Development of System Typology and Choice of Preferred Simulation Modelling Methods for DSS-Toolkit

Development of System Typology and Choice of Preferred Simulation Modelling Methods for DSS-Toolkit

Oleg Nikolaevich Dmitriev
Copyright: © 2022 |Pages: 25
DOI: 10.4018/IJDSST.286679
Article PDF Download
Open access articles are freely available for download

Abstract

This paper formulated a position on the feasibility of developing and applying a highly developed simulation models of complex object within scope of justifying of managerial decisions. It selected a set of classification factors that determine the performance of a typology of simulation methods. The article reveals the content of the applicable methods of simulation in relation to the procedure of organization of promotion in the model time. The existence of the problem of forming of the simulation method and its principal conceptual solvability by preparation and implementation of research optimization (analysis and/or synthesis of this method) is shown. An innovative extension of the set of these methods is introduced. The considerations concerning the preferred method for application for a certain category of object of modellings, the method of key model events, are formulated. The problem of synthesis of a method of combination of group of methods of simulation is allocated.
Article Preview
Top

1. Introduction

When performing a feasibility study of management decisions regarding objects of the type of complex or “huge” systems (that is, when implementing DSS-systems of information-reference and information-managing types), it is obligatory to construct and use mathematical models of managed objects, which quite often have the character of simulation models. Thus, managed objects become objects of simulation modelling.

It is axiomatic that all simulation models have a conceptual basis in the form of one or another simulation method.

The use of simulation apparatus is in many cases either preferable or non-alternative, primarily due to the higher level of adequacy of models of this type. In addition, they are often more open than, for example, analytical models. However, simulation models are much more resource-intensive. Therefore, one of the cardinal problems in simulation modelling is ensuring openness and reducing the reaction time of computational experiments. However, simulation models are very resource-intensive in all basic aspects (in terms of the duration of computer experiments, in volume, accuracy and price of primary data used, in personnel qualifications, etc.), and these resource-intensiveness significantly depend on the applied simulation method. Resource is the intensiveness of simulation experiments is one of the key factors in the field of various types of conflict situations, including in the application to the planning of marketing operations. This difference, for example, in the duration of computer experiments, persists even with the use of so-called supercomputers.

It is quite obvious that when conducting an applied research, for example, of the regulation of traffic by a traffic light at an intersection in a megalopolis, the difference in the duration of simulation experiments in units of seconds is obviously insignificant: see, for example, Alvaro et.al., 2019.

But, in contrast, for example, in the preparation of managing decisions regarding the divergence of an aircraft in real time, increments of the delay in units of seconds in the presentation of alternatives to the operator will already be critical.

Thus, the applied simulation method has very significant effect on:

  • -

    the feasibility of the simulation model;

  • -

    the adequacy of the simulation model first of all in terms of its accuracy;

  • -

    the resource intensity of creating and applying of the simulation models (including the duration of the simulation experiments);

  • -

    the openness of the model;

  • -

    the modifiability of the model;

  • -

    the connectability (conjugability) of the model.

These properties, in turn, significantly affect the final performance of management, including its financial and economic efficiency – see, for example, Dmitriev, 2020a; Dmitriev, 2020b.

Of course, the formulated arguments are valid only if the models are correctly interpreted as truly simulation ones.

The interpretation of simulation modeling formed by the author as regarded by him as correct, in particular, is presented in Koval'kov, Dmitriev,1994; Dmitriev, 1995; Dmitriev, 2002a.

Unfortunately, the presentation of simulation methods, especially systemic, is not widespread. Moreover, the problem of studying their multiplicity, alternativeness and comparability, as a rule, is not considered. As a result, catastrophic errors, difficulties and loss of resources at the stages of creation and use of simulation modelling tools are generated.

Since any mathematical model of the managed object is used in the implementation of several, typical management functions, the problems of deviations according to the results of simulation experiments can increase cumulatively and, accordingly, synergistic effects of the appearance and exacerbation of errors are very likely to occur: see, for example, Dmitriev, 2002b.

Therefore, the introduction of a system typology of the conceptual variety of simulation modelling methods and the ranking procedure for their preference seems to be a productive, creative measure, an exhaustive solution for which has not been identified in accessible sources.

The creation of a simulation model of an object proceeds according to the generally established canons among developers as follows:

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 16: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 15: 2 Issues (2023)
Volume 14: 4 Issues (2022): 1 Released, 3 Forthcoming
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2009)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing