What is the added value of simulation compared to classical methods?
In principle, there is nothing wrong with the classical methods – mostly Excel. The question is, what is the added value? What more can we deliver with such a dynamic simulation model? In many project situations, static historical data is taken as a basis for calculation. In some cases, this is quite sufficient.
But what these figures do not take into account is the real behaviour of systems, where dynamic effects are simply part of the equation. And in real life there are disruptions: Machines can break down, shift schedules can suddenly lose staff, there is rework, there are quality problems, etc. And, of course, there are also complex rules that, for example, lead to the setting up of machines.
We try to map all these disruptions in the simulation model and only then do you realise that suddenly only 80% of the 100% that was calculated in Excel comes out of such a system.
So the big difference is simply the dynamic behaviour of such a system. And that is basically also the conflict of goals, which is not only found at the tool level, but of course also at the human level. Because, of course, we work with people who are competent in planning and who have a lot of experience, but who still make decisions based on their gut feeling. The simulation, however, replaces this gut feeling with realistic figures and sometimes brings surprising results to light.