Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Conical Methodology and the evolution of simulation model development

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Originating with ideas generated in the mid-1970s, the Conical Methodology (CM) is the oldest procedural approach to simulation model development. This evolutionary overview describes the principles underlying the CM, the environment structured according to these principles, and the capabilities for large complex simulation modeling tasks not provided in textbook descriptions. The CM is an object-oriented, hierarchical specification language that iteratively prescribes object attributes in a definitional phase that is topdown, followed by a specification phase that is bottom-up. The intent is to develop successive model representations at various levels of abstraction that can be diagnosed for correctness, completeness, consistency, and other characteristics prior to implementation as an executable program. Related or competitive approaches, throughout the evolutionary period are categorized as emanating from: artificial intelligence, mathematical programming, software engineering, conceptual modeling, systems theory, logic-based theory, or graph theory. Work in each category is briefly described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. Abrams, E.H. Page and R.E. Nance, Linking simulation model specification and parallel execution through UNITY,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1991) pp. 223–232.

  2. M. Abrams, E.H. Page and R.E. Nance, Simulation program development by stepwise refinement in UNITY,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1991) pp. 233–242.

  3. H.H. Adelsberger, Prolog as a simulation language,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1984) pp. 501–506.

  4. S.C. Bailin, An object-oriented requirement specification method, Commun. ACM 32(1989)608–623.

    Google Scholar 

  5. O. Balci, Requirements for model development environments, Comp. Oper. Res. 13(1986)53–67.

    Google Scholar 

  6. O. Balci and R.E. Nance, The simulation model development environment: an overview,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1992) pp. 726–736.

  7. D.W. Balmer, Modeling styles and their support in the CASM environment,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1987) pp. 478–485.

  8. R. Balzer, T.E. Cheatham, Jr. and C. Green, Software technology in the 1990's: using a new paradigm, IEEE Computer 16(1983)39–45.

    Google Scholar 

  9. V. Baskaran and Y.V. Reddy, An interactive environment for knowledge-based simulation,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1984) pp. 645–651.

  10. H.K. Bhargava, Dimensionality analysis in mathematical modeling systems: a simple numerical method, ORSA J. Comp. (1993), to appear.

  11. H.K. Bhargava and R. Krishnan, Computer-aided model construction, Dec. Support Syst. 9(1993)91–111.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Bisschop and A. Meeraus, Selected aspects of a general algebraic modeling language, Technical Note 13, Research Project 671-58, World Bank, Washington, DC (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Bisschop and A. Meeraus, On the development of a general algebraic modeling system in a strategic planning environment, Math. Progr. Study 20(1982)1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  14. B.S. Blanchard and W.J. Fabrycky,Systems Engineering and Analysis (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  15. R.W. Blanning, A relational framework for model management in decision support systems,DSS-82 Trans. (1982) pp. 16–28.

  16. G.H. Bradley and R.D. Clemence, Jr., A type calculus for executable modeling languages, IMA J. Math. Manag. 1(1987)277–291.

    Google Scholar 

  17. G.H. Bradley and R.D. Clemence, Jr., Model integration with a typed executable modeling language,Proc. 21st Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences (1988) pp. 403–410.

  18. M.L. Brodie, On the development of data models, in:On Conceptual Modeling, ed. M.L. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos and J. W. Schmidt (Springer, 1984) pp. 19–47.

  19. M.L. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos and J.W. Schmidt,On Conceptual Modeling (Springer, 1984)

  20. S.J. Cammarata and C. Burdorf, PSE: an object-oriented simulation environment supporting persistence, J. Object-Oriented Progr. 4(1991)30–40.

    Google Scholar 

  21. U. Chandrasekaran, The design and implementation of a distributed concurrent simulation environment, Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M University (1986).

  22. U. Chandrasekaran and S.V. Sheppard, Discrete event distributed simulation,Proc. Conf. on Methodology and Validation (1987) pp. 32–37.

  23. A.T. Clementson, Extended control and simulation language, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  24. D.R. Cox and W.L. Smith,Queues (Methuen, London, 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  25. J.G. Crookes, Private communication (22 August 1980).

  26. M. Dao, M. Habib, J.P. Richard and D. Tallot, CABRI, an interactive system for graph manipulation, in:Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, ed. N.G. Tinhofer and G. Schmidt (Springer, Berlin, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  27. C.K. Davis, S.V. Sheppard and W.M. Lively, Automatic development of parallel simulation models in Ada,Proc. 1988 Winter Simulation Conf. (1988) pp. 339–342.

  28. R. DeCarvalho, R. Spinelli and J.G. Crookes, Cellular simulation, Oper. Res. Quarterly 27(1976)31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  29. C.M. Delfosse, Continuous simulation and combined simulation in SIMSCRIPT II.5, CACI, Arlington, Virginia (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  30. B. Deneumann, D. Simpson and G. Slater,Mathematical Structures for Software Engineering (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  31. E.W. Dijkstra,A Discipline of Programming (Prentice-Hall, 1976) pp. 56 and 203.

  32. P.A. Fishwick, An integrated approach to system modeling using a synthesis of artificial intelligence, software engineering, and simulation methodologies, ACM Trans. Mod. Comp. Simul. 2(1992)307–330.

    Google Scholar 

  33. M.S. Fox and Y.V. Reddy, Knowledge representation in organization modeling and simulation: definition and interpretation,Proc. 13th Annual Pittsburgh Conf. (1982).

  34. E.N. Frankowski and W.R. Franta, A process oriented simulation model specification and documentation language, Software-Practice and Experience 10 (1980)721–742.

    Google Scholar 

  35. P. Freeman,Software Systems Principles (Science Research Associates, 1975).

  36. A.M. Geoffrion, An introduction to structured modeling, Manag. Sci. 33(1987) 547–588.

    Google Scholar 

  37. A.M. Geoffrion, The SML language for structured modeling: levels 1 and 2, Oper. Res. 40(1992)38–57.

    Google Scholar 

  38. A.M. Geoffrion, The SML language for structured modeling: levels 3 and 4, Oper. Res. 40(1992)58–75.

    Google Scholar 

  39. A. Goldberg and D. Robson,Smalltalk-80: The Language and its Implementation (Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  40. H.J. Greenberg, A new approach to analyze information contained in a model, in:Energy Models Validation and Assessment, ed. S.I. Gass (NBS Publication 569, National Bureau of Standards, 1978) pp. 517–524.

  41. H.J. Greenberg, A bibliography for the development of an intelligent mathematical programming system, ORSA CSTS Newsletter 15(1994)21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  42. H.J. Greenberg, J.R. Lundgren and J.S. Maybee, Extensions of graph inversion to support an artificially intelligent modeling environment, Ann. Oper. Res. 21(1989) 127–142.

    Google Scholar 

  43. H.R. Hartson, A.C. Siochi and D. Hix, The UAN: a user-oriented representation for direct manipulation interface designs, ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 8(1990)181–203.

    Google Scholar 

  44. H. Hegna, DYNAMO in SIMULA67: a rough outline of a simple implementation, Norwegian Computing Center, Publication #S-62 (1974).

  45. C. Hewitt, An artificial intelligence perspective, in:On Conceptual Modeling, ed. M.L. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos and J.W. Schmidt (Springer, 1984) pp. 453–455.

  46. E. Holbaek-Hanssen, P. Handlykken and K. Nygaard, Systems description in the DELTA language, Report #4, Publication #523, 2nd printing, Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  47. P.A. Houle and W.R. Franta, On the structural concepts of SIMULA, Austral. Comp. J. 7(1975)39–45.

    Google Scholar 

  48. C. Hughes, U. Chandra and S.V. Sheppard, Two implementations of a concurrent simulation environment,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1987) pp. 618–622.

  49. C.V. Jones, An introduction graph-based modeling systems, part 1: overview, ORSA J. Comp. 2(1990)136–151.

    Google Scholar 

  50. C.V. Jones, An introduction to graph-based modeling systems, part 2: graph-grammars and the implementation, ORSA J. Comp. 3(1991)180–206.

    Google Scholar 

  51. T.G. Kim and B.P. Zeigler, The DEVS formalism: hierarchical, modular systems specification in an object-oriented framework,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1987) pp. 559–566.

  52. E. Kindler, On the way to a mathematical theory of simulation, Elektronische Informationsverarbeitung und Kybernetik 12(1976)497–504.

    Google Scholar 

  53. E. Kindler, Mathematical theory of static systems, Kybernetika 13(1977)176–189.

    Google Scholar 

  54. E. Kindler, Classification of simulation programming languages: I. deceleration of necessary system conceptions, Elektronische Informationsverarbeitung und Kybernetika 14(1978)519–526.

    Google Scholar 

  55. P.J. Kiviat, Digital computer simulation: modeling concepts, RAND Memo RM-5378-PR, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  56. P.J. Kiviat, Digital computer simulation: computer programming languages, RAND Memo RM-5883-PR, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  57. P. Klahr, D. McArthur, S. Narain and E. Best, SWIRL: simulating warfare in the ROSS language, RAND Report N-1885-AF (1982).

  58. P. Klahr, J.W. Ellis, Jr., W. Giarla, S. Narain, E.M. Cesar, Jr., and S.R. Turner, TWIRL: tactical warfare in the ROSS language, RAND Report R-3158-AF (1984).

  59. H. Kleine, SDLL: software design and documentation language, Publication #77-24, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  60. H. Kleine, A vehicle for developing standards for simulation programming,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1977) pp. 730–741.

  61. D.K. Kreider and R.E. Nance,Objectives, Principles, and Attributes: A Structured Approach to Systems Engineering, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Technical Digest (1991) pp. 22–31.

  62. R. Krishnan, X. Li and D. Steier, Development of a knowledge-based mathematical model formulation system, Commun. ACM 35(1992)138–146.

    Google Scholar 

  63. M.R. Lackner, Toward a general simulation capability,Proc. SJCC (1962) pp. 1–14.

  64. M.R. Lackner, Digital simulation and system theory, Systems Development Corporation SP-1612 (1964).

  65. M.R. Lackner and P. Kribs, Introduction to the calculus of change, Systems Development Corporation TM-1750/000/01 (1964).

  66. A. Malhotra, H.M. Markowitz and D.P. Pazel, EAS-E: an integrated approach to application development, ACM Trans. Database Syst. 8(1983)515–542.

    Google Scholar 

  67. H.M. Markowitz, Proposals for the standardization of status description, Research Report RC-7782 (#33671), IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  68. H.M. Markowitz, A. Malhotra and D.P. Pazel, The ER and EAS formalisms for system modeling and the EAS-E language,Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach (1981) pp. 29–48.

  69. H.M. Markowitz, A. Malhotra and D.P. Pazel, The EASE application development system, principles and language summary, Commun. ACM 27(1984)785–799.

    Google Scholar 

  70. S.C. Mathewson, Computer-aided simulation modeling and experimentation,Proc. 8th Australian Computer Conf. (1978) pp. 9–13.

  71. S.C. Mathewson, Program generators,Proc. European Comp. Conf. on Interactive Systems (1975) pp. 423–439.

  72. S.C. Mathewson and J.A. Alan, DRAFT/GASP — A program generator for GASP, in:Proc. 10th Annual Simulation Symp. (1977) pp. 211–228.

  73. D. McArthur, P. Klahr and S. Narain, ROSS: an object-oriented language for constructing simulations, RAND Report R-3160-AF (1984).

  74. D.P. Miller and R.J. Firby (eds.), Special issue on AI and simulation: complementary technologies, ACM Trans. Mod. Comp. Simul. 2(1992)267–268.

  75. R.L. Moose, Jr. and R.E. Nance, The design and development of an analyzer for discrete event model specifications, in:Impacts of Recent Computer Advances from Operations Research, ed. R. Sharda et al. (Elsevier Science, New York, 1987) pp. 407–421.

    Google Scholar 

  76. K.J. Murray and S.V. Sheppard, Knowledge-based simulation model specification, Simulation 50(1988)112–119.

    Google Scholar 

  77. M. Nagl, Formal languages of labeled graphs, Computing 16(1976)113–137.

    Google Scholar 

  78. M. Nagl,A Tutorial and Bibliographical Survey on Graph-Grammars, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 73 (1979) pp. 70–126.

    Google Scholar 

  79. R.E. Nance, On time flow mechanisms for discrete system simulation, Manag. Sci. 18(1971)59–73.

    Google Scholar 

  80. R.E. Nance, The feasibility of and methodology for developing federal documentation standards for simulation models, Final Report to the National Bureau of Standards, Department of Computer Science, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  81. R.E. Nance, Model representation in discrete event simulation: the conical methodology, Technical Report CS81003-R, Department of Computer Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  82. R.E. Nance, The time and state relationships in simulation modeling, Commun. ACM 24(1981)173–179.

    Google Scholar 

  83. R.E. Nance and J.D. Arthur, The methodology roles in the realization in a model development environment,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1988) pp. 220–225.

  84. R.E. Nance and C.M. Overstreet, Diagnostic assistance using digraph representations of discrete event simulation model specifications, Trans. Soc. Comp. Simul. 4 (1987)33–57.

    Google Scholar 

  85. R.E. Nance and C.M. Overstreet, Exploring the forms of model diagnosis in a simulation support environment,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1987) pp. 590–596.

  86. R.M. O'Keefe, The role of artificial Intelligence in discrete-event simulation, in:Artificial Simulation and Modeling, ed. Widman, Loparo and Nielson (Wiley, 1989) pp. 359–379.

  87. R.M. O'Keefe and J.W. Roach, Artificial Intelligence approaches to simulation, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 38(1987)713–722.

    Google Scholar 

  88. P.M. Oldfather, A.S. Ginsburg and H.M. Markowitz, Programming by questionnaire: how to construct a program generator, RAND Report #RM-5129-PR (1966).

  89. P.M. Oldfather, A.S. Ginsburg, P.L. Love and H.M. Markowitz, Programming by questionnaire: the job shop simulation program generator, RAND Report #RM-5162-PR (1967).

  90. C.M. Overstreet, Model specification and analysis for discrete event simulation, Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  91. C.M. Overstreet and R.E. Nance, A specification language to assist in analysis of discrete event simulation models, Commun. ACM 28(1985)190–201.

    Google Scholar 

  92. D.C. Palm, The assignment of workers in servicing automatic machines, J. Ind. Eng. 9(1958)28–42.

    Google Scholar 

  93. F.J. Portier, Implementing the product automaton formalism,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1987) pp. 544–553.

  94. F.J. Portier and R.E. Haymond, A product automaton formalism for hierarchical, modular, discrete simulation, ORSA J. Comp. 3(1991)241–252.

    Google Scholar 

  95. F.A. Puthoff, The model analyzer: prototyping the diagnosis of discrete event simulation model specifications, Master's thesis, Department of Computer Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  96. A. Radiya, A logical approach to discrete event simulation, Ph.D. Thesis, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  97. A. Radiya and R.G. Sargent, A new formalism for discrete event simulation,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1987) pp. 554–558.

  98. A. Radiya and R.G. Sargent, A logic-based foundation of discrete event modeling and simulation, ACM Trans. Mod. Comp. Simul. 4(1994)3–51.

    Google Scholar 

  99. J. Rothenberg, The nature of modeling, RAND Note N-3027-DARPA (1989).

  100. J.W. Rozenblit, Experimental frame specification methodology for hierarchical simulation modeling, Int. J. General Syst. 19(1991)317–336.

    Google Scholar 

  101. J.W. Rozenblit and W.M. Huang, Rule based generation of model structures in multifaceted modeling and system design, ORSA J. Comp. 3(1991)330–344.

    Google Scholar 

  102. D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki, Algebraic specification and found methods for program development: what are the real problems?, EATCS Bull. 41(1990)134–137.

    Google Scholar 

  103. R.G. Sargent, Event graph modeling for simulation with an application to flexible manufacturing systems, Manag. Sci. 34(1988)1231–1251.

    Google Scholar 

  104. M. Sasieni, A. Yaspan and L. Friedman,Operations Research—Methods and Problems (Wiley, 1959).

  105. L. Schruben, Simulation modeling with event graphs, Commun. ACM 26 (1983)957–963.

    Google Scholar 

  106. L. Schruben,Sigma: A Graphical Simulation System (The Scientific Press, San Francisco, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  107. L. Schruben and E. Yücesan, Simulation graph duality: a world view transformation for simple queueing models,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1989) pp. 738–745.

  108. R.E. Shannon, Models and artificial intelligence,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (1987) pp. 16–23.

  109. T.K. Som and R.G. Sargent, A formal development of event graphs as an aid to structured and efficient simulation programs, ORSA J. Comp. 1(1989)107–125.

    Google Scholar 

  110. R.H. Sprague and H.J. Watson, Model management in MIS,Proc. 7th National AIDS Conf. (1975) pp. 213–215.

  111. K.D.T. Tocher, Some techniques of model building,Proc. 1964 IBM Scientific Computing Symp. on Simulation Models and Planning (1966) pp. 119–155.

  112. U.S. General Accounting Office, Improvement needed in documenting computer systems, B-115369, Washington, DC (1974).

  113. U.S. General Accounting Office, Ways to improve management of federally funded computerized models, LCD-75-111, Washington, DC (1976).

  114. H.M. Wagner,Principles of Operations Research (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  115. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (Merriam-Webster, 1984).

  116. N. Wirth, Program development by step-wise refinement, Commun. ACM 14(1971)221–227.

    Google Scholar 

  117. E. Yourdon,Managing the System Lifecycle: A Software Development Methodology Overview (Yourdon Press, New York, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  118. E. Yücesan and L. Schruben, Structural and behavioral equivalence of simulation models, ACM Trans. Mod. Comp. Simul. 2(1992)82–103.

    Google Scholar 

  119. B.P. Zeigler,Theory of Modeling and Simulation (Wiley, New York, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  120. B.P. Zeigler,Multifaceted Modelling and Discrete Event Simulation (Academic Press, London. 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  121. B.P. Zeigler, Hierarchical modular modeling/knowledge representation,Proc. Winter Simulation Conf. (December 1986) pp. 129–137.

  122. S.N. Zilles, A programming language perspective, in:On Conceptual Modeling, ed. M.L. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos and J.W. Schmidt (Springer, 1984) pp. 459–460.

  123. F.W. Zurcher and B. Randell, Iterative multilevel modeling — a methodology for computer system design,Proc. IFIPS Congress (1968).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Systems Research Center and Department of Computer Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 24061-0251, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    Richard E. Nance

Authors
  1. Richard E. Nance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nance, R.E. The Conical Methodology and the evolution of simulation model development. Ann Oper Res 53, 1–45 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02136825

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02136825

Keywords

Search

Navigation