|
|
Deborah A. Sadowski ,Mark R. Grabau& R5 v. D8 Y: L" F6 h% g
There's a common misconception that performing a simulation study involves a sequence of steps (e.g., project definition, model formulation, verification, validation, analysis). To the contrary, all elements of a simulation project should be performed repeatedly throughout the effort, " I" R! j9 s4 @" e3 w, \2 y, C# _# `
growing in scope as the model progresses.
7 i" k0 }) s# O* U d& Q7 p4 Y+ o& \5 }In the traditional view, projects suffer from too strong a focus on the model (and perhaps the animation), so that after the inevitable delays and problems, there's no time left to run scenarios. Instead, the analyst is faced with a presentation deadline that's firm and little time to experi-* g, T( q: m% ?1 A; m. q- s1 O
ment, analyze, or think. 6 j! C! u3 {' v9 b) l% i# b
Instead, you should schedule the project in complete phases. Intermediate milestones, spaced no more than about two weeks apart in a medium to large project, should include specific goals for the model, animation, data, and analysis. By the time you reach the last 25% of your time on the project, you should have addressed the basic analysis issues of run length, warm-up time, etc. and should already have performed preliminary analysis on the model for a number of different scenarios. |
|