Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptual modelling and the project process in real simulation projects: a survey of simulation modellers

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

Abstract

A survey was used to obtain information on the processes and methods used by simulation experts in real projects. The 102 survey respondents answered questions about their most recent simulation project. This paper presents some of the survey results, focussing mainly on conceptual modelling and the pattern of time allocation to different topics. There are a wide range of findings that include the modellers making changes to the initial conceptual model during subsequent tasks in most of the projects usually by adding complexity, model coding taking on average about twice the time of other topics, and the topics generally occurring in single blocks of time (at the resolution of the survey data collection) but with considerable overlaps. The results give an insight into the way experts approach simulation projects and their problem solving strategies. A potential application is in training novice modellers, particularly in developing ‘craft skills’. The results also provide an empirical basis for further research, especially in conceptual modelling.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aitchison J (1986). The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data. Chapman and Hall: London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Balci O (1994). Validation, verification, and testing techniques throughout the life cycle of a simulation study. Annals of Operations Research 53 (1): 121–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell PC, Anderson CK, Staples DS and Elder M (1999). Decision-makers’ perceptions of the value and impact of visual interactive modelling. Omega, the International Journal of Management Science 27 (2): 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RJ (2011). Complexity, level of detail, and model performance. In: Robinson S, Brooks RJ, Kotiadis K and van der Zee D-J (eds). Conceptual Modeling for Discrete-Event Simulation, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, pp 31–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RJ and Robinson S (2001). Simulation, with Inventory Control. (author C. Lewis), Operational Research Series. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks RJ and Tobias AM (1996). Choosing the best model: Level of detail, complexity, and model performance. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 24 (4): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chwif L, Banks J, de Moura Filho JP and Santini B (2013). A framework for specifying a discrete-event simulation Conceptual model. Journal of Simulation 7 (1): 50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chwif L, Barretto MRP and Paul RJ (2000). On simulation model complexity. In: Joines JA, Barton RR, Kang K and Fishwick PA (eds). Proceedings of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey, pp 449–455.

  • Cochran JK, Mackulak GT and Savory PA (1995). Simulation project characteristics in industrial settings. Interfaces 25 (4): 104–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies I, Green P, Rosemann M, Indulska M and Gallo S (2006). How do practitioners use conceptual modelling in practice. Data and Knowledge Engineering 58 (3): 358–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gass SI (1987). Managing the modeling process: A personal reflection. European Journal of Operational Research 31 (1): 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guizzardi G and Wagner G (2012). Tutorial: Conceptual simulation modeling with Onto-UML. In: Laroque C, Himmelspach J, Pasupathy R, Rose O, and Uhrmacher AM (eds). Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey, pp 52–66.

  • Melao N and Pidd M (2003). Use of business simulation: A survey of practitioners. Journal of the Operational Research Society 54 (1): 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nance RE (1994). The conical methodology and the evolution of simulation model development. Annals of Operations Research 53 (1): 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien F (2011). Supporting the strategy process: A survey of UK OR/MS practitioners. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62 (5): 900–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pace DK (2000). Ideas about simulation conceptual model development. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest 21 (3): 327–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pace DK (2004). Modeling and simulation verification and validation challenges. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest 25 (2): 163–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pace DK (2011). Conceptual modeling evolution within US Defense communities: The view from the simulation interoperability workshop. In: Robinson S, Brooks RJ, Kotiadis K and van der Zee D-J (eds). Conceptual Modeling for Discrete-Event Simulation. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, pp 423–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidd M (1999). Just modeling through: A rough guide to modeling. Interfaces 29 (2): 118–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell SG and Willemain TR (2007). How novices formulate models. Part I: Qualitative insights and implications for teaching. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58 (8): 983–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritsker AAB (1986). Introduction to Simulation and Slam II. Systems Publishing Corporation: West Lafayette, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2002). Modes of simulation practice: Approaches to business and military simulation. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 10 (8): 513–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2006). Conceptual modeling for simulation: Issues and research requirements. In: Perrone LF, Wieland FP, Lawson BG, Nicol DM and Fujimoto RM (eds). Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey, pp 792–800.

  • Robinson S (2008). Conceptual modelling for simulation Part I: Definition and requirements. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59 (3): 278–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2010). Conceptual modelling: Who needs It? SCS M&S Magazine I(2), April, http://www.scs.org/magazines/2010-04/index_file/Files/Robinson.pdf, accessed 13 October 2013.

  • Robinson S (2012). Tutorial: Choosing what to model—Conceptual modeling for simulation. In: Laroque C, Himmelspach J, Pasupathy R, Rose O, and Uhrmacher AM (eds). Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey, pp 1909–1920.

  • Robinson S (2014). Simulation: The Practice of Model Development and Use. 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, Hampshire.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S, Brooks RJ, Kotiadis K and van der Zee D-J (2011). Conceptual Modeling for Discrete-Event Simulation. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salt JD (1993). Keynote address: Simulation should be easy and fun! In: Evans GW, Mollaghasemi M, Russell EC, and Biles WE (eds). Proceedings of the 1993 Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, Piscataway, New Jersey, pp 1–5.

  • Tilanus CB (1985). Failures and successes of quantitative methods in management. European Journal of Operational Research 19 (2): 170–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Zee D-J, Brooks RJ, Robinson S and Kotiadis K (2011). Conceptual modeling: Past, present and future. In: Robinson S, Brooks RJ, Kotiadis K and van der Zee D-J (eds). Conceptual Modeling for Discrete-Event Simulation. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, pp 473–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waisel LB, Wallace WA and Willemain TR (2008). Visualization and model formulation: An analysis of the sketches of expert modellers. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59 (3): 353–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang W and Brooks RJ (2007a). Improving the understanding of conceptual modelling. Journal of Simulation 1 (3): 153–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang W and Brooks RJ (2007b). Empirical investigations of conceptual modeling and the modeling process. In: Henderson SG, Biller B, Hsieh M-H, Shortle J, Tew JD and Barton RR (eds). Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE, pp 762–770.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wang W and Brooks RJ (2008). Conceptual modelling and the modelling process in simulation projects: A survey of simulation modellers. In: Kotiadis K, Currie C, Robinson S and Taylor S (eds). Proceedings of the 2008 OR Society Simulation Workshop, pp 107–115.

  • Ward SC (1989). Arguments for constructively simple models. Journal of the Operational Research Society 40 (2): 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willemain TR (1994). Insights on modeling from a dozen experts. Operations Research 42 (2): 213–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willemain TR (1995). Model formulation: What experts think about and when. Operations Research 43 (6): 916–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willemain TR and Powell SG (2007). How novices formulate models. Part II: A quantitative description of behaviour. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58 (10): 1271–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to all the questionnaire respondents for their assistance. Thanks also to the referees for their helpful comments. Some of the text and results in this paper were previously included in two conference papers: Wang and Brooks (2007b, 2008).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, UK

    Roger J Brooks & Wang Wang

Authors
  1. Roger J Brooks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roger J Brooks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brooks, R., Wang, W. Conceptual modelling and the project process in real simulation projects: a survey of simulation modellers. J Oper Res Soc 66, 1669–1685 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2014.128

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2014.128

Keywords

Search

Navigation