Comparing Discrete-Event Simulation and System Dynamics: Users’ Perceptions
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.
KeywordsSimulation Discrete-event simulation System dynamics Model use
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Akkermans HA (1995). Modelling with managers. Participative business modelling for effective strategic decision-making. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
- Brailsford S and Hilton N (2001). A comparison of discrete event simulation and system dynamics for modelling healthcare systems. In: J Riley (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. Cambridge; Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
- Forrester JW (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.Google Scholar
- Law AM (2007). Simulation Modeling and Analysis. 4th ed. Boston and London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Mak H-Y (1993). System dynamics and discrete event simulation modelling. PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
- Morecroft JDW and Robinson S (2005). Explaining puzzling dynamics: comparing the use of system dynamics and discrete- event simulation. In: JD Sterman, MP Repenning, RS Langer, JI Rowe, JM Yarni (eds). Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Boston, MA: System Dynamics Society.Google Scholar
- Morecroft JDW and Sterman J (eds) (1994). Modeling for Learning Organizations. System Dynamics Series. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
- Pidd M (2004). Computer Simulation in Management Science. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Randers J (1980). Elements of the System Dynamics Method. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Robinson S (2004). Simulation: The Practice of Model Development and Use. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Robinson S (2008). Conceptual modeling for simulation Part 1: Definition and requirements. J Opl Res Soc, online publication 24 January 2007, doi: https:// doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602368.
- 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. Boston; London: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Sweetser A (1999). A Comparison of System Dynamics and Discrete Event Simulation. In: RY Cavana, JAM Vennix, EAJA Rouwette, M Stevenson-Wright and J Candlish (eds). Proceedings of 17th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society and 5th Australian & New Zealand Systems Conference. Wellington, New Zealand: System Dynamics Society.Google Scholar
- Vennix JAM (1996). Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
- Wilk MB and Gnanadesikan R (1968). Probability plotting methods for the analysis of data. Biometrika 55(1): 1–17.Google Scholar