IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ems/eureir/26656.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do experts' SKU forecasts improve after feedback?

Author

Listed:
  • Legerstee, R.
  • Franses, Ph.H.B.F.

Abstract

We analyze the behavior of experts who quote forecasts for monthly SKU-level sales data where we compare data before and after the moment that experts received different kinds of feedback on their behavior. We have data for 21 experts located in as many countries who make SKUlevel forecasts for a variety of pharmaceutical products for October 2006 to September 2007. We study the behavior of the experts by comparing their forecasts with those from an automated statistical program, and we report the forecast accuracy over these 12 months. In September 2007 these experts were given feedback on their behavior and they received a training at the headquarters' office, where specific attention was given to the ins and outs of the statistical program. Next, we study the behavior of the experts for the 3 months after the training session, that is, October 2007 to December 2007. Our main conclusion is that in the second period the experts' forecasts deviated less from the statistical forecasts and that their accuracy improved substantially.

Suggested Citation

  • Legerstee, R. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F., 2011. "Do experts' SKU forecasts improve after feedback?," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI2011-31, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:ems:eureir:26656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/26656/EI2011-31.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Athanasopoulos, George & Hyndman, Rob J., 2011. "The value of feedback in forecasting competitions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 845-849.
    2. J. Scott Armstrong & Ruth Pagell, 2003. "The Ombudsman: Reaping Benefits from Management Research: Lessons from the Forecasting Principles Project," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 33(6), pages 91-111, December.
    3. Welch, Eric & Bretschneider, Stuart & Rohrbaugh, John, 1998. "Accuracy of judgmental extrapolation of time series data: Characteristics, causes, and remediation strategies for forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 95-110, March.
    4. Philip Hans Franses & Rianne Legerstee, 2010. "Do experts' adjustments on model-based SKU-level forecasts improve forecast quality?," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(3), pages 331-340.
    5. Bolger, Fergus & Onkal-Atay, Dilek, 2004. "The effects of feedback on judgmental interval predictions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 29-39.
    6. Sanders, NR, 1992. "Accuracy of judgmental forecasts: A comparison," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 353-364, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Legerstee, R. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F. & Paap, R., 2011. "Do experts incorporate statistical model forecasts and should they?," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI2011-32, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    9. 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.
    10. Robert Fildes & Paul Goodwin, 2007. "Good and Bad Judgment in Forecasting: Lessons from Four Companies," Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, issue 8, pages 5-10, Fall.
    11. Balzer, William K. & Sulsky, Lorne M. & Hammer, Leslie B. & Sumner, Kenneth E., 1992. "Task information, cognitive information, or functional validity information: Which components of cognitive feedback affect performance?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 35-54, October.
    12. Goodwin, Paul, 2000. "Improving the voluntary integration of statistical forecasts and judgment," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 85-99.
    13. Remus, William & O'Conner, Marcus & Griggs, Kenneth, 1996. "Does Feedback Improve the Accuracy of Recurrent Judgmental Forecasts?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 22-30, April.
    14. Franses, Philip Hans & Legerstee, Rianne, 2009. "Properties of expert adjustments on model-based SKU-level forecasts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 35-47.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Stone, Eric R. & Opel, Ryan B., 2000. "Training to Improve Calibration and Discrimination: The Effects of Performance and Environmental Feedback," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 282-309, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Armstrong, J. Scott & Green, Kesten C. & Graefe, Andreas, 2015. "Golden rule of forecasting: Be conservative," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1717-1731.
    2. Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul & Onkal, Dilek, 2015. "Information use in supply chain forecasting," MPRA Paper 66034, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Perera, H. Niles & Hurley, Jason & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen, 2019. "The human factor in supply chain forecasting: A systematic review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 574-600.
    4. Arvan, Meysam & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen & Siemsen, Enno, 2019. "Integrating human judgement into quantitative forecasting methods: A review," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 237-252.
    5. Petropoulos, Fotios & Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul, 2016. "Do ‘big losses’ in judgmental adjustments to statistical forecasts affect experts’ behaviour?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 842-852.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Perera, H. Niles & Hurley, Jason & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen, 2019. "The human factor in supply chain forecasting: A systematic review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 574-600.
    2. Legerstee, R. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F. & Paap, R., 2011. "Do experts incorporate statistical model forecasts and should they?," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI2011-32, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    3. Philip Hans Franses & Rianne Legerstee, 2010. "Do experts' adjustments on model-based SKU-level forecasts improve forecast quality?," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(3), pages 331-340.
    4. Franses, Philip Hans & Kranendonk, Henk C. & Lanser, Debby, 2011. "One model and various experts: Evaluating Dutch macroeconomic forecasts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 482-495.
    5. Petropoulos, Fotios & Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul, 2016. "Do ‘big losses’ in judgmental adjustments to statistical forecasts affect experts’ behaviour?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 842-852.
    6. 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.
    7. Makridakis, Spyros & Hyndman, Rob J. & Petropoulos, Fotios, 2020. "Forecasting in social settings: The state of the art," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 15-28.
    8. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    9. Franses, Philip Hans & Legerstee, Rianne, 2013. "Do statistical forecasting models for SKU-level data benefit from including past expert knowledge?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 80-87.
    10. De Baets, Shari & Harvey, Nigel, 2018. "Forecasting from time series subject to sporadic perturbations: Effectiveness of different types of forecasting support," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 163-180.
    11. Sroginis, Anna & Fildes, Robert & Kourentzes, Nikolaos, 2023. "Use of contextual and model-based information in adjusting promotional forecasts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(3), pages 1177-1191.
    12. Arvan, Meysam & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen & Siemsen, Enno, 2019. "Integrating human judgement into quantitative forecasting methods: A review," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 237-252.
    13. Philip Hans Franses, 2021. "Modeling Judgment in Macroeconomic Forecasts," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 19(1), pages 401-417, December.
    14. Franses, Philip Hans, 2013. "Improving judgmental adjustment of model-based forecasts," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-8.
    15. Önkal, Dilek & Lawrence, Michael & Zeynep SayIm, K., 2011. "Influence of differentiated roles on group forecasting accuracy," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 50-68, January.
    16. Önkal, Dilek & Lawrence, Michael & Zeynep Sayım, K., 2011. "Influence of differentiated roles on group forecasting accuracy," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 50-68.
    17. Bert de Bruijn & Philip Hans Franses, 2012. "Managing Sales Forecasters," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-131/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Petropoulos, Fotios & Goodwin, Paul & Fildes, Robert, 2017. "Using a rolling training approach to improve judgmental extrapolations elicited from forecasters with technical knowledge," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 314-324.
    19. Baecke, Philippe & De Baets, Shari & Vanderheyden, Karlien, 2017. "Investigating the added value of integrating human judgement into statistical demand forecasting systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 85-96.
    20. Leitner, Johannes & Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike, 2011. "Experiments on forecasting behavior with several sources of information - A review of the literature," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(3), pages 459-469, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cognitive process feedback; expert forecasts; judgmental adjustment; model forecasts; outcome feedback; performance feedback; task properties feedback;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C53 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Forecasting and Prediction Models; Simulation Methods
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ems:eureir:26656. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: RePub (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feeurnl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.