Description
QUESTION TWO. Compare and contrast the modelling methodologies discussed during the module, basing your analysis on the course material presented supplemented with suitable wider research. Your submission should specifically discuss System Dynamics, Discrete Event Simulation, Agent-Based Modelling and Wargaming, but may also include any other methods that you think are relevant. Your discussion should also include where and why you might want to utilise each methodology in the Systems Engineering Lifecycle, noting when each may be more or less useful. You may base your response around a case study of your choosing if you wish. Your response should be no longer than 2000 words, less titles and references. The document should be submitted in either Word (.doc) Your work should show clearly the number of words used.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
CDS
POSTGRADUATE COURSEWORK SPECIFICATION
Title: Simulation in the Systems Engineering Lifecycle Individual Assignment
Aims: The aim of the module is to explore the role that modelling and simulation (M&S) can play
within the Systems Engineering Life Cycle.
Intended learning outcomes include: On successful completion of this module a student should
be able to:
1. Evaluate the role of simulation modelling in the successful realization of systems.
2. Critically evaluate the issues surrounding the use of simulation models in the systems
engineering lifecycle.
3. Assess the key benefits and risks associated with a number of modelling paradigms.
4. Build and analyse simple models using a range of methodologies.
Description of task(s) to be completed: You are to write a piece of individual coursework
addressing one of the questions below. Your answer may be based around material presented
during the module but should be complimented with wider research from relevant sources. Answer
ONE of the following questions:
1. QUESTION ONE. Design and run a simple simulation experiment to investigate a question of
interest to you1. Your submission should comprise a document that describes this activity,
clearly:
a. Describing and discussing the chosen problem;
b. Developing and presenting a suitable conceptual model;
c. Justifying the chosen modelling methodology to implement the conceptual model;
d. Developing the model in AnyLogic PLE;
e. Conducting experiments to seek ways to improve the problem situation, presenting any
simulation results obtained;
f. Discussing insights gained from the modelling activity; and,
g. Reviewing and reflecting on your conceptual model, your chosen modelling
methodology and implementation.
Your response should be a primarily reflective piece based on the modelling activity. Your
response should be no longer than 3000 words, less titles and references. It should be
presented in either Word (.doc) or Portable Document Format (.pdf) format and should be
accompanied with an executable AnyLogic file.
You are strongly advised to discuss your modelling choice with the module leader before
committing significant time to the study.
2. QUESTION TWO. Compare and contrast the modelling methodologies discussed during the
module, basing your analysis on the course material presented supplemented with suitable
wider research. Your submission should specifically discuss System Dynamics, Discrete Event
Simulation, Agent-Based Modelling and Wargaming, but may also include any other methods
that you think are relevant. Your discussion should also include where and why you might
want to utilise each methodology in the Systems Engineering Lifecycle, noting when each may
be more or less useful. You may base your response around a case study of your choosing if
you wish. Your response should be no longer than 2000 words, less titles and references. The
1 of 2
CDS
document should be submitted in either Word (.doc) Your work should show clearly the number
of words used.
Deliverables required and submission information:
•
•
You should produce a document addressing one of the questions above, clearly noting the
requirements for each question.
Submission should be through the VLE.
Marking scheme:
Mark
Range
Criteria / Descriptor
80-100%
An excellent performance, meriting no significant criticisms in respect of
the assessment criteria. Demonstrating a deep and comprehensive
knowledge and understanding of the principles of the subject and their
application. Evidence of substantial further reading. Demonstrating a high
level of original thought. Outstanding capacity for critical evaluation.
Excellent communication skills. Well structured piece of work.
70-79%
A very good performance, meriting only minor criticisms in respect of the
assessment criteria. Demonstrating a deep and comprehensive
knowledge and understanding of the principles of the subject and their
application. Evidence of substantial further reading. High level of critical
evaluation and analysis. Significant level of original thought. Very good
communication skills. Well structured piece of work.
60-69%
A good performance, meriting only minor criticisms in respect of the
assessment criteria. Demonstrating a competent knowledge and
understanding of the principles of the subject and their application.
Evidence of further reading. Good level of critical evaluation and analysis.
Good evidence of original thought.
Good communication skills.
Satisfactorily structured piece of work.
50-59%
A satisfactory performance, meriting some criticisms in respect of the
assessment criteria. Demonstrating an adequate knowledge and
understanding of the principles of the subject and their application. Little
evidence of further reading. Minimal level of critical evaluation and
analysis. Some evidence of original thought. Satisfactory communication
skills. Adequately structured piece of work.
40-49%
A performance which is lacking in one or more aspects of the assessment
criteria.
0 – 39%
An unsatisfactory performance, lacking in one or more aspects of the
assessment criteria. Demonstrating a poor knowledge and understanding
of the principles of the subject and their application. No evidence of further
reading. No evidence of critical evaluation and analysis. No evidence of
original thought. Poor communication skills. Inadequately structured
piece of work.
2 of 2
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
