REPLY "Flawless Consulting" and SD (SD6635)

[SDMAIL Richard Stevenson]

Posted by  Richard Stevenson <rstevenson at valculus.com>

My last note clearly didn't come out right!  Thanks, Kim.

My intention was to convey the reality that often the SD practitioner  
needs to simplify and/or massage what the client sees as "real data",  
in order to generate a useful model.

My best example of this - modelling BP's Forties oilfield to evaluate  
"whole of field" investment options over a 20-year horizon.  Clearly  
we could not model the reservoir in all its detail - the reservoir  
engineers had detail simulators running on Cray computers!   
Ultimately we modelled the entire reservoir as a single stock with an  
outflow governed by the volume of the stock itself.  The engineers  
ultimately agreed that this solution was 85% as accurate as the Cray  
computer - and "fit for purpose" in the context of the strategy model.

My point is - data has to be chosen or fitted to the purpose of the  
model - and not the other way around.  I have seen too many  
"strategy" models that set out model existing data - and ended up at  
a far greater level of detail than was appropriate.  The good SD  
practitioner needs to be firm in demanding simplification of data  
that may be familiar to the client.


Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd 
Posted by  Richard Stevenson <rstevenson at valculus.com>
posting date  Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:00:09 +0100