The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Forecasting and Planning: An Evaluation
Abstract
The formal practice of forecasting and planning (F&P) has risen to prominence within a few decades and now receives considerable attention from both academics and practitioners. This paper explicitly recognizes the nature of F&P as future-oriented decision making activities and, as such, their dependence upon judgmental inputs. A review of the extensive psychological literature on human judgmental abilities is provided from this perspective. It is argued that many of the numerous information processing limitations and biases revealed in this literature apply to tasks performed in F&P. In particular, the “illusion of control,” accumulation of redundant information, failure to seek possible disconfirming evidence, and overconfidence in judgment are liable to induce serious errors in F&P. In addition, insufficient attention has been given to the implications of numerous studies that show that the predictive judgment of humans is frequently less accurate than that of simple quantitative models. Applied studies of F&P are also reviewed and shown to mirror many of the findings from psychology. The paper subsequently draws implications from these reviews and suggests reconceptualizing F&P through use of decision-theoretic concepts. At the organizational level this involves recognizing that F&P may perform many, often conflicting, manifest and latent functions which should be identified and evaluated through a multi-attribute utility framework. Operationally, greater use should be made of sensitivity analysis and the concept of the value of information.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984
On the psychology of prediction.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0034747 · Cited by 6,202
Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice
Tversky, A. (1972) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0032955 · Cited by 3,365
Belief in the law of small numbers.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031322 · Cited by 3,246
Fault trees: sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.4.2.330 · Cited by 708
Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970.
Simon, H. A., & Newell, A. (1971) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0030806 · Cited by 635
Reasoning in humans. II. The solution of a problem and its appearance in consciousness
Maier, N. R. F. (1931) · Journal of Comparative Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0071361 · Cited by 621
Perceived informativeness of facts.
Fischhoff, B. (1977) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.3.2.349 · Cited by 404
Cited by
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2018) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643 · Cited by 1,230
“…people’s attempts to adjust algorithmic forecasts often make them worse (e.g. Carbone, Andersen, Corriveau, & Corson, 1983; Goodwin & Fildes, 1999; Hogarth & Makridakis, 1981; Lim & O'Connor, 1995; Willemain, 1991), the benefits associated with getting people to use the algorithm may outweigh the…”
BackgroundWestern University, Sedig, K., Parsons, P., & Western University (2013) · AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.17705/1thci.00055 · Cited by 145
An empirical analysis of inventory turnover behaviour in Greek retail sector: 2000–2005
Kolias, G. D., Dimelis, S. P., & Filios, V. P. (2011) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.026 · Cited by 76
Human–artificial intelligence collaboration in prediction: a field experiment in the retail industry
Revilla, E., Saenz, M. J., Seifert, M., & Ma, Y. (2023) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2023.2267317 · Cited by 63
Environmentally significant behavior in the home
Stern, P. C. (2008) · The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Economic Behaviour · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511490118.015 · Cited by 50
Freiburg, M., & Grichnik, D. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Finance · doi:10.1080/15427560.2013.791295 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Hogarth, R. M., & Makridakis, S.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1981-02
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 115-138
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2066847835
- Cited by
- 608
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 36.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.