International Journal of Advanced Computer Science, Vol. 3, No. 8, Pp. 409-415, Aug., 2013.

Approaching Complexity in Modeling and Simulation of Logistics Systems

Markus Koch, Juri Tolujew & Michael Schenk
Manuscript
Received: 18,Apr., 2013 Revised: 3,Jun., 2013 Accepted: 4,Jul., 2013 Published: 15,Jul., 2013

Keywords
conceptual modeling, logistics systems, complexity, logistics objects, grouping, aggregation.

Abstract The field of logistics is confronted with an increasing complexity. Due to globalization production and logistics networks are becoming more international and the number of involved parties is increasing. Besides rising customer demands, decreasing length of product life cycles or increasing costs pressure, the complexity and heterogeneity of networks mainly result from the immense amount of goods which are part of logistics systems and processes. In this paper we examine how traditional modeling concepts approach the rising complexity mainly caused by the increasing diversity and heterogeneity of the considered logistics objects, in particular the goods and products processed in logistics systems. We studied the considered concepts according to their ability of modeling a system, process and in particular an object structure of logistics systems. Results show that most of the examined concepts lack in representing an object structure. Moreover, these concepts do not provide a means in supporting the composition and decomposition of logical groups effectively in the field of logistics.

1. Introduction
The field of logistics is confronted with an increasing complexity. Due to globalization production and logistics networks are becoming more international and the number of involved parties is increasing [1, p. 312]. A rising variant diversity of products, a growing amount of globally sourced goods as well as an increasing availability of information due to new identification technologies contribute to that. Besides rising customer demands, decreasing length of product life cycles or increasing costs pressure, the complexity and heterogeneity of networks mainly result from the immense amount of goods which are part of logistics systems and processes [2, pp. 14], [3]. This trend has an impact on the sensitivity to disturbances of logistics networks, as well. According to this, tools of modeling and simulation provide suitable methods to analyze logistics systems as well as to support a fast adaptation process to changes and disturbances. To address the rising diversity
Markus Koch, Juri Tolujew & Michael Schenk are with Institute of Logistics and Material Handling Systems, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Universitaetsplatz 2 , 39106 Magdeburg, Germany. ( mark us.ko ch@ovgu.de, koc hm 85@gmail.com)
o u ch 13

among the goods, which is a driving factor for complexity, the description of logistics systems and processes is to be conducted from an object oriented point of view by including object characteristics and their relations among each other. This comprises the application of appropriate concepts for incorporating that aspect and for grouping objects as well as defining standard processes to provide efficient solutions. In this paper we present a modification and extension of previous work published and presented in [4]. The objective of this paper is to see how traditional modeling concepts approach the rising complexity mainly caused by the increasing diversity and heterogeneity of the considered logistics objects, in particular the goods and products processed in logistics systems. This comprises how concepts approach the representation of objects, their characteristics and relations. Therefore, traditional and accepted modeling and simulation concepts in the field of logistics are to be examined. A possible application and relevance to the conceptual modeling stage of a simulation study is seen as important. We examined the considered concepts according to their ability of modeling a system, process and in particular an object structure of logistics systems. An example related to the concept of throughput diagram is presented. Based on the results of the most eligible concepts, this will form a foundation for further steps in developing an analyzing and modeling concept addressing the increasing complexity of logistics systems and the rising diversity of determining logistics objects.

2. Logistics - System, Process and Object

A simplified definition of logistics is the process of having the right quantity of the right item in the right place at the right time [5]. Among others, Schenk et al. extend that definition by adding the right costs, right quality and environmentally-compatible as describing parameters [6, p. 226]. In analyzing and planning of production and logistics systems there is often made a distinction in systems, processes and products or goods [6, p. 225]. For these terms there are several different definitions in the field of logistics. Basically, a system is referred to a set of elements which are connected by certain relations which are typically material and information flows [7], [8, pp. 45] (see Fig. 1). Schmidt and Taylor describe a system as a collection of entities, like people or machines, that act and interact together toward the accomplishment of some logical end

410

International Journal of Advanced Computer Science, Vol. 3, No. 8, Pp. 409-415, Aug., 2013.

[9]. The complexity of such a system is significantly determined by the number of elements and relations [10, p. 5].

Fig. 1 System structure (based on [11, p. 80])

In separating the logistics network from the logistics system, it is important to consider the distance between the elements. When the distances between the elements (stations or nodes) are far longer than the extension of the elements, a logistics system can be seen as a logistics network [8, pp. 45]. Further, a logistics network is a controlled system of hierarchically and geographically arranged nodes (resources) and arcs connecting the nodes. These arcs realize the flow among the different nodes. They are responsible for connecting sources and sinks in a way which is economic and in line with demand [2, p. 33]. These networks are also often referred to supply chains consisting of nodes representing facilities and links representing direct transportation connections [12, p. 5]. Compared to that, Christopher states a supply chain is defined as the network of organizations that are involved, through upstream and downstream linkages, in the different processes and activities that produce value in the form of products and services delivered to the ultimate consumer [13].

physical goods such as raw materials, preliminary products, unfinished and finished goods, packages, parcels and containers or waste and discarded goods. Also, animals and even people can be logistics objects, which need special care and service [8, p. 3]. But besides these physical objects also information are to be considered as logistics objects, often referred to abstract objects [14, pp. A13]. In analyzing the relations among the different objects (physical as well as abstract objects) an object structure can be derived (see Fig. 2). The relations can be of an attribute, structure or process oriented nature. These relations as well as the attributes themselves provide means for grouping these logistics objects in homogenous groups. This is of relevance for determining the level of detail of simulation models. Thus, the inherent complexity of logistics systems, mainly caused through the diversity of logistics objects, creates the need for a modeling and analyzing framework. Due to logistics systems often being characterized as open, dynamic and stochastic, modeling and simulation tools provide an effective means for problem solving in logistics.

3. Modeling Concepts
In the process of analyzing and optimizing, or in particular simulating, logistics systems and processes it is at first necessary to model the considered system or process. Related to a simulation study, conceptual modeling forms one of the most important parts [15]. Law adds that the objectives of a particular study have an impact on what is to be represented in the modeled system [16, p. 3], [17]. This refers to the definition of what a model is. A model is defined as a representation of a system for the purpose of studying the system [18]. It is a simplification of a system, but contains those components that are identified as relevant to the problem under investigation. This is often referred to the process of abstraction [19, p. 20]. For classifying models diverse criteria can be applied. In this paper, we conducted a classification according to the purpose of use as well as a classification according to the method of representation and examination. Thereby, conceptual modeling describes the abstraction of a model from a real or proposed system [20]. In context that good conceptual modeling can significantly contribute to a successful outcome of a simulation study, it still is a difficult and hard to understand stage in the modeling process [21], [22]. For effective modeling there is the need to develop the simplest model possible without neglecting vital parts of the considered system losing accuracy [23]. Guidelines for the modeling process can be found in [16], [24], [25]. A range of concepts have been proposed for representing and communicating conceptual models for different purposes. This paper focuses on modeling concepts relevant to the field of logistics as illustrated and classified in Figure 3.

Fig. 2 Object structure

Significant parts of these systems and processes are logistics objects. In context of logistics these objects are
International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

Markus Koch et al.: Approaching Complexity in Modeling and Simulation of Logistics Systems.

411

Fig. 3 Systemization of considered modeling concepts (classification criteria based on [10, pp. 5ff.], [14, p. 36])

The purpose of this paper is not to explain these concepts in detail. The following paragraph is just for a brief description. The SCOR model offers a standardized way of modeling supply chains in providing a predefined set of business activities associated with all phases of supply chain processes [14]. A flowchart is a simple method for illustrating the logic of a system, rather than the process flow [26]. A Gantt chart is a time oriented concept, visualizing the chronological sequence and the duration of operations [27]. The Sankey diagram shows flow relationships and their directions using arrows. Intensities can be seen by the thickness of the arrows [6, p. 231]. Value stream mapping is a standardized concept for mapping processes focusing on value-adding process steps. The Process Chain paradigm is used to describe logistics processes by illustrating the sequence of process steps of the material and information flow over time. The Event-driven Process Chain is a widely accepted standard for the description of processes from an event-oriented view [14]. Network planning is used to visually represent the sequence of processes and their logical relationships for coordinating or scheduling purpose [27]. The Entity Relationship Model (ERM) and the Unified Modeling Language (UML) are applied to model systems specifications and structures using entities and relations [28]. Queuing theory is a stochastic concept dealing with waiting lines in processes. Linear optimization is a mathematical method to optimize a system according to an objective function using linear equations and inequalities [14]. In a throughput diagram the input and output curves of a system are plotted over time. This allows the derivation of key performance indicators (KPI) like WIP or output rate. To illustrate these KPIs (like work in progress or output rate) for different operating states of a system the logistics operating curve is applied
International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

[27]. The Petri Net is a mathematical and graphical tool that enables user to monitor, preserve or check important behavioral system properties [26]. As for the simulation models, three different classes of approaches exist, namely discrete event, mesoscopic and continuous (system dynamics) models. Discrete event simulation models provide a high level of detail in modeling logistics systems, but can be very complicated and slow, i.e. when it comes to modeling and simulating complex and diverse system structures or incorporating different scenarios. System dynamics models are based on differential equations operating on a macroscopic level. The mesoscopic simulation approach is situated between both concepts [29]. Further review on modeling concepts in context of supply chains and the field of logistics can be found in [30], [31]. In determining how these considered concepts approach the increasing degree of complexity according to logistics systems and processes, we considered the following three aspects for evaluation. This comprises the degree of representation according to a system structure, process structure and object structure. For each aspect the consideration of four criteria determining the degree of representation is conducted: System structure: non representable representation of system components (or nodes) representation of system characteristics (of the components) representation of relations between the components representation of cause-and-effect relations as well as opportunity to integrate hierarchy level

412

International Journal of Advanced Computer Science, Vol. 3, No. 8, Pp. 409-415, Aug., 2013.

Process structure: non representable representation of process flow (i.e. material and information flow) representation of process sequences and steps as well as order constraints representation of flow rate and intensity representation of parameters or characteristics of the process components Object structure: non representable representation of single objects, i.e. physical objects (e.g. goods) or abstract objects (e.g. information) representation of single physical and abstract objects representation of object characteristics as well as relations opportunity of composing and decomposing (grouping (automatic/manual)) The filling levels of the circle indicate a proposed order of evaluation as adding steps. Nevertheless, the compliance with each criterion and the resulting total degree of representation of the single criteria should not be disregarded for determining the degree of representation. The results of the conducted study are presented in Table 1.

4. Results
A. Specific Results for the Throughput Diagram
As a representative example of the study the results for the throughput diagram are presented in detail to explain the evaluation procedure. The throughput diagram and the related funnel model form a simple concept in logistics to describe the development and throughput of a considered system or single work station (see Fig. 4). It allows the derivation of statements about the dynamic system behaviour in a quantitative and event-oriented way [32, pp. 24ff.].

Fig. 4 Funnel model and throughput diagram of a work station (cp. [32, p. 25])

TABLE 1 MODELING CONCEPTS AND THEIR DEGREE OF REPRESENTATION ACCORDING TO SYSTEM, PROCESS AND OBJECT STRUCTURE

Concepts SCOR Model Flowchart Gantt Chart Sankey Diagram Value Stream Mapping Process Chain Paradigm Event-driven Process Chain Network Planning Entity Relationship Model (ERM) Unified Modeling Language (UML) Queuing Theory Linear Optimization Throughput Diagram Logistics Operating Curve Petri Net Discrete Event Simulation Mesoscopic Simulation System Dynamics/Continuous Simulation

System Structure Process Structure

Object Structure

tation

circle indicates degree of representation

International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

Markus Koch et al.: Approaching Complexity in Modeling and Simulation of Logistics Systems.

413

The results of the evaluation of the degree of representation according to a system structure, process structure and object structure of the throughput diagram (and the related funnel model) are shown in Table 2. The throughput diagram allows the representation of system components (i.e. the work station) and their characteristics like capacity, work-in-progress (WIP) or range of inventory. In combining several work stations a system structure can be represented. Thus the representation of relations between components is possible. However, the representation of cause-and-effect relations is not intended by the concept. This is realized by logistics operating curves. The throughput diagram is more a representation of a specific operating state of a system or work station respectively. According to the process structure, the throughput diagram is able to represent a process flow as well as process sequences in combining several work stations to a system structure or process structure respectively. For the single components the input and output rate are shown in the diagram. For further parameters or characteristics (like the key performance indicator work-in-progress (WIP)) the focus is more on the system components than on the process components. For the object structure the throughput diagram is not able to fulfil any of the criteria of this category. The representation of single objects is not wanted by the concept due to focusing on flow rates and intensities of the input and output stream.
TABLE 2 RESULTS FOR THROUGHPUT DIAGRAM

B. Further and Concluding Results of the Study

In general, the study shows that the majority of the modeling concepts, at least to some degree, are able to represent a system and process structure of logistics systems. However, what is more significant is that most of the considered concepts are not able to approach the rising complexity caused by the increasing diversity and heterogeneity of logistics objects. These concepts lack in representing an object structure effectively. Most of the concepts are not able to even represent single objects or goods respectively, like SCOR model, Sankey diagram or network planning. Among the descriptive models only the concepts of ERM and UML provide an effective means in describing an object structure. Both concepts deal with the identification of objects and classes as well as with the definition of features and relations among the objects and classes. Wache and Zeigler also state that it has been a proven means and effective strategy to master complexity, which probably refers to the opportunity and importance of forming classes or groups respectively in an accurate and representative way [33], [20, pp. 32f., 330ff.]. In using data entities and relations ERM allows the description of complex structures. Besides the representation of various kinds of structures UML also allows the representation of behavior. Thus ER models are less complex as compared to UML models. Therefore, both are grounded in a particular kind of modeling. Due to standardized logical model representation and high model persistence ERM is well applied to relational databases. UML provides better means for visual modeling as compared to ERM [28]. But UML, providing a methodology for object-oriented modeling, is more a software programming oriented approach [34]. Although, there are adaptations of both concepts to the field of logistics, the focus is not on the logistics object and its characteristics itself. Guidelines for forming classes or proposals for defining features relevant to the field of logistics do not exist. Here, the modeler is left alone with the process of grouping the objects effectively. The analytic concepts of linear optimization and high-level Petri Nets, both support the representation of an object structure. But for modeling complex structures of logistics systems, linear optimization is rather unsuited due to losing transparency and clarity. Petri Nets can also hardly cope with an increasing complexity and are often limited to analytic possibilities which frequently requires support by simulation approaches. Further, dynamic aspects are better to be displayed in using simulation concepts [35]. This describes also an alternative to traditional modeling concepts in using the visual display facilities of a simulation software package. Among the simulation models the concepts of discrete event simulation (DES) and mesoscopic simulation provide a means for modeling and simulation of an object structure. In approaching the rising complexity, mesoscopic simulation seems to be more promising due to its trade off between simulation time and accuracy as well as providing the opportunity of incorporating logical groups of objects.

Throughput Diagram System structure representation of system components (or nodes) representation of system characteristics (of the components) representation of relations between the components representation of cause-and-effect relations as well as opportunity to integrate hierarchy level Process structre representation of process flow (i.e. material and information flow) representation of process sequences and steps as well as order constraints representation of flow rate and intensity representation of parameters or characteristics of Object structure representation of single objects, i.e. physical objects (e.g. goods) or abstract objects (e.g. information) representation of physical and abstract objects representation of object characteristics as well as relations opportunity of composing and decomposing (grouping (automatic/manual))

x x x -

x x x -

International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

414

International Journal of Advanced Computer Science, Vol. 3, No. 8, Pp. 409-415, Aug., 2013.

The mesoscopic modeling and simulation approach can be seen as being situated between the discrete event simulation and the continuous simulation approach (system dynamics), targeting on eliminating the deficits inherent in both approaches. To ensure a dynamic method for providing a fast solution to analyzing, planning and controlling problems, the mesoscopic approach monitors quantities that belong to a logical group (e.g. a batch, a delivery, etc.) instead of individual flow objects (e.g. single parts, entities, etc.). Mathematical equations are used to calculate the results as continuous quantities (flow rates) at certain steps of the discrete modeling time. This contributes to a fast modeling and simulation approach [29]. Nevertheless, as for the descriptive modeling concepts there is no effective support for the composing and decomposing of these logical groups as well as for the definition and description of relevant features and characteristics of the logistics objects.

To address the forming of groups, methods of multivariate data analysis are to be applied to support the process of modeling and forming logical groups efficiently and effectively. Here appropriate concepts need to be identified and evaluated for their qualification. In forming logical groups the characteristics of logistics objects need to be considered. Here the relevant attributes need to be identified. There might be some attributes that are important although they seem to be not relevant in the first place for conducting and addressing the objectives of a simulation study. This can have an influence on effectively forming logical groups. In having the objective of reducing throughput working time is an important attribute to be considered, but nevertheless dimensions or order numbers might also have a significant impact on building logical groups that are representative. In developing e.g. a systematic list of object characteristics a simple and efficient description of the components and attributes is possible. Here, [38] presents a first overview of characteristics related to object analyses in the field of logistics. The described aspects shall form a part of the conceptual modeling process according to the mesoscopic simulation approach. Therefore, appropriate steps and guidelines for modeling are to be presented.

5. Conclusion
This paper demonstrates an evaluation of traditional modeling concepts according to their ability to represent a system structure, process structure and object structure. The procedure for evaluation was presented in detail for the concept of throughput diagram (and the related funnel model). The results show that some modeling concepts allow the representation of an object structure in addition to a system and process structure in a transparent and structured way (i.e. ERM, UML, Petri Net, DES, mesoscopic simulation). This can be used as a basis for approaching the increasing level of complexity. But there is a lack in supporting the composition and decomposition of logical groups of logistics objects. However, this is of significant importance to approach the increasing complexity of logistics systems and processes efficiently. Zeigler et al. also suggest as one method of simplification for simulation modeling to group components of the model [20]. However model simplification is more used as a redesign tool than as a design tool [36]. Therefore, based on the identified results the objective of further research lies in: Developing concepts and approaches of representing and integrating the heterogeneity and diversity of systems and objects. This comprises supporting the simulation modeling stage in composing and decomposing of logical groups. This in particular refers to determining the level of detail of simulation models which is one of the most difficult parts of the modeling process. A concept to support the conceptual modeling stage in that way is presented in [37]. In this context, as a modeling and simulation approach the mesoscopic simulation approach is qualified due to its opportunity to model logical groups and incorporating the dynamic behavior of logistics systems. Further, it provides an efficient means for problem solving in the field of logistics.

References
[1] Simchi-Levi, David. 2008. Designing and managing the supply chain: Concepts, strategies, and case studies. With the assistance of P. Kaminsky and E. Simchi-Levi 3. ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Bretzke, Wolf-Rdiger. 2010. Logistische Netzwerke. 2., wesentlich bearb. u. erw. Aufl. Berlin: Springer. http://d-nb.info/99757786x/04. Schenk, Michael, Juri Tolujew, Katja Barfus, and Tobias Reggelin. 2006. Modellierung und Analyse von rumlichen Relationen zwischen physischen Objekten in logistischen Netzwerken. In Wissenschaft und Praxis im Dialog: Steuerung von Logistiksystemen - auf dem Weg zur Selbststeuerung : 3. Wissenschaftssymposium Logistik. Edited by Hans-Christian Pfohl, 2639. Hamburg: Deutscher Verkehrs-Verlag. Koch, Markus, Juri Tolujew, and Michael Schenk. 2012. Approaching complexity in modeling and simulation of logistics systems (WIP). In Theory of Modeling and Simulation: DEVS Integrative M & S Symposium 2012: (DEVS 2012); Orlando, Florida, USA, 26 - 30 March 2012, 2530. Simulation series 44,4. Red Hook, NY: Curran [u.a.]. Hutchinson, Norman E. 1987. An integrated approach to logistics management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. Schenk, Michael, Siegfried Wirth, and Egon Mller. 2010. Factory planning manual. Berlin, London: Springer. Forrester, Jay W. 1972. Grundzge einer Systemtheorie: Ein Lehrbuch. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Gudehus, Timm, and Herbert Kotzab. 2009. Comprehensive logistics. Heidelberg: Springer.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5] [6] [7] [8]

International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)

Markus Koch et al.: Approaching Complexity in Modeling and Simulation of Logistics Systems.

415

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13] [14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23] [24] [25]

[26]

Schmidt, Joseph W., and Robert E. Taylor. 1970. Simulation and analysis of industrial systems. Irwin series in quantitative analysis for business. Homewood/Ill, Georgetown/Ont: Irwin; Irwin-Dorsey. Page, Bernd, and Wolfgang Kreutzer. 2005. The Java simulation handbook: Simulating discrete event systems with UML and Java. Aachen: Shaker. Schenk, Michael, and Siegfried Wirth. 2004. Fabrikplanung und Fabrikbetrieb: Methoden fr die wandlungsfhige und vernetzte Fabrik. Berlin: Springer. Shapiro, Jeremy F. 2007. Modeling the supply chain. 2. ed., int. student. Duxbury applied series. Belmont, Calif: Thomson-Brooks/Cole. Christopher, Martin. 2011. Logistics & supply chain management. 4th ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Arnold, Dieter, Kai Furmans, Heinz Isermann, Axel Kuhn, and Horst Tempelmeier. 2008. Handbuch Logistik. 3. ed. Berlin: Springer. http://www.gbv.de/dms/bs/toc/533207266.pdf. Robinson, S. 2008. Conceptual modelling for simulation part I: definition and requirements. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59 (3): 27890. Law, Averill M. 2007. Simulation modeling and analysis. 4th ed. McGraw-Hill series in industrial engineering and management science. Boston, Mass: McGraw-Hill. Tolk, Andreas, Saikou Diallo, Robert King, Charles Turnitsa, and Jose Padilla. 2010. Conceptual Modeling for Composition of Model-Based Complex Systems. In Conceptual Modeling for Discrete-Event Simulation. Edited by Stewart Robinson, Roger Brooks, Kathy Kotiadis, and Durk-Jouke Der Zee, 35581: CRC Press. Banks, Jerry. 1998. Handbook of simulation: Principles, methodology, advances, applications, and practice. New York, NY: Wiley. Rumbaugh, James, and Doris Mrtin. 1994. Objektorientiertes Modellieren und Entwerfen. Mnchen: Hanser. Zeigler, Bernard P., Herbert Praehofer, and Tag Gon Kim. 2007. Theory of modeling and simulation: Integrating discrete event and continuous complex dynamic systems. 2. ed. Amsterdam: Acad. Press. Law, Averill M. 1991. Simulation Model's Level of Detail Determines Effectiveness. Industrial Engineering 23 (10): 1618. Pace, Dale K. 2000. Simulation Conceptual Model Development. In Proceedings of the Spring 2000 Simulation Interoperability Workshop. www.sisostds.org. Accessed February 26, 2012. Robinson, S. 1994. Simulation Projects: Building the Right Conceptual Model. Industrial Engineering 26 (9): 3436. Pidd, M. 1999. Just Modeling Through A Rough Guide to Modeling. Interfaces 29 (2): 11832. Uthmann, Christoph v., and Jrg Becker. 1999. Guidlines of Modelling (GoM) for Business Process Simulation. In Process modelling. Edited by B. Scholz-Reiter, H.-D Stahlmann, and A. Nethe, 10016. Berlin, New York: Springer. van der Zee, Durk-Jouke, and Jack G. van der Vorst. 2007. Guiding principles for conceptual model creation in manufacturing simulation. In Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference: December 9 - 12, 2007, Washington, DC, U.S.A. Edited by S. G. Henderson, 77684. New York, NY: ACM.

[27] Schmidt, M., D. Berkholz, and Peter Nyhuis. Modeling of Logistic Processes in Assembly Areas. In Proceedings of the World Congress of Engineering and Computer Science, 106772. [28] Sarjoughian, Hessam, and Robert Flasher. 2007. System Modeling with Mixed Object and Data Models. In Proceedings of the 2007 Spring Simulation Multiconference (SpringSim'07): March 25-29, 2007, Norfolk, Virginia, USA, 199206. San Diego, Calif: Society for Modeling and Simulation International. [29] Schenk, Michael, Juri Tolujew, and Tobias Reggelin. 2010. A mesoscopic approach to the simulation of logistics systems. In Advanced manufacturing and sustainable logistics. Edited by Wilhelm Dangelmaier, Alexander Blecken, and Robin Delius, 1525. Berlin: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12494-5_2. [30] Gunasekaren, A., D. K. Macbeth, and R. Lamming. Modelling and analysis of supply chain management systems an editorial overview. Operational Research Society. [31] Goetschalckx, M., C. J. Vidal, and K. Dogan. 2002. Modeling and design of global logistics systems A review of integrated strategic and tactical models and design algorithms. European journal of operational research 143 (1): 118. [32] Nyhuis, Peter, and Hans-Peter Wiendahl. 2009. Fundamentals of Production Logistics: Theory, Tools and Applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-34211-3. [33] Wache, I. 1998. Object-oriented modelling of material flow controls. Journal of materials processing technology 76: 22732. [34] Rossetti, Manuel D., and Hin-Tat Chan. 2003. A Prototype Object-oriented Supply Chain Simulation Framework. In Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference: Fairmont Hotel, New Orleans, LA, U.S.A., December 7 - 10, 2003. Edited by Stephen E. Chick, 161220. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. [35] House, Robert G., and Jeffrey J. Karrenbauer. 1982. Logistics System Modelling. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 12 (3): 11929. doi: 10.1108/eb014538. [36] Robinson, Stewart. 2006. Conceptual Modeling for Simulation: Issues and Research Requirements. In Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference: Monterey, CA, 3-6 December 2006. Edited by L. F. Perrone, 792800. Piscataway, N.J: IEEE Service Center. [37] Koch, Markus, Tobias Reggelin, and Juri Tolujew. Conceptual procedure for grouping logistics objects for mesoscopic modeling and simulation. In I3M 2012: the 9th International Multidisciplinary Modeling & Simulation Multiconference; 19 - 21 September, 2012, Vienna, Austria. Genova: DIME-DIPTEM University of Genoa. [38] Koch, Markus. 2010. Object analyses in logistics. In Proceedings of Logmark 2010. 2010, ANEC, Las Tunas, Cuba.

International Journal Publishers Group (IJPG)