Predictive models are good at finding that A tends to happen with B, but they struggle to definitively prove which relationship concerning strategy setting?
Answer
Causation
Predictive models excel at identifying correlation but struggle to prove causation. Mistaking correlation for causation when setting business strategy directly leads to ineffective or damaging interventions.
Related Questions
What foundational principle highlights that flawed training data leads to flawed predictions in predictive modeling?If historical sales data shows a specific region was ignored by the sales team, what will a model trained on this data accurately predict for that region?What risk arises when a small error in measuring a current input feature cascades over a long forecast timeframe, like quarterly revenue?What technical hurdle occurs when a model learns the noise and random fluctuations in training data too well instead of the underlying patterns?What limitation centers on the difficulty of interpreting *how* highly effective models, like deep learning networks, arrive at a specific prediction?What category covers true 'unknown unknowns' that models cannot account for because they have no historical precedent in the training data?What occurs when the very relationship between input variables and the outcome changes over time due to evolving consumer tastes or obsolete technology?What essential role does human expertise provide when a statistical model forecasts a high demand for a product facing known supply chain constraints?Predictive models are good at finding that A tends to happen with B, but they struggle to definitively prove which relationship concerning strategy setting?What operational limit describes the waiting period between when a model-driven business action is taken and when the resultant data is available to validate the prediction's accuracy?