Quantitative and qualitative decision-making
methods in simulation modelling
Keywords
Modelling, Qualitative techniques,
Quantitative techniques
Abstract
Discrete event simulation (DES) is
widely known to be a quantitative
research tool. A simulation
modelling process is mainly based
on feeding quantitative data into a
model to produce quantitative
results in a structured sequential
process. Qualitative approaches
to research take a less structured
approach with more of an
inclination towards judgmental
and expert knowledge rather than
hard data. In this paper the
authors suggest that DES can be
employed as both a qualitative and
quantitative research tool. The
paper demonstrates how
simulation may represent both
stances either separately or
combined. This is based on the
fact that the basic objectives of
simulation are either for
understanding ± which needs a
qualitative perspective ± or
performance measurement ±
which a needs quantitative
perspective. Traditional
quantitative and qualitative
methods are discussed showing
how DES might cope with the
weaknesses of both stances. A
structure for using DES as a
combined research methodology
is proposed.
Management Decision
40/1 [2002] 64±73
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0025-1747]
[DOI 10.1108/00251740210413370]
[ 64 ]
Tillal Eldabi
Department of Information Systems and Computing, Brunel University,
Uxbridge, UK
Zahir Irani
Department of Information Systems and Computing, Brunel University,
Uxbridge, UK
Ray J. Paul
Department of Information Systems and Computing, Brunel University,
Uxbridge, UK
Peter E.D. Love
School of Management Information Systems, Edith Cowan University, Perth,
Australia
Introduction
Conducting any type of research should be
governed by a well-defined research
methodology based on scientific principles.
Such methodologies are considered to be
systems of explicit rules and procedures,
upon which research is based, and against
which claims for knowledge are evaluated
(Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1996).
So far there is no ``perfect'' research
methodology, as there is no universally
agreed methodology. This is because there is
still great debate about the meaning of
science (Lee, 1989). The rules and procedures
for research constantly change as scientists
look for new methods and techniques of
observation, inference, generalisation and
analysis. Kaplan (1973) suggests that a well-
developed research methodology can provide
an understanding of the products and
processes of scientific enquiry. A
methodology also serves as a set of rules for
reasoning, whereby the evaluation of facts
can be used to draw inferences. Noteworthy,
however, a methodology must not, regardless
of all other conditions, dominate the research
procedure. This is confirmed by Quinn (1988)
who states that ``one must regard all
methodologies, or structures as mere
intellectual frameworks and be very cautious
about their overuse in detail''.
Fundamentally, the underlying construct
upon which any robust methodology is built
is the research strategy.
This paper discusses the two main
theoretical stances of research (qualitative
and quantitative). These two stances are
normally known to be followed separately
according to the type of study. In the
scientific arena these two stances are often
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm
classified as independent in terms of theory
and practice each with its own ideologies and
underpinning tools concentrating on their
corresponding weaknesses. For the purpose
of this paper the discussion about qualitative
and quantitative issues is mainly descriptive.
The paper then looks at the discrete event
simulation (DES) approach as a proposed
research methodology that may offer features
for applying qualitative and quantitative
research. The main principles of DES
strategy are described in this paper, and this
includes the typical steps taken in a
simulation process. The paper then
demonstrates how the adoption of DES
approach may minimise the effects of these
weaknesses. A structure for applying DES as
a combined qualitative and quantitative
research methodology is presented.
Epistemological nature
The term epistemology refers to beliefs about
the way in which knowledge is construed. It
questions whether it is possible to identify
and communicate the nature of knowledge as
being ``hard'', ``real'' and capable of being
transmitted in a tangible form. Thus, it does
not consider knowledge to be ``softer'', more
subjective, spiritual, or even transcendental,
based on the experiences and insights of a
unique and personal nature. The
epistemological assumptions in these
instances determine extreme positions on the
issues of whether knowledge is something
that can be acquired, or something
personally experienced (Burrell and Morgan,
1979). The view that knowledge is ``hard'',
objective and tangible suggests that a
researcher adopt the role of observer.
However, to view knowledge, as personal,
subjective and unique in nature, requires
that researchers become involved with their
subjects. Thus, to subscribe to the former is
Tillal Eldabi, Zahir Irani,
Ray J. Paul and
Peter E.D. Love
Quantitative and qualitative
decision-making methods in
simulation modelling
Management Decision
40/1 [2002] 64±73
to be positivist and to the later, interpretivist
(Weick, 1984).
Positivism and interpretivism rely on
quite different assumptions about the nature
of knowledge, and demand considerably
different approaches to research. Positivist
epistemology tries to understand a social
setting by identifying individual components
of a phenomenon and then explaining the
phenomena in terms of constructs and
relationships between constructs. Therefore,
this approach encompasses a more
quantitative approach (Cavaye, 1996). The
interpretivist approach, however, aims at
understanding a phenomenon from the
participants point of view, whom is directly
involved with the phenomenon under study.
Once the epistemological stance for the
research has been established and the
questions that need to be addressed have
been identified, it is necessary to decide on
the kind of data to be collected, and to
determine how it should be analysed. Data
collection may be essentially qualitative, or
quantitative in nature, and often depends on
the epistemological stance of the researcher.
For example, data collected in the form of
loosely structured interviews may be
referred to as qualitative, whereas data
collected in the form of precise
measurements of variables may be referred
to as quantitative. Furthermore, Burrell and
Morgan (1979) argue that quantitative and
qualitative research methods are mutually
exclusive because their underlying
assumptions are seen as contradictory.
However, Gable (1994) and Remenyi and
Williams (1996) disagree and argue that these
alternative research methods should be seen
as the ends of a continuum.
Positivism: the encompassment of a
quantitative research approach
Quantitative research typically has a logical
and linear structure, in which hypothesis
take the form of expectations about likely
causal links between the constituent
concepts identified in the hypotheses. Thus,
the determination of the causal links
specified by the hypotheses will result in the
acceptance, or rejection of the theoretical
proposition. Hence, quantitative research
places emphasis on methodology, procedure
and statistical measures of validity.
Quantitative research methods also rely on
the measurement and analysis of statistical
data, to determine relationships between one
set of data to another. The measurement of
these variables may produce quantifiable
conclusions. Bryman (1993) identifies a
number of preoccupations in using
quantitative research methods and argues
those who subscribe to this objective stance
tend to adopt the following concepts:
. Concepts and their mechanism for
measurement. This argues the concepts in
each hypothesis need to be observed, so
that they can be measured and therefore
either accepted, or rejected. In the social
sciences research, quantitative data
collection often involves the use of a
questionnaire, as a source of
measurement. However, Remenyi and
Williams (1996) suggest that quantitative
data collection methods may sometimes
be less precise or less certain as a
measurement of what the researcher
actually wants. Thus, undermining the
validity, i.e. internal validity, and
reliability of the research approach used.
. Causality. This argues that quantitative
research is concerned with establishing
the causal relationship between concepts.
Techniques used to ascertain
relationships include either experimental
or cross-case analysis. The use of
experimental approaches is through the
random assignment of control and
experimental groups. Whereas cross-case
analysis collects data at a single point in
time from multiple sources.
. Generalisation. This is a process of
applying the results of a study beyond the
confines of the research. Hence,
researchers endeavour to collect data
from a smaller group, or subset of the
population, in such a way that the
knowledge gained is representative of the
total population under study. By studying
a representative sample of organisations,
a quantitative survey approach seeks to
identify relationships that are common
across organisations, and hence provide a
general statement, or theory about the
phenomenon being researched.
. Replication. This argues that experiments
performed under the same conditions
should lead to the same results. Therefore,
replication is a means of checking
researchers' bias and the applicability of
research findings to other contexts.
. Individualism. This is where a
quantitative research instrument focuses
on the individual. For example, a survey
questionnaire is given to individuals as
discrete objects of enquiry. The responses
are then totalled, even though the
respondents often do not know each other.
Weaknesses in quantitative research
Bryman (1993) criticises quantitative
research methods for their apparent
orderliness and linearity, and their lack of
concern over the influence of resource
constraints. Furthermore, quantitative
[ 65 ]
Tillal Eldabi, Zahir Irani,
Ray J. Paul and
Peter E.D. Love
Quantitative and qualitative
decision-making methods in
simulation modelling
Management Decision
40/1 [2002] 64±73
[ 66 ]
research is considered to be an exercise in
``post-decision rationalisation''. Gable (1994)
suggests that for quantitative research to
succeed in elucidating causal relationships,
or in providing descriptive statistics, the
survey instrument must ask the right
questions, in the right way. Kaplan and
Duchon (1988) suggest that ``the stripping of
context, i.e. reduced `responsibility' through
the use of a closed survey instrument,
enables objectivity and testability, at the cost
of a deeper understanding of what is actually
occurring''. Gable (1994) considers
quantitative research to be relatively weak
when used with the objective of discovery
and during data collection. This is because
once the research is underway there is little
an investigator can do upon realising that a
crucial item has been omitted from the
questionnaire, or discovering that a question
is ambiguous, or is being misinterpreted.
Gable (1994) therefore suggests that the
researcher should have a good idea of the
answers sought before starting the survey.
Hence, traditional quantitative survey
research would appear to serve as a
methodology of verification rather than
discovery.
Chadwick et al. (1984) have identified a
number of misgivings in using scientific
observation, which forms the basis of many
quantitative research methods. These
criticisms include the inability of
researchers to observe something without
changing it, knowingly, or unknowingly. In
this case, observable changes in those being
studied are attributed to the subjects'
awareness that they are part of an
experimental group rather than to any
variation in the conditions that were the
intended factors under investigation. The
researcher can also never be sure whether
the interviewee is giving a true factual
insight to the phenomenon under
investigation, or being given answers that
the interviewee perceives the investigator
wants. Researchers are also not able to
observe something with complete
consistency and therefore often
misinterpreting it, as human perception is
selective: you cannot interpret (attribute
meaning to) an observation without
misrepresenting it; you cannot communicate
an interpretation of an observation without
an additional misrepresentation.
Positivism demands an absolute level of
generalisation. It also relies on measurable
evidence and therefore influences a high
degree of control over the phenomenon.
However, social sciences are concerned with
human beings, and any quantitative
methodology used in this domain must
recognise the variability that is inherent in
human behaviour. Situations such as these
demand the use of approaches that take
account of these factors. Allison (1993)
suggests that events that form a phenomenon
are conditioned by interacting variables,
such as time and culture and as a result no
two situations are identical. Therefore this
cannot form the basis of a wider
generalisation. This controversy over
external validity, i.e. generalisation, has lead
to the questioning of the appropriateness of
quantitative research methods in the social
sciences (Bryman, 1993; Anderson, 1990).
Furthermore, quantitative research is
considered unable to take account of the
differences between people and the objects of
the natural sciences. Thus, the principle of
applying a scientific method to the study of
people is questioned, which suggests the
suitability of a qualitative approach.
Interpretivism: the encompassment of a
qualitative research approach
Qualitative researchers consider that it is not
possible to assign meaning to a phenomenon
(or behaviour) without describing the
context and understanding the position of the
people who affect, or are affected by the
phenomenon. Consequently, a qualitative
investigation is interested in distilling
meaning and understanding phenomenon.
However, qualitative research is not
concerned with the measurement and
quantification of the phenomenon but
acquiring an understanding the natural
setting of the phenomenon through
observation (Weick, 1984; Irani et al., 1999).
Hence, direct and in-depth knowledge of a
research setting is necessary to achieve
contextual understanding. As a result,
qualitative research methods are associated
with ``face-to-face'' contact with people in the
research setting, together with verbal data
and observations. Qualitative data can also
be collected in a number of forms, with
methods ranging from the collection of
evidence through interviews, which may be
recorded and later transcribed. Another
source of data is through field notes, which
describe observed events. Qualitative data
can also be derived from written documents
and archives, with Miles (1979) identifying
the essence of qualitative data as being ``rich,
full, holistic and real whose validity is
unimpeachable''.
Marshall and Rossman (1989) have
identified the premises that form the
underlying rationale for qualitative
research. First, human behaviour is
significantly influenced by the setting in
which it occurs, therefore, it is necessary to
Tillal Eldabi, Zahir Irani,
Ray J. Paul and
Peter E.D. Love
Quantitative and qualitative
decision-making methods in
simulation modelling
Management Decision
40/1 [2002] 64±73
study this behaviour in these settings. The
physical setting and inter-normalised norms,
roles and values are crucial and the
researcher must operate in a setting where
these variables exist. Qualitative research
therefore provides a systematic, empirical
strategy for answering questions about
people in their own bounded social context,
with the researcher interfering as little as
``humanly'' possible during the enquiry. In
this circumstance, people make sense of their
own experiences and create their ``own''
reality (Locke et al., 1993). Second, some
techniques associated with experimental or
quantitative research often influence the
findings of the study. The subjects' behaviour
is affected and as a result may not allow the
measurement of the variables that the
researcher is interested in. This is often the
case because the subject may not be able to
articulate it through the research condition,
i.e. that of feelings, interaction and
behaviour. Finally, a researcher cannot
understand human behaviour without
understanding the framework in which
subjects interpret thoughts, feelings and
actions.
Qualitative research emphasises getting
close to the subject(s) of study and that
experience is a good way to understand social
behaviour. The objective therefore is to
describe social reality from the perspective of
the subject, not the observer. This has the
advantage of viewing behaviour in its social
setting; providing a greater depth of
understanding; allowing greater flexibility.
Bryman (1993) describes qualitative research
as an ``approach that studies the social world,
and seeks to describe and analyse the culture
and behaviour of humans and their groups,
from the point of view of those being
studied''. Such approaches are based on:
. a commitment to viewing actions and
values from the perspective of the people
being studied;
. providing a detailed description of the
social setting they investigate;
. understanding events and their behaviour
in their context;
. viewing social life as a process rather than
a static, i.e. longitudinal;
. avoiding the imposition of inappropriate
``frames of reference'' on the subjects
being studied; the use of a relatively
flexible research approach;
. an appreciation of the impact of biases on
the research findings; and
. the formulation and testing of theories in
tandem with data collection.
Weaknesses in qualitative research
In spite of the strengths of qualitative
research, such methods do have inherent
weaknesses (Miles and Huberman, 1984). The
collection and analysis of data are time-
consuming because many types of data are
collected. Hence, the sheer volume of data
obtained may overwhelm the researcher and
thus inhibit data analysis. Qualitative data
analysis techniques are also considered ``not
easy'', as such methods are considered not
well established (Cavaye, 1996). However, the
relative difficulty of analysing qualitative
data does not invalidate the data, or the
conclusions ultimately drawn. This is
because rules of logic applied to the verbal
data enable the researcher to make sense of
the evidence and to analyse the data
appropriately. Bryman (1993) has identified a
number of contentious issues regarding the
use of qualitative research approaches. First,
the inability of the researcher to interpret
events from the subject's point of view is
questioned without biases. Thus, a multi-
method approach to data gathering can
address this issue to a certain degree (Lin,
1976). Second, the relationship between
theory and research can be weak, as
qualitative research approaches are
criticised for not instilling theoretical
elements. However, Marshall and Rossman
(1989) suggest that to overcome this scenario
the researcher must show how they are
studying the case of a larger phenomenon.
The linking of specific research issues to a
larger theoretical construct shows that the
research study illuminates a larger issue and
is therefore of significance. Finally, the
extent to which qualitative research can be
generalised beyond the confines of a
particular case, is questioned, i.e. limited
external validity. Bell (1996) and Cohen and
Manion (1994) suggest that researchers can
address this issue through demonstrating
that the study was conducted within a
structured methodology, which is guided by
theoretical concepts and models and the use
of a number of data gathering methods and
processes. Qualitative research however does
not offer the pretence of replication, as
controlling the research setting destroys the
interaction of variables and therefore affects
the underlying philosophy of this research
method.
Discrete event simulation as a
research tool
This section discusses the simulation process
in relation to the two theoretical stances
mentioned above. First, the discussion
provides the formal method of DES, which is
inclined towards quantitative aspects. Then
some qualitative aspects of DES, and in terms
of practice, are discussed. A method of using
[ 67 ]
Tillal Eldabi, Zahir Irani,
Ray J. Paul and
Peter E.D. Love
Quantitative and qualitative
decision-making methods in
simulation modelling
Management Decision
40/1 [2002] 64±73
Figure 1
Steps in a simulation study
[ 68 ]
DES as both qualitative and a quantitative
tool depending on the problem is proposed.
DES as a quantitative research tool
DES has become a popular modelling tool for
problem solving and there is a general
consensus amongst researchers that the
process should be undertaken for the
purposes of modelling as noted in Figure 1
(Law and Kelton, 1991; Barnes and Quiason,
1997; Jun et al., 1999; Banks et al., 1996). A
detailed review of DES can be found in (Paul
and and Balmar, 1993).
Owing to the fact that most authors agree
on the process flow, it is more convenient
that discussion of the process is represented
by one framework presenting the different
views available in the subject. A typical
simulation process can be shown in (Law and
Kelton 1991). Other literature produces
similar graphical representations of the
simulation process. All steps mentioned
in the following discussion are based on
Figure 1.
Law and Kelton (1991) define step 1
problem formulation as setting the objectives
of the study and determining the specific
issues to be considered, specifically noting
the availability of resources needed to
conduct the research. Pedgen et al. (1990)
expand on the importance of clarifying the
issues to be considered, such as hardware
design issues and operational issues. In
addition to that, measure of performances
has to be defined before starting the study.
Pidd (1998) defines this phase as the problem-
structuring phase. He suggests that this
phase is the attempt to take a ``mess'' and to
extract from it some agreement about the
particular problems, which might be
amenable to analysts. Other authors, such as
Robinson (1994), Paul and Balmer (1993),
Nance (1994), Balci (1994) and Banks et al.
(1996), divide this step into two or more
stages.
The second step in Figure 1 is data
collection. Data is collected if it exists based
on the objectives of the study (Law and
Kelton, 1991). Most authors, mentioned in the
above paragraph, agree with the importance
of data collection and stress the validation of
such data, which is step 3. Robinson (1994)
puts the process of data collection at the first
phase of his definition of the project phases.
On the other hand, Law and Kelton (1991) and
Banks et al. (1996) suggest that data collection
should coincide with developing the
conceptual model. Paul and Balmer (1993),
however, put data collection as a separate
step after the conceptual model.
After data is validated then step 4 is
constructing a computer model, which is
based on the conceptual model. After that a
pilot run is done in step 5 (Law and Kelton,
1991; Paul and Balmer, 1993). Banks et al.
(1996), however, suggest translating the
conceptual model into a computerized model
before starting step 6 and that is conducting
the verification and the validation steps. It
must be noted that most authors agree on the
fact that validation and verification process
should be throughout the study.
Steps 7 through 10 are design of
experiments for defining the different
alternatives for experimentation, production
runs for providing performance data on
systems designs of interest, output analysis
which consists of statistical techniques for
Tillal Eldabi, Zahir Irani,
Ray J. Paul and
Peter E.D. Love
Quantitative and qualitative
decision-making methods in
simulation modelling
Management Decision
40/1 [2002] 64±73
analysing output from production runs, and
implementation of model's findings (Law and
Kelton, 1991). All of the above authors agree
on two facts: all frameworks are not strictly
sequential and the first stage, problem
formulation, is an art as much as it is a
science. Basically it depends on available
resources, the problem, the problem owners,
and involved analysts.
The process mentioned above is considered
as a quantitative one based on the discussion
of positivist studies, which is related to
features such as causality and
generalisation. The main defining feature of
the above methodology is the collection of
tangible data to produce tangible results
based on a sequential (hard) process.
DES as a qualitative research tool
As mentioned above, DES is typically
practised as a quantitative research method.
However, DES could also be used for
qualitative studies or as a qualitative tool for
that matter. In this case the process of
simulation remains the same, however, the
approach to modelling is different. The
underlying principle of DES is to develop a
model that dynamically mimics a real life
system's structure and behaviour. The model
can then be used to generate simulated
information, which can either be quantitative
or qualitative in nature (Eldabi et al., 2000).
It is suggested that a simulation model can
be thought of as a qualitative or quantitative
device based on the inputted requirements
and the achieved results or information
arising from the model. Information in the
context of DES is any feedback that is
retrieved by the researchers from the model
(see Figure 2). Information can then be
divided into two categories: tangible and
intangible information. Tangible
information is quantifiable and is gathered
after the model is run (i.e. incorporation of
the time factor in the model). This type of
information is purposefully retrieved from
the model for testing hypothesis. In other
words, this type of information has
pre-specified input. Tangible information is
mainly used for evaluative studies, direct
Figure 2
Iterative relationship between researchers and
the simulation model
experimentation and what-if questions based
on predetermined inputs for measurement
purposes. This type of information usually
represents DES as a quantitative tool. On the
other hand, intangible information is not so
easily detectable and it is usually non-
quantifiable in numbers. This type is not
restricted to any modelling stage and it is
usually not necessary to retrieve it
intentionally from the model. Intangible
information is used to understand the
structure and the behaviour of a system
under study by experiencing simulated real
life situations. Intangible information
usually represents DES as a qualitative tool.
Quantitative and qualitative
research and DES
The use of DES as a quantitative or a
qualitative tool has received ubiquitous
debate in the simulation literature (Law and
Kelton, 1991; Banks et al., 1996; Pidd, 1996;
Eldabi et al., 2000). With this in mind, the
authors demonstrate how DES can cope with
the weaknesses associated with both stances
and be used as an effective research strategy.
Table I presents the weaknesses of
quantitative research methods on the left-
hand side, which are summarised from the
above section. The right-hand side shows
how DES could help in dealing with such
weaknesses has it been used as quantitative
tool.
The use of DES as a qualitative research
method is relatively limited. In fact, DES is
normally classified as a quantitative tool
while the qualitative aspects are normally
denoted as the art of simulation, meaning it
is part of the modelling process but it is not
restricted to formal rules (Pidd, 1996). Yet the
authors believe that this aspect of DES is the
qualitative part and could actually be
classified as such. The qualitative side of DES
does not follow the same strictness
represented in Figure 1, yet this does not
mean it is absolutely disorganised. Figure 2
gives a simple structure of the qualitative
nature of DES. The figure shows how DES
could be used in an unstructured way but
with certain objectives usually related to
understanding the problem. Table II shows
how DES may offer some facilities to deal
with weaknesses associated with traditional
qualitative methods.
Combined quantitative and qualitative
research in DES
The authors suggest that DES can be
employed by both stances depending on the
problem at hand. There are no formal rules of
how this structure is processed, however,
[ 69 ]
Tillal Eldabi, Zahir Irani,
Ray J. Paul and
Peter E.D. Love
Quantitative and qualitative
decision-making methods in
simulation modelling
Management Decision
40/1 [2002] 64±73
[ 70 ]
Table I
The use of DES to cope with weaknesses of quantitative methods
Quantitative methods
Orderliness and linearity
Lack of concern over the influence of resource
constraints
Exercise in ``post-decision rationalisation''
Use of closed survey instrument reduces deeper
understanding of what is actually occurring
Relatively weak when used with the objective of
discovery; relatively poor discoverability during
data collection
Methodology of verification rather than discovery
Inability of researchers to observe something
without changing it
Positivism demands an absolute level of
generalisation
Relies on measurable evidence and therefore
influences a high degree of control over the
phenomenon
Do not recognise the variability that is inherent in
human behaviour
Table II
The use of DES to cope with weaknesses of qualitative methods
Qualitative methods
The collection and analysis of data are time-consuming
and demanding because many types of data are
collected
Large variety of data may inhibit data analysis
Qualitative data analysis techniques are also
considered ``not easy''
The inability of the researcher to interpret events from
the subjects point of view without biases
The relationship between theory and research can be
weak, as qualitative research approaches are
criticised for not instilling theoretical elements
The extent to which qualitative research can be
generalised beyond the confines of a particular
case, is questioned
Qualitative research does not offer the pretence of
replication, as controlling the research setting
destroys the interaction of variables, and therefore
affects the underlying philosophy of this research
method
Unstructured research is endangered of being to be
meaningless
It is possible to loose detachment of the researcher,
i.e. ``going native''
Potentially poor reliability, as qualitative research
often involves a single event being observed by a
single researcher
DES
Deals with non-linear relationships and incorporates
feedback loops
Ability to incorporate resources and constraints
Can be used for problem structuring and discovery
Possible to include soft variables from open surveys
and expert opinions
Rich in discovering problems during development and
processing as well
Used for enhancing understanding and testing
hypotheses
Provides rich pictures of interactions and helps in
objective analysis
Offers capabilities to model different possible
scenarios
Able to generate measurable evidences as well as
intangible evidences
Cope with high levels of variability within/between
the modelled variables
DES
Does not require high volumes of data for development
Can be used to identify key variables to avoid
unnecessary data collection
May rely on expert opinions for fitting available data
Capable of giving independent picture of the situation
by dynamic mimicking
Offers facility for adding or removing any theoretical
assumptions whilst examining their impacts
It is possible to examine as many hypothetical
situations (what-if scenarios) expanded from the
base cases
Ability to conduct experiments with replications
without destroying elements of the model
The research may start as unstructured yet it
becomes more refined and structured in later stages
as more understanding is gained from the process
Researcher is able to experience a simulated
environment without risking to loose detachment
It is possible to produce reliable qualitative analysis,
as model could be replicated and observed by
different researchers
Tillal Eldabi, Zahir Irani,
Ray J. Paul and
Peter E.D. Love
Quantitative and qualitative
decision-making methods in
simulation modelling
Management Decision
40/1 [2002] 64±73
and based on the features discussed earlier
DES may be used as a qualitative tool at the
earlier stages for identifying the problem and
the key components. It could also be used as a
quantitative tool to provide specific outputs.
At the later stages it could be used as a
qualitative tool to give more meaning to the
abstract outputs generated from the model.
DES can be used as a qualitative tool when
the situation is not well understood with no
predefined theory. This process is illustrated
in Figure 3.
The situation usually starts with an
ill-defined problem. The objective at this
stage is to enhance the understanding of the
researchers about the research problem. Also
DES could be used at this stage to define what
questions to ask and variables to look for in
the process. The qualitative research could
be carried out based on the process
illustrated in Figure 2. This process is mainly
unstructured and based on iterative
communication between the researchers and
the model. Note that the development of the
model itself could be part of the process of
information retrieval. Once the research
problem is understood and the theory is
defined, more structured and closed research
(i.e. quantitative) can be applied using the
structure illustrated in Figure 1. At this stage
research outcomes are based on predefined
hypotheses. The simulation process can
always be replicated to achieve an acceptable
level of confidence about the
experimentation process. One of the main
advantages of using DES is its capability to
Figure 3
Combined qualitative and quantitative
research using DES
switch between the two stances. In this case
qualitative DES enables to define a set of
hypotheses that can be tested using
quantitative DES. In the same time
quantitative DES can be used to test these
hypotheses whilst feeding back more
uncovered questions for qualitative analysis.
It must be noted that even the qualitative
experiments can be replicated in a
simulation process.
DES is usually applied to tackle problems
where both qualitative and quantitative
research methods are needed. Qualitative
analysis is needed to justify why a certain
policy, for example, is employed amongst the
others. Especially in problems with multiple
stakeholders who use different means for
judgement. The role of DES in this exercise is
to enable stakeholders to understand the
structure of their system and the associated
problems and communicate their
understandings amongst each other.
The use of DES has the potential to offer a
high level of precision in terms of outputs.
However, in many cases it is important to
bear in mind that ``output'' is not merely a
matter of inputting some data, pressing a
button and wait for the ``right'' answer.
Indeed, there cannot be a ``right'' answer. It is
possible that such decisions involve more
than one stakeholder, and it could be
sometimes, quite literally, a matter of life or
death, or, more precisely, a longer, or
shorter, life. Although DES might seem to
offer a tool that could deliver ``an answer'' to
the problem, the intention is very different
namely that it is a tool that enables those
involved to better understand what the
problem actually is.
Conclusions
This paper has discussed the importance of
having a rigorous research methodology
when conducting any structured research.
This structure and formality not only
provides the research process with a well-
developed framework but also establishes an
understanding in the broadest possible
terms, not of the products of scientific
enquiry but of the process itself. The paper
has provided a descriptive analysis of both
epistemological approaches: positivist ±
encompassing quantitative approaches ± and
interpretivist ± encompassing qualitative
approaches. It was evident that these two
stances call for different types of
methodologies and look at the world
differently. The paper proposes DES as a
research method that tangibly facilitates
both quantitative and qualitative methods.
Although, formally DES is known to be a
quantitative technique, it is arguable DES
[ 71 ]
Tillal Eldabi, Zahir Irani,
Ray J. Paul and
Peter E.D. Love
Quantitative and qualitative
decision-making methods in
simulation modelling
Management Decision
40/1 [2002] 64±73
[ 72 ]
also be used as a qualitative method, though
indirectly. Furthermore, it is suggested that
a DES research strategy can be highly
versatile for use in social science research
because of the variety of research objectives
for which a DES study can be used, together
with the methods that can be employed.
The underlying objectives that can be used
as part of a simulation process include
understanding, planning and performance
measurement. It can also be shown that DES
may help in dealing with some of the
weaknesses associated with both stances
(quantitative and qualitative). Both stances
can be employed through DES given the
ability of this method to flexibly switch
between both stances based on the
requirements of the problem and how it is
understood at the time. DES could be
employed as a qualitative tool to enable the
stakeholder to understand the problem at
hand, this understanding is represented by
communication between the different
stakeholders and identifying the important
factors of the problem. Bearing in mind
that a DES model could be developed based
on expert opinions and judgements rather
than structured quantitative data as is
usually the case. Subsequently the model can
be used as a quantitative tool for further
analysis by feeding it with input figures to
generate expected output. Again the model
could be fed with hypothetical data to run
``what if'' experimentation. This process is
aiming at what can be learned from a
research exercise by enabling the
stakeholders to live the experience rather
than specific measures generated in the end,
as is usually the case in traditional
quantitative analysis. On the other hand,
DES is able to give more precise outcomes
and replicated runs, which overcomes some
of the shortcomings associated with
qualitative methods.
References
Allison, B. (1993), An Introduction to Research,
Ariad Associates, Leicester.
Anderson, G. (1990), Fundamentals of Educational
Research, Falmer Press, London.
Balci, O. (1994), ``Validation, verification, and
testing techniques throughout the life cycle of
a simulation study'', Annals of Operations
Research, Vol. 53, pp. 121-73.
Banks, J., Carson, J.S. and Nelson, B.L. (1996),
Discrete-event System Simulation, 2nd ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Barnes, C.D. and Quiason, J.L. (1997), ``Success
stories in simulation in health care'', in
AndradoÂttir, S., Healy, K.J., Whithers, D.H.
and Nelson, B.L. (Eds), Proceedings of the 1997
Winter Simulation Conference, Atlanta,
Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, pp. 1280-5.
Bell, J. (1996), Doing Your Research Project: A
Guide for First-time Researchers in Education
and Social Science, 2nd ed., The Open
University, Buckingham.
Bryman, A. (1993), Quality and Quality in Social
Research, Routledge, London.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological
Paradigms and Organisational Analysis,
Heinemann Educational Books, New York,
NY.
Cavaye, A.L.M. (1996), ``Case study research: a
multi-faceted research approach for IS'',
Information Systems Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 227-42.
Chadwick, B.A., Bahr, H.M. and Albrecht, S.L.
(1984), ``The quality era'', Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 163-7.
Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1994), Research
Methods in Education, 4th ed., Routledge,
London.
Eldabi, T. (2000), ``Simulation modelling: problem
understanding in healthcare management'',
unpublished PhD thesis, Brunel University,
Uxbridge.
Eldabi, T., Paul, R.J. and Taylor, S.J. (2000),
``Simulating economic factors in adjuvant
breast cancer treatment'', Journal of the
Operational Research Society, Vol. 51 No. 4,
pp. 465-75.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. (1996),
Research Methods in the Social Sciences,
5th ed., Arnold, Santa Cruz, CA.
Gable, G. (1994), ``Integrating case study and
survey research methods: an example in
information systems'', European Journal
of Information Systems, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 112-26.
Irani, Z., Ezingeard, J.-N., Grieve, R.J. and
Race, P. (1999), ``A case study strategy as part
of an information systems research
methodology: a critique'', The International
Journal of Computer Applications in
Technology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 190-8.
Jun, J.B., Jacobson, S.H. and Swisher, J.R. (1999),
``Application of discrete-event simulation in
health care and clinics: a survey'', Journal of
the Operational Research Society, Vol. 50 No. 2,
pp. 109-23.
Kaplan, A. (1973), The Conduct of Enquiry,
Intertext Books.
Kaplan, B. and Duchon, D. (1988), ``Combining
qualitative and quantitative methods
in information systems research: a case
study'', MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 570-86.
Law, A.M. and Kelton, W.D. (1991), Simulation
Modelling and Analysis, 2nd ed., McGraw-
Hill, Singapore.
Lee, A.S. (1989), ``A scientific methodology for MIS
case studies'', MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 32-50.
Lin, N. (1976), Foundations of Social Research,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Tillal Eldabi, Zahir Irani,
Ray J. Paul and
Peter E.D. Love
Quantitative and qualitative
decision-making methods in
simulation modelling
Management Decision
40/1 [2002] 64±73
Locke, L.F., Spirduso, W.W. and Silverman, S.J.
(1993), Proposals that Work: A Guide for
Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals,
3rd ed., Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1989), Designing
Qualitative Research, Sage, Beverly Hills,
CA.
Miles M.B. (1979), ``Qualitative data as an
attractive nuisance: the problem of analysis'',
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24,
pp. 590-601.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1984),
Analysing Qualitative Data: A Source Book for
New Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Nance, R.E. (1994), ``The Conical methodology and
the evolution of simulation model
development'', Annals of Operations Research,
Vol. 53, pp. 1-45.
Paul, R.J. and Balmer, D.W. (1993), Simulation
Modelling, Chartwell-Bratt, Lund.
Pedgen, C.D., Shannon, R.E. and Sadowski, R.P.
(1990), Introduction to Simulation Using
Siman, System Modeling Corporation and
McGraw-Hill, Hightstown, NJ.
Application questions
1 What weaknesses have you found with
either qualitative or quantitative
decision-making methods?
Pidd, M. (1996), Tools for Thinking: Modelling in
Management Science, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Pidd, M. (1998), Computer Simulation in
Management Science, 4th ed., John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester.
Quinn, J.B. (1988), The Strategic Process, Concepts,
Context and Cases, in Quinn, J.B.,
Mitzberg, I.Y. and James, R.M. (Eds),
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Remenyi, D. and Williams, B. (1996), ``The nature
of research: qualitative or quantitative,
narrow paradigmatic'', Information Systems ±
An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 131-46.
Robinson, S. (1994), Successful Simulation: A
Practical Approach to Simulation Projects,
McGraw-Hill Book Company Europe,
Maidenhead.
Weick, K.E. (1984), ``Theoretical assumptions and
research methodology selection'', in
McFarlan, F.W. (Ed.), The Information
Systems Research Challenge, Harvard
Business School, Boston, MA.
2 How could DES potentially overcome
these drawbacks and what areas of
weakness still remain?
[ 73 ]