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.