Judgemental revision of sales forecasts: The relative performance of judgementally revised versus non-revised forecasts

The judgemental revision of sales forecasts is an issue which is receiving increasing attention in the forecasting literature. This paper compares the performance of forecasts after revision by managers with that of the forecasts which were accepted by them without revision. The data set consists of sales forecasting data from an industrial company, spanning six quarterly periods and relating to some 900 individual products. The findings show that, in general, the improvements made by managers bring the forecast errors of revised forecasts more into line with non-revised forecasts, but the change is often marginal, and the best result is equivalence between revised and non-revised forecasts.     

Judgemental revision of sales forecasts: A longitudinal eetension

When quantitative models are used for short-term multi-item sales forecasts it is possible that the managers who use such forecasts may disagree with at least some of the estimates obtained, and wish to change them so that they become more consistent with their own (subjective) evaluation of the marketplace. This study reports on an analysis of the effectiveness of judgemental revision of sales forecasts over six quarterly forecasting periods. The results give general support for the practice of forecast manipulation as a means of improving forecasting accuracy. It is also observed that the effectiveness of revision activity varies across different time periods.     

Towards a taxonomy of forecast error measures a factor-comparative investigation of forecast error dimensions

This study explores the nature of information conveyed by 14 error measures drawn from the literature, using real-life forecasting data from 691 individual product items over six quarterly periods. Principal components analysis is used to derive factor solutions that are subsequently compared for two forecasting methods, a version of Holt's exponential smoothing, and the random walk model (Naive 1). The results reveal four underlying forecast error dimensions that are stable across the two factor solutions. The potentially confounding influence of sales volume on the derived error dimensions is also explored via correlation analysis.