Re: A whiff of reality...

[Robert]

I am more inclined to believe these are the comments of a reviewer who doesn't
understand how SWARM differs from an off the shelf software package.  That
would be a long way from calling him/her an idiot.  The reviewer is indeed
correct that software models constantly get abused when applied to management
situations, at least in the government agencies I have worked with.  I would
even venture to say that it's a chronic problem, so I can see where the
vitriol comes from (not that I find it appropriate).  That said, I also don't
see models getting abused any more than any other tool that takes a degree of
understanding in order to be properly utilized. GIS is an example...often a
pretty map becomes management's view of reality regardless of where the data
to make the map came from (if they even know).

> "I very strongly DO NOT believe that the development of software
> packages is the answer to the lack of use (of agent-based models) in
> management. In my opinion, modelling software packages ... have a great
> potential for abuse, especially in a management situation, where the
> person using software that they are not REALLY familiar with try to
> apply it to an inappropriate situation. It is too easy for assumptions
> to go unacknowledged, and results to be applied too generally and
> uncritically in these situations...It is also possible to too easily
> publish studies based on prepackaged models where the modeller lacks
> understanding of what the model is really doing.

Without having read the submission or the response in its entirety, it is
difficult to formulate an intelligent opinion.  On the surface, I agree with
most of the statements here. The funny thing is that I would have used
similar statements in the *acceptance* of this paper!  As Benedikt pointed
out, the very nature of this reviewer's statements should validate the need
for discussion.   Swarm is addressing exactly the reviewer's concerns...it
provides a mechanism for modelers to share with the audience the assumptions
made in building the model.

> Many IBMs are rather simple conceptually, and ... basic programming
> techniques can be perfectly adequate. The modeller, by programming their
> own IBM, gains in understanding of all the assumptions and formulations
> included in the model."
>
> (This was especially interesting because another point we made was the
> importance of fully specifying a model on paper.)

Hmmm...seems like more argument for acceptance rather than rejection,
especially since you made a point of stressing the importance of fully
specifying the model.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't think it is worthwhile to pursue this
symposium.  Personally, I think your model is trying to address the concerns
the reviewer has about models (be they IBM, ODE or whatever).  Very often (in
management tools) the model user isn't the model developer and that's where
the problems are...and that's where your model and Swarm, all being fully
specified, start to address these concerns.   Maybe you guys just
misinterpreted each other.

Bob Bell




                  ==================================
   Swarm-Modelling is for discussion of Simulation and Modelling techniques
   esp. using Swarm.  For list administration needs (esp. [un]subscribing),
   please send a message to <address@hidden> with "help" in the
   body of the message.
                  ==================================