Conceptual modeling for simulation: issues and research requirements

ABSTRACT

It is generally recognized that conceptual modeling is one of the most vital parts of a simulation study. At the same time, it also seems to be one of the least understood. A review of the extant literature on conceptual modeling reveals a range of issues that need to be addressed: the definition of conceptual model(ling), conceptual model requirements, how to develop a conceptual model, conceptual model representation and communication, conceptual model validation, and teaching conceptual modeling. It is clear that this is an area ripe for further research, for the clarification of ideas and the development of new approaches. Some areas in which further research could be carried out are identified.

REFERENCES

• 1: Balci, O. 1994. Validation, Verification, and Testing Techniques Throughout the Life Cycle of a Simulation Study. Annals of Operations Research, 53, 121--173.
• 2: Osman Balci, A methodology for certification of modeling and simulation applications, ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS), v.11 n.4, p.352-377, October 2001 [doi>10.1145/508366.508369]
• 3: Balci, O. and R. E. Nance. 1985. Formulated Problem Verification as an Explicit Requirement of Model Credibility. Simulation, 45 (2), 76--86.
• 4: Brooks, R. J. and A. M. Tobias. 1996a. Choosing the Best Model: Level of Detail, Complexity and Model Performance. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 24 (4), 1--14, 1996a.
• 5: Brooks, R. J. and A. M. Tobias. 1996b. A Framework for Choosing the Best Model Structure in Mathematical and Computer Modelling. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference AI, Simulation, and Planning in High Autonomy Systems. University of Arizona, 53--60.
• 6: Checkland, P. B. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
• 7: Leonardo Chwif , Marcos Ribeiro Pereira Barretto , Ray J. Paul, On simulation model complexity, Proceedings of the 32nd conference on Winter simulation, December 10-13, 2000, Orlando, Florida
• 8: P. J. Courtois, On time and space decomposition of complex structures, Communications of the ACM, v.28 n.6, p.590-603, June 1985 [doi>10.1145/3812.3814]
• 9: Davies, R., P. Roderick and J. Raftery. 2003. The Evaluation of Disease Prevention and Treatment using Simulation Models. European Journal of Operational Research, 150, 53--66.
• 10: Evans, J. R. 1992. Creativity in MS/OR: Improving Problem Solving through Creative Thinking. Interfaces, 22 (2), 87--91.
• 11: Pat Ferguson , Watts S. Humphrey , Soheil Khajenoori , Susan Macke , Annette Matvya, Results of Applying the Personal Software Process, Computer, v.30 n.5, p.24-31, May 1997 [doi>10.1109/2.589907]
• 12: Paul A. Fishwick, Simulation Model Design and Execution: Building Digital Worlds, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1995
• 13: Gass, S. I. and L. S. Joel. 1981. Concepts of Model Confidence. Computers and Operations Research, 8 (4), 341--346.
• 14: Ashu Guru , Paul Savory, A template-based conceptual modeling infrastructure for simulation of physical security systems, Proceedings of the 36th conference on Winter simulation, December 05-08, 2004, Washington, D.C.
• 15: Haddix, F. 2001. Conceptual Modeling Revisited: A Developmental Model Approach for Modeling and Simulation. Proceedings of the 2001 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop. <www.sisostds.org> {Accessed March 2006}.
• 16: James O. Henriksen, On system, several perspectives, many models, Proceedings of the 20th conference on Winter simulation, p.352-356, December 12-14, 1988, San Diego, California, United States [doi>10.1145/318123.318213]
• 17: J. O. Henriksen, Alternative modeling perspectives: finding the creative spark, Proceedings of the 21st conference on Winter simulation, p.648-652, December 04-06, 1989, Washington, D.C., United States [doi>10.1145/76738.76821]
• 18: Hills, P. R. 1971. HOCUS. P-E Group, Egham, Surrey, UK. Innis, G. and E. Rexstad. 1983. Simulation Model Simplification Techniques. Simulation, 41 (1), 7--15.
• 19: Kotiadis, K. 2006. Extracting a Conceptual Model for a Complex Integrated System in Healthcare. Proceedings of the Third Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop (SW06). The Operational Research Society, Birmingham, UK, 235--245.
• 20: Lacy, L. W., W. Randolph, B. Harris, S. Youngblood, J. Sheehan, R. Might and M. Metz. 2001. Developing a Consensus Perspective on Conceptual Models for Simulation Systems. Proceedings of the 2001 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop. <www.sisostds.org> {Accessed March 2006}.
• 21: Law, A. M. 1991. Simulation Model's Level of Detail Determines Effectiveness. Industrial Engineering, 23 (10), 16--18.
• 22: Averill M. Law , David M. Kelton, Simulation Modeling and Analysis, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 1999
• 23: Morris, W. T. 1967. On the Art of Modeling. Management Science, 13 (12), B707--717.
• 24: Nance, R. E. 1994. The Conical Methodology and the Evolution of Simulation Model Development. Annals of Operations Research, 53, 1--45.
• 25: Nance, R. E. and Arthur, J. D. 2006. Software Requirements Engineering: Exploring the Role in Simulation Model Development. Proceedings of the Third Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop (SW06). The Operational Research Society, Birmingham, UK, 117--127.
• 26: Nydick, R. L., M. J. Liberatore and Q. B. Chung. 2002. Modeling by Elaboration: An Application To Visual Process Simulation. INFOR, 40 (4), 347--361.
• 27: Pace, D. K. 1999a. Development and Documentation of a Simulation Conceptual Model. Proceedings of the 1999 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop. <www.sisostds.org> {Accessed March 2006}.
• 28: Pace, D. K. 1999b. Use of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in Simulation Evaluation. Proceedings of the 1999 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop. <www.sisostds.org> {Accessed March 2006}.
• 29: Pace D. K. 2000. Simulation Conceptual Model Development. Proceedings of the 2000 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop. <www.sisostds.org> {Accessed March 2006}.
• 30: Richard E. White , John N. Pearson , Jeffrey R. Wilson , Michael Pidd, Just Modeling Through: a Rough Guide to Modeling, Interfaces, v.29 n.2, p.118-138, February 1999 [doi>10.1287/inte.29.2.118]
• 31: Pidd, M. 2003. Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science, 2nd ed. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
• 32: Michael Pidd, Computer Simulation in Management Science, John Wiley & Sons, 2004
• 33: Pooley, R. J. 1991. Towards a Standard for Hierarchical Process Oriented Discrete Event Diagrams. Transactions of the Society for Computer Simulation, 8 (1), 1--41.
• 34: Powell, S. G. 1995. Six Key Modeling Heuristics. Interfaces, 25 (4), 114--125.
• 35: A. Alan B. Pritsker, Model evolution: a rotary index table case history, Proceedings of the 18th conference on Winter simulation, p.703-707, December 08-10, 1986, Washington, D.C., United States [doi>10.1145/318242.318512]
• 36: Pritsker, A. A. B. 1998. Principles of Simulation Modeling. Handbook of Simulation (Banks, J., ed.). Wiley, New York, 31--51.
• 37: Robinson, S. 1994. Simulation Projects: Building the Right Conceptual Model. Industrial Engineering, 26 (9), 34--36.
• 38: Robinson, S. 2002. Modes of Simulation Practice: Approaches to Business and Military Simulation. Simulation Practice and Theory, 10, 513--523.
• 39: Stewart Robinson, Simulation: The Practice of Model Development and Use, John Wiley & Sons, 2004
• 40: Stewart Robinson, Distributed Simulation and Simulation Practice, Simulation, v.81 n.1, p.5-13, January 2005 [doi>10.1177/0037549705052327]
• 41: Robinson, S. and M. Pidd. 1998. Provider and Customer Expectations of Successful Simulation Projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49 (3), 200--209.
• 42: Rosenhead, J. and J. Mingers. 2001. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited, 2nd ed. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
• 43: Ryan, J. and Heavey, C. 2006. Requirements Gathering for Simulation. Proceedings of the Third Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop (SW06). The Operational Research Society, Birmingham, UK, 175--184.
• 44: John D. Salt, Simulation should be easy and fun!, Proceedings of the 25th conference on Winter simulation, p.1-5, December 12-15, 1993, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/256563.256567]
• 45: Robert G. Sargent, Validation and verification of simulation models, Proceedings of the 36th conference on Winter simulation, December 05-08, 2004, Washington, D.C.
• 46: Bruce W. Schmeiser, Output interpretation: some myths and common errors in simulation experiments, Proceedings of the 33nd conference on Winter simulation, December 09-12, 2001, Arlington, Virginia
• 47: Lee Schruben , Enver Yücesan, Complexity of simulation models: a graph theoretic approach, Proceedings of the 25th conference on Winter simulation, p.641-649, December 12-15, 1993, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/256563.256801]
• 48: Sevinc, S. 1990. Automation of Simplification in Discrete Event Modeling and Simulation. International Journal of General Systems, 18, 125--142.
• 49: Shannon, R. E. 1975. Systems Simulation: The Art and Science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
• 50: John Sterman, Business Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 2000
• 51: Teeuw, W. B. and H. van den Berg. 1997. On the Quality of Conceptual Models. Proceedings of the ER'97 Workshop on Behavioral Models and Design Transformations: Issues and Opportunities in Conceptual Modeling (S. W. Liddle, ed.). <osm7.cs.byu.edu/ER97/workshop4/> {Accessed March 2006}.
• 52: van der Zee, D. J. 2006. Building Communicative Models - A Job Oriented Approach to Manufacturing Simulation. Proceedings of the Third Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop (SW06). The Operational Research Society, Birmingham, UK, 185--194.
• 53: van der Zee, D. J. and G. A. J. van der Vorst. 2005. A Modeling Framework for Supply Chain Simulation: Opportunities for Improved Decision Making. Decision Sciences, 36 (1), 65--95.
• 54: Wang, W. and Brooks, R. J. 2006. Improving the Understanding of Conceptual Modelling. Proceedings of the Third Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop (SW06). The Operational Research Society, Birmingham, UK, 227--234.
• 55: Ward, S. C. 1989. Arguments for Constructively Simple Models. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 40 (2), 141--153.
• 56: Willemain, T. R. 1994. Insights on Modeling from a Dozen Experts. Operations Research, 42 (2), 213--222.
• 57: Yin, H. Y. and Z. N. Zhou. 1989. Simplification Techniques of Simulation Models. Proceedings of Beijing International Conference on System Simulation and Scientific Computing, 782--786.
• 58: Bernard P. Zeigler, Theory of Modelling and Simulation, Krieger Publishing Co., Inc., Melbourne, FL, 1984