Abstract
PurposeDemand forecasting models in companies are often a mix of quantitative models and qualitative methods. As there are so many existing forecasting approaches, many forecasters have difficulty in deciding on which model to select as they may perform “best” in a specific error measure, and not in another. Currently, there is no approach that evaluates different model classes and several interdependent error measures simultaneously, making forecasting model selection particularly difficult when error measures yield conflicting results.Design/methodology/approachThis paper proposes a novel procedure of multi-criteria evaluation of demand forecasting models, simultaneously considering several error measures and their interdependencies based on a two-stage multi-criteria decision-making approach. Analytical Network Process combined with the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (ANP-TOPSIS) is developed, evaluated and validated through an implementation case of a plastic bag manufacturer.FindingsThe results show that the approach identifies the best forecasting model when considering many error measures, even in the presence of conflicting error measures. Furthermore, considering the interdependence between error measures is essential to determine their relative importance for the final ranking calculation.Originality/valueThe paper's contribution is a novel multi-criteria approach to evaluate multiclass demand forecasting models and select the best model, considering several interdependent error measures simultaneously, which is lacking in the literature. The work helps structuring decision making in forecasting and avoiding the selection of inappropriate or “worse” forecasting model.
Subject
General Business, Management and Accounting
Reference36 articles.
1. A new look at the statistical model identification;IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,1974
2. Application of the AHP in project management;International Journal of Project Management,2001
3. Expertise, credibility of system forecasts and integration methods in judgmental demand forecasting;International Journal of Forecasting,2017
4. Armstrong, J.S. (2001), “Evaluating forecasting methods”, in Armstrong, J.S. (Ed.), Principles of Forecasting, Springer US, Boston, Vol. 30, pp. 443-472, doi: 10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3_20.
5. Integrating human judgement into quantitative forecasting methods: a review;Omega,2019
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献