Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
SIMULATION
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hooper, J. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Other

Strategy-related characteristics of discrete-event languages and models

James W. Hooper

Computer Science Department The University of Alabama in Huntsville Huntsville, Alabama 35899

In regard to available features, discrete-event simulation languages differ in many respects. There is, however, one aspect of a simula tion language that transcends all others in significance - namely, the strategy (or strategies) employed for "next event" selection. Strategy determines how a modeler must view a system which is to be modeled (i.e., determines the "world view"). The three generally recognized strategies are event scheduling, activity scan ning, and process interaction. Modern simulation languages may include combinations of these strategies.

Analyses of the three strategies have been made, including the development of algorithms for each of the three strategies, and the use of the algorithms for in-depth comparisons of the char acteristics of languages employing each strategy. Models using different strategies have been compared relative to their develop ment characteristics and performance characteristics. Journal and conference Proceedings' articles spanning many years have been reviewed to obtain observations of simulation experts concern ing the impact of strategy on simulation languages and models.

It is hoped that the perspective of strategies afforded by this discussion can lead to better-informed choices and more effec tive use of modeling tools and methods.

Key Words: activity scanning • discrete-event simulation languages • event scheduling • process interaction • simulation methodologies • world view

SIMULATION, Vol. 46, No. 4, 153-159 (1986)
DOI: 10.1177/003754978604600403
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
R. W. Klein, R. S. Dittus, S. D. Roberts, and J. R. Wilson
Simulation Modeling and Health-care Decision Making
Med Decis Making, December 1, 1993; 13(4): 347 - 354.
[PDF]

Home page
 SIMULATIONHome page
R. M. O'Keefe
The three-phase approach: A comment on "strategy-related characteristics of discrete-event languages and models"
SIMULATION, November 1, 1986; 47(5): 208 - 210.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 SIMULATIONHome page
J. W. Hooper
Activity scanning and the three-phase approach
SIMULATION, November 1, 1986; 47(5): 210 - 211.
[Abstract] [PDF]