Based on a book chapter by Rosemarie Sadsad based on her PhD Thesis. See also other Insights tagged Multiscale and Realist ( IM-3546 and IM-3834 are embedded here)
Clone of IM-806 modified to integrate AnyLogic Real world, Model World with Van de Ven Engaged Scholarship and Land Use Modelling approaches. See also Complex Decision Technologies IM
This simulation allows you to compare different approaches to influence flow, the Flow Times and the throughput of a work process. The simulation is described in the blog post "Starting late - The Superior Scheduling Approach - How, despite being identical, one company delivers almost 10 times the value of its competitor using flow-oriented project initiation."
By adjusting the slider below you can observe the work process
without any work in process limitations (WIP Limits),
with process step specific WIP Limits* (work state WIP limits),
with Kanban Token and Replenishment Token based on the Tameflow approach (a form of drum-buffer-rope)
with Drum Buffer Rope** scheduling method.
* Well know in (agile) Kanban
** Known in the physical world of factory production
The simulation and the comparison between the different scheduling approaches can be seen here -> https://youtu.be/xXvdVkxeMMQ
The "Tameflow approach" using Kanban Token and Replenishment Token as well as the Drum Buffer Rope method take the Constraint (the weakest link of the work process) into consideration when pulling in new work items into the delivery "system".
Feel free to play around and recognize the different effects of work scheduling methods.
If you have questions or feedback get in touch via twitter @swilluda
The work flow itself
Look at the simulation as if you would look on a kanban board.
The simulation mimics a "typical" feature delivery process on portfolio level.
From left to right you find the following ten process steps.
Ideas
Selected ideas (waiting)
Initiate and pitch
Waiting for preparation
Prepare
Waiting for delivery
Deliver
Waiting for closure
Close and communicate
Closed
[Published] Simulation Starting late - The Superior Scheduling Approach (advanced version)
This version 8B of the CAPABILITY DEMONSTRATION model. A net Benefit ROI has been added. The Compare results feature allows comparison of alternative intervention portfolios. Note that the net causal interactions have been effectively captured in a very scoped and/or simplified format. Relative magnitudes and durations of impact remain in need of further data & adjustment (calibration). In the interests of maintaining steady progress and respecting budget & time constraints, significant simplifying assumptions have been made: assumptions that mitigate both completeness & accuracy of the outputs. This model meets the criteria for a Capability demonstration model, but should not be taken as complete or realistic in terms of specific magnitudes of effect or sufficient build out of causal dynamics. Rather, the model demonstrates the interplay of a minimum set of causal forces on a net student progress construct -- as informed and extrapolated from the non-causal research literature. Provided further interest and funding, this basic capability model may further developed and built out to: higher provenance levels -- coupled with increased factorization, rigorous causal inclusion and improved parameterization.
Version 8B with story: Calibrated Student-Home-Teachers-Classroom-LEA-Spending
Adapted from Pawson and Tilley (1997) and Ratze et al. (2007) by Rosie Sadsad for a forthcoming book chapter. Contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes are conceptualised as holons. Their state may change over time (t) and across levels of organisation (l). Holons are components and form part of a compound holon. Holons are connected by weak or strong links.
See also Realist Evaluation IM-1713 and Holon wikipedia and Multiscale modelling process IM-10070
This simulation allows you to compare different approaches to influence flow, the Flow Times and the throughput of a work process. The simulation is described in the blog post "Starting late - The Superior Scheduling Approach - How, despite being identical, one company delivers almost 10 times the value of its competitor using flow-oriented project initiation."
By adjusting the slider below you can observe the work process
without any work in process limitations (WIP Limits),
with process step specific WIP Limits* (work state WIP limits),
with Kanban Token and Replenishment Token based on the Tameflow approach (a form of drum-buffer-rope)
with Drum Buffer Rope** scheduling method.
* Well know in (agile) Kanban
** Known in the physical world of factory production
The simulation and the comparison between the different scheduling approaches can be seen here -> https://youtu.be/xXvdVkxeMMQ
The "Tameflow approach" using Kanban Token and Replenishment Token as well as the Drum Buffer Rope method take the Constraint (the weakest link of the work process) into consideration when pulling in new work items into the delivery "system".
Feel free to play around and recognize the different effects of work scheduling methods.
If you have questions or feedback get in touch via twitter @swilluda
The work flow itself
Look at the simulation as if you would look on a kanban board.
The simulation mimics a "typical" feature delivery process on portfolio level.
From left to right you find the following ten process steps.
Ideas
Selected ideas (waiting)
Initiate and pitch
Waiting for preparation
Prepare
Waiting for delivery
Deliver
Waiting for closure
Close and communicate
Closed
[Published] Simulation Starting late - The Superior Scheduling Approach (simplified version)
The model is designed to provide a general understanding of the wear and tear on roads or a community's circulation system as a result of vehicle traffic generated by development within and outside of a community. It is not based on realistic assumptions regarding those impacts, it simply attempts to convey the flow of influence.
The imaginary city has a set area of roads measured in linear yards (width of roads is ignored) and an assumed number of vehicles on those roads set at 30,000 (per day). With those assumptions the wear and tear requiring repair is .02 or 2% Vehicle wear based on the 30,000 per year. There is also a calculated replacement cost of an additional 3% plus through vehicle wear or 5% per year. An increase in vehicles increases this vehicle wear impact exponentially. The model assumes that there will not be less than 30,000 vehicles.
Expenditures for repair or replacement are set to balance out on an as needed based on 30,000 vehicles. An minimum additional 50 cars from external sources is then assumed. Adding New Homes and/or New Businesses places an even greater burden on the circulation system.
The model does not consider additional funding. This will be added as a political factor but would need to consider the possibility of decreasing funding for other purposes.
Future additions to the model will include an inflation factor. Unfunded road work will get increasingly more expensive over time. Also a diminished revenue factor. A lack of capacity of the community's roads could likely result in a diminishment of the community's business sector thus reducing sales and property taxes and municipal revenue to expend on the roads.
2f. [thought question] Is it possible for r maxrmax to be positive and yet for the total regional abundance to exhibit a persistent declining trend? Explain your reasoning, using at least one biologically realistic example. You can use the agent-based metapopulation model in InsightMaker to help test your ideas, but this is not required.
A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods for implementing a systems approach, including virtual intervention experiments using computer simulation models. See also Complex Decision Technologies IM
Interventions and leverage points added in IM-1400 (complex!)
Without mortality, with time measured in days, with infection rate 1/2, recovery rate 1/3, and initial infectious population I_0=1.27x10-6, we recover their figure
With a death rate of .005 (one two-hundredth of the infected per day), an infectivity rate of 0.5, and a recovery rate of .145 or so (takes about a week to recover), we get some pretty significant losses -- about 3.2% of the total population.
Based on the Market and Price simulation model in System Zoo 3, Z504. In this model the profit calculations were not realistic. They were based on the per unit profit, which does not take items not sold into account. Also the model was not very clear on profit since it was included in the total production costs and consequently in the unit costs and subsequently profit was calculated by subtracting unit costs of the market price. Thus profit had a double layer which does not make the model better accessible. I have tried to remedy both in this simplified version.
Simplified and changed Z504 Market and Price - System Zoo 3
