Comments on the Model Testing by Goodwin and Meeran (2012) : Comparison of the Utility-based and the Gompertz Curve Approach for High-Technology Product Sales Forecasting

Gnibba-Yukawa K, Decker R (2012)
Journal of Product Innovation Management 29(S1): 219-228.

Download
Es wurde kein Volltext hochgeladen. Nur Publikationsnachweis!
Zeitschriftenaufsatz | Veröffentlicht | Englisch
Autor
;
Abstract / Bemerkung
Based on data for 14 consumer electronic products and using the Gompertz curve as a benchmark, NN (2011) carried out a “more extensive testing” of the utility-based sales forecasting approach proposed by Decker and Gnibba-Yukawa (2010). However, at least from a practical point of view, the plausibility of their testing framework regarding the market potential m is not unquestionable. The results presented in this article suggest that the utility-based approach could achieve more accurate forecasts when applying a more reasonable range for m, rather than varying it between 2 and 15 times the cumulative sales by the end of year 7 as proposed by NN (2011). Furthermore, the predictive accuracy of the Gompertz curve may significantly improve for short time series if m, as opposed to their suggestion, is estimated exogenously. With an appropriate m, the utility-based and the Gompertz curve approach tend to perform on a par. The overall forecast accuracy can be further improved if the individual forecasts of both approaches are combined to one prediction. Combining the outcomes of different forecasting approaches promises to be an effective strategy for early sales forecasting in high-technology markets, rather than relying on one presumably “best” model.
Erscheinungsjahr
Zeitschriftentitel
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Band
29
Zeitschriftennummer
S1
Seite
219-228
ISSN
PUB-ID

Zitieren

Gnibba-Yukawa K, Decker R. Comments on the Model Testing by Goodwin and Meeran (2012) : Comparison of the Utility-based and the Gompertz Curve Approach for High-Technology Product Sales Forecasting. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2012;29(S1):219-228.
Gnibba-Yukawa, K., & Decker, R. (2012). Comments on the Model Testing by Goodwin and Meeran (2012) : Comparison of the Utility-based and the Gompertz Curve Approach for High-Technology Product Sales Forecasting. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(S1), 219-228. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00965.x
Gnibba-Yukawa, K., and Decker, R. (2012). Comments on the Model Testing by Goodwin and Meeran (2012) : Comparison of the Utility-based and the Gompertz Curve Approach for High-Technology Product Sales Forecasting. Journal of Product Innovation Management 29, 219-228.
Gnibba-Yukawa, K., & Decker, R., 2012. Comments on the Model Testing by Goodwin and Meeran (2012) : Comparison of the Utility-based and the Gompertz Curve Approach for High-Technology Product Sales Forecasting. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(S1), p 219-228.
K. Gnibba-Yukawa and R. Decker, “Comments on the Model Testing by Goodwin and Meeran (2012) : Comparison of the Utility-based and the Gompertz Curve Approach for High-Technology Product Sales Forecasting”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 29, 2012, pp. 219-228.
Gnibba-Yukawa, K., Decker, R.: Comments on the Model Testing by Goodwin and Meeran (2012) : Comparison of the Utility-based and the Gompertz Curve Approach for High-Technology Product Sales Forecasting. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 29, 219-228 (2012).
Gnibba-Yukawa, Kumiko, and Decker, Reinhold. “Comments on the Model Testing by Goodwin and Meeran (2012) : Comparison of the Utility-based and the Gompertz Curve Approach for High-Technology Product Sales Forecasting”. Journal of Product Innovation Management 29.S1 (2012): 219-228.