REPLY The Minimum Acceptable Model Standard (SD6769)

[SDMAIL Bob Eberlein]

Posted by  Bob Eberlein <bob at vensim.com>

Hi Tom,

Let me clarify a little bit my points which were not well articulated.

First, people are talking about at least two different things in this
thread. The intent of the original post was to ask if we can find a
criteria that will allow us to actually look at quantitative models
developed by others with some intelligence. I am here generalizing from
the original post, which was focused on system dynamics models. I do 
not believe such a restriction is necessary. I think, instead that we
should look at the issue for all models that are numerical in nature.
That includes anything from physics, weather forecasting,
economics, system dynamics or anywhere that uses numbers to compute -
whether done in SASS, Excel, Matlab, Vensim, Java or even with a pencil.

My claim was that to review such models they need to have:

0. A clear description of the problem or issues the model addresses.
1. A clear description of model structure.
2. An available working model.
3. A clear statement of why the model should be considered to be
   applicable to the issues.
4. A clear and correct recipe for reproducing any model results
   presented.

I have shortened a couple of these.

Your list would look something like:

0. A clear description of the problem or issues the model addresses.
1. One or more reference modes.
2. An articulated dynamic hypothesis.
3. A clear description of model structure.
4. An available working model.
5. A clear statement of why the model should be considered to be
   applicable to the issues.  
6. Specific policy analysis or recommendations.
7. A clear and correct recipe for reproducing any model results
   presented.

Does that look abour right?


Bob Eberlein
Posted by  Bob Eberlein <bob at vensim.com>
posting date  Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:26:24 -0500