Thursday, June 23, 2011
Organizational Data and Management Assumptions-102
Engaging Employees 101
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Organization Data and Management Assumptions-101
Once upon a time I presented myself as a consultant to a large company which had nearly 300 stores spread around the SE states. I was told they needed a mathematical model which could more accurately predict sales, by store and by all stores. I asked how accurate their current model. It was ±15%, not very accurate. I asked the following questions:
How many stores, and which ones, were ‘county seat’ stores? (about 260)
2. Do these stores all carry the same inventory? (yes)
3. I noticed a flashy store of yours just down the street. How many of these stores are there?
(7) – Do they all have the same inventory – (Yes, but the store in Nashville does not)
At this point I could identify three different types of stores. (County seat, city, and stand-alone in Nashville)
The company produced the previous 4 years of sales data. I was to use the first three years to predict last year’s sales. The company wanted ±3% accuracy.
I divided all stores into the three groups. I achieved the desired accuracy on the first pass. Intrigued, I looked for the outliers (poorly predicted sales). I made a fourth group out of these. My prediction on all other stores was slightly better than ±1.75% accuracy!
I presented the results to my executive contact and he was ecstatic! I explained the outlier group by store name, and he responded to each one with a reason for its failure: “We have never understood this store,” “The manager was fired for excessive shrinkage,” and so on.
So you can see that assuming all stores perform like all others is counter productive – and not a good way to look at sales data. Even a 'simple' assumption with a rationale (like mine) is far better than not thinking about your problem.