. They should add to the content of the post and evaluate/analyze that post answer. Normal course dialogue doesn’t fulfill these two peer replies, but is expected throughout the course. Answering all course questions is also required. Use Saudi Electronic University academic writing standards and APA style guidelines. SEU Discussion Board Rubric Meets Expectation Approaches Expectation Below Expectation Limited Evidence No Evidence Content, Research, and Analysis 2 Points 1.5 Points 1 Point .5 Points 0 Points Content Meets Expectation - Demonstrates excellent knowledge of concepts, skills, and theories relevant to topic. Approaches Expectation - Demonstrates fair knowledge of concepts, skills, and theories. Below Expectation - Demonstrates significantly flawed knowledge of concepts, skills, and theories. Limited Evidence - Demonstrates poor or absent knowledge of concepts, skills, and theories. No Evidence - Did not participate. 2 Points 1.5 Points 1 Point .5 Points 0 Points Support Meets Expectation - Statements are well supported; posts extend discussion. Approaches Expectation - Statements are partially supported; posts may extend discussion. Below Expectation - Support is deficient; posts do not extend discussion. Limited Evidence - Statements are not supported No Evidence - Did not participate. 2 Points 1.5 Points 1 Point .5 Points 0 Points Writing Quality Meets Expectation - Writing is well organized, clear, concise, and focused; no errors. Approaches Expectation - Some significant but not major errors or omissions in writing organization, focus, and clarity. Below Expectation - Numerous significant errors or omissions in writing organization, focus, and clarity. Limited Evidence - Numerous errors or omissions—at least some major— in writing organization, focus, and clarity. No Evidence - Did not participate. 2 Points 1.5 Points 1 Point .5 Points 0 Points Timeliness Meets Expectation - Initial post made before deadline. Approaches Expectation - Initial post made 1 day late. Below Expectation - Initial post 2 days late. Limited Evidence - Initial post 3 days late. No Evidence - Did not participate. 2 Points 1.5 Points 1 Point .5 Points 0 Points Quantity Meets Expectation - Initial post and two other posts of substance. Approaches Expectation - Initial post and one other post of substance. Below Expectation - Initial post only. Limited Evidence - One post of substance to colleagues. No Evidence - Did not participate. Points Possible: 10 MGT530-10 SEU_DiscussionRubric_rev