Skip to main content
Log in

Comparing discrete-event simulation and system dynamics: users' perceptions

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

This paper is the first of its type in that it provides an empirical study comparing the two simulation approaches of discrete-event simulation (DES) and system dynamics (SD). Prior comparison work is limited and mostly based on the authors' personal opinions. In the present work, the comparison is based on managers' (executive MBA students) perceptions of two simulation models of the same problem, one in DES and one in SD. The study found that there is no significant difference from the users' point of view between DES and SD in terms of model understanding and model usefulness. Some minor differences were found in terms of complexity and validity of the models, and the model results. The implications of our findings regarding model understanding, model complexity, model validity, model usefulness and model results are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akkermans HA (1995). Modelling with managers. Participative business modelling for effective strategic decision-making. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.

  • Bard JF (1978). The use of simulation in criminal justice policy evaluation. J Crim Justice 6(2): 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brailsford S and Hilton N (2001). A comparison of discrete event simulation and system dynamics for modelling healthcare systems. In: Riley J. (ed). Proceedings of ORAHS 2000. Glasgow: Scotland pp 18–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham A and Saunders P (2004). The Survey Methods Workbook: From Design to Analysis. Polity: Cambridge: Malden, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox GB, Harrison P and Dightman CR (1978). Computer simulation of adult sentencing proposals. Eval Program Plann 1(4): 297–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle RG (1985). Representing discrete events in system dynamics models: A theoretical application to modelling coal production. J Opl Res Soc 36(4): 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher NI (1983). Graphical methods in nonparametric statistics: A review and annotated bibliography. Int Stat Rev 51: 25–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester JW (1961). Industrial Dynamics. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove P, MacLeod J and Godfrey D (1998). Forecasting the prison population. OR Insight 11(1): 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korporaal R, Ridder A, Kloprogge P and Dekker R (2000). An analytic model for capacity planning of prisons in the Netherlands. J Opl Res Soc 51(11): 1228–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwak NK, Kuzdrall PJ and Schniederjans MJ (1984). Felony case scheduling policies and continuances – a simulation study. Socioecon Plann Sci 18(1): 37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane DC (2000). You just don't understand me: Models of failure and success in the discourse between system dynamics and discrete event simulation. Working paper, 00.34:26.

  • Law AM (2007). Simulation Modeling and Analysis. McGraw-Hill: Boston and London 4th edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mak H-Y (1993). System dynamics and discrete event simulation modelling. PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science.

  • Morecroft JDW and Robinson S (2005). Explaining puzzling dynamics: comparing the use of system dynamics and discrete-event simulation. In: Sterman JD, Repenning MP, Langer RS, Rowe JI, Yarni, JM (eds). Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, System Dynamics Society, Boston, MA.

  • Morecroft JDW and Sterman J (eds) (1994). Modeling for Learning Organizations. System Dynamics Series. Productivity Press: Portland, OR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidd M (2004). Computer Simulation in Management Science. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randers J (1980). Elements of the System Dynamics Method. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2001). Soft with a hard centre: Discrete-event simulation in facilitation. J Opl Res Soc 52(8): 905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2002). Modes of simulation practice: approaches to business and military simulation. Sim Mod Practice and Theory 10(8): 513–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2004). Simulation: The Practice of Model Development and Use. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2008). Conceptual modeling for simulation Part 1: Definition and requirements. J Opl Res Soc, online publication 24 January 2007, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602368.

  • Robinson S, Meadows M, Mingers J, O'Brien FA, Shale EA and Stray S (2003). Teaching OR/MS to MBAs at Warwick Business School: A turnaround story. Interfaces 33(2): 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel S (1957). Nonparametric statistics. Am Stat 13(3): 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman J (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Irwin/McGraw-Hill: Boston, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweetser A (1999). A Comparison of System Dynamics and Discrete Event Simulation. In: Cavana R.Y., Vennix J.A.M., Rouwette E.A.J.A., Stevenson-Wright M. and Candlish J. (eds). Proceedings of 17th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society and 5th Australian & New Zealand Systems Conference: System Dynamics Society. Wellington: New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennix JAM (1996). Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. John Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilk MB and Gnanadesikan R (1968). Probability plotting methods for the analysis of data. Biometrika 55(1): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A A Tako.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tako, A., Robinson, S. Comparing discrete-event simulation and system dynamics: users' perceptions. J Oper Res Soc 60, 296–312 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602566

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602566

Keywords

Navigation