cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Issue while using Composite Forecast Profile

Former Member
0 Kudos

hi!

I am trying to use a composite forecast profile comprising of

1) A univariate profile with 30% weightage

2) A MLR profile with 70% weightage

When I execute the composite forecast in Interactive Planning, the forecasted values under the MLR profile show a constant value across all time buckets. But If I remove the univariate profile and give 100% weightage to the MLR profile, then the forecasted values are in line with what is obtained when I run a MLR forecast profile indenpendently.

To elaborate on the same :

a) if I run the Univariate profile independently, then I obtain the following forecasted values for 6 future months for sales :

Univariate profile forecasts : 22921, 22921, 22921, 22921, 22921,22921

b) if I run the MLR profile independently, then I obtain the following forecasted values for 6 future months for the dependent variable ( sales in this case ) :

MLR profile forecasts : 18745, 19180, 27647, 20392, 22303, 20380

c) if I run the composite profile with 30-70 weightage to Univariate-MLR, then I obtain the following forecasted values for 6 future months for the dependent variable ( sales in this case ) :

Forecast : 22184, 22184, 22184, 22184, 22184,22184

Univariate profile forecasts : 22921, 22921, 22921, 22921, 22921,22921

MLR profile forecasts : 21868, 21868, 21868, 21868, 21868,21868

My query is why is the MLR profile forecast also showing a constant forecast across all 6 buckets ? If I give 100% weightage to the MLR in the composite profile, then I get the forecasted values as mentioned in case b).

Any clue if the behaviour of the MLR profile is not correct in case c).

regards,

Anirudha

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

Former Member
0 Kudos

Hi Anirudha,

Try to implement 1248396 (eventhough it does not seems 100 % relevant)

It has solved similar issues...

Regards

Julien

Former Member
0 Kudos

hi, Julien.

Thanks a lot. The issue has been resolved post application of the note suggested by you.

regards,

Anirudha

Answers (0)