Skip to main content

Comparing Discrete-Event Simulation and System Dynamics: Users’ Perceptions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover System Dynamics

Part of the book series: OR Essentials ((ORESS))

Abstract

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.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Akkermans HA (1995). Modelling with managers. Participative business modelling for effective strategic decision-making. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bard JF (1978). The use of simulation in criminal justice policy evaluation. J Crim Justice 6(2): 99–116.

    Article  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 

  • Cox GB, Harrison P and Dightman CR (1978). Computer simulation of adult sentencing proposals. Eval Program Plann 1(4): 297–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle RG (1985). Representing discrete events in system dynamics models: A theoretical application to modelling coal production. J Opl Res Soc 36(4): 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher NI (1983). Graphical methods in nonparametric statistics: A review and annotated bibliography Int Stat Rev 51: 25–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester JW (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove P, MacLeod J and Godfrey D (1998). Forecasting the prison population. OR Insight 11(1): 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korporaal R, Ridder A, Kloprogge P and Dekker R (2000). An analytic model for capacity planning of prisons in the Netherlands. J Opl Res Soc 51(11): 1228–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwak NK, Kuzdrall PJ and Schniederjans MJ (1984). Felony case scheduling policies and continuances—a simulation study. Socioecon Plann Sci 18(1): 37–43.

    Article  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 (2001). Soft with a hard centre: Discrete-event simulation in facilitation. J Opl Res Soc 52(8): 905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson S (2002). Modes of simulation practice: approaches to business and military simulation. Sim Mod Practice and Theory 10(8): 513–523.

    Article  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.

  • Robinson S, Meadows M, Mingers J, O’Brien FA, Shale EA and Stray S (2003). Teaching OR/MS to MBAs at Warwick Business School: A turnaround story. Interfaces 33(2): 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tako, A.A., Robinson, S. (2018). Comparing Discrete-Event Simulation and System Dynamics: Users’ Perceptions. In: Kunc, M. (eds) System Dynamics. OR Essentials. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95257-1_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics