Hi George -- thanks for writing.
What is the question you're trying to answer with your study? Can you give us some more details?
En-ROADS will give the same answer for any given set of inputs, but maybe there is a different way to answer your question.
I may be missing something (in what you are looking for), but I don't believe there would be any reason the En-ROADs model would show any different results if you DON'T change any parameters. The outcome is predetermined by the settings. There is no randomness incorporated into the model.
The interesting variation, in my opinion, is on the perceived/cumulative effectiveness of adding any NEW intervention relative to the set of things added before. For example:
Electrification AFTER Renewables will likely yield higher results than if pulled on its own or in tandem with other levers. I have always thought there may be an interesting way to show these INTERDEPENDENCIES. And that it would be useful, because the order/combinations that one uses can easily lead to erroneous conclusions about the strength of individual interventions.
Something that could get at these combinations would be very useful.
The ReThink Health model had an interesting output that one could "read" to determine how combinations might work together strategically. But it wasn't really used for the above, which was much less an issue in the ReThink Health Dynamics Model (which is more about working within funding constraints to achieve multiple aims) than in the En-ROADS (which is about combining several things to reach highly correlated aims).
I attach an old version of the ReThink Health output that I found useful - for whatever it is worth of your purposes.
I'm currently completing a study using the En-Roads simulation and was wondering if there's any way to turn on a variation parameter or see variation within simulation trials using the same parameters. I keep receiving the same results when I use the same parameters but think and need the simulation to show different results.