Effective forecasting and judgmental adjustments: an empirical evaluation and strategies for improvement in supply-chain pla
Fildes, R., Goodwin, P., Lawrence, M., Nikolopoulos, K.
Pages 3-23
AbstractDemand forecasting is a crucial aspect of the planning process in
supply-chain companies. The most common approach to forecasting demand in
these companies involves the use of a computerized forecasting system to
produce initial forecasts and the subsequent judgmental adjustment of these
forecasts by the company's demand planners, ostensibly to take into account
exceptional circumstances expected over the planning horizon. Making these
adjustments can involve considerable management effort and time, but do
they improve accuracy, and are some types of adjustment more effective than
others? To investigate this, we collected data on more than 60,000
forecasts and outcomes from four supply-chain companies. In three of the
companies, on average, judgmental adjustments increased accuracy. However,
a detailed analysis revealed that, while the relatively larger adjustments
tended to lead to greater average improvements in accuracy, the smaller
adjustments often damaged accuracy. In addition, positive adjustments,
which involved adjusting the forecast upwards, were much less likely to
improve accuracy than negative adjustments. They were also made in the
wrong direction more frequently, suggesting a general bias towards
optimism. Models were then developed to eradicate such biases. Based on
both this statistical analysis and organisational observation, the paper
goes on to analyse strategies designed to enhance the effectiveness of
judgmental adjustments directly.
Keywords: Forecasting accuracy, Judgment, Heuristics and biases, Supply chain, Forecasting support systems, Practice, Combining, Forecast adjustment
COMMENTS
Post a commentCorrection. There is an
Robert Fildes, 16 June 2009
Correction. There is an error in equation M3 in the paper. It has no substantive effects on the results. See the attachment.
Reply
Robert Fildes, 16 June 2009
Correction. There is an error in equation M3 in the paper. It has no substantive effects on the results. See the attachment.