MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992360793

Collaborative Forecasting: Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's Journey

2004· article· en· W2992360793 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven D. Miller, Krista M. Liem

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Business Forecasting Methods & Systems · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)NegotiationDemand forecastingProduction (economics)Distribution (mathematics)Process (computing)MarketingOperations researchEngineeringBusinessOperations managementComputer scienceEconomicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Describes in detail the problems in the legacy system at Goodyear and the changes the company made over time to improve it ... the new forecasting system emphasizes customer specific forecasting ... for new product forecasting, Goodyear uses an analog model. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) is a worldwide leader in the production of tires, engineered products and other goods, with over one hundred years of history. It has long recognized the importance of forecasting customer demand as a part of its production and distribution planning, and the need for meeting the customer's requirements with the right product in the right place at the right time, every time. Statistical forecasting techniques have long been used to begin the process of negotiation between production planning and marketing organizations. This vital process starts with the need for forecasting the short term unconstrained demand for developing production and distribution plans, which is the core of our demand planning business model. Goodyear has made large improvements in the forecasting process, systems and accuracy, despite the various business complexities it experienced in the last decade or so, which are: 1. Inclusion of our Kelly-Springfield subsidiary into the Goodyear forecasting system 2. Acquisition of Dunlop Tire 3. Need for specific customer forecasts 4. Continuous introduction of new and innovative products, which expanded our product lines In spite of these dramatic changes, the Goodyear branded products sold to our dealers and company owned outlets have remained a critical portion of our business. Considering this segment of business as a control group, we made a tremendous progress in our forecasting efforts, reducing forecasting error at a SKU level from 65% in 1993 to 31% in 2003. Forecasts were prepared 60 days ahead, and were weighted by volume for computing average percent error. FORECASTING SYSTEM IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE The forecasting system at Goodyear was started in early 1970's with the installation of IBM's IMPACT mainframe software at our North American operations, which used time series models. Shortly, thereafter, our Kelly-Springfield subsidiary developed its own forecasting software solution. In the late 1980's, the North American Tire Division partnered with outside consultants to develop a new forecasting system that used sophisticated models, such as Holt triple exponential smoothing model. The system collected order information from our ERP system and then used the SAS program to develop forecasts. By early 1990's, Goodyear had three distinct forecasting systems with independent consensus processes, different metrics, and no electronic communication amongst them. Figure 1 describes the system's landscape, which existed at the time. IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR LEGACY SYSTEM Within the Goodyear US system, we were experiencing extremely large errors at a SKU level (both at item and location), when forecasts were prepared 60 days ahead. This clashed with our longstanding policy of providing our customers the highest level of customer service and fulfilling orders when requested. So, we embarked on a project to increase the forecast accuracy. Since we found that our system was doing a good job with the Holt's triple exponential smoothing technique at an aggregate level, we replaced the linear regression models used for SKU level forecasts with single exponential smoothing model. With that, we immediately experienced 20% improvement in our forecast accuracy, weighted by volume. In 1993, the North American Tire division (which included US and Canadian operations) made a decision to implement SAP R/2 as our ERP solution. With the result, the forecasting systems in US and Canada were revamped. We used this opportunity to combine the US and Canadian forecasting systems into one integrated application for Goodyear. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.282
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Business Forecasting Methods & SystemsSame topicForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207