Structured Analogies for Forecasting
Monash University Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Paper No. 17/04
34 Pages Posted: 8 Mar 2005
There are 2 versions of this paper
Date Written: 2004
Abstract
When people forecast, they often use analogies but in an unstructured manner. We propose a structured judgmental procedure that involves asking experts to list as many analogies as they can, rate how similar the analogies are to the target situation, and match the outcomes of the analogies with possible outcomes of the target. An administrator would then derive a forecast from the experts' information. We compared structured analogies with unaided judgments for predicting the decisions made in eight conflict situations. These were difficult forecasting problems; the 32% accuracy of the unaided experts was only slightly better than chance. In contrast, 46% of structured analogies forecasts were accurate. Among experts who were independently able to think of two or more analogies and who had direct experience with their closest analogy, 60% of forecasts were accurate. Collaboration did not improve accuracy.
Keywords: accuracy, analogies, collaboration, conflict, expert, forecasting, judgment
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Recommended Papers
-
Forecasting Methods for Marketing: Review of Empirical Research
By J. Scott Armstrong, Roderick Brodie, ...
-
The Ombudsman: Value of Expertise for Forecasting Decisions in Conflicts
-
The Ombudsman: Value of Expertise for Forecasting Decisions in Conflicts
-
The Ombudsman: Value of Expertise for Forecasting Decisions in Conflicts