Influence of differentiated roles on group forecasting accuracy
While behavioral research on forecasting has mostly examined the individual forecaster, organizationally-based forecasting processes typically tend to rely on groups with members from different functional areas for arriving at 'consensus' forecasts. The forecasting performance could also vary depending on the particular group structuring utilized in reaching a final prediction. The current study compares the forecasting performance of modified consensus groups with that of staticized groups using formal role-playing. It is found that, when undistorted model forecasts are given, group forecasts (whether they are arrived at through averaging or by a detailed discussion of the forecasts) contribute positively to the forecasting accuracy. However, providing distorted initial forecasts affects the final accuracy with varying degrees of improvement over the initial forecasts. The results show a strong tendency to favor optimistic forecasts for both the staticized and modified consensus group forecasts. Overall, the role modifications are found to be successful in eliciting a differential adjustment behavior, effectively mimicking the disparities between different organizational roles. Current research suggests that group discussions may be an efficient method of displaying and resolving differential motivational contingencies, potentially leading to group forecasts that perform quite well.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Sniezek, Janet A. & Henry, Rebecca A., 1990. "Revision, Weighting, and commitment in consensus group judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 66-84, February.
- Armstrong, J. Scott, 2002. "Assessing game theory, role playing, and unaided judgment," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 345-352.
- Song, Fei, 2008. "Trust and reciprocity behavior and behavioral forecasts: Individuals versus group-representatives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 675-696, March.
- Sinan Gönül & Dilek Önkal & Paul Goodwin, 2009. "Expectations, use and judgmental adjustment of external financial and economic forecasts: an empirical investigation," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 19-37.
- Lawrence, Michael & Goodwin, Paul & O'Connor, Marcus & Onkal, Dilek, 2006. "Judgmental forecasting: A review of progress over the last 25 years," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 493-518.
- Paul Goodwin, 2005. "How to Integrate Management Judgment with Statistical Forecasts," Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, issue 1, pages 8-12, June.
- Hill, N. Sharon & Bartol, Kathryn M. & Tesluk, Paul E. & Langa, Gosia A., 2009. "Organizational context and face-to-face interaction: Influences on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in computer-mediated groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 187-201, March.
- Lawrence, Michael & O'Connor, Marcus & Edmundson, Bob, 2000. "A field study of sales forecasting accuracy and processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 151-160, April.
- Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul & Lawrence, Michael & Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, 2009. "Effective forecasting and judgmental adjustments: an empirical evaluation and strategies for improvement in supply-chain planning," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-23.
- Sniezek, Janet A., 1989. "An examination of group process in judgmental forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 171-178.
- Lim, Joa Sang & O'Connor, Marcus, 1996. "Judgmental forecasting with time series and causal information," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 139-153, March.
- Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
- Dilek Onkal & M. Sinan Gonul, 2005. "Judgmental Adjustment: A Challenge for Providers and Users of Forecasts," Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, issue 1, pages 13-17, June.
- Clemen, Robert T., 1989. "Combining forecasts: A review and annotated bibliography," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 559-583.
- Sanders, NR, 1992. "Accuracy of judgmental forecasts: A comparison," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 353-364, May.
- McNees, Stephen K., 1990. "The role of judgment in macroeconomic forecasting accuracy," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 287-299, October.
- Milch, Kerry F. & Weber, Elke U. & Appelt, Kirstin C. & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & Krantz, David H., 2009. "From individual preference construction to group decisions: Framing effects and group processes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 242-255, March.
- Lawrence, Michael & Goodwin, Paul & Fildes, Robert, 2002. "Influence of user participation on DSS use and decision accuracy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 381-392, October.
- Rowe, Gene & Wright, George, 1996. "The impact of task characteristics on the performance of structured group forecasting techniques," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 73-89, March.
- Robert C. Blattberg & Stephen J. Hoch, 1990. "Database Models and Managerial Intuition: 50% Model + 50% Manager," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(8), pages 887-899, August.
- Wright, George & Goodwin, Paul, 2009. "Decision making and planning under low levels of predictability: Enhancing the scenario method," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 813-825, October.
- Armstrong, J. Scott, 2006. "Findings from evidence-based forecasting: Methods for reducing forecast error," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 583-598.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:27:y::i:1:p:50-68. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.