It needs to consider the two different implementations. In the first implementation, a latency of wait time introduction has started. Now latency in this context is good, because the customer perception of being in the wait zone is reduced (Sparrow, Brewster & Chung, 2016; Grigoroudis et al., 2013). In the absence of a lobby manager, the customer perception of being in the wait time is high, as there is no reception and assurance, and waits time start as soon as they enter the bank. On the other hand, in the case of having a lobby manager, the lobby manager greets customers, and assigns them into the queue, and hence customers feel the wait time only when they are assigned into the queue. In addition, when the customer is greeted, they feel they are already part of the system, so hence they are not in their initial wait times. Moreover, a lobby manager (either physical or automated) could assure the customers of a foreseeable duration of wait. For instance, if the bank typically takes so much amount of time to deal with a customer (approximately) during the noon time, lobby managers could inform the customers of the same, or if there is an exceptionally faster queue, they could once again keep the customer informed. A similar implementation will also work in the electronic format. Here the customer could be informed from time to time about how long their wait on the phone will be.