Demand forecasting systems: Spending a lot on software doesnt guarantee success.

No Gravatar

Product line demand forecasting stands as the proto-typical application for internal prediction markets. Internal prediction markets may have other uses, but the demand forecasting story is probably the most straightforward and has been most often discussed in articles on the topic.

When software vendors and consultants try to sell prediction market systems to business, both the successes and the failures of existing forecasting systems likely stand as barriers. If the company’s current system is seen as successful, the company will have little motivation to change. If the company’s most recent million dollar system is a disaster, they will hesitate to leap into something new. I guess that leaves the moderately dissatisfied and mildly happy folks as likely sales targets.

An article in CIO highlights a demand forecasting disaster at Nike and discusses ways in which companies have adapted demand forecasting systems into business plans. The article was first published in 2003, so it is a few years old, but it stresses an important point – that a good system involves both software and people.

It’s been more than two years since Nike Chairman Phil Knight owned up to the sneaker giant’s disastrous $400 million experiment with demand forecasting software. The headlines are well known: Nike went live with its much-vaunted i2 system in June 2000, and nine months later, its executives acknowledged that they would be taking a major inventory write-off because the forecasts from the automated system had been so inaccurate. With that announcement in February 2001, Nike’s stock value plummeted, along with its reputation as an innovative user of technology.

… Nike isn’t the only company with a forecasting horror story. Corporate America is littered with companies that invested heavily in demand software but have little or nothing to show for it.

… Yet vendors and academics are still pushing forecasting software. In 2002 alone, companies spent $19 billion on demand forecasting software and other supply chain solutions, according to IDC (a sister company to CIO’s publisher). And in a speech in February, Stanford University supply chain guru Hau Lee extolled the virtues of harnessing software to extract customer knowledge in order to forecast demand.

Many CIOs, however, remain skeptical. Privately, members of Lee’s audience complained to a reporter present that the ability to accurately forecast could hardly be taken for granted. And according to a recent Booz, Allen &amp- Hamilton survey of 196 senior executives, 45 percent said that supply chain technology in general had failed to meet their expectations. More than half—56 percent—blamed the shortcoming squarely on demand forecasting software.

Of course it is easier to blame the software than to blame the humans in the systems, but the article suggests that any good system will need both.

Even forecasts that are made with a limited number of variables and with accurate data will be off. They still make the fundamental assumption that what was true yesterday will be true tomorrow. But because the data about a change lags behind the change itself, it takes human market watchers to note business climate alterations.

… &#8220-When the future doesn’t resemble the past, none of this forecasting software works well,&#8221- [Vicor CIO Doug] Richardson says.

… The mishap taught Vicor the necessity of factoring human intelligence into its forecasts. In order to make sure that it isn’t caught off guard again, the company set up a dual forecasting process in which the sales department comes up with a forecast and the computer system, which was upgraded a year ago, makes another. The two are complementary- the sales department is too conservative with its forecasts (Richardson thinks the salespeople are merely cautious- a cynic might point out that they are compensated for selling above quota).

The article discusses several other cases as well.

(Vicor adopted a forecasting system from Smart Software, and is now featured as a customer testimonial on the Smart Software site. Presumably, they&#8217-re happier with their new system.)

John Delaney of inTrade-TradeSports: The North Korea Missile prediction market was a P.R. disaster.

No Gravatar

Jed Christiansen:

It’s obvious that John wants InTrade to be much more successful than it has been, but he still clearly believes that InTrade can still be very successful. He mentioned that one key in their business is market makers- a few of their former market makers left, and that had a significant impact in the categories in which they participated. The new gambling laws in the US has had a significant impact on their business, but John is optimistic about the long-term potential of the industry in the States.

Regarding InTrade and TradeSports, John was clear that the companies are separate legal entities, with different management and employees. That said, he said that like a divorce, there are still connections between the two that take some time to replace. They are also looking into ways that individuals can submit contracts to trade on the exchange, similar to what you can do at Inkling. Clearly this would still be fairly tightly controlled, and judgement of the contracts would be done outside of InTrade by an independent entity.

John is disappointed that InTrade hasn’t grown more than they have. At the same time, he seems to be very optimistic about InTrade because their employees are still very motivated and morale continues to be strong. He also said he would fly to the US, but it would need to be for a good reason.

Finally, John addressed the infamous North Korea missile market. He was asked, “Was it a mistake?” He said both No and Yes. It wasn’t a mistake in that the market was judged according to a strict interpretation of the rules. At the same time, it was a mistake in that they didn’t handle the PR issue particularly well. His lesson learned was that they simply need to be incredibly careful regarding their market definitions.

On that last point, being the courageous web journalist at the center of this NKM storm, let me say this:

  1. It was a mistake to state in the contract that the (only) expiry source was to be the US DOD. The Military&#8217-s vocation is not to tell the truth, but to protect the US citizens &#8212-by way of lying, sometimes, if needed. (And we know now that, in all matters related to North Korea, the US DOD&#8217-s policy is to abstain from making public, precise, detailed comments.) Any event futures contract should state that the prediction exchange (betting exchange) will make any effort to gather the facts (i.e., the truth) &#8212-by all means possible (official source of information, the media, direct investigation, etc.).
  2. It was a mistake not to void all bets and all trading, or not to compensate the victims (the traders who did correctly predict that a missile would be fired, and lost their money due to &#8220-a strict interpretation of the rules&#8221-), when it became clear that the US DOD was not telling the truth completely (that is, they didn&#8217-t hand out all the details needed by InTrade-TradeSports to expire the prediction market on the &#8220-yes&#8221- side).
  3. It was a mistake to retaliate against Chris Masse in the purest Irish tradition: suppression of a subside I never asked for- insults sent from anonymous e-mail accounts- rumors spread around saying that Chris Masse is bitter coz he didn&#8217-t get the money he asked for- e-mails sent by a second-tier, phone-booth, vendor conference organizer (paid by Intrade-TradeSports) to my contacts asking them to cut off all links with Chris Masse- etc. All this in vain, since CFM and Midas Oracle remain the two most popular and prestigious resources on prediction markets &#8212-and growing.
  4. It is a mistake to come forward with regrets during a small venue, as opposed to make up with disappointed people and traders in popular web publications.

Previously: BetFair seems to say that InTrade-TradeSports’ illegal approach is not the best, on the long term. + InTrade expired the Larry Craig prediction market too early.

Beware before citing the probabilistic predictions given by the prediction markets

No Gravatar

Steve Roman:

It’s good to see Intrade cited as authoritative but I don’t think the recession contracts have enough liquidity to accurately reflect the odds. Citing a contract price when there is only a small amount of liquidity is one issue the MSM does when the number may not be credible. Some others that come to mind:

1. Thinly traded contracts may not reflect true odds – For instance, the contract for the US entering a recession in 2008 is now trading at 31. A pundit may cite this as a 31% chance of the US entering a recession in 2008, but he would not note that there is a 10-point spread around that price, so that by trading one lot, the odds will change by 5 points up or down. It would be a meaningless move – or would it? In such a thin market it impossible to tell.

2. Contract rules are importantWill Larry Craig resign? Did a missile leave NK airspace? The contracts for these events were based on rules that could be interpreted to have the opposite meaning of what most people would assume they do.

Even with Intrade’s recession contracts the details are important. The contracts will pay off when there are two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. That’s easy to understand, but is only one definition of recession. In the US a recession starts when the NBER says it does, making it possible for the GDP definition and contract odds to show we are not in a recession as the NBER declares we are. Not a major issue, but one that should be disclosed.

3. Timeframe should be noted – US News is the latest violator of ignoring time frames when discussing price changes, http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/10/16/recession-odds-continue-to-fall.html . When talking about price changes it is necessary to talk about the time period over which the changes occurred. Did the odds of a recession decline from 60% to 30% within the past week? The past month? Not citing a timeframe or including a chart means I have to go back to Intrade to check on my own.

Steve Roman&#8217-s blog: Nasty Brutish And Tall