Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
997825 | International Journal of Forecasting | 2007 | 12 Pages |
Abstract
People often use analogies when forecasting, but in an unstructured manner. We propose a structured judgmental procedure whereby experts list analogies, rate their similarity to the target, and match outcomes with possible target outcomes. An administrator would then derive a forecast from the information. When predicting decisions made in eight conflict situations, unaided experts' forecasts were little better than chance, at 32% accurate. In contrast, 46% of structured-analogies forecasts were accurate. Among experts who were 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 help.
Related Topics
Social Sciences and Humanities
Business, Management and Accounting
Business and International Management
Authors
Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong,