Simulating Customer Experience and Word-Of-Mouth in
Retail - A Case Study
Peer-Olaf Siebers
Uwe Aickelin
University of Nottingham, School of Computer Science
Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK
pos@cs.nott.ac.uk
Helen Celia
Chris W. Clegg
University of Leeds, Centre for Organisational Strategy, Learning & Change (LUBS)
Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

Agents offer a new and exciting way of understanding the world of work. In this paper
we describe the development of agent-based simulation models, designed to help to
understand the relationship between people management practices and retail
performance. We report on the current development of our simulation models which
includes new features concerning the evolution of customers over time. To test the
features we have conducted a series of experiments dealing with customer pool sizes,
standard and noise reduction modes, and the spread of customers’ word of mouth. To
validate and evaluate our model, we introduce new performance measure specific to
retail operations. We show that by varying different parameters in our model we can
simulate a range of customer experiences leading to significant differences in
performance measures. Ultimately, we are interested in better understanding the
impact of changes in staff behavior due to changes in store management practices.
Our multi-disciplinary research team draws upon expertise from work psychologists and
computer scientists. Despite the fact we are working within a relatively novel and
complex domain, it is clear that intelligent agents offer potential for fostering
sustainable organizational capabilities in the future.
Keywords: agent-based modeling, agent-based simulation, retail performance,
management practices, shopping behavior, customer satisfaction, word of mouth

1. Introduction
The retail sector has been identified as one of the biggest contributors to the productivity gap, whereby the
productivity of the UK lags behind that of France, Germany and the USA [1, 2]. A recent report into UK
productivity asserted that, ‘...the key to productivity remains what happens inside the firm and this is
something of a ‘black box’…’ [3]. A recent literature review of management practices and organizational
productivity concluded that management practices are multidimensional constructs that generally do not
demonstrate a straightforward relationship with productivity variables [4], and that both management
practices and productivity measures must be context specific to be (respectively) effective and meaningful.
Many attempts have been made to link management practices to an organization’s productivity and
performance (for a review, see [5]), however research findings have been so far been mixed, creating the
opportunity for the application of different techniques to advance our understanding.
Simulation can be used to analyze the operation of dynamic and stochastic systems showing their
development over time. There are many different types of simulation, each of which has its specific field of
application. Agent-Based Simulation (ABS) is particularly useful when complex interactions between
system entities exist such as autonomous decision making or proactive behavior. Agent-Based Modeling

1

(ABM) shows how micro-level processes affect macro level outcomes; macro level behavior is not
explicitly modeled, it emerges from the micro-decisions made by the individual entities [6].
There has been a fair amount of modeling and simulation of operational management practices, but people
management practices have often been neglected although research suggests that they crucially impact
upon an organization’s performance [7]. One reason for this relates to the key component of people
management practices, an organization’s people, who may often be unpredictable in their individual
behavior. Previous research into retail productivity has typically focused on consumer behavior and
efficiency evaluation (e.g. [8, 9]), and we seek to build on this work and address the neglected area of
people management practices in retail [10].
The overall aim of our project is to investigate the link between different management practices and
productivity. This strand of work focuses on simulating various in-store scenarios grounded in empirical
case studies with a leading UK retailer. In this paper we aim to understand and predict how Agent-Based
Modeling and Simulation (ABMS) can assess and optimize the impact of people management practices on
customer satisfaction and Word-Of-Mouth (WOM) in relation to the performance of a service-oriented
retail department. To achieve this aim we have adopted a case study approach using applied research
methods to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. In summary, we have worked with a leading UK
retail organization to conduct four weeks’ of informal participant observations in four departments across
two retail stores, forty semi-structured interviews with employees including a sixty-three-item
questionnaire on the effectiveness of retail management practices, and drawn upon a variety of established
information sources internal to the company. This approach has enabled us to acquire a valid and reliable
understanding of how the real system operates, revealing insights into the working of the system as well as
the behavior of and interactions between the different individuals and their complementary roles within the
retail department. Using this knowledge and data, we have applied ABM to devise a functional
representation of the case study departments. By executing the developed ABS models we can run
experiments to investigate the effects of different management scenarios.
So far we have only studied the impact of people management practices (e.g. training and empowerment)
on a customer base that is not influenced by any external or internal stimuli, and hence does not evolve [11,
12]. In order to be able to investigate the impact of management practices on customer satisfaction in a
more realistic way we need to consider the cues that stimulate customers to respond to these practices.
Therefore our focus is currently on building the capabilities to model customer evolution as a consequence
of the implementation of management practices. Consumer decision making, and consequently changes in
the behavior of customers over time, are driven by an integration of each consumer’s cognitive and
affective skills [13]. At any given point in time a customer’s behavior, as the product of an individual’s
cognitions, emotions, and attitudes, may be attributable to an external social cue such as a friend’s
recommendation or in-store stimuli [14], or an internal cue such as memory of one’s own previous
shopping experiences [15]. Changing customer requirements may in turn alter what makes a successful
management practice (because these are context specific, and customers are a key component of any retail
context). In order to enable such studies we enhanced our original Management Practices Simulation
(ManPraSim) model and introduced some new features.
In this paper we discuss the key features we have implemented in order to allow the investigation of these
kinds of behavioral dynamics. What we are learning here about modeling human behavior has implications
for modeling any complex system that involves many human interactions and where the people function
with some degree of autonomy.
2. Related Work
When investigating the behavior of complex systems the choice of an appropriate modeling technique is
very important [16]. To inform the choice of modeling technique, the relevant literature spanning the fields
of Economics, Social Science, Psychology, Retail, Marketing, OR, Artificial Intelligence, and Computer
Science has been reviewed. Within these fields a wide variety of approaches are used which can be
classified into three main categories: analytical methods, heuristic methods, and simulation. Often a

2

combination of these are used within a single model (e.g. [17, 18]. After a thorough investigation of the
relevant literature we have identified simulation as being the most appropriate approach for our purposes.
Simulation introduces the possibility of a new way of thinking about social and economic processes, based
on ideas about the emergence of complex behavior from relatively simple activities [19]. The purpose of
simulation is either to better understand the operation of a target system, or to make predictions about a
target system’s performance [20]. It allows the testing and evaluation of a theory, and investigation of its
implications. Whereas analytical models typically aim to explain correlations between variables measured
at one single point in time, simulation models are concerned with the development of a system over time
[21]. They allow us to study the transient conditions during the process, along the way to the eventual
outcome [22]. The outcome of simulation study is the acquisition of more knowledge about the dynamic
behavior of a system, i.e. the state changes of the model as time advances [23]. There are many different
approaches to OR simulation, amongst them Discrete-Event Simulation (DES), System Dynamics (SD),
and ABS, which is sometimes also referred to as individual-based simulation [24]. The choice of the most
suitable approach depends on the issues investigated, the input data available, the required level of analysis,
and the type of answers that are sought [16].
Although computer simulation has been used widely since the 1960s, ABMS only became popular in the
early 1990s [25]. It is described by [26] as a mindset as much as a technology: ‘It is the perfect way to view
things and understand them by the behavior of their smallest components’. In agent-based models a
complex system is represented by a collection of agents that are programmed to follow simple behavioral
rules. Agents can interact with each other and with their environment to produce complex collective
behavioral patterns. The main characteristics of agents are their autonomy and their ability to take flexible
action in reaction to their environment, both determined by motivations generated from their internal states.
They are designed to mimic the attributes and behaviors of their real-world counterparts.
ABS is still a relatively new simulation technique and its principal application has been in academic
research. There are, however, a wide range of existing application domains that are making use of the agent
paradigm and developing agent-based systems, for example in software technology, robotics, and complex
systems, and an ever increasing number of computer games use the ABMS approach. [27] draw a
distinction between two central Multi-Agent System (MAS) paradigms: multi-agent decision systems and
multi-agent simulation systems. In multi-agent decision systems, agents participating in the system must
make joint decisions as a group. Mechanisms for joint decision-making can be based on economic
mechanisms, such as an auction, or alternative mechanisms, such as argumentation. Multi-agent simulation
systems are used as a model to simulate some real-world domain. The typical application is in domains
which involve many different components, interacting in diverse and complex ways and where the systemlevel properties are not readily inferred from the properties of the components. ABMS is extensively used
by the game and film industry to develop realistic simulations of individual characters and societies. It is
used in computer games, for example The SIMS™ [28], or in films when diverse heterogeneous characters
animations are required, for example the Orcs in Lord of the Rings™ [29].
Due to the characteristics of the agents, the ABMS approach (which is often implemented as a process
interaction DES) appears to be more suitable than the event scheduling modeling approach (which is
typically associated with the term DES) when it comes to modeling human-centered systems. This is due to
the fact that it supports the modeling of autonomous behavior. ABMS seems to promote a natural form of
modeling these systems [22]. There is a structural correspondence between the real system and the model
representation, which makes them more intuitive and easier to understand than for example a system of
differential equations as used in SD. [30] emphasizes that one of the key strengths of ABMS is that the
system as a whole is not constrained to exhibit any particular behavior as the system properties emerge
from its constituent agent interactions. Consequently, assumptions of linearity, equilibrium and so on, are
not needed.
On the other hand, some difficulties have been linked to use of ABMS. One disadvantage that is often
mentioned is the high demand in computational power compared to other simulation techniques, most
notably in that all of the interactions between agents and between the agent and the environment have to be
considered during the simulation run. However, rapid growth in affordable computer power makes this

3

problem less significant [31]. There is consensus in the literature that it is difficult to evaluate agent-based
models, because of the heterogeneity of the agents and because the behavior of the system emerges from
the interactions between the individual entities. [32] argues that for ‘intellective models’ (e.g. models that
illustrate the relative impact of basic explanatory mechanisms) validation is somewhat less critical and the
most important thing is to maintain a balance between keeping a model simple and maintaining veridicality
(the extent to which a knowledge structure accurately reflects the information environment it represents).
More recently some attempts have been made to develop a common approach to assuring the credibility
(verification and validation) of ABS models (see for example [33 - 35].
A two stage approach for empirical validation has been proposed by [36]. The first stage comprises microvalidation of the behavior of the individual agents and the authors recommend this is conducted with
reference to real data on individual behavior. The second stage covers macro-validation of the aggregate or
emergent behavior of the model when individual agents interact and is advised to be conducted with
reference to aggregate time series data. Further, [36] remark that at the macro level only qualitative
validation judgments may be possible. Also, problems often occur through the lack of adequate empirical
data. [37] state that most quantitative research has concentrated on ‘variable and correlation’ models that do
not cohere well with process-based simulation that is inherent in agent-based models. Finally, [37] point
out the danger that people new to ABMS may expect too much from the models, particularly regarding
their predictive ability. To mitigate this problem it is important to be clear with individuals about what this
modeling technique can really offer, in order to guide realistic expectations.

3. Model Design and Data Collection
Before building a simulation model one needs to understand the particular problem domain [38]. In order to
gain this understanding we have conducted some case studies. What we have learned during these case
studies is reflected in the conceptual models presented in this chapter. Furthermore we explain how we
intend to use the data we have gathered during our case studies. Throughout the rest of the paper we will
use the term 'actor' to refer to a person in the real system, whereas the term 'agent' will be reserved for their
counterparts in the simulation model.
3.1 Knowledge Gathering
Case studies were undertaken in four departments across two branches of a leading UK retailer. The case
study work involved extensive data collection techniques, spanning: participant observation, semistructured interviews with team members, management and personnel, completion of survey questionnaires
and the analysis of company data and reports (for further information, see [39]). Research findings were
consolidated and fed back (via report and presentation) to employees with extensive experience and
knowledge of the four departments in order to validate our understanding and conclusions. This approach
has enabled us to acquire a valid and reliable understanding of how the real system operates, revealing
insights into the working of the system as well as the behavior of and interactions between the different
actors within it.
In order to make sure that our results regarding the application of management practices are applicable for a
wide variety of departments we have chosen two types of case study departments which are substantially
different not only in their way of operating but also their customer type split and staff setup. We collected
our data in the Audio & Television (A&TV) and the WomensWear (WW) departments of the two case
study branches.
The key differences between these two department types can be summarized as follows. The average
customer service time in A&TV is significantly longer, and the average purchase is significantly more
expensive than in WW. The likelihood of a customer seeking help in A&TV is also much higher than in
WW. Out of customers who have received advice, those in WW have a higher likelihood of making a
purchase (indeed customers’ questions tend to be very specific to a desired purchase) than in A&TV.
Considering customer types, A&TV tends to attract more solution demanders and service seekers, whereas
WW customers tend to be shopping enthusiasts. Finally, it is important to note that the conversion rate (the
likelihood of customers making a purchase) is higher in WW than in A&TV.

4

3.2 Conceptual Modeling
A conceptual model captures only the essential and relevant characteristics of a system. It is formulated
from the initial problem statement, informal user requirements, and data and knowledge gathered from
analysis of previous development models [23]. We have used the knowledge gained from the case studies
to inform our conceptual models of the system to be investigated, the actors within the system, and their
behavioral changes due to certain stimuli.
3.2.1 Main Concepts for the Simulation Model
Our initial ideas for the simulation model and its components are display below in Figure 1. Here we can
see a bird’s eye view of a shopping centre with customers (red dots) visiting a range of shops. Based on this
conceptual overview, we determined that we required three types of agents (customers, sales staff and
managers), each with a different set of relevant attributes. Global parameters can influence any aspect of
the system. The core of our conceptual simulation model consists of an ABS model with a user interface to
allow some form of user interaction (change of parameters) before and during runtime. Regarding system
outputs, we aim to find some emergent behavior on a macro level. Visual representation of the simulated
system and its actors allows us to monitor and better understand the interactions of entities within the
system. Coupled with the standard DES performance measures, we can then identify bottlenecks to assist
with optimization of the modeled system.
<Insert Figure 1 somewhere here>
3.2.2 Concepts for the Agents
We have used state charts for the conceptual design of our agents. State charts show the different states an
entity can be in and define the events that cause a transition from one state to another. This is exactly the
information we need in order to represent our agents at a later stage within the simulation environment. We
have found this form of graphical representation a useful part of the agent design process because it is
easier for an expert in the real system (who is not an expert in ABMS) to quickly take on board the model
conceptualization and provide useful validation of the model structure and content.
Designing and building a model is to some extent subjective, and the modeler has to selectively simplify
and abstract from the real scenario to create a useful model [40]. A model is always a restricted copy of the
real system, and an effective model consists of only the most important components of the real system. In
our case, the case studies indicated that the key system components take the form of the behaviors of an
actor and the triggers that initiate a change from one behavior to another. We have developed state charts
for all of the agents in our simulation model. Figure 2 shows as an example the conceptual template model
of a customer agent. The transition rules have been omitted to keep the chart comprehensible. They are
explained in detail in the Section 3.3.
<Insert Figure 2 somewhere here>
3.2.3 Concepts for a Novel Performance Measure
We have introduced a customer satisfaction level index as a novel performance measure using satisfaction
weightings. This new measure is required because existing indices such as queuing times or service times
are less useful in modeling services than manufacturing activities. In essence, purely quantitative measures
fail to capture the quality of service, which is arguably the most important potential trade-off with retail
productivity. The inevitable trade-off between quality and quantity is particularly salient when customers
and staff come face-to-face and therefore we consider this measure of quality in conjunction with others of
quantity.
Historically customer satisfaction has been defined and measured in terms of customer satisfaction with a
purchased product [41]. The development of more sophisticated measures has moved on to incorporate
customers’ evaluations of the overall relationship with the retail organization, and a key part of this is the
service interaction. Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that quality is more important for customer

5

satisfaction than price or value-for-money [42], and extensive anecdotal evidence indicates that customerstaff service interactions are an important determinant of quality as perceived by the customer.
The index allows customer service satisfaction to be recorded throughout the simulated lifetime. The idea is
that certain situations can have a bigger impact on customer satisfaction than others, and therefore weights
can be assigned to events to account for this. Satisfaction indices do not change the likelihood that a
customer revisits the department, and although this may at first appear counter-initiative, empirical
evidence supports the notion that regardless of a customer’s changing shopping intentions he or she will
tend to repeat shopping habits [43]. Applied in conjunction with an ABS approach, we expect to observe
interactions with individual customer differences; variations which have been empirically linked to
differences in customer satisfaction (e.g. [44]). This helps the analyst to find out to what extent customers
underwent a positive or negative shopping experience and it also allows the analyst to put emphasis on
different operational aspects and try out the impact of different strategies.
3.2.4 Concepts for Modeling Customer Evolution
There are two different ways in which we consider customer evolution: external stimulation attributable to
the WOM and internal stimulation triggered by memory of one’s own previous shopping experiences (this
is still work in progress). Sharing information with other individuals (referred to as WOM), significantly
affects the performance of retail businesses [45]. An important source of WOM results from customer
experiences of retail outlets, and a customer’s judgment about whether or not the experience left them
feeling satisfied (or dissatisfied). We incorporate WOM in our simulation model by using the number of
satisfied customers at the end of the day to calculate the number of additional customers visiting on the
next day. The calculation takes into account that only a fraction of people act upon received WOM.
Our concept for representing internal stimulation comprises the exertion of influence on picking certain
customer types more often than others. An enthusiastic shopper with a high satisfaction score is much more
likely to go shopping more frequently than a disinterested shopper. Therefore, we have introduced some
constraints (e.g. out of all customers picked 50% have to be enthusiastic shoppers, 30% normal shoppers,
and 20% disinterested shoppers, or, customers with a higher satisfaction score are more likely to be picked
to revisit the department). [15] identified different types of internal states and environmental stimuli which
act as consumer cues for triggering impulse buying. Internal cues include respondents’ positive and
negative feeling states, and environmental cues include atmospheric cues in retail settings, marketercontrolled cues, and marketing mix stimuli. When modeling internal stimulation we specifically examine
the impact of a consumer’s memory of his or her own shopping experience and the impact on department
performance measures.
3.3 Empirical Data
Often agents are based on analytical models or heuristics and, in the absence of adequate empirical data,
theoretical models are employed. However, we use frequency distributions to model state change delays
and probability distributions to model decision making processes because statistical distributions are the
best way in which we can represent the numerical data we have gathered during our case study work. In
this way a population is created with individual differences between agents, mirroring the variability of
attitudes and behaviors of their real human counterparts.
The frequency distributions are modeled as triangular distributions defining the time that an event lasts,
using the minimum, mode, and maximum duration and these figures are based on our own observations and
expert estimates in the absence of objective numerical data.
The probability distributions are partly based on company data (e.g. the rate at which each shopping visit
results in a purchase) and partly on informed estimates (e.g. the patience of customers before they leave a
queue). Table 1 and 2 show some of the distributions we have defined for our simulation models. We also
gathered some company data about work team numbers and work team composition, varying opening hours
and peak times, along with other operational details.
Table 1. Sample frequency distribution values

6

event
someone makes a purchase after browsing
someone requires help
someone makes a purchase after getting help

probability it occurs
0.37
0.38
0.56

Table 2. Sample probability values
situation
leave browse state after …
leave help state after …
leave pay queue (no patience) after …

min
1
3
5

mode
7
15
12

max
15
30
20

4. Implementation
4.1 Implementation of the Main Concepts
Our ManPraSim model has been implemented in AnyLogic™ (version 5.5) which is a Java™ based multiparadigm simulation software [46]. During the implementation we have applied the knowledge, experience
and data accumulated through our case study work. Within the simulation model we can represent the
following actors: customers, service staff (with different levels of expertise) and different types of
managers. Figure 3 shows a screenshot of the customer and staff agent logic in AnyLogic™ as it has been
implemented in the latest version of our ManPraSim model (v4). Boxes represent states, arrows transitions,
arrows with a dot on top entry points, circles with a B inside branches, and numbers satisfaction weights.
<Insert Figure 3 somewhere here>
At the beginning of each simulation run the main customer pool is created which represents a population of
potential customers who visit the simulated department on an unspecified number of occasions. Once the
simulation has started customers are chosen at a specified rate (customer arrival rate) and released into the
simulated department. Currently two different customer types are implemented: customers who want to buy
something and customers who require a refund. If a refund is granted, a customer decides whether his or
her goal changes to leaving the department straight away, or to making a new purchase. The customer agent
template consists of four main blocks which all use a very similar logic. In each block, in the first instance,
customers try to obtain service directly from an employee and if they cannot obtain it (i.e. no suitable staff
member is available) he or she has to queue. The customer is then either served as soon as the suitable staff
member becomes available, or leaves the queue if they do not want to wait any longer (an autonomous
decision). A complex queuing system has been implemented to support different queuing rules. Once
customers have finished their shopping (either successfully or not) they leave the simulated department and
are returned back to the main customer pool where he or she rests until they are picked again.
While the customer is in the department a satisfaction score is calculated by summing the satisfaction
weights attached to the transitions that take place during the customer’s visit. For example, a customer
starts browsing and then requires some help. If he or she obtains help immediately his or her satisfaction
score goes up (+2) and after he or she received the help the score goes up again (+4). He or she then moves
to the till. If he or she has to wait for help and then leaves the queue because he or she is fed up waiting his
or her score goes down (-2). Upon leaving the department he or she will end up in this example with an
overall satisfaction score of +4 due to the good and prompt advisory service. The actual customer
satisfaction weights shown in Figure 3 were derived based on our experience during the data collection
period and validated via interviews with the store management staff.
In comparison to the customer agent state chart, the staff agent state chart is relatively simple. Whenever a
customer requests a service and the staff member is available and has the right level of expertise for the
task requested, the staff member commences this activity until the customer releases the staff member.
Whereas the customer is the active component of the simulation model, the staff member is currently
passive, simply reacting to requests from the customer (although both are technically implemented as active
objects).

7

4.2 Key Features
There are some additional key features that the simulation model possesses which we describe in the
following two sections. First we provide an overview of some important features which have already been
implemented in an older version of our simulation model (ManPraSim model v2) but are still relevant to
modeling the evolution of customers. This sets the scene for the subsequent description of the new features
we have implemented in the latest two versions of our simulation model (ManPraSim model v3 + v4).
4.2.1 Key Features of the ManPraSim Model v2
In the ManPraSim model v2 we introduced realistic footfall, customer types, a finite population of
customers, and a quick exit of customers when the department is closing. In this paper we only provide an
overview of these features because they are described in more detail elsewhere (see [47]).
Realistic footfall (introduced in v2): There are certain peak times where a relatively high number of
customers are in the department and consequently the demands placed on staff members are greater. In the
ManPraSim model v2 we have implemented hourly fluctuations through the addition of realistic footfall
(based on some automatically recorded sales transaction data) reflecting different patterns (peaks and
troughs) of customer footfall during the day and across different days of the week. In addition we can
model the varying opening hours on different days of the week.
Customer types (introduced in v2): In real life customers display certain shopping behaviors which can
be categorized. Hence we enhance the realism of our agents’ behavior in the ManPraSim modelv2 by
introducing customer types to create a heterogeneous customer base, thereby allowing us to test customer
populations closer to what we would find in reality. Customer types have been introduced based on three
identified by the case study organization’s own market research (shopping enthusiasts, solution demanders,
service seekers) and have been expanded by the addition of two further types (disinterested shoppers, and
internet shoppers who are customers that only seek advice but are likely to buy only from the cheapest
source i.e. the internet). The three customer types have been identified by the case study organization as the
customers who make biggest contribution to their business, in terms of both value and frequency of sales.
In order to avoid artificially inflating the amount of sales that we model we have introduced the two
additional types which use services but do not tend to make purchases. The definition of each type is based
on the customer’s likelihood to perform a certain action, classified as either: low, moderate, or high. The
definitions can be found in Table 3.
Table 3. Definitions for each type of customer
Customer type
Shopping enthusiast
Solution demander
Service seeker
Disinterested shopper
Internet shopper

buy
high
high
moderate
low
low

Likelihood to
wait
ask for help
moderate
moderate
low
low
high
high
low
low
high
high

ask for refund
low
low
low
high
low

Distribution adaptation (introduced in v2): In the ManPraSim model v2 we have two algorithms which
have been developed to imitate the influence of the customer type attributes mentioned above on customer
behavior. They have been implemented as methods that are invoked when defining the state change delays
modeled by triangular frequency distributions, and when supporting decision making modeled by
probability distributions. Basically the methods define new threshold values for the distributions based on
the likelihood values mentioned above. Program 1 shows an example of the pseudo code for the probability
distribution threshold correction algorithm. If the customer is a shopping enthusiast and is about to make
the decision whether to make a purchase or to leave the department directly (see Figure 3, customer state
chart, second branch after leaving the browse state) a corrected threshold value (probability) for this
decision is calculated. For this calculation the original threshold of 0.37 (see Table 2) is taken into account
and, for a shopping enthusiast where there is a high likelihood to buy (see Table 3), the corrected threshold
value is calculated as follows: 0.37+0.37/2 = 0.56. Consequently the likelihood that a shopping enthusiast
precedes to the checkout rather than leaving the department without making any purchase has risen by
18.5%.

8

Program 1. Pseudo code for the probability distribution threshold correction algorithm
for (each threshold to be corrected ) do
{
if (OT < 0.5) lim it = OT / 2 else (lim it = 1 − OT ) / 2
if (likelihood = 0) CT = OT − lim it
if (likelihood = 1) CT = OT
if (likelihood = 2) CT = OT + lim it
}
where :

OT = original threshold
CT = corrected threshold
likelihood : 0 = low; 1 = mod erate; 2 = high

Finite customer population (introduced in v2): A key aspect to consider is that the most interesting
system outcomes evolve over time and many of the goals of the retail company (e.g. service standards) are
planned strategically over the long-term. In the ManPraSim model v2 we have therefore introduced a finite
population of customers (main customer pool) where each customer agent is assigned certain characteristics
based on the customer types mentioned above. The customer type split in the main customer pool can be
defined via an initialization file before the execution of the simulation. The shopping experience of each
visit (satisfaction index) is stored in the long term memory of the agent after he or she has left the
department. In this way the service a customer experiences can be evaluated over the complete simulated
time span.
Quick exit at closing time (introduced in v2): In the ManPraSim model v2 we have added transitions that
emulate the behavior of customers when the store is closing. These transitions result in an immediate exit
of each customer for his or her current state (i.e. the equivalent to a customer running out of shopping time
and promptly exiting the store). Not all customer states have these additional transitions because it is for
example very unlikely that a customer will leave the store immediately when they are already queuing to
pay. Advanced model development means that now the simulated department empties within a ten to
fifteen minute period, which conforms to what we have observed in the real system.
4.2.2 Key Features of the ManPraSim Models v3 + v4
In the ManPraSim model v3 we have introduced a staff pool with an additional staff type, a new operation
mode to support sensitivity analyses and the first implementation of customers’ WOM featuring a static
main customer pool. Furthermore, we have created some new performance measures that allow us to
measure and record the shopping experience of individual visits to the department as well as the daily
performance of the department. Finally, in the ManPraSim model v4 we have introduced the second
implementation of customers’ WOM featuring a dynamic main customer pool.
Staff pool and additional staff types (introduced in v3): Retail trends reflect that shops are now open for
longer hours over more days of the week, and our case study organization is no exception. To accurately
incorporate this source of system variability, we have introduced a staff pool in the ManPraSim model v3
to allow different staffing on different days of the week. The simulation uses Full Timers (FT) to cover all
staff shifts required during weekdays. Additional staff who are required to cover busy weekend shifts are
modeled by Part Timers (PT). The maximum number of staff required of each type is calculated during the
simulation initialization. A staff pool is then created to include weekday FT staff of different types, and the
required generic PT to fill the gaps left in the staff shifts which need to be covered. At the beginning of
each day the simulation checks how many workers are required and picks the required amount of staff out
of the pool at random. The selection process is ordered as follows: FT first and then PT, if required. PT
workers have been defined as a generic staff type and can take over any required role. We have tried to
model a staff rota with more complex constraints, for example FT staff working five days followed by two
days off, however this has as yet proved unsuccessful. Therefore the currently modeled shifts do not
incorporate days off work for FT staff.

9

Noise reduction mode (introduced in v3): In the ManPraSim model v3 a noise reduction mode has been
implemented which allows us to conduct a sensitivity analysis with constant customer arrival rates,
constant staffing throughout the week and constant opening hours. We have used the average values of real
world case study data to define the constant values. This has resulted in different values for the different
case study department types. As this is a simulation model we cannot take out all the stochasticity, but this
way at least we can reduce the system noise to clearly see the impact of the parameter under investigation.
When we progress to reintroduce the system noise, the knowledge we have accumulated when
experimenting in noise reduction mode helps us to better understand patterns in systems outcomes, and be
better able to attribute causation to the introduction of a particular variable (bearing in mind that in the end
we are particularly interested in patterns between variables when they are interacting with one another and
not in isolation).
Word of mouth (introduced in v3+v4): We have developed two different strategies for modeling WOM
(which have been implemented in the ManPraSim model v3 (static main customer pool) and in v4
(dynamic main customer pool). Both strategies use the same algorithm to calculate the additional customers
attracted to the department through positive WOM and those lost customers attributable to negative WOM.
They differ in the way they pick these customers. In the first case we have used a static main customer pool
which is defined with the customer split at the beginning of the simulation run. During the simulation run,
the population of the main customer pool stays constant and all customers in the pool are available to be
randomly picked to go shopping. In the second case we allow the main customer pool size to change; rather
than picking customers from the existing pool we create new customers and add them to the main customer
pool. When the main customer pool grows or declines the customer arrival rate is also adjusted, i.e. if the
pool grows by 10% due to positive WOM so does the customer arrival rate and vice versa for negative
growth.
The algorithm to calculate the number of additional new customers and the lost customers is the same for
both strategies. We count the number of customers from the previous day who were satisfied and those who
were dissatisfied with the service provided during their shopping visit(s). Satisfied customers are more
likely to recommend shopping in the department to others whereas dissatisfied customers are more likely to
advise others not to visit. The adoption rate (i.e. the success rate of convincing others to commit to either
action) depends on the proportion of people who act upon the received WOM (the adoption fraction) and
how many contacts a customer has (the contact rate). The equation behind this calculation is shown below
in Equation 1.
Equation 1. Calculation of adoption rate
n additional customers(d) = (n satisfied(d −1) − n dissatisfied(d −1) ) * adoption fraction * contact rate
where :

d = current day
d − 1 = previousday
n = number of K

At the beginning of each trading day we create a daily customer pool that contains randomly chosen
customers from the main customer pool according to the required number of customers defined by the
customer arrival rates for the day which might differ throughout the day (e.g. considering peak times).
For the first strategy (static customer pool) we simply pick the core number of customers (defined by the
original customer arrival rates) plus an additional number of customers which is calculated through
Equation 1. These customers are also selected from the main customer pool at random. If the number is
negative we release customers from our daily customer pool back into the main customer pool. If we have
to release all of our customers (due to customer dissatisfaction, which may result from bad service due to a
large number of customers visiting on the previous day) the simulation terminates. This means that in a
sense that the store is closed for good because it cannot recover from this situation in the current
implementation.

10

The second strategy (dynamic customer pool) is slightly more complex. Here we expand or decrease the
main customer pool by the number of additional or lost customers (respectively) calculated at the beginning
of each trading day. This differs from the static strategy because we do not use the existing customers to
model direct WOM influence (i.e. the ones resulting from the service satisfaction of the previous day). This
seems to be closer to reality because the WOM in most cases carries positive messages and therefore
attracts new visitors rather than motivating existing customers to come more often. Negative WOM
dissuades potential customers from visiting the department in the first place. Our daily customer pool is
created considering the hourly customer arrival rates (derived from our case study) as well as the actual size
of the main customer pool (see Equation 2).
Equation 2. Calculation of core customers per day
core customers per day =

where :

dynamic pool size * known customers per day
static pool size

customers per day = daily customer pool not including WOM additional customers
case study customers per day = derived from hourly customer arrival rate case study data
dynamic pool size = actual main pool size
static pool size = starting main pool size

Once the daily pool size has been established, customers are chosen from the main customer pool according
to the requested customer split and customer pool size. Then additional customers are created as new
agents. The type of each new customer is determined at random. They are created with a positive
satisfaction score of +1 because they have heard only positive things about the department and therefore
will already have a positive attitude toward the shop (otherwise they would not have been attracted to it).
Through these additional (or lost) agents the daily customer pool size can expand (or contract).
If the negative WOM causes an overall reduction in customers then we choose customers at random from
the daily customer pool. Whether or not a particular customer is permanently removed from the main
customer pool is determined as follows, depending on the satisfaction score of the chosen customer. If he or
she has a positive satisfaction score then the score is neutralized and the customer is returned to the daily
customer pool (i.e. he or she can come back for further shopping visits but the shop must start to satisfy the
customer’s needs for good service to secure further visits from the customer). If he or she has a neutral or
negative score he or she is permanently eliminated from the simulation (i.e. he or she will not come back
for any more shopping trips). In the second case the main customer pool size will shrink. If the negative
WOM results in more agents being deleted than there are customers available in the daily customer pool the
simulation will terminate (and the department cannot recover from this in the current implementation).
For both strategies, when it reaches shop closing time all customers from the daily customer pool are
released back into the main customer pool where they are available for the next day. For the second
strategy (dynamic customer pool) it is very likely that the main pool size will then change due to WOMtriggered additions or losses of customers whereas for the first strategy (static customer pool) the main pool
size remains constant.
New performance measures: With the introduction of a finite population (represented by our customer
pool) we have had to rethink the way in which we collect statistics about the satisfaction of customers.
Previously, the life span of a customer has been a single visit to the department. At the end of his or her
visit, the individual’s satisfaction score (direction and value) has been recorded. Now the life span of a
customer lasts the full runtime of the simulation and he or she can be picked several times to visit the
department during that period. Our previous performance measures now collect different information:
satisfaction scores considering customers’ satisfaction history. These measures do not reflect individuals’
satisfaction with the current service experience but instead the satisfaction with the overall service
experience during the lifetime of the agent. Furthermore, they are biased to some extent in that an
indifferent rating quickly shifts into satisfaction or dissatisfaction (arguably this is realistic because most
people tend to make a judgment one way or the other).

11

Whilst the above is still a valuable piece of information we would also like to know how current service is
perceived by each customer. For this reason we have introduced a new set of performance measures to
record the experience of each customer’s individual visit (referred to as Customer Satisfaction Measure –
Experienced Per Visit or CSM-EPV). These are the same measures as before but on a day-to-day basis they
are not anchored by the customer’s previous experiences. We also examine the sum of these ‘per visit’
scores across the lifetime of all customers (referred to as Customer Satisfaction Measure – Accumulated
Historical Data or CSM-AHD).
Another new measure tracks the satisfaction growth for customers’ current and overall service experience.
With the incorporation of varying customer arrival rates, opening hours and staffing we have brought in a
set of performance measures that capture the impact of these variations on a daily basis. These measures
are particularly useful for optimizing departmental performance throughout the week. We also record the
satisfaction growth per each individual customer visit. At the end of the simulation run the simulation
model produces a frequency distribution which informs us about how satisfied or dissatisfied individual
customers have been with the service provided. Furthermore, all forms of customer queue (cashier, normal
help, expert help, and refund decision) are now monitored through new performance measures that record
how many people have been queuing in a specific queue, and how many of these lost their patience and left
the queue prematurely. This measure helps us to understand individual customers’ needs because it tells us
what individual customers think about the service provided. Finally, we have added some methods for
writing all parameters and performance measures into files to support documentation and analysis of the
experiments.
4.3 Model Validation
Validation ensures that the model meets its intended requirements in terms of the methods employed and
the results obtained. In order to test the operation of the ManPraSim model and ascertain face validity we
have completed several experiments.
We have completed validation exercises on the micro and macro level, as proposed by [36]. Micro
simulation comprises tracing an individual entity through the system by building a trajectory of an
individual’s behavior throughout the runtime. We have conducted this test for our two different agent types
(customer and staff agents) considering all of the different roles these can take. Furthermore we have
validated who triggers which process and for what reason. We have then extensively tested the underlying
queuing system. On the macro level we have tried to establish simulation model performance outputs that
are sound. It has turned out that conducting the experiments with the input data we collected during our
case studies did not provide us with a satisfactory match to the performance output data of the real system.
We identified the staffing setup used in the simulation models as the root cause of the problems. The data
we use here have been derived from real staff rotas. On paper these real rotas suggested that all workers are
engaged in exactly the same (one) type of work throughout the day but we know from working with, and
observing workers in, the case study organization that in reality each role includes a variety of activities.
Staff members in the real organization allocate their time proactively between competing tasks such as
customer service, stock replenishment, and processing purchases. Proactive behavior refers to the
individual staff members’ self-started, long term oriented, and persistent service behavior which goes
beyond explicit job demands [48].
So far our simulation models incorporate only one type of work per staff member. For example, the A&TV
staff rota indicates that only one dedicated cashier works on weekdays. When we have attempted to model
this arrangement, customer queues have become extremely long, and the majority of customers ended up
losing their patience and leaving the department prematurely with a high level of dissatisfaction. In the real
system we observed other staff members working flexibly to meet the customer demand, and if the queue
of customers grew beyond a certain point then one or two would step in and open up further tills to take
customers’ money before they became dissatisfied with waiting. Furthermore, we observed that a service
staff member, when advising a customer, would often continue to close the sale (e.g. filling in guarantee
forms and receiving payment from the customer) rather than asking the customer to queue at the till for a
cashier whilst moving on to the next customer.

12

This means that currently our abstraction level is too high and we do not model the real system in an
appropriate way. We hope to be able to fix this in a later version. For now we do not consider this to be a
big problem so long as we are aware of it. We model as an exercise to gain insights into key variables and
their causes and effects and to construct reasonable arguments as to why events can or cannot occur based
on the model; we model for insights, not precise numbers.
In our experiments we have modulated the staffing levels to allow us to observe the effects of changing key
variables but we have tried to maintain the main characteristic differences between the departments (i.e.,
we still use more staff in the WW department compared to the A&TV department, only the amount has
changed).
5. Experiments
The purpose of the experiments described below is to further test the behavior of the simulation models as
they become increasingly sophisticated, rather than to investigate management practices per se. We have
defined a set of standard settings (including all probabilities, staffing levels and the customer type split) for
each department type which we use as a basis for all our experiments. The standard settings exclude the
main customer pool sizes for the different departments which are determined in the first experiment and
added to the set of standard settings for subsequent experiments. For the experiments that involved only a
static main customer pool the run length has been 10 weeks. For the experiments that involved a dynamic
main customer pool or both types the run length has been 52 weeks. We have conducted 20 replications (in
most cases) to allow the application of rigorous statistical tests.
5.1 Comparing Customer Pool Sizes
The first experiment is a sensitivity analysis. We want to find out what impact the customer pool size has
on the simulation results and which of our performance measures are affected by it. For this experiment we
have used our new noise reduction mode (described in Section 4.2.2). It allows us to focus our attention on
the impact of the variable to be investigated. We have run the experiments separately for both case study
department types using the standard settings and a pool size ranging from 2,000 to 10,000 customers in
increments of 2,000. We will interpret the results in terms of customer-related performance measures,
which can be separated out between the standard measures which are defined explicitly in terms of at which
stage of their visit a customer leaves the department, and those related to customer satisfaction and
dissatisfaction.
Hypothesis 1: We predict that varying the customer pool size will not significantly change standard
customer measures nor those customer satisfaction measures related measured in terms of experience per
visit (CSM-EPV).
Hypothesis 2: We predict that the customer satisfaction measures which accumulate historical data (CSMAHD) will result in significantly more customers being categorised as either ‘satisfied’ or ‘dissatisfied’
when compared to the number of customers in these categories for the customer satisfaction measure CSMEPV.
Hypothesis 3: We predict that the customer pool size will significantly impact on all CSM-AHD measures,
specifically the greater the customer pool size, the higher the count of neutral customers, and the lower the
count of satisfied and dissatisfied customers.
Our results in percentage terms (see Table 4) appear to provide support for all hypotheses. In order to
rigorously test our hypotheses, statistical analyses were applied to the raw customer counts as follows. To
investigate Hypothesis 1, a series of one-way between groups ANOVAs were conducted separately for
A&TV and WW. Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances was violated by CSM-EPV for satisfied
customers in A&TV only, therefore a more stringent significance value was set for this variable (p<.01).
Given that 8 simultaneous comparisons were to be drawn, a Bonferroni adjustment was made to the alpha
level, tightening the significance levels to p<.00625 (from p<.05) and p<.00125 (from p<.01). For A&TV,
no significant differences were found in the standard performance measures or CSM-EPV between

13

different customer pool sizes. For WW, no significant differences were found apart from the number of
customer leaving before receiving normal help (p=.0059). Inspecting mean differences revealed that the
mean customer count with a customer pool of 8,000 was higher than for 4,000, 6,000, and 10,000
customers. However, upon examination of supporting data, no single paired comparison was significantly
different. Across customer pools, the mean customer count varied between just 4.6 and 7.5 customers
leaving before receiving normal help, and so we can explain this pattern in terms of the relative infrequency
of this event and conclude that the difference is of little practical significance. This leads us to conclude
that overall the evidence supports Hypothesis 1. We predicted this pattern because customer decisions are
driven by customer types and the proportional mix of each type is kept constant throughout the experiment.
To test Hypothesis 2, a series of independent samples T-tests were conducted to evaluate the differences
between the two methods of measuring customer satisfaction. For A&TV, a significantly higher count of
customers were categorized as satisfied on CSM-AHD (M=18,031.18, SD=824.11) as compared to their
counterparts on the CSM-EPV measure (M=15,071.12, SD=108.47), t(102.43)=35.61, p<.000 (equal
variances not assumed). The same pattern was reflected in a significantly higher count of dissatisfied
customers (M=17,134.13, SD=895.06) on CSM-AHD as compared to CSM-EPV (M=11,404.65,
SD=221.34), t(111.06)=62.14, p<.000 (equal variances not assumed). The effect sizes are very large in both
cases, yielding .86 and .95 respectively.
For WW, a significantly higher count of customers were categorized as satisfied on CSM-AHD
(M=54,161.66, SD=3,559.94) as compared to on CSM-EPV (M=33,508.33, SD=82.76), t(99.11)=58.00,
p<.000 (equal variances not assumed). The inverse occurred for the count of dissatisfied customers,
whereby a smaller number were counted on CSM-AHD (M=3,447.49, SD=1,049.66) than CSM-EPV
(M=4,626.00, SD=128.59), t(101.97)=-11.14, p<.000 (equal variances not assumed). The effect size was
very large for A&TV at .94, and medium-to-large at .39 for WW.
Overall as expected CSM-AHD generally results in a significantly higher count of satisfied and dissatisfied
customers than CSM-EPV. This phenomenon has been discussed in Section 4.2.2. The evidence for A&TV
unequivocally supports this hypothesis, whereas it is mixed for WW. The surprisingly relatively low count
of dissatisfied of CSM-AHD in WW recurs in evaluation of the next hypothesis (see below).
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for Experiment 1 (all to 2 d.p.)
A&TV
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Mean SD
Mean SD
Mean SD
Mean SD
Mean SD
Customers …
… leaving after making a purchase
29.5% 0.1% 29.5% 0.1% 29.6% 0.1% 29.5% 0.1% 29.4% 0.1%
… leaving before receiving normal help
2.7% 0.2% 2.7% 0.2% 2.8% 0.2% 2.7% 0.2% 2.8% 0.2%
… leaving before receiving expert help
1.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0%
… leaving whilst waiting to pay
17.5% 0.3% 17.4% 0.3% 17.3% 0.4% 17.4% 0.3% 17.4% 0.3%
… leaving before finding anything
49.3% 0.4% 49.3% 0.4% 49.3% 0.3% 49.3% 0.3% 49.3% 0.3%
… leaving satisfied (accumulated historical data)
46.5% 1.9% 45.3% 1.2% 43.8% 0.8% 42.9% 0.6% 42.0% 0.9%
… leaving neutral (accumulated historical data)
8.7% 0.2% 12.1% 0.3% 14.6% 0.2% 16.5% 0.2% 18.1% 0.3%
… leaving dissatisfied (accumulated historical data)
44.8% 2.2% 42.5% 1.4% 41.6% 1.1% 40.6% 1.0% 39.9% 1.1%
… leaving satisfied (experience per visit)
36.8% 0.3% 36.9% 0.2% 36.9% 0.2% 36.8% 0.2% 36.7% 0.4%
… leaving neutral (experience per visit)
35.3% 0.3% 35.3% 0.3% 35.3% 0.3% 35.2% 0.3% 35.2% 0.2%
… leaving dissatisfied (experience per visit)
27.9% 0.6% 27.8% 0.5% 27.8% 0.6% 27.9% 0.5% 28.0% 0.6%
WW
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Customer pool size
Mean SD
Mean SD
Mean SD
Mean SD
Mean SD
Customers …
46.5% 0.1% 46.5% 0.1% 46.5% 0.1% 46.6% 0.1% 46.5% 0.1%
… leaving after making a purchase
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
… leaving before receiving normal help
0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
… leaving before receiving expert help
10.0% 0.2% 10.0% 0.3% 10.0% 0.3% 10.0% 0.2% 10.0% 0.2%
… leaving whilst waiting to pay
43.4% 0.3% 43.4% 0.3% 43.3% 0.3% 43.3% 0.2% 43.3% 0.2%
… leaving before finding anything
93.4% 0.3% 88.3% 0.3% 84.0% 0.3% 80.7% 0.3% 78.0% 0.3%
… leaving satisfied (accumulated historical data)
3.9% 0.1% 7.2% 0.2% 10.2% 0.2% 12.6% 0.2% 14.7% 0.2%
… leaving neutral (accumulated historical data)
2.7% 0.2% 4.5% 0.3% 5.8% 0.2% 6.7% 0.3% 7.3% 0.3%
… leaving dissatisfied (accumulated historical data)
52.4% 0.2% 52.5% 0.1% 52.5% 0.1% 52.5% 0.1% 52.5% 0.1%
… leaving satisfied (experience per visit)
40.3% 0.3% 40.3% 0.2% 40.2% 0.3% 40.2% 0.2% 40.2% 0.2%
… leaving neutral (experience per visit)
7.3% 0.2% 7.2% 0.3% 7.2% 0.2% 7.2% 0.2% 7.3% 0.2%
… leaving dissatisfied (experience per visit)
Customer pool size

14

To investigate Hypothesis 3, a series of one-way between groups ANOVAs were conducted. Levene’s test
for homogeneity of variances was violated by CSM-AHD for satisfied and dissatisfied customers in A&TV
and only dissatisfied customers in WW, therefore a more stringent significance value was set for these
variables (p<.01). Further to this a Bonferroni adjustment was implemented because of the multiple
comparisons, tightening the significance value to p< .0167 (from p<.05) and p<.0033 (from p<.01).
Separately for A&TV and WW, all 3 ANOVAs for each CSM-AHD variable exhibited significant
differences (p<.000). Examining mean differences for A&TV: for satisfied customers, significant
differences were present between all paired pool sizes except for between 2,000 and 4,000; 6,000 and
8,000; and 8,000 and 10,000. The mean customer count uniformly decreased as the customer pool size
increased, with significant differences focused on comparisons between paired customer pool sizes with a
greater size differential. For neutral customers, all paired comparisons were significantly different (p<.000),
and examination of mean differences reveals a uniformly increasing trend in the customer count as the
customer pool size increases. For dissatisfied customers, significant differences persisted (at p<.0033)
between the following pairs: 2,000 and all other pool sizes; 4,000 and 8,000; and 4,000 and 10,000. As
customer pool size increased, the count of dissatisfied customers uniformly decreased.
Looking at mean differences for WW: for satisfied customers, all paired comparisons were significantly
different (p<.000), and an examination of mean differences revealed a uniformly decreasing trend in the
count of satisfied customers as customer pool size increases. For neutral customers, again all paired
comparisons exhibited significant differences (p<.000), and this time the mean customer counts revealed a
uniformly increasing trend as customer pool size increases. Finally, for dissatisfied customers, all paired
comparisons were significantly different (p<.000), and the mean customer counts behaved according to a
uniformly increasing trend as customer pool size increases. These results follow a similar pattern to that
presented in A&TV, apart from the increasing number of dissatisfied customers. We expect that this
finding can be explained in terms of an accumulation of the impact of a number of subtle differences in the
ability of the department to cope with greatly increased numbers of customers (which one-by-one did not
produce significant effects, see evaluation of Hypothesis 1).
Looking at the percentages presented in Table 4, we can see that the bigger the customer pool size the more
the CSM-AHD values tend to the CSM-EPV values. This can be explained by the fact that with a larger
population the likelihood that a specific customer enters the department repeatedly (and therefore
accumulates some historical data) reduces. If we sufficiently increase the customer population we expect
both customer satisfaction measures to show similar results because the majority of customers are only
picked once during the simulation runtime and therefore most customers will enter the department with a
neutral satisfaction score rather than with an accumulated score. In summary for Hypothesis 3 we can
conclude that the evidence largely supports our prediction, with the exception of dissatisfied customer
counts in WW for which we have presented an explanation.
The results for Experiment 1 demonstrate that it is therefore important to select and maintain one customer
pool size to ensure that all performance measures are providing comparable information for different
experiments. Our case study organization does not collect or hold data on customer pool size so we have
instead calculated a suitable value based on the average numbers of customers who visit the department per
day (585 for A&TV and 915 for WW) and an estimate of customers’ average inter-arrival time (two weeks
for A&TV and one week for WW). These values have been estimated considering the standard customer
type split for the corresponding department as well as customer demand for the items sold in that
department. They do not necessarily apply to other customer type splits. Using these values we have
calculated an appropriate customer pool size for each department (8,000 for A&TV and 6,500 for WW).
We use these customer pool sizes for all subsequent experiments.
5.2 Comparing Normal and Noise Reduction Mode
In our second experiment we want to investigate the importance of considering hourly differences in
customer arrival rates and daily differences in staffing and opening hours (normal mode). These features
have been added to investigate hypotheses related to the real performance of the case study departments
and specific patterns that occur on a day-to-day basis. Modeling this level of detail can be problematic

15

when we conduct a sensitivity analysis where we want to be able to attribute causation to the introduction
of a particular variable. For this kind of experiment we prefer to control some of the system noise to clearly
see the impact of the parameter under investigation (noise reduction mode).
Hypothesis 4: We predict that the standard customer performance measures will not significantly differ
across the two modes.
Hypothesis 5: We predict the two modes will produce significantly different values when looking at the
daily performance measures on a day-to-day basis (rather than using averages).
<Insert Figure 4 somewhere here>

WW

A&TV

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for Experiment 2 (all to 2 d.p.)
Adoption fraction
Customers …
Overall customer count [per day]
… leaving after making a purchase [runtime]
… leaving before receiving normal help [runtime]
… leaving before receiving expert help [runtime]
… leaving whilst waiting to pay [runtime]
… leaving before finding anything [runtime]
Overall customer count [per day]
… leaving after making a purchase
… leaving before receiving normal help
… leaving before receiving expert help
… leaving whilst waiting to pay
… leaving before finding anything

AF = 0
Mean
SD
584.17
6.04
12,062.95 36.97
1,133.80 67.36
464.65 18.25
7,048.70 105.59
20,182.00 134.56
910.58
6.25
29,696.75 44.48
5.40
3.30
83.60
9.04
6,291.95 165.73
27,662.80 166.79

AF = 0.5
Mean
SD
601.09
8.27
12,094.30 46.75
1,343.30 63.92
457.00 18.47
7,520.30 116.47
20,661.65 145.08
1,093.24 22.44
30,097.55 31.34
29.55
7.24
130.75 12.48
13,148.10 200.16
33,120.80 198.49

AF = 1
T-Test
Mean
SD t-value p-value
609.38 29.09
-7.10
0.00
12,063.05 50.29
-0.01
0.99
1,706.55 99.01 -21.39
0.00
463.55 22.27
0.17
0.87
7,633.60 124.13 -16.05
0.00
20,789.75 176.33 -12.25
0.00
1,224.79 39.98 -65.00
0.00
30,256.45 45.29 -39.43
0.00
84.60 17.71 -19.66
0.00
170.40 14.53 -22.68
0.00
18,050.20 164.96 -224.88
0.00
37,173.90 196.79 -164.89
0.00

2

Eta
0.04
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.66
0.03
0.81
0.67
0.68
0.30

Looking at Figure 4 it is clear that there is very little variation between the two different operation modes
across the range of standard performance measures. Examining the descriptives (see Table 5), in most cases
the runtime performance measures in both modes are approximately the same with a small number of
exceptions. Contrary to hypothesis 4, in WW approximately 25% more customers leave whilst waiting to
pay in the normal mode (which consequently influences both customer satisfaction measures), as opposed
to the noise reduction mode. This apparent cashier bottleneck appears to be exacerbated by any
combination of the three factors which are held constant in noise reduction mode. Further analysis is
required to isolate the precise cause. We can also see that, as predicted, the smaller the values the more they
differ (on an absolute basis) between the two modes as they are accumulated from a smaller number of
events and therefore the influence of different random number streams is more apparent.
<Insert Figure 5 somewhere here>
Examining the daily measures on a day-to-day basis for A&TV in Figure 5, we can observe clear
differentiation between the number of customers and transactions across weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays
in normal mode whereas the noise reduction mode, as expected, shows no clear patterns. This additional
information can be very useful for optimizing the system. For example, we have the lowest number of
transactions on Sundays (day 1, 8, etc.) although we do not have the lowest number of customers on this
day, therefore we must have a problem with the optimizing the staffing arrangement on Sundays, because
on average more customers leave the shop on Sundays without buying anything, despite the fact that the
probability of this remains the same for all days of the week.
Overall the experiment has shown that it is legitimate to use the noise reduction mode within the scope of a
sensitivity analysis to test the impact of a specific factor on system behavior. It is only when we are
interested in specific features that are not available in noise reduction mode (e.g. when we want to study
differences between particular days of the week or when we need to obtain quantitative data to optimize a
real system) that we need to choose the normal mode.
5.3 Evaluation the Implementation of WOM

16

In the first part of this experiment we want to investigate how customer satisfaction can be influenced by
using different ways of representing inter-linkages within a customer population. We compare increasingly
sophisticated forms of implementing WOM. Firstly we have used a static customer pool where customer
shopping behavior is random (i.e. not influenced by customer’s word of mouth). Secondly, we have
introduced a static customer pool where shopping behavior is influenced by word of mouth. Finally, we
employ a dynamic customer pool to allow us to investigate growth (or reduction) in the size of the overall
customer pool (or customer base).
We have chosen a runtime of 52 weeks because we expect to see model developments further into the
model runtime, in particular for the dynamic WOM implementation. For this experiment we have used our
new noise reduction mode (described in Section 4.2.2) and the following WOM settings: an adoption
fraction of 0.5 and contact rate of 2. We expect there to be a link between customers’ shopping behavior
and customer satisfaction scores, moderated by the type of retail department (i.e. an interaction effect).
Specifically, we predict that:
Hypothesis 6: In the dynamic conditions, customer pool size will increase during the simulation run for
each department up to a maximum value, and maintain this level for the run duration.
Hypothesis 7: Average daily customer numbers will be significantly different for each of the 6 WOM
conditions. In particular, we predict that WW will experience a higher number of customer visits than
A&TV, the more advanced the WOM implementation the higher the number of customer visits, and we
expect to observe a positive moderating effect whereby an interaction between the two can explain further
increases in average daily customer numbers.
Hypothesis 8: Within each department the average number of satisfied customers will significantly
decrease, whereas the average number of dissatisfied customers will significantly increase (both CSMEPV), with the sophistication of the WOM implementation.
The results are presented in multiple forms to allow detailed analysis. Figures 6 to 9 show the results for a
single simulation run on a day to day basis, which are integral to revealing day-to-day fluctuations. Due to
concerns about the quality of presentation, this will be restricted to the first 26 weeks of each simulation
run. The authors have examined graphs for the full runtime period and variables’ trends continued as would
be expected based on the first 26 weeks. Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics of the average results of
the experiment; tabulated values are daily averages across all replications.
Regarding Hypothesis 6, Figure 6 clearly displays that under dynamic conditions the customer pool size
grows over the early stages of the simulation until it reaches a maximum value and then stabilizes around
this level (for averages see Table 6). Interestingly, the graph displays that WW reaches a notably higher
value than A&TV, which we can understand in terms of the tighter staffing constraints in A&TV restricting
the availability of staff to serve customers (and hence constrain the growth of the customer population). In
WW, the growth in customer numbers can be alikened to the diffusion of customers’ word-of-mouth in the
real world; as the numbers grow, the rate of growth also increases. In contrast, the growth in customer
numbers triggered by WOM in A&TV has a steadily slowing rate of growth, which may be related to the
department’s limited capacity to satisfy growing customer numbers.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics for Experiment 3 (all to 2 d.p.)

17

Customer pool type
Customers …
… leaving after making a purchase
… leaving before receiving normal help
… leaving before receiving expert help
… leaving whilst waiting to pay
… leaving before finding anything
… leaving satisfied (accumulated historical data)
… leaving neutral (accumulated historical data)
… leaving dissatisfied (accumulated historical data)
… leaving satisfied (experience per visit)
… leaving neutral (experience per visit)
… leaving dissatisfied (experience per visit)
Overall no. of customers
Average no. of visits per customer
Customer pool type
Customers …
… leaving after making a purchase
… leaving before receiving normal help
… leaving before receiving expert help
… leaving whilst waiting to pay
… leaving before finding anything
… leaving satisfied (accumulated historical data)
… leaving neutral (accumulated historical data)
… leaving dissatisfied (accumulated historical data)
… leaving satisfied (experience per visit)
… leaving neutral (experience per visit)
… leaving dissatisfied (experience per visit)
Overall no. of customers
Average no. of visits per customer

A&TV
static pool, no WOM
Mean
SD
62,679.65
4,727.70
2,245.15
37,010.95
105,929.80
165,413.55
13,501.05
33,678.65
81,322.90
100,754.15
30,516.20
212,593.25
26.80

88.11
105.62
34.55
195.20
311.08
657.24
209.10
740.80
219.71
430.03
205.27
447.40
5.16

WW
static pool, no WOM
Mean
SD
152,433.10
0.40
112.15
26,591.25
152,807.05
318,549.55
8,495.55
4,898.85
164,114.20
146,188.90
21,640.85
331,943.95
51.10

131.28
0.60
11.87
400.65
432.68
629.39
159.34
275.81
151.98
435.49
342.18
601.55
7.23

static pool, WOM
Mean
SD
63,224.00
10,760.25
2,635.05
47,887.25
119,330.35
153,231.20
17,211.90
73,393.80
76,344.00
122,440.55
45,052.35
243,836.90
30.50

69.60
134.67
58.72
270.52
268.35
722.13
240.75
803.15
171.84
333.06
232.58
286.48
5.28

static pool, WOM
Mean
SD
156,100.00
2.40
217.80
83,259.55
204,547.10
409,429.25
12,185.85
22,511.75
180,283.15
196,015.65
67,828.05
444,126.85
68.50

83.91
1.93
13.26
361.07
601.35
896.42
144.87
686.50
183.70
594.29
277.59
616.05
7.27

dynamic pool, WOM
Mean
SD
63,711.70
25,787.85
2,969.45
57,511.75
144,318.30
124,970.40
24,612.60
144,716.05
69,782.75
156,304.80
68,211.50
294,299.05
3.03

98.50
273.77
55.50
426.80
629.55
971.28
267.97
851.11
130.40
640.76
213.43
750.04
0.70

dynamic pool, WOM
Mean
SD
159,585.35
17,590.80
1,870.45
199,493.30
373,335.45
382,430.25
41,828.45
327,616.65
175,356.25
405,963.70
170,555.40
751,875.35
5.87

91.58
600.72
35.82
1,027.04
1,121.25
2,072.47
571.67
1,494.42
404.53
1,179.03
309.05
1,296.40
0.48

A two-way between groups ANOVA was conducted to test Hypothesis 7. Levene’s test for homogeneity of
variances was violated, and so we introduced a more stringent significance level (p<.01). The ANOVA
revealed a statistically significant main effect for department type [F(1,114)=3,698,165, p=.000] and WOM
implementation [F(2,114)=1,226,034, p=.000]. The effect sizes were extremely high in both cases (partial
eta-squared = 1.00). Examining mean differences by department type, WW’s customer count was
significantly higher than for A&TV. Tukey’s post-hoc comparisons were applied to the WOM
implementation variable, and all paired comparisons were significant. Results indicated that the more
sophisticated the WOM implementation, the higher the customer count. There was also a significant
interaction effect between the two independent variables [F(2,114)=572858.8, p=.000] with a very high
effect size (partial eta-squared = 1.00). This finding suggests that department type moderates the effect of
the WOM implementation, resulting in increasingly higher customer counts for WW (as compared to
A&TV) with increases in the sophistication of WOM implementation. These results provide support for
Hypothesis 7.
Differences in the daily count of customers visiting the department are presented in Figure 7. We expected
these relationships because WW has an inherently greater capacity to serve an increased number of
customers using the same amount of resources due to the relatively low service requirement of the average
WW customer. Although A&TV has some scope to increase its customer base, customer requirements for
advice and attention constraint the department’s ability to deal with an increased volume of customers. In
terms of different WOM implementations, the more sophisticated the implementation, the more
opportunities that customers have to spread the word and encourage other customers to visit. Consequently
we expected that more sophisticated versions would continue to grow customer numbers, and the
interaction with department type builds on the arguments already put forward.
It appears that the restricted availability of staff to serve customers is preventing a commensurate increase
in sales. Key bottlenecks occur in A&TV with the provision of normal help and cashier availability to take
payment, and the bottlenecks in WW occur with the same variables and also the provision of expert help
(see Table 6). All of these bottlenecks result in a significant rise in customers who leave without finding
anything to buy in either department.
<Insert Figure 6 somewhere here>

18

<Insert Figure 7 somewhere here>
Daily differences in the daily count of CSM-EPV satisfied and dissatisfied customers visiting the
department are presented in Figures 8 and 9. A series of one-way between-groups ANOVAs were used to
test Hypothesis 8 and evaluate the impact of different WOM implementations on average measures of
CSM-EPV. A Bernoulli correction was applied to tighten the significance value to p<.025. For A&TV,
tests revealed a statistically significant difference between the three WOM implementations for the number
of satisfied customers [F(2, 59)=21,201.95, p<.000] and the number of dissatisfied customers [F(2,
59)=152,952.60, p<.000]. The effect sizes, calculated using eta-squared, were both very high at 1.00.
Tukey’s post-hoc comparisons identified significant differences between every single paired comparison in
the directions predicted (p<.000).
For WW, Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances was violated for satisfied customers, and so the pvalue for this variable was further restricted to p<.005. The ANOVA indicated a statistically significant
difference between the three WOM implementations for the number of satisfied customers [F(2,
59)=18,689.89, p<.000] and the number of dissatisfied customers [F(2, 59)=1,203,536, p<.000]. The effect
sizes were very high (eta-squared 1.00 for both). Tukey’s post hoc tests revealed significant differences
between all paired comparisons (p<.000). All were in the predicted direction, with the exception of a large
increase in the number of satisfied customers between the first and second implementations of WOM. This
exception may be attributable to some slack in the WW staffing being taken up as the level of WOM
sophistication (and hence potential customer pool) increased. However, with further WOM developments
(dynamic customer pool) the staffing constraints start to take effect and the number of satisfied customers
decreases. Looking at Figure 8, it is clear that on a day-to-day basis there are great fluctuations in customer
satisfaction. In Figure 9, again much day-to-day variation can be seen, and the significant increase in the
average number of dissatisfied customers in the dynamic WW model can be clearly observed.
In general, Hypothesis 8 has been supported, in that evidence suggests that the average number of satisfied
customers (CSM-EPV) will decrease with a more sophisticated WOM implementation, and that the number
of dissatisfied customers will increase (CSM-EPV). The exceptional behavior of the count of satisfied
customers in WW has been explained in terms of slack in the staffing of the department, and with further
increases to customer number we would expect the corresponding decrease in the number of satisfied
customers to continue.
<Insert Figure 8 somewhere here>
<Insert Figure 9 somewhere here>
In the second part of the experiment we want to explore daily fluctuations in customer numbers. We want
to find out if there is a set threshold value for WOM, beyond which we would on the next day create an
empty department (and hence cause its permanent closure). This could be triggered by the great variation in
daily fluctuations, whereby a very high amount of satisfied customers causes an overwhelming volume of
customers on the subsequent day. This could result in crucially high levels of dissatisfaction and result in
no customers visiting the department on the day after.
For this experiment we have used our new noise reduction mode (described in Section 4.2.2). We vary the
adoption fraction using a step interval of 0.2 whilst keeping the contact rate constant at 5. The high contact
rate value has been selected to reach the upper boundary of customer numbers in a reasonable amount of
trials.
Hypothesis 9: We predict that the higher the WOM adoption fraction, the greater the increase and
corresponding subsequent decrease in the number of customer visits. We expect this relationship to be
linked to a reduction in satisfaction per customer. We hypothesize that this pattern will vary over time
because the impact of WOM will vary on a daily basis.

19

Hypothesis 10: We predict that there is a threshold upon which the daily number of customers shrinks to 0
and consequently the department ceases trading. We expect that this threshold will occur at an earlier stage
for A&TV than WW.
Given that we are looking at daily differences, it is important to examine what is going on graphically.
Therefore hypotheses will be tested through evaluation of simulation output in terms of daily fluctuations.
Comparing average values dampens this variability which we are interested in (due to model stochasticity),
and so we will be assess hypotheses using figures and not statistical tests.
Figure 10 presents the customer count relating to different adoption fractions across WW and A&TV (static
model). Comparing the two departments, a greater increase in customer numbers can be seen between
experimental conditions in WW than in A&TV as the customer pool grows, which is to be expected. This is
because in addition to the customer service limitations of A&TV, the starting customer pool size in WW is
23% greater than that of A&TV.
Assessing Hypothesis 9, Figures 10 (and also Figures 11 and 12) suggests that the higher the adoption
fraction the greater the day-to-day fluctuations in customer numbers. Each individual line tends to vary a
roughly equal amount above and below its middle, adding weight to the hypothesis that each increase in
customer numbers is accompanied by a subsequent decrease. Further evidence supporting this hypothesis
is covered in assessment of Hypothesis 10.
Evaluating Hypothesis 10, we can see in Figures 10, 11 and 12 that the results for A&TV suggest that it is
not able to meet the increased customer demands which the highest adoption fraction (0.6) places on it. The
overall shapes of the extreme cases (adoption fraction 0.6) behave in a pronounced cyclic manner for both
static and dynamic WOM implementations, with relatively large customer peaks and troughs compared to
the other adoption fractions in A&TV. Due to a day with no customers, the A&TV department ceases
business. This does appear to be caused by a sharp increase in one day’s customers triggering a sharp
decrease in the following day’s customer numbers. We predicted this relationship because the department’s
staffing resources remain the same regardless of customer pool growth, and therefore when the daily
customer pool grows, the same amount of staffing resources are shared between a larger group of
customers. The lower adoption fractions (0.2 and 0.4) result in a relatively restricted variation in customer
numbers after approximately 6 weeks in the static implementation, and 15 weeks in the dynamic
implementation. It is interesting to compare adoption fractions of 0.4 and 0.6 for the static model because
the 0.6 model only attracts a few more customers to trigger its downfall, whereas 0.4 recovers from this
near-miss.
Looking at WW in Figures 10 and 11, there are great variations in customer numbers in particular for the
highest adoption fraction (0.6) where we can see areas of pronounced oscillating peaks and troughs
alternating with less pronounced areas of daily fluctuations. For the dynamic model (Figure 12) at 50 weeks
this adoption fraction results in no customers. Given the large amount of variation in customer numbers
throughout this simulation, it is not surprising that this phenomenon occurs. Also as observed for A&TV,
all adoption fractions produce phases of relatively intense variation in customer numbers alternate with
relatively stable phases.
The figures presented support Hypothesis 10 in principle. A&TV the static WOM implementation resulted
in zero customers at week 3, whereas in WW the dynamic WOM implementation resulted in zero
customers at week 50. This provides some supports the prediction that this would happen at an earlier stage
in A&TV than in WW. Further experimentation (not documented here) investigated for each department
types we could not finish the simulation run for an adoption fraction value of 0.6 (dynamic pool). This
work identified that the boundary adoption fraction to allow the experiment to finish (with the complete
runtime of 52 weeks) occurred for the static implementation with a value of up to 0.500 for A&TV, and
0.791 for WW. The higher threshold for WW concords with what we have seen in daily differences. For
the dynamic implementation, the adoption fraction can have a value of up to 0.485 for A&TV and up to
0.599 for WW. Any adoption fraction values beyond these result in a premature termination of the
department, due to no customers.

20

In summary, we can conclude that comparing and contrasting different implementations of WOM can
provide fruitful insights into department performance. The current models help us to better understand
system outcomes where there is a finite staffing resource in a particular department, and the initial customer
demands are already ensuring there is little slack in the system (NB we observed this to a greater extent
with A&TV than for WW). Investigating a different scenario such as when a retailer has the investment to
introduce further resource with increasing customer demand would require a different configuration.
It is clear that the current implementation of a dynamic customer pool results in WOM only directly
affecting the growth or decline of the customer pool population on the following day. This means that the
behavior of customer count variable results in an unbelievable variation in day-to-day customer figures. In
the real world we would expect word of mouth to impact on an individual’s behavior with a short delay,
perhaps of a couple of days, or until the next opportunity that individual has to visit the department. Not
everyone runs to the shop immediately when he or she has received a recommendation, (NB we do not
consider that some customers can only shop on certain days of the week, or at certain times of the day), and
even if this did happen it is unlikely that a customer passing on WOM would recommend the department to
everyone immediately. There is a real delay in the spread of the WOM. Our findings so far suggest that it
would be better modeled using a positively skewed distribution showing a large immediate effect and also
an ongoing subtler effect which would be strong the more that WOM has accumulated. We will test this in
the next version of our simulation model.
<Insert Figure 10 somewhere here>
<Insert Figure 11 somewhere here>
<Insert Figure 12 somewhere here>
6. Conclusion
We have presented the conceptual design, implementation and operation of simulation models to help
inform the way we which we can understand the impact of people management practices on retail
performance. As far as we are aware this is the first time researchers have tried to use an agent-based
approach to simulate people management practices such as training and empowerment. Although our
simulation model uses specific case studies as source of information, we believe that the general model
could be adapted to other retail companies and areas of management practices that have a lot of human
interaction.
To respond to our key research questions, we have modeled and simulated customer satisfaction and the
effects of WOM diffusion on customer satisfaction. We have compared and analyzed data resulting from
two contrasting methods of modeling customer satisfaction: CSM-AHD and CSM-EPV. Likewise, we have
adopted a two-pronged approach to customers’ WOM and present comparative analysis of different
strategies to implement the WOM (using a static and a dynamic main customer pool). The evaluation of
daily trends has proved particularly valuable in understanding what causes a department to run out of
customers, and further model development is planned to implement a different approach to this.
In this paper we have focused in particular on the capabilities required to model customer evolution as a
consequence of the implementation of people management practices. We have discussed conceptual ideas
about how to consider external and internal stimuli and have presented an implementation of WOM as one
form of external stimuli. We are still testing and calibrating the new features we have implemented. The
validation experiments so far have shown that we need to improve our simulation model in order to be able
to model the real system in an appropriate way. In particular our current abstraction level with regards to
how staff spend their time is much too high. If we want to use real staffing data we need to model how staff
allocate their tasks between competing activities rather than focusing on one type of work (i.e. make our
staff members proactive). We have already modeled one form of proactive staff behavior (empowerment)
but that was only for specific experiments, e.g. (1) a normal sales staff member decides by himself or
herself whether to stay or not to stay with a customer when additional expert advice is given which allows
them to learn on the job if they wish to do so, or (2) an expert staff member helps out in the provision of

21

normal advice if no customer requires expert help (see [11]). Further development such as self-initiated till
manning needs to be implemented in order to mimic the behavior of the staff members in the real system in
a more appropriate way.
In addition to continuing to validate our current simulation model we have also planned to experiment with
different strategies of modeling customer evolution. We plan to implement and test our conceptual ideas
regarding customers’ memory of their own shopping experiences (internal stimuli). Furthermore, we have
planned to enhance the flexibility of staff members (i.e. empower them) to allow them to respond to
customer demand. This will help to solve the staffing problem we have discussed above. In the long term
we want to develop our simulation model to support testing the impact of team work related management
practices. This looks like an interesting but challenging task because we first need to come up with a way
to represent the effects of team work. Furthermore, we would like to enhance the capabilities of our agents,
giving them skills in reasoning, negotiation, and co-operation.
In conclusion, we can say that the new features appear promising and we are convinced they have already
improved our insights into the operation of the departments within a department store. In particular the new
performance measures we collect on a daily basis will be very useful in future for balancing the provision
of customer services throughout the week.
Overall, we believe that researchers should become more involved in this multi-disciplinary kind of work
to gain new insights into the behavior of organizations. In our view, the main benefit from adopting this
approach is the improved understanding of and debate about a problem domain. The very nature of the
methods involved forces researchers to be explicit about the rules underlying behavior and to think in new
ways about them. As a result, we have brought work psychology and agent-based modeling closer together
to form a new and exciting research area.
7. Acknowledgements
This work is part of an IDEAS Factory Network Project funded by the UK government through the
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under grant EP/D503949/1. We would also
like to thank the reviewers for their fruitful comments on earlier drafts of this article.
8. References
[1] Department of Trade and Industry. 2003. UK productivity and competitiveness indicators. DTI
Economics Paper No. 6. London, UK: DTI. http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file14767.pdf
[2] Reynolds, J., E. Howard, D. Dragun, B. Rosewell, and P. Ormerod. 2005. Assessing the productivity of
the UK retail sector. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 15(3):237280.
[3] Delbridge, R., P. Edwards, J. Forth, P. Miskell, and J. Payne. 2006. The organisation of productivity:
Re-thinking skills and work organisation. London, UK: Advanced Institute of Management Research.
http://www.aimresearch.org/publications/orgprod.pdf.
[4] Siebers, P.O. et al. 2008. The role of management practices in closing the productivity gap. AIM
Working Paper Series 065. London, UK: Advanced Institute of Management Research.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1309605.
[5] Wall, T.D. and S.J. Wood. 2005. Romance of human resource management and business performance
and the case for big science. Human Relations 58(5):429-462.
[6] Pourdehnad, J., K. Maani, and H. Sedehi. 2002. System dynamics and intelligent agent-based
simulation: Where is the synergy? In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the System
Dynamics Society, Palermo, Italy.
[7] Birdi, K. et al. 2008. The impact of human resource and operational management practices on company
productivity: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology (in press).

22

[8] Patel, S. and A. Schlijper. 2004. Models of consumer behaviour. 49th European Study Group with
Industry (ESGI 2004), Oxford, UK.
[9] Nicholson, M., I. Clarke, and M. Blakemore. 2002. One brand, three ways to shop: Situational variables
and multichannel consumer behaviour. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research 12:131-148.
[10] Keh, H.T., S. Chu, and J. Xu. 2006. Efficiency, effectiveness and productivity of marketing in
services. European Journal of Operational Research 170(1):265-276.
[11] Siebers, P.O., U. Aickelin, H. Celia, and C. Clegg. 2007a. A multi-agent simulation of retail
management practices. In Proceedings of the Summer Computer Simulation Conference (SCSC 2007),
San Diego, USA, pp 959-966.
[12] Siebers, P.O., U. Aickelin, H. Celia, and C. Clegg. 2007b. Using intelligent agents to understand
management practices and retail productivity. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference
(WSC 2007), Washington DC, USA, pp 2212-2220.
[13] Hansen, T. 2005. Perspectives on consumer decision making: An integrated approach. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour 4(6):420-437.
[14] Tai, S.H.C. and A.M.C. Fung. 1997. Application of an environmental psychology model to in-store
buying behaviour. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 7(4):311-337.
[15] Youn, S. and R.J. Faber. 2000. Impulse buying: Its relation to personality traits and cues. Advances in
Consumer Research 27(1):179-185.
[16] Robinson, S. 2004. Simulation: The practice of model development and use. Chichester, UK: John
Wiley & Sons
[17] Greasley, A. 2005. Using DEA and simulation in guiding operating units to improved performance.
Journal of the Operational Research Society 56(6):727-731.
[18] Schwaiger, A. and B. Stahmer. 2003. SimMarket: Multi-agent based customer simulation and decision
support for category management. In Applying Agents for Engineering of Industrial Automation
Systems, edited by M. Shillo et al., LNAI 2831. Berlin: Springer.
[19] Simon, H.A. 1996. The sciences of the artificial (3rd Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[20] Gilbert, N. and K.G. Troitzsch. 1999. Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press, UK:
Buckinghamshire.
[21] Law, A.M., and W.D. Kelton. 1991. Simulation modeling and analysis (2nd Ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill
[22] North, M.J. and C.M. Macal. 2007. Managing business complexity: discovering strategic solutions
with agent-based modeling and simulation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[23] Garrido, J.M. 2001. Object-oriented discrete-event simulation with java: A practical introduction.
New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers
[24] Borshchev, A. and A. Filippov. 2004. From system dynamics and discrete event to practical agent
based modeling: reasons, techniques, tools. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference of the
System Dynamics Society, Oxford, UK.
[25] Epstein, J.M. and R. Axtell. 1996. Growing artificial societies: Social science from the bottom up.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[26] Jeffrey, R. 2008. Expert voice: Icosystem's Eric Bonabeau on agent-based modeling.
http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,3959,1124316,00.asp.
[27] Luck, M., P. McBurney, O. Shehory, and S. Willmott. 2005. Agent technology: Computing as
interaction (a roadmap for agent based computing). Liverpool, UK: AgentLink.

23

[28] ZDNet. 2000. ZDNet Complexity Digest 2000.10: The Sims and agent based modeling.
http://www.comdig.com/index.php?id_issue=2000.10.
[29] BBC. 2008. BBC h2g2: Computer animation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A342 1045/.
[30] Hood, L. 1998. Agent-based modeling. In Conference Proceedings: Greenhouse Beyond Kyoto,
Issues, Opportunities and Challenges, Canberra, Australia.
[31] Macal, C.M. and M.J. North. 2007. Agent-based modeling and simulation: Desktop ABMS, In
Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference (WSC 2007), Washington, USA, pp95-106.
[32] Carley, K.M. 1996. Validating computational models. CASOS Working Paper. Pittsburgh, PA:
Carnegie Mellon University.
[33] Fagiolo, G., P. Windrum, and A. Moneta. 2006. Empirical validation of agent-based models: A critical
survey. LEM Working Paper 2006/14. Pisa, Italy: Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies.
[34] Leombruni, R., M. Richiardi, N.J. Saam, and M. Sonnessa. 2006. A common protocol for agent-based
social simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9(1):15.
[35] Midgley D.F., R.E. Marks, and D. Kunchamwar. 2007. The building and assurance of agent-based
models: An example and challenge to the field. Journal of Business Research 60(8):884-893.
[36] Moss, S. and B. Edmonds. 2005. Sociology and simulation: Statistical and quantitative crossvalidation. American Journal of Sociology 110(4):1095-1131.
[37] Twomey, P. and R. Cadman. 2002. Agent-based modelling of customer behaviour in the telecoms and
media markets. info 4:56-63.
[38] Chick, S.E. 2006. Six ways to improve a simulation analysis. Journal of Simulation 1:21-28.
[39] Celia, H. 2007. Retail management practices and performance: On the shop floor. Master Thesis.
University of the West of England.
[40] Shannon, R.E. 1975. Systems simulation: The art and science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[41] Yi, Y. 1990. A critical review of consumer satisfaction, In Review of Marketing, edited by V.A.
Zeithaml. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
[42] Fornell, C., M.D. Johnson, E.W. Anderson, J. Cha, and B.E. Bryant. 1996. The American customer
satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing 60(4):7-18.
[43] Ji, M.F. and W. Wood. 2007. Purchase and consumption habits: Not necessarily what you intend.
Journal of Consumer Psychology 17(4):261-276.
[44] Simon, F. and J.C. Usunier. 2007. Cognitive, demographic and situational determinants of service
customer preference for personnel-in-contact over self-service technology’. International Journal of
Research in Marketing 24(2):163-173.
[45] Marsden, P., A. Samson, and N. Upton. 2005. The economics of buzz - word of mouth drives business
growth
finds
LSE
study.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/Word_of
Mouth.htm.
[46] XJ Technologies. 2008. Official AnyLogic website. http://www.xjtek .com/.
[47] Siebers, P.O., U. Aickelin, H. Celia, and C. Clegg. 2007c. Understanding retail productivity by
simulating management practices. In Proceedings of the EUROSIM Congress on Modelling and
Simulation (EUROSIM 2007), Ljubljana, Slovenia.
[48] Rank, J., J.M. Carsten, J. Unger, and P.E. Spector. 2007. Proactive customer service performance relationships with individual, task, and leadership variables. Journal of Human Performance
20(4):363-390

24

Peer-Olaf Siebers is a research fellow in computer science at The University of Nottingham (UK), where
he works in the Intelligent Modelling & Analysis Group.
Uwe Aickelin is a full Professor at The University of Nottingham (UK), where he leads the Intelligent
Modelling & Analysis Group.
Helen Celia is a visiting researcher at the Centre for Organisational Strategy, Learning & Change at Leeds
University Business School (UK).
Chris W. Clegg is Professor of Organisational Psychology and Director of the Centre for Socio-Technical
Systems Design at Leeds University Business School (UK).

25

Figures:

Figure 1. Initial ideas for the simulation model and its components

Figure 2. Conceptual model of our customer agents (transition rules have been omitted for
clarity)

26

Figure 3. Customer (left) and staff (right) agent logic implementation in AnyLogic™

27

35000

30000

Customer Count

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

A&TV

Before finding
anything

Waiting to pay

Expert help

Normal help

After purchase

Before finding
anything

Waiting to pay

Expert help

Normal help

After purchase

0

WW
Performance Measure
Noise Reduction Mode

Normal Mode

Figure 4. Average performance measures, by department and operation mode.
1200

1000

number of customers

800

600

400

200

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70

0
day
Noise reduction mode: overall customers

Noise reduction mode: transactions

Normal mode: overall customers

Figure 5. Daily customer count and number of transactions in A&TV.

28

Normal mode: transactions

A&TV; static pool; no WOM

A&TV; static pool; WOM

A&TV; dynamic pool; WOM

29

Figure 7. Daily count of customers entering the department.

WW; static pool; no WOM

Figure 6. Customer pool growth over time.

2400

2200

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
WW; dynamic pool; WOM

WW; static pool; WOM

Begin Week 26

Begin Week 25

Begin Week 24

Begin Week 22

Begin Week 21

Begin Week 20

WW; static pool; WOM

Begin Week 23

WW; static pool; no WOM

Begin Week 19

Begin Week 18

Begin Week 17

Begin Week 16

A&TV; dynamic pool; WOM

Begin Week 15

Begin Week 14

Begin Week 13

Begin Week 12

Begin Week 11

A&TV; static pool; WOM

Begin Week 10

Begin Week 9

Begin Week 8

Begin Week 7

A&TV; static pool; no WOM

Begin Week 6

Begin Week 5

Begin Week 4

Begin Week 3

Begin Week 2

Begin Week 1

customers [per day]

Begin Week 26

Begin Week 25

Begin Week 24

Begin Week 23

Begin Week 22

Begin Week 21

Begin Week 20

Begin Week 19

Begin Week 18

Begin Week 17

Begin Week 16

Begin Week 15

Begin Week 14

Begin Week 13

Begin Week 12

Begin Week 11

Begin Week 10

Begin Week 9

Begin Week 8

Begin Week 7

Begin Week 6

Begin Week 5

Begin Week 4

Begin Week 3

Begin Week 2

Begin Week 1

number of customers in pool
16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

time [days (only the first 26 weeks shown due to space restrictions)]

time [days (only the first 26 weeks shown due to space restrictions)]

WW; dynamic pool; WOM

A&TV; static pool; no WOM

A&TV; static pool; WOM

A&TV; dynamic pool; WOM

30

Figure 9. Daily count of dissatisfied customers CSM-EPV.

WW; static pool; no WOM

WW; static pool; WOM

Begin Week 26

Begin Week 25

Begin Week 24

WW; static pool; WOM

Begin Week 23

Begin Week 22

Begin Week 21

Begin Week 20

WW; static pool; no WOM

Begin Week 19

Begin Week 18

Begin Week 17

Begin Week 16

A&TV; dynamic pool; WOM

Begin Week 15

Begin Week 14

Begin Week 13

Begin Week 12

Begin Week 11

A&TV; static pool; WOM

Begin Week 10

Begin Week 9

Begin Week 8

Begin Week 7

A&TV; static pool; no WOM

Begin Week 6

Begin Week 5

Begin Week 4

Begin Week 3

Begin Week 2

Begin Week 1

customers [per day]

Begin Week 26

Begin Week 25

Begin Week 24

Begin Week 23

Begin Week 22

Begin Week 21

Begin Week 20

Begin Week 19

Begin Week 18

Begin Week 17

Begin Week 16

Begin Week 15

Begin Week 14

Begin Week 13

Begin Week 12

Begin Week 11

Begin Week 10

Begin Week 9

Begin Week 8

Begin Week 7

Begin Week 6

Begin Week 5

Begin Week 4

Begin Week 3

Begin Week 2

Begin Week 1

customers [per day]
600

500

400

300

200

100

0

time [days (only the first 26 weeks shown due to space restrictions)]
WW; dynamic pool; WOM

Figure 8. Daily count of satisfied customers CSM-EPV.

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

time [days (only the first 26 weeks shown due to space restrictions)]

WW; dynamic pool; WOM

A&TV af=0.2

A&TV af=0.4

A&TV af=0.6

Figure 11. Dynamic pool - daily customer count.

31

WW af=0.2

WW af=0.4

time [days (only the first 26 shown due to space restriction)]

WW af=0.6

3600

3400

3200

3000

2800

2600

2400

2200

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
Begin Week 24

Begin Week 23

Begin Week 22

Begin Week 21

Begin Week 20

Begin Week 19

Begin Week 18

Begin Week 17

Begin Week 16

Begin Week 15

Begin Week 14

Begin Week 13

Begin Week 12

Begin Week 11

Begin Week 10

Begin Week 9

Begin Week 8

Begin Week 7

Begin Week 6

Begin Week 5

Begin Week 4

Begin Week 3

Begin Week 2

Begin Week 1

Begin Week 26

Figure 10. Static pool - daily customer count.

Begin Week 26

WW af=0.8

Begin Week 25

time [days (only the first 26 weeks shown due to space restrictions)]

Begin Week 25

Begin Week 24

WW af=0.6

Begin Week 23

Begin Week 22

Begin Week 21

WW af=0.4

Begin Week 20

Begin Week 19

Begin Week 18

WW af=0.2

Begin Week 17

Begin Week 16

Begin Week 15

A&TV af=0.6

Begin Week 14

Begin Week 13

Begin Week 12

A&TV af=0.4

Begin Week 11

Begin Week 10

Begin Week 9

A&TV af=0.2

Begin Week 8

Begin Week 7

Begin Week 6

Begin Week 5

Begin Week 4

Begin Week 3

Begin Week 2

Begin Week 1

customers [per day]

customers [per day]
3600

3400

3200

3000

2800

2600

2400

2200

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

A&TV af=0.2
A&TV af=0.4

Figure 12. Dynamic pool - customer pool size.

32

A&TV af=0.6
WW af=0.2
WW af=0.4

time [days (only the first 26 weeks shown due to space restrictions)]
WW af=0.6

Begin Week 26

Begin Week 25

Begin Week 24

Begin Week 23

Begin Week 22

Begin Week 21

Begin Week 20

Begin Week 19

Begin Week 18

Begin Week 17

Begin Week 16

Begin Week 15

Begin Week 14

Begin Week 13

Begin Week 12

Begin Week 11

Begin Week 10

Begin Week 9

Begin Week 8

Begin Week 7

Begin Week 6

Begin Week 5

Begin Week 4

Begin Week 3

Begin Week 2

Begin Week 1

number of customers in pool
18000

17000

16000

15000

14000

13000

12000

11000

10000

9000

8000

7000

6000

