Journal of Simulation

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 40–49 | Cite as

Towards a unified conceptual model representation: a case study in healthcare

Article

Abstract

One of the critical success factors in a simulation project is good communication between different stakeholders in the project, especially in the early stages. Good documentation or representation is essential for communicating conceptual models between stakeholders effectively. Despite the lack of a single accepted definition for a conceptual model, most definitions agree that a conceptual model contains a set of components, each of which specifies different aspects of a conceptual model. This paper advocates the use of a standard multi-faceted representation of conceptual models. A number of diagrams are proposed to represent each of the conceptual model components. Our intention is to initiate discussion and the development of a standard multi-faceted conceptual model representation that will benefit stakeholders involved in a simulation project. A case study in healthcare is used to show how the proposed unified conceptual modelling representation can be applied in practice.

Keywords

conceptual model conceptual model representation healthcare business process diagram activity cycle diagram diagram 

References

  1. Araujo WLF and Hirata CM (2004). Translating activity cycle diagrams to java simulation programs. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Simulation Symposium. IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, pp 157–164.Google Scholar
  2. Banks J, Carson JS, Nelson BL and Nicol DM (2005). Discrete-Event System Simulation, 4th edn. Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  3. Brailsford SC, Lattimer VA, Tarnaras P and Turnbull JC (2004). Emergency and on-demand health care: Modelling a large complex system. J Opl Res Soc 55: 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clemen RT and Reilly T (2005). Making Hard Decisions with DecisionTools®, 2nd edn. Duxbury, Thomson Learning: Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Forrester J (1961). Industrial Dynamics. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. Gunal MM and Pidd M (2006). Understanding accident and emergency department performance using simulation. In: Perrone LF, Wieland FP, Liu J, Lawson BG, Nicol DM and Fujimoto RM (eds). Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE Computer Society Press: Piscataway, NJ, pp 446–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hills PR (1971). HOCUS. P-E Group: Egham, Surrey, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Holloway CA (1979). Decision Making under Uncertainty: Models and Choices. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  9. Howard RA and Matheson JE (1984). Influence diagram. In: Howard RA and Matheson JE (eds). The Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis Vol. II. Strategic Decisions Group: Palo Alto, CA, pp 719–762.Google Scholar
  10. Keeney RL (1992). Value-Focused Thinking. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  11. Kotiadis K (2007). Using soft systems methodology to determine the simulation study objectives. J Simul 1 (3): 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nance RE (1994). The conical methodology and the evolution of simulation model development. Ann Opns Res 53: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pace DK (2000). Ideas about simulation conceptual model development. J Hopkins APL Tech Dig 21 (3): 327–336.Google Scholar
  14. Pidd M (2004). Comput Simulat Mngt Sci, 5th edn. John Willey and Sons: Chichester, England.Google Scholar
  15. Pidd M and Carvalho A (2006). Simulation software: Not the same yesterday, today or forever. J Simulat 1 (1): 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pooley RJ (1991). Towards a standard for hierarchical process oriented discrete event simulation diagrams. Trans Soc Comput Simulat 8 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
  17. Richter H and Marz L (2000). Towards a standard process: The use of UML for designing simulation models. In: Joines JA, Barton RR, Kang K and Fishwick PA (eds). Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, pp 394–398.Google Scholar
  18. Robinson S (2004). Simulation: The Practice of Model Development and Use. Wiley: Chichester, UK.Google Scholar
  19. Robinson S (2006). Conceptual modelling for simulation: Issues and research requirements. In: Perrone LF, Wieland FP, Liu J, Lawson BG, Nicol DM and Fujimoto RM (eds). Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE Computer Society Press: Piscataway, NJ, pp 792–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Robinson S (2008a). Conceptual modelling for simulation Part I: Definition and requirements. J Opl Res Soc 59 (3): 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Robinson S (2008b). Conceptual modelling for simulation Part II: A framework for conceptual modelling. J Opl Res Soc 59 (3): 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Robinson S and Pidd M (1998). Provider and customer expectations of successful simulation projects. J Opl Res Soc 49 (3): 200–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ryan J and Heavey C (2006). Requirements gathering for simulation. In: Robinson S, Taylor S, Brailsford S and Garnett J (eds). Proceedings of the 3rd Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop. The Operational Research Society: Birmingham, UK, pp 175–184.Google Scholar
  24. Schruben L (1983). Simulation modeling with event graphs. Commun ACM 26 (11): 957–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sterman JD (2004). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  26. Wang W and Brooks R (2007). 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 Computer Society Press: Piscataway, NJ, pp 762–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Der Zee D-J (2006). Building communicative models—a job oriented approach to manufacturing simulation. In: Robinson S, Taylor S, Brailsford S and Garnett J (eds). Proceedings of the 3rd Operational Research Society Simulation Workshop. The Operational Research Society: Birmingham, UK, pp 185–194.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lancaster University Management SchoolLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations