Forecasting effectiveness of policy implementation strategies: working with semi‐experts

Abstract

Purpose

Policy implementation strategies (PIS) are schemes designed by a government with an aim of hitting targets or attaining objectives set out by a policy. Forecasting by analogies (FBA) has been shown to be successful in situations of high uncertainty and low quantitative data as is that of PIS effectiveness forecasts. What is more, a structured approach to FBA helps the expert structure his thoughts in an organized manner before making a prediction, which is hypothesized to improve accuracy. This paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

This research suggests a semi‐structured analogies (S‐SA) approach for such a task. A pilot experiment was carried to test the performance of the S‐SA approach in the hands of semi‐experts when compared with unaided judgment (UJ).

Findings

The results of the experiment showed that for this level of expertise, there is no statistical evidence to suggest any approach is better than the other. Possible explanations of this result is that analogy recall of experts was hindered by four constructs: information, complexity, worldview, and expertise. It was concluded that the structured analogies approach for forecasting PIS effectiveness must be investigated further by means of a study involving “true experts”.

Research limitations/implications

The sample sizes were small.

Practical implications

Forecasting PIS effectiveness is seen as an important tool for deciding upon which PIS to ultimately adopt (as there may be many available!) and this then has important implications for governmental budgeting.

Originality/value

The paper offers further insight into the performance of a structured analogies approach to forecasting PIS effectiveness in the hands of individuals with a mid‐level of expertise.

Citation

Savio, N.D. and Nikolopoulos, K. (2009), "Forecasting effectiveness of policy implementation strategies: working with semi‐experts", Foresight, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 86-93. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680911004984