Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Simulation modelling is 50! Do we need a reality check?

  • Special Issue Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Simulation modelling is a fascinating research field. The techniques and tools of simulation modelling have been used to research and investigate the behaviour of various systems in a wide range of areas such as commerce, computer networks, defence, health, manufacturing and transportation. Indeed, the study of the use of these techniques and tools, and the development of new forms of these, are a rich source of research in their own right. Simulation modelling is about to reach the 50th anniversary of the development of GSP (General Simulation Program), the first simulation modelling language (Tocher and Owen, 1960). There have been several historical accounts of simulation modelling research. To complement these, we have performed a review of the recent history of simulation modelling. This study targeted three leading journals dedicated to this field. These are the ACM Transactions of Modeling and Computer Simulation, Simulation: Transactions of The Society for Modeling and Simulation International and Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory (formerly Simulation Practice and Theory). The study covered the first 6 years of this century (2000–2005) and included 576 papers. The key observation of this work was the relative lack of ‘real world’ involvement in simulation modelling research and an even greater lack of evidence of ‘real world’ benefit, arguably very alarming outcomes for an applied field. To further investigate this observation two additional surveys were carried out, one to study if real world papers appeared in the more widely known OR/MS literature (837 papers in 12 journals) and one to study if such papers appeared in Manufacturing and Logistics, an application area closely associated with simulation modelling (1077 papers in 10 journals). The results of these surveys confirmed our observations. We ask if this is the natural evolution of a field that has existed for half a century or an indication of a worrying problem? This paper reports on our findings and discusses whether or not simulation modelling research urgently needs to face a ‘reality check.’

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

References

  • Abbot A (1988). The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labour . The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexopoulos C (2006). A comprehensive review of methods for simulation output analysis. In: Perrone LF, Wieland FP, Liu J, Lawson BG, Nicol DM and Fujimoto RM (eds). Proceedings of the 38th Winter Simulation Modelling Conference. ACM: New York, pp. 168–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andradottir S (1998). A review of simulation optimization techniques. In: Medeiros DJ, Watson EF, Carson JS and Manivannan MS (eds). Proceedings of the 30th Winter Simulation Modelling Conference. ACM: New York, pp. 151–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angerhofer BJ and Angelides MC (2000). System dynamics modelling in supply chain management: Research review. In: Joines JA, Barton RR, Kang K and Fishwick PA (eds). Proceedings of the 32nd Winter Simulation Modelling Conference. ACM Press: New York, pp. 342–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brailsford SC (2007). Tutorial: Advances and challenges in healthcare simulation modeling. In: Henderson SG, Biller B, Hsieh M-H, Shortle J, Tew JD and Barton RR (eds). Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference. ACM Press: New York, USA, pp. 1436–1448.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 57(3): 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper K, Brailsford SC and Davies R (2007). Choice of modelling technique for evaluating health care interventions. J Opl Res Soc 58: 168–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett CJ and van Wassenhove LN (1993). The natural drift: What happened to operations research? Opns Res 41(4): 625–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong H (2002). Modeling and simulation of genetic regulatory systems: A literature review. J Comput Biol 9(1): 67–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldabi T, Paul RJ and Young T (2007). Simulation modelling in healthcare: Reviewing legacies and investigating futures. J Opl Res Soc 50: 262–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu M (1994). Optimization via simulation: A review. Ann Opns Res 53(1): 199–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu MC (2005). Simulation optimization: A review, new developments, and applications. In: Kuhl ME, Steiger NM, Armstrong FB and Joines JA (eds). Proceedings of the 37th Winter Simulation Modelling Conference. ACM Press: New York, pp. 83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsman D, Henriksen JO, L'Ecuyer P, Nelson BL, Withers DH and Argon NT (2007). Fortieth anniversary special panel: Landmark papers. In: Henderson SG, Biller B, Hsieh M-H, Shortle J, Tew JD and Barton RR (eds). Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference. ACM Press: New York, pp. 2–13.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gotts NM, Polhil JG and Law ANR (2003). Agent-based simulation in the study of social dilemmas. Artif Intel Rev 19(1): 3–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gwynne S, Galea ER, Owen M, Lawrence PJ and Filippidis L (1999). A review of the methodologies used in the computer simulation of evacuation from the built environment. Build Environ 34(6): 741–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollocks B (2006). Forty years of discrete-event simulation—A personal reflection. J Opl Res Soc 57: 1383–1399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jun JB, Jacobson SH and Swisher JR (1999). Application of discrete-event simulation in health care clinics: A survey. J Opl Res Soc 50(2): 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleijnen JPC (2005). An overview of the design and analysis of simulation experiments for sensitivity analysis. Eur J Opl Res 164(2): 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremer DM and Hancock BC (2006). Process simulation in the pharmaceutical industry: A review of some basic physical models. J Pharmaceut Sci 95(3): 517–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuljis J and Paul RJ (2000). A review of web-based simulation: Whither we wander? In: Joines JA, Barton RR, Kang K and Fishwick PA (eds). Proceedings of the 32nd Winter Simulation Modelling Conference. ACM: New York, pp. 1872–1881.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lendermann P, Heinicke MU, McGinnis LF, McLean C, Stassburger S and Taylor SJE (2007). Panel: Distributed simulation in industry—A real world necessity or ivory tower fantasy? In: Henderson SG, Biller B, Hsieh M-H, Shortle J, Tew JD and Barton RR (eds). Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference. ACM Press: New York, pp. 1053–1062.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mills JD (2002). Using computer simulation methods to teach statistics: A review of the literature. J Statist Educ 10(1).

  • Müller W and Schumann H (2003). Visualization methods for time-dependent data—An overview. In: Chick S, Sànchez PJ, Ferrin D and Morrice DJ (eds). Proceedings of the 35th Winter Simulation Conference. ACM: New York, pp. 737–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nance RE and Sargent RG (2002). Perspectives on the evolution of simulation. Opns Res 50(1): 161–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerur SP, Rasheed AA and Natarajan V (2008). The intellectual structure of the strategic management field: An author co-citation analysis. Strateg Mngt J 29: 319–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod R and Kiossis I (1997). OR/MS publications: Extension of the analysis of US flagship journals to the United Kingdom. Opl Res 45(2): 178–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA, Hoffmann MJ and Deadman P (2003). Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: A review. Ann Assoc Am Geograph 93(2): 314–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidd M and Dunning-Lewis P (2001). Innovative research in OR/MS? Eur J Opl Res 128(1): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos-Rodriguez A-R and Ruiz-Navarro J (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strateg Mngt J 25: 981–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisman A and Kirschnick F (1994). The devolution of OR/MS: Implications from a statistical analysis of papers in flagship journals. J Opl Res Soc 42(4): 577–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2005). Discrete-event simulation: From the pioneers to the present, what next? J Opl Res Soc 56: 619–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer SM and Smunt TL (2004). Empirical simulation studies in operations management: Context, trends and research opportunities. J Opns Mngt 22: 345–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain JJ (2003). Simulation reloaded: Sixth biennial survey of discrete-event simulation software. ORMS Today 30(4): 46–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swisher JR, Jacobson SH and Yücesan E (2003). Discrete-event simulation optimization using ranking, selection, and multiple comparison procedures: A survey. ACM Trans Model Comput Simul Model 13(2): 134–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor SJE and Robinson S (2006). So where to next? A survey of the future for discrete-event simulation. J Simul 1(1): 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tocher KD and Owen DG (1960). The automatic programming of simulation. In: Banbury J and Maitland J (eds). Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Operational Research. English Universities Press: UK, pp. 58–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Zee DJ (2003). Look-ahead strategies for controlling batch operations in industry—An overview. Proceedings of the 35th Winter Simulation Conference. ACM Press: New York, pp. 1480–1487.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the referees for their thought provoking comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK

    S J E Taylor & R J Paul

  2. Brunel Business School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK

    T Eldabi

  3. Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, USA

    G Riley

  4. Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, UK

    M Pidd

Authors
  1. S J E Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T Eldabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G Riley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R J Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M Pidd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Taylor, S., Eldabi, T., Riley, G. et al. Simulation modelling is 50! Do we need a reality check?. J Oper Res Soc 60 (Suppl 1), S69–S82 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2008.196

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2008.196

Keywords

Search

Navigation