Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!mephisto!udel!rochester!kodak!doering
From: doering@kodak.UUCP (Paul F. Doering)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re:  Retrospective Forecasting
Message-ID: <2378@kodak.UUCP>
Date: 28 Feb 90 14:28:53 GMT
References: <5473@bgsu-stu.UUCP>
Reply-To: doering@kodak.com (Paul F. Doering)
Distribution: na
Organization: Kodak Research, Rochester NY
Lines: 28

In <5473@bgsu-stu.UUCP> Bruce Klopfenstein writes that he finds
little evidence that technology forecasters critique past efforts
to refine the forecasting process. I earn my living as a forecaster
of technological developments, and I would cite two explanations:

I believe that most successful forecasters are unknown to the
public or even to their peers. They live inside organizations that
rely on their services. Possibly they can be detected only by their
employer's knack for good decisions. "Famous" forecasters rise on
their own successes and fall precipitously on their first obvious
misstep. That's a consequence of being "employed" by the public.
Private employers are more likely to accept a satisfactory batting
average instead of perfection. What all this means is that the kind
of post-mortum Bruce is seeking probably goes on quietly in scores
of places, with the results hoarded for competitive advantage.

Additionally, I find that I spend much of my time qualifying the data,
not the technique. Any good algorithm fed bad information will give
unreliable results. Clearly, I don't mean to belittle the need for
good algorithms; but it's disappointing how many sources are in
business merely to publish bad data.

... All of which makes my signature block a little ironic --
-- 
 =========================   ===============================
  Paul Doering (for self)     We shall walk together         
     doering@kodak.com        as seekers toward the Future.  
 =========================   ============= -Carl Sandburg ==