The specific case for "simulation" conceptual modelling

The task today is to incorporate into the text some comments on what makes "simulation" conceptual modelling unique (to study in this way) and to differentiate it from other types of CM?

Q. This was addressed in the thesis (as a result of a minor correction). How might this learning be transferred in this context?

This was addressed in the 'delimitations of scope' and in great detail in the 'scope and selection of contributions in the lit review' (section 2.1, pg. 27-8).

1. The section includes an description of a general definition for CM
2. different areas in which the term CM is used
3. notes three notable differences that make it unique

These three differences include:

• domain to be represented
• scope and level of abstraction
• process to be followed to create a conceptual model

Q. Where can this discussion be incorporated?


It is either:

1. Incorporate into the introduction
2. A new section

Likely to be 2.



Q. What exact changes should be made?



Q. Will PA approve of the changes to be made?




dIFFERENT TYPES OF cm;

LOGICAL MODELS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_model

Deductive-nomological model 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive-nomological_model




Notes from the reviewers:

How is “simulation” conceptual modeling different than other types of conceptual modeling? Can this same proposed 7-phase method be applied to any other conceptual modeling? Why or why not?

How is the proposed conceptual modeling procedure different than conceptual mapping, logical modeling, nomological modeling, scientific modeling, and other types of conceptual modeling procedures that the academics currently follow? I think this is vital part that is missing from this manuscript. Unless the author can do a great job convincing reviewers that this is a new and unique procedure that is needed by the supply chain academics, the motivation to publish this study is simply not there.

Putting Humpty back together again

The previous meeting with Pavel led to an action to put the tables back into the paper, Pavel to read it and respond to the reviewer 3 comments.

We need to work smart on each of the papers.

The questions for Pavel to address while reading the paper include:

Q1. Contribution: What is the contribution of this paper beyond Robinson’s work? Is it just the SCM application? If it is, then I would re-position the paper and focus on that with some new SCM ideas.


! A procedure is proposed that combines domain-knowledge in the form of SCOR with general concepts and addresses the requirements for developing conceptual modelling approaches. Not only is there limited guidance, no complete review of this guidance and how it can be synthesised into a new methodology has yet to be studied. 










Q2. Is the methodology unique? Can he be improved?






Other discussion points:


A. Can this same proposed 7-phase method be applied to any other conceptual modeling? Why or why not?








B. The flow of the paper seems disjointed and hard for the reader to follow. Can this be amended PA?

Purpose and contribution (for comment)

I think I tried to include the entire PhD in this paper. The aim is to present a synthesis of the ideas considered for each design issue discussed in the paper. These ideas are presented as the key concepts for incorporation into the methodology. How about a purpose that focuses on the key concepts?

This paper presents and justifies ten key concepts to be incorporated into a methodological procedure that incorporates general guidance on conceptual modelling and embeds the utility of the domain-specific knowledge offered in the SCOR model.  An outline of a seven phase procedure for SCM applications is outlined and the implications to develop the steps that will aid a user in creating a domain-specific conceptual model are proposed. [MW1]  

NOT: Here is a procedure which has not been validated = development cases required

Should the paper title be:

“Conceptual modelling for SCM Applications: Key concepts and requirements”

NOT: A Procedure …. As this implies that is fully formed and has been validated with applications. We are presenting here the outline design work.

Not there yet but is the contribution more about the synthesis of the ideas for the ten key concepts:

Ten key concepts synthesised from a set of ideas that were identified for each design issue that addresses the requirements for conceptual modelling of SCM applications.

Please revise / let me know your thoughts.

I will be back from Cambridge around 2PM if you have time to go through these things.

BTW, just making some very minor changes as helped me get my head around making the paper clearer. We can do this, but we must avoid “where are the case applications” argument as this would create a dead end for this contribution.

---

 The purpose of this paper is to synthesis the guidance available in the simulation literature with the utility of a domain specific process reference model in the form SCOR to be incorporated into a set of key concepts so to deduce a new set of phases

The purpose of this paper is to identify a set of phases to be included in a comprehensive procedure that embeds the utility of a process reference model in the form of SCOR that incorporates

The purposes of the paper is to propose a framework for a simulation CM procedure that

This paper presents ten key concepts to incorporate into a domain specific conceptual modelling procedure that incorporates existing guidance and embeds the utility of SCOR.  An outline of a seven phase procedure is outlined and implications for further res

and refine the steps and associated

of a comprehensive approach

Implications  and proposes implications for the development of methods and tools to incorporate in a comprehensive methodology that can be used