Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why modelling and model use matter

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

Abstract

When OR/MS analysts develop a model, how are they intending this model to be used? There are many different ways in which OR/MS models may be classified and one important categorisation is the intended use of the model. Some models are intended for routine use on a frequent basis, with little or no human intervention. Others form part of human decision process and provide support to that process. Considering model validation, data requirements, added value and possible pitfalls leads to a theory of model use based on four categories: decision automation, routine decision support, investigation and improvement, and generating insights for debate. A pilot investigation in an OR/MS group demonstrates that this categorisation could provide the basis for empirical research into a theory of model use in operational research. A theory of model use would be of value to academics, who could prioritise their work, and to practitioners, who could place their own work in a broader landscape.

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

References

  • Armstrong J S (ed) (2001). Combining forecasts. In: Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, pp 417–438..

  • Ashby R (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics . Chapman & Hall: London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Balci O (1994). Validation, verification and testing techniques throughout the life cycle of a simulation study. In: Annals of Operations Research, vol. 53, No. 1. Springer: The Netherlands, pp 121–173.

  • Bhaskar R, Lee HS, Levas A, Pétrakian R, Tsai F and Tulskie W (1994). Analyzing re-engineering business processes using simulation. In: Tew JD, Maniannan S, Sadowski DA and Selia AF (eds) Proceedings of the 1994 Winter Simulation Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL. IEEE; Piscataway, NY, pp 1206–1213.

  • Bitran G and Caldenty R (2003). An overview of pricing models for revenue management . Manuf Serv Opns Mngt 5: 203–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Box GEP and Draper NR (1987). Empirical Model-building and Response Surfaces . John Wiley & Sons: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brailsford SC, Harper PR, Pitt M and Patel B (2009). An analysis of the academic literature on simulation and modelling in healthcare. J Simul 3: 130–140.

  • Brailsford SC, Shahani AX, Roy RB and Sivapalan S (1992). Simulation modeling for HIV-infection and AIDS . Int J BioMed Comput 31(2): 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland PB (1995). Model validation in soft systems practice . Syst Res 12(1): 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland PB (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30-year Retrospective . John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chelst K and Bodily SE (2000). Structured risk management: Filling a gap in decision analysis education . J Opl Res Soc 51: 1420–1432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies R, Roderick P, Canning C and Brailsford S (2002). The evaluation of screening policies for diabetic retinopathy using simulation . Diabetic Med 19: 762–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden CL and Ackermann F (1998). Strategy Making: The Journey of Strategic Management . Sage: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher A, Halsall D, Huxham S and Worthington DJ (2007). The DH Accident and Emergency Department model: A national generic model used locally . J Opl Res Soc 58: 1554–1562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallego G and van Ryzin G (1994). Optimal dynamic pricing of inventories with stochastic demand over finite horizons . Mngt Sci 40: 999–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Günal MM and Pidd M (2006). Understanding accident and emergency department performance using simulation. In: Perrone LF, Wieland FP, Liu J, Lawson BG, Nicol DM and Fujimoto RM (eds) Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference, Monterey, CA. IEEE; Piscataway, NY, pp 446–452.

  • Günal MM, Onggo S and Pidd M (2008). Improving police control rooms using simulation . J Opl Res Soc 59: 171–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEEE (1990). Complexity. IEEE Std 610.12-1990(R2002). IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology. IEEE: Piscataway, NJ.

  • Kapuscinski R, Zhang RQ, Carbonneau P, Moore R and Reeves W (2004). Inventory decisions in Dell's supply chain . Interfaces 34: 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer GP, O'Neill L and Ganeshan R (1998). Validation in simulation: various positions in the philosophy of science . Mngt Sci 44: 1087–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laguna M and Marklund J (2005). Business Process Modeling, Design and Simulation . Pearson/Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane DC (1995). The folding star: A comparative re-framing and extension of validity concepts in system dynamics . In: Shimada T and Saeed K (eds). Proceedings of the 1995 International System Dynamics Conference. Gakushuin University: Tokyo, Japan, pp. 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikulecky DC (2003). The complexity of nature. http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/cmpxnat.html (accessed 12th August, 2009).

  • Pidd M (2010). Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science, 3rd edn.. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel HWJ and Webber MM (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning . Policy Sci 4: 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2001). Soft with a hard centre: Discrete-event simulation in facilitation . J Opl Res Soc 52: 905–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2008a). Conceptual modelling for simulation Part I: Definition and requirements . J Opl Res Soc 59: 278–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2008b). Conceptual modelling for simulation Part II: A framework for conceptual modelling . J Opl Res Soc 59: 291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahli S and Rand G (1989). The effect of ignoring routes when locating depots . Eur J Opl Res 39: 150–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargent RW (1988). A tutorial on validation and verification of simulation models. In: Abrams M, Haigh P and Comfort J. (eds) Proceedings of the 1988 Winter Simulation Conference, San Diego, CA. IEEE; Piscataway, NY, pp 33–39.

  • Simon HA (1976). From substantive to procedural rationality . In: Latsis SJ (ed). Method and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 129–148.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas LC, Edelman CB and Crook JN (2002). Credit Scoring and Its Applications . Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wiles PG and van Brunt B (2001). Optimal location of transshipment depots . Trans Res A-Pol 35A: 745–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams T (2008). Management Science in Practice . John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeigler BP (1976). Theory of Modelling and Simulation . John Wiley & Sons: New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, UK

    M Pidd

Authors
  1. M Pidd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M Pidd.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pidd, M. Why modelling and model use matter. J Oper Res Soc 61, 14–24 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2009.141

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2009.141

Keywords

Search

Navigation