Sales forecasting is a common activity in most companies affecting operations, marketing and planning. Little is known about its practice. Mentzer and his colleagues have developed a research programme over twenty years aimed at rectifying the gap in knowledge most recently, in the mentzer et al (2002) paper they have demonstrated with supporting evidence the use of a sales forecasting audio to establish the dimensions of best practice. In this commentary on the paper, the methodology underlying their approach is examined from a number of different perspectives. The commentaries examine how convincing and complete has been the choice of audit dimensions as well as how this new research fits with evidence from other sources both commentators and respondents agree that the topic is important to organizational practice and more research is needed to gain a complete picture of the sales forecasting function and the systems that support it. Clarifying the audit function is particularly important since sales forecasting often has a low organizational profile until events turn sour with damaging consequences to organizational viability.
Any visit to a company that relies on sales forecasting in its operations or marketing confirms that the most important aspect of forecasting for those with organizational forecasting responsibilities is not simply the choice of approach but something much more fundamental how the forecasting activities, the information system and the people who produce and use forecasts inter-relate. Increasingly I and other researchers have seen the gap between theory and practice in forecasting as an outcome primarily of organizational complexities and priorities (Mahmoud et al 1992) rather than a stubborn refused of practioners to recognize the superiority of the latest methods found in the forecasting literature the article submitted by mark moon, Tom Mentzer, and Carlo Smith on “Conducting a Sales Forecasting Audit”. It was rare contribution towards understanding just what goes right and wrong in the sales forecasting. Because it explored new ground in forecasting research (although others had visited particular questions earlier) I thought its influence on both forecasting practice and forecasting researchers would be more substantial if some key aspects of the arguments were held up to the light and picked apart. I therefore asked the referees of the article and other researchers who have argued for the importance of behavioural research in forecasting to comment on the assumptions and methods used by Moon, Mentzer and Smith, in particular highlighting areas where future research should prove most productive. What follows are comments by Stuart Bretschneider, Fred Collopy, Micheal Lawrence, Doug Steward and Heidi Wink – Ihofer together with a response from the authors themselves. I and the editors of the journal would welcome further research contributions that examine how organizations go about the task of improving the forecasting function.
| 1 - 5 of 96 Reviews |