Building in public

We Got 1 out of 5 for Usefulness. They Were Right.

Someone in a clinic waiting room was shown a 13-minute wait and waited 50. They rated QueueIn 5 out of 5 for ease of use and 1 out of 5 for usefulness. The low score was fair. Here is what we got wrong and what we are changing.

We are building QueueIn in public, so the bad scores get shared too.

By Carmen (KM), founder of QueueIn6 October 20263 min read

Illustration of a man in a Malaysian clinic waiting room, phone in hand, looking up at the wall clock. — We said 13 minutes. They waited 50.

The feedback.

In early October a piece of queue feedback landed in my inbox. It had two scores and one comment. Ease of use: 5 out of 5. QueueIn usefulness: 1 out of 5.

“Timing is extremely off. A 13min estimated wait became 50mins”
Queue feedback from a clinic waiting room. Words unchanged.

That is the whole message, word for word. It came without a name, so I can't write back to the person who sent it. This post is my reply.

If I had been sitting there, I would have given us 1 out of 5 too.

A wrong number is worse than no number.

We said 13 minutes. They waited 50. That is 37 minutes longer than we told them, almost four times the wait they were expecting.

People plan around the number on their phone. Thirteen minutes means stay in your seat. Fifty means there is time to step out for a drink, or call home to say you will be late. We gave this person the first answer when the true one was the second.

The 5 out of 5 tells me joining the queue was easy. The 1 out of 5 tells me that the one answer they came for, “how long more?”, was wrong. QueueIn is meant to take the guessing out of a wait. That day it put a confident wrong guess in its place.

Illustration of a man in a clinic waiting room looking down at the phone in his hands as the afternoon light fades. — People plan around the number on their phone.

What we got wrong.

QueueIn works out how fast the queue is moving based on real-time actions within the queue. We assumed that our system would move alongside the clinic's workflow. On a busy day, it didn't. So QueueIn thought the queue was moving faster than it was, and showed a shorter wait than the real one.

Our assumption, our mistake. The clinic did nothing wrong. A busy day is when people need the estimate most, and it is the day ours fell apart.

What we are changing.

Two changes are in the works now. First, the wait time people see will come from the business's average estimate, not our guess. Second, every week we will show the team at each business how long people actually waited.

Neither is live yet, and I am not going to put a date on them here. I will write again when they are.

What we still won't promise.

We don't promise a shorter wait. If the doctor is running behind, the wait is the wait, and nothing we build changes that.

We do owe you an honest estimate. That part is ours to get right.

Illustration of the QueueIn founder at her desk, palms pressed together in thanks in front of her laptop. — To whoever wrote it: thank you.

Thank you.

This one taught me more than any 5 out of 5 has.

To whoever wrote it: thank you. I wasn't in that waiting room. You were, and you took the time to tell me. I can't fix what I can't see.

If something feels off while you are queueing with QueueIn, you can leave feedback when your visit ends. Every message comes straight to me. Keep it coming.

Carmen (KM), founder of QueueIn

Give your customers a clearer wait.

QueueIn is built for phone-based queues at small businesses in Klang Valley. During Alpha, we are helping a small group of businesses set up their first queue in exchange for honest feedback.

Read: How to Manage Patient Queues in a Clinic