IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v235y2014i1p195-205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Learning from discrete-event simulation: Exploring the high involvement hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • Monks, Thomas
  • Robinson, Stewart
  • Kotiadis, Kathy

Abstract

Discussion of learning from discrete-event simulation often takes the form of a hypothesis stating that involving clients in model building provides much of the learning necessary to aid their decisions. Whilst practitioners of simulation may intuitively agree with this hypothesis they are simultaneously motivated to reduce the model building effort through model reuse. As simulation projects are typically limited by time, model reuse offers an alternative learning route for clients as the time saved can be used to conduct more experimentation. We detail a laboratory experiment to test the high involvement hypothesis empirically, identify mechanisms that explain how involvement in model building or model reuse affect learning and explore the factors that inhibit learning from models. Measurement of learning focuses on the management of resource utilisation in a case study of a hospital emergency department and through the choice of scenarios during experimentation. Participants who reused a model benefitted from the increased experimentation time available when learning about resource utilisation. However, participants who were involved in model building simulated a greater variety of scenarios including more validation type scenarios early on. These results suggest that there may be a learning trade-off between model reuse and model building when simulation projects have a fixed budget of time. Further work evaluating client learning in practice should track the origin and choice of variables used in experimentation; studies should also record the methods modellers find most effective in communicating the impact of resource utilisation on queuing.

Suggested Citation

  • Monks, Thomas & Robinson, Stewart & Kotiadis, Kathy, 2014. "Learning from discrete-event simulation: Exploring the high involvement hypothesis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 195-205.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:235:y:2014:i:1:p:195-205
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.10.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221713008047
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.10.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Langley, Paul A. & Morecroft, John D. W., 2004. "Performance and learning in a simulation of oil industry dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(3), pages 715-732, June.
    2. Elena Katok & Diana Yan Wu, 2009. "Contracting in Supply Chains: A Laboratory Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(12), pages 1953-1968, December.
    3. Robinson, Stewart & Radnor, Zoe J. & Burgess, Nicola & Worthington, Claire, 2012. "SimLean: Utilising simulation in the implementation of lean in healthcare," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 188-197.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. J Bowers & M Ghattas & G Mould, 2012. "Exploring alternative routes to realising the benefits of simulation in healthcare," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 63(10), pages 1457-1466, October.
    6. Peter C. Bell & Robert M. O'Keefe, 1995. "An Experimental Investigation into the Efficacy of Visual Interactive Simulation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(6), pages 1018-1038, June.
    7. Thomke, Stefan H., 1998. "Simulation, learning and R&D performance: Evidence from automotive development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 55-74, May.
    8. D F Andersen & J A M Vennix & G P Richardson & E A J A Rouwette, 2007. "Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 691-694, May.
    9. Yaniv, Ilan, 2004. "Receiving other people's advice: Influence and benefit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 1-13, January.
    10. Tako, Antuela A. & Robinson, Stewart, 2010. "Model development in discrete-event simulation and system dynamics: An empirical study of expert modellers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 784-794, December.
    11. Franco, L. Alberto & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2010. "Facilitated modelling in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 489-500, September.
    12. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    13. Mark Paich & John D. Sterman, 1993. "Boom, Bust, and Failures to Learn in Experimental Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(12), pages 1439-1458, December.
    14. Xuanming Su, 2008. "Bounded Rationality in Newsvendor Models," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 566-589, May.
    15. Adrian Fletcher & Dave Worthington, 2009. "What is a ‘generic’ hospital model?—a comparison of ‘generic’ and ‘specific’ hospital models of emergency patient flows," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 374-391, December.
    16. Christoph H. Loch & Yaozhong Wu, 2008. "Social Preferences and Supply Chain Performance: An Experimental Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1835-1849, November.
    17. A Fletcher & D Halsall & S Huxham & D Worthington, 2007. "The DH Accident and Emergency Department model: a national generic model used locally," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(12), pages 1554-1562, December.
    18. Basak Kalkanci & Kay-Yut Chen & Feryal Erhun, 2011. "Contract Complexity and Performance Under Asymmetric Demand Information: An Experimental Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(4), pages 689-704, April.
    19. Sterman, John D., 1989. "Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 301-335, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gogi, Anastasia & Tako, Antuela A. & Robinson, Stewart, 2016. "An experimental investigation into the role of simulation models in generating insights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 931-944.
    2. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    3. O'Keefe, Robert M., 2016. "Experimental behavioural research in operational research: What we know and what we might come to know," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 899-907.
    4. Kotiadis, K. & Tako, A.A., 2018. "Facilitated post-model coding in discrete event simulation (DES): A case study in healthcare," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(3), pages 1120-1133.
    5. Harper, Alison & Mustafee, Navonil & Yearworth, Mike, 2021. "Facets of trust in simulation studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 197-213.
    6. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    7. Robinson, Stewart & Kotiadis, Kathy, 2016. "Can involving clients in simulation studies help them solve their future problems? A transfer of learning experimentAuthor-Name: Monks, Thomas," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 919-930.
    8. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Returning to the roots of the OR profession," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 791-795.
    9. Aubert, Alice H. & Esculier, Fabien & Lienert, Judit, 2020. "Recommendations for online elicitation of swing weights from citizens in environmental decision-making," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gogi, Anastasia & Tako, Antuela A. & Robinson, Stewart, 2016. "An experimental investigation into the role of simulation models in generating insights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 931-944.
    2. Lane, David C. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A., 2023. "Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 777-794.
    3. Robinson, Stewart & Kotiadis, Kathy, 2016. "Can involving clients in simulation studies help them solve their future problems? A transfer of learning experimentAuthor-Name: Monks, Thomas," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 919-930.
    4. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    5. Tony Haitao Cui & Guangwen Kong & Behrooz Pourghannad, 2020. "Is Simplicity the Ultimate Sophistication? The Superiority of Linear Pricing," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(7), pages 1767-1788, July.
    6. Thompson, James P. & Howick, Susan & Belton, Valerie, 2016. "Critical Learning Incidents in system dynamics modelling engagements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 945-958.
    7. Özalp Özer & Yanchong Zheng & Yufei Ren, 2014. "Trust, Trustworthiness, and Information Sharing in Supply Chains Bridging China and the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(10), pages 2435-2460, October.
    8. Haresh Gurnani & Karthik Ramachandran & Saibal Ray & Yusen Xia, 2014. "Ordering Behavior Under Supply Risk:An Experimental Investigation," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 61-75, February.
    9. Yufei Ren & Rachel Croson, 2013. "Overconfidence in Newsvendor Orders: An Experimental Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(11), pages 2502-2517, November.
    10. Harper, Alison & Mustafee, Navonil & Yearworth, Mike, 2021. "Facets of trust in simulation studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 197-213.
    11. Yinghao Zhang & Karen Donohue & Tony Haitao Cui, 2016. "Contract Preferences and Performance for the Loss-Averse Supplier: Buyback vs. Revenue Sharing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1734-1754, June.
    12. Becker-Peth, Michael & Thonemann, Ulrich W., 2016. "Reference points in revenue sharing contracts—How to design optimal supply chain contracts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1033-1049.
    13. Li Chen & A. Gürhan Kök & Jordan D. Tong, 2013. "The Effect of Payment Schemes on Inventory Decisions: The Role of Mental Accounting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 436-451, September.
    14. Robinson, Stewart & Worthington, Claire & Burgess, Nicola & Radnor, Zoe J., 2014. "Facilitated modelling with discrete-event simulation: Reality or myth?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 231-240.
    15. Stewart Robinson & Stavrianna Dimitriou & Kathy Kotiadis, 2017. "Addressing the sample size problem in behavioural operational research: simulating the newsvendor problem," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(3), pages 253-268, March.
    16. Scott, Rodney J & Cavana, Robert Y & Cameron, Donald, 2016. "Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 908-918.
    17. Shan Li & Kay-Yut Chen & Ying Rong, 2020. "The Behavioral Promise and Pitfalls in Compensating Store Managers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4899-4919, October.
    18. Karen Donohue & Özalp Özer, 2020. "Behavioral Operations: Past, Present, and Future," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 191-202, January.
    19. Roemer, Nils & Müller, Sven & Voigt, Guido, 2023. "A choice-based optimization approach for contracting in supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(1), pages 271-286.
    20. Gärling, Tommy & Eek, Daniel & Loukopoulos, Peter & Fujii, Satoshi & Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Kitamura, Ryuichi & Pendyala, Ram & Vilhelmson, Bertil, 2002. "A conceptual analysis of the impact of travel demand management on private car use," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 59-70, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:235:y:2014:i:1:p:195-205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.