Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

28 Aufrufe

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Quantitative Applications in Management
- Beer Demand
- ICAS Sci 2011 Paper F
- Municipal Solid Waste Generation Modelling Based on Fuzzy Logic
- cook annotated bibliography
- Predicting the Future of Car Manufacturing Industry using Data Mining Techniques
- sessional 1
- 695_Woo
- 0000
- Toledo Gas
- Mendenhall Minitab
- Module 1 Lesson 4
- an Observational Study on Two Wheeler Buying Choice
- no linealidades stock watson
- Forecasting Fints Using Mr, Mlp, Rbf, Anfis
- data analysis
- Wohl 2011
- stata
- 1-s2.0-S0094730X12000836-main
- 2DS01lec1

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

companies spend millions inundating – and

alienating – customers. Here’s a way to crunch

the data that makes it possible to offer customers

what they want, when they want it.

When, and to Whom

by V. Kumar, Rajkumar Venkatesan, and Werner Reinartz

contemplating your company’s

quarterly mail-shot to customers. You

when. Using these data, you should be

able to determine the probability that

a given existing customer with a certain

know that if you can get some of your buying history will purchase a given

customers to buy from you, then you’ll product at a given time. This informa-

have increased the chances that they’ll tion should enable you not only to tar-

come back again in the future; second- get the customers who are most likely to

time customers are more likely to become purchase something but also to tailor

third-time customers than ﬁrst-time cus- your offering to what is most likely to

tomers are to become second-time ones, appeal to them. And it should prevent

and so on. But the mailing is an expen- you from spending money on customers

sive proposition, and you know that in who won’t follow through (and who

the past only about 3% of customers might actually be put off by the ava-

have actually responded to mailings by lanche of unsolicited offers coming

making a purchase. Shareholders and ﬁ- from your organization). All of this

nancial analysts are keeping a close eye should signiﬁcantly improve your ROI–

on your company’s marketing ROI, so the beneﬁts from more precise target-

you need to make each contact with ing and the reduction in the number

your customers count. of mailings more than outweighing

You turn to your company’s newly im- the costs of customization in this digi-

MARTIN HAAKE

agement (CRM) system, which tracks That, at least, is the theory. Unfortu-

what each customer purchases and nately, despite the abundance of data

T O O L K I T • K n o w i n g W h at t o S e l l , W h e n , a n d t o W h o m

that many companies collect, most do probability that a customer will choose tomer is most likely to buy. It does not,

a poor job predicting the behavior of to purchase a particular product. The however, tell them anything about

their customers. In fact, our research second is to estimate the probability when a customer will buy.

into the purchase patterns of thousands that a customer will make a purchase at The next step in the traditional

of customers at two large ﬁrms suggests a particular time. Most ﬁrms stop at the method is to estimate the probability

that their predictions about whether ﬁrst step, which limits their ability to that a customer will make a purchase at

a particular customer will buy a partic- make accurate predictions about the a given time. This probability is a func-

ular product at a particular time are cor- timing of purchases, but even those tion of the average interval between

rect only around 60% of the time, a re- companies that follow the process purchases for all customers in the orig-

sult that hardly justiﬁes the costs of through end up with bad data, as we inal sample, adjusted for a number of

having a CRM system in the ﬁrst place. shall see. customer-speciﬁc variables, such as the

After all, you would accurately predict The probability that a customer will time intervals between the most recent

the outcome of a coin toss 50% of the choose to buy a particular product is purchases, and how often marketing

time. Most companies take studies like assumed to be a function of a range of materials have been sent to each per-

this as evidence that it’s impossible to variables. Some of the variables will be son. Historical data on these variables

use the past to predict the future, and a customer’s demographic data, some for a sample of customers are, once

they revert to the timeworn marketing will reﬂect the person’s past purchasing again, plugged into a form of regression

practice of inundating their customers behavior, and still other factors will have analysis that produces an equation in

with offers. to do with the company’s actions, such which the relative importance of the

But as we will demonstrate, the poor as the customer’s familiarity with the determining variables is ﬁxed. By feed-

predictions are not the result of any brand or the nature of the company’s ing fresh data on these variables into

basic problem with CRM systems or any

failure of the predictive power of past

behavior. Rather, the problem lies in the

Many companies may be actively damaging

limitations of the mathematical meth- revenues in an attempt to make sure that no

ods most companies use to interpret the

data. We have developed a new way of

opportunity for a sale is missed.

predicting customer behavior, based on

the work of the Nobel Prize–winning contact with him or her. Marketers the equation, marketers can derive the

economist Daniel McFadden, that de- using the traditional method determine probability that each customer will buy

livers vastly improved results. Indeed, the relative importance of the variables a product at a particular time. This

the new methodology ups the odds of by looking at a sample of customers, allows the marketer to determine at

successfully predicting a speciﬁc pur- usually those on which the ﬁrm has the which times (for example, in which

chase by a speciﬁc customer at a speciﬁc richest data. Some form of regression months) each customer is most likely to

time to about 80%, a number that will analysis is then applied to these data to buy any of the company’s products.

have a major impact on any company’s derive an equation for the desired prob- The joint probability for each cus-

marketing ROI. Using our methodol- ability, in which each variable has a co- tomer’s future purchase behavior is cal-

ogy, managers can actually increase efﬁcient, or weighting, that determines culated by simply multiplying the two

revenues while reducing the frequency its relative importance. The equation is probabilities – which products the indi-

of customer contact, evidence that over- then used to estimate the product vidual will buy and when. What mar-

communication does indeed damage a choice probabilities for all the custom- keters get from this is a probability cube

company’s sales. ers on which the ﬁrm has enough data, whose three axes are customers, product

the assumption being that the coefﬁ- groups, and time periods, as illustrated

A Problem of Probabilities cients of the sample will remain valid in the exhibit “The Customer Probabil-

To understand why companies do such for all customers in the future. What ity Cube.”Marketers can use the cube in

a poor job of predicting customer be- marketers get at the end of this exercise various ways. They can identify what

havior, we must ﬁrst take a closer look is a series of probabilities that tells them products each customer will buy over

at the methods they use. The most com- (theoretically) which customers are a period and when his or her purchases

mon method involves two separate most likely to buy a particular product are most likely to take place. Or they

steps. This ﬁrst step is to estimate the and which products a particular cus- can identify the customers who are

V. Kumar (vk@business.uconn.edu) is the ING Chair Professor and the executive director of the ING Center for Financial Services at

the University of Connecticut’s School of Business in Storrs. Rajkumar Venkatesan (rvenkatesan@business.uconn.edu) is an assis-

tant professor and the assistant director of the ING Center for Financial Services at the University of Connecticut’s School of Busi-

ness. Werner Reinartz (werner.reinartz@insead.edu) is an associate professor at Insead in Fontainebleau, France.

K n o w i n g W h at t o S e l l , W h e n , a n d t o W h o m • T O O L K I T

times when the product will be most

actively in demand. Using those pre-

dictions, they can determine what prod-

ucts to offer to which customers at

which times.

All this sounds very reasonable. The

relationship between a customer’s deci-

sion to purchase and the choice of prod-

uct seems to be captured by the fact that

product choice probabilities are fac-

tored into timing probabilities. And in

many industries, sample sizes are large

and customer data rich. Why then are

the numbers so unreliable?

Part of the problem is that the timing

of a customer’s purchase is inﬂuenced

by the type of product purchased. Sup-

pose a customer purchases product A

every three months and product B every

four months. Let’s further suppose that

two months have elapsed since the cus-

tomer’s most recent purchase, and she

bought product B at that time. Clearly,

this customer is right now more likely

to purchase product A than product B.

But the approach of multiplying the

product-choice and purchase-timing

probabilities from two independent re- to put the question to a random sample the sample group are representative

gression equations completely ignores of 1,000 customers and average their of the population as a whole (the pop-

any kind of interdependence between responses. You’d then use their average ulation here being all your existing

the two probabilities. The result is poor rating of, say, four stars as a proxy for customers and the sample being those

predictions of both when a customer the entire population’s average rating. existing customers you’re using to de-

will make a purchase and what product The problem is, if you were to take termine the relationship). But since

the customer will buy at that time. another random sample of 1,000, you that’s highly unlikely to be the case, it

There are statistical corrections that might get a three-star average rating. If follows that the relationships between

can deal with this common regression- you took 100 such samples, you would customer purchase decisions and the de-

analysis phenomenon, however, so it is ﬁnd that the ratings from these samples termining variables estimated through

not the main problem with the method. followed a normal bell-shaped distribu- regression analysis are bound to be inac-

There’s another source of error in the tion pattern around a mean (say, 4.1 curate. If the sampling error is severe

traditional method that cannot be cor- stars) that was closest to the entire pop- enough, the company using this meth-

rected: the fact that the two probability ulation’s true average rating. The chance odology can end up choosing the wrong

equations are based on data from a sin- that the sample you started with actu- product to push at the wrong time to

gle sample. This gives rise to sampling ally had the same mean as the popula- the wrong customer – and even using

error, the inaccuracy of results that oc- tion as a whole is inﬁnitesimal. To get the wrong channels (which channels a

curs when a population sample is used close to the true population mean, you company uses are often a big determi-

to explain the behavior of the total pop- would have to repeat the test 100 times nant of both product choice and pur-

ulation. To understand how this works, or more with different samples or use chase timing).

consider the following simple example. a much bigger sample. Unfortunately, most companies have

Suppose you have 20 million custom- The traditional approach to estimat- no option but to rely on often relatively

ers, and you want to know how highly ing probabilities is vulnerable to sam- small samples to perform the calcula-

they rate your product. You probably pling error precisely because of the tions. They frequently lack enough

would not ask all 20 million of them implicit assumption in all regression data on all their customers to estimate

what they thought and then average all analyses that the weightings, or coefﬁ- meaningful relationships between the

the ratings. Rather, you’d be more likely cients, of the independent variables of various drivers of purchasing behavior.

T O O L K I T • K n o w i n g W h at t o S e l l , W h e n , a n d t o W h o m

On top of that, the populations may than estimating a single weighting for weightings are valid for the whole

simply be too big for their computers each variable (as regression analysis population.

to handle–imagine trying to work with does), the formula at the heart of this We have built on the pioneering work

data from 1 million customers choos- technique ﬁrst speciﬁes the range of of Daniel McFadden to develop a multi-

ing every month from 1,000 products. weightings that could have produced variate formula called a likelihood func-

Yet it’s precisely for companies with the observed data of the sample being tion, which can accurately compute pur-

large customer populations that an ac- analyzed. Then, through an iterative chase and timing probabilities for a

curate probability cube would create chain of calculations, it allows the ana- customer population choosing from

the most value. lyst to determine the most probable more than two products. That’s obvi-

weightings for the variables involved, ously important because most compa-

Eliminating Sampling those that would most likely have pro- nies offer more than two products and

Error duced the observed data. You can think many of their customers – especially

So how can companies derive proba- of a Bayesian estimation as reproduc- those they are likely to use in a sam-

bilities free of sampling error? The an- ing the dots on a scatter diagram rather ple–will have purchased more than two

swer lies in a branch of statistical math- than ﬁnding the best-ﬁt line, which is different ones. While a full discussion

ematics called Bayesian estimation. The what regression analysis does. This kind of the mathematics of the model is be-

methodology has been around for de- of calculation has greater predictive yond the scope of this article, we pro-

cades but is only recently entering the power because it reproduces the actual vide a summary description of the for-

marketing mainstream. behavior of a sample rather than esti- mula in the exhibit “Estimating the

Bayesian estimation gets around the mating a set of weightings from one Likelihood of Purchase.” (We refer those

problem in the following way. Rather sample and then assuming that those interested in a complete exposition of

our methodology to our working paper,

“A Purchase Sequence Analysis. Frame-

work for Targeting Products, Customers

The Customer Probability Cube and Time Period” and to the paper that

describes the work of Daniel McFadden

To better target marketing initiatives, companies need to be able to predict

on which our methodology is based:

what products customers will buy and when. Marketers use a probability cube

“Social Science Duration Analysis,” by

to determine the probabilities of purchase along three dimensions: the cus- James Heckman and Burton Singer, in

tomers, the products, and time. The cube shown here is for a company selling the book Longitudinal Analysis of Labor

four products. The numbered cells indicate that there’s a 90% chance that in Market Data.)

the ﬁrst quarter, customer 1 will buy product 1, a 10% chance that he will buy Estimating and using our likelihood

product 2, a 60% chance that he will buy product 3, and a 20% chance that he function requires special software such

will buy product 4. This cube also allows the ﬁrm to identify which customers as Gauss or MATLAB. We start by plug-

are most likely to buy product 1, for example, in Q1 as well as all the products ging into the program the actual pur-

that customer 1 is likely to buy in all four quarters. chasing behavior of all customers in our

sample, specifying what each purchased

Q4 … … … … and when for a given period. Next, we

Timing Q3 … … … …

(in Quarters) … input all other data we have on each

Q2 … … … … customer in the sample – age, sex, aver-

…

Q1 age time between purchases, and so on.

0.9 0.1 0.6 0.2 … …

The program software then processes

0

.2 … the data through our likelihood func-

C1 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.2

… … tion and iteratively applies different

… … weightings to each variable until the

C2 … … … …

Customers

…

efﬁcients most likely to reproduce the

… …

… … … … … behaviors observed at the beginning.

… In other words, the software reverse-

… … … … … engineers the scatter diagram, in which

Cn the dots are purchases of different prod-

ucts at different times by different cus-

P1 P2 P3 P4 tomers in the sample.

Products/Categories Of course, for this new approach to be

an improvement over traditional meth-

K n o w i n g W h at t o S e l l , W h e n , a n d t o W h o m • T O O L K I T

ods, it needs to generate more accurate only 55% of cases. Thus, our new meth- 10,000 customers to estimate probabil-

results. To see if this was the case, we odology improved the B2B company’s ities over the ﬁfth year. The customer

ﬁrst applied it to a large multinational ability to accurately predict customer variables we input were the same as

B2B company that sells high-tech prod- behavior by about 54%. The main ﬂaw those we used for the B2B company,

ucts and services to professional and in the traditional method is that even with some adjustments reﬂecting the

Fortune 500 clients. We examined three though it accurately predicts which different nature of the businesses (cus-

years of data (2000 through 2002) on products the customer will buy, it per- tomers can’t, for instance, return ﬁnan-

a sample of 20,000 customers to deter- forms poorly in predicting the pur- cial services). The results we got were

mine coefﬁcients for the customer vari- chase time. The greater accuracy of our strikingly similar to the B2B case. Our

ables and then applied the resulting method was also reﬂected in the reduc- model predicted actual purchases cor-

equations to all the customers in the tion of the standard deviation of our rectly 71% to 89% of the time, which com-

database to derive a probability cube predictions. Our predictions typically pared favorably with a hit rate of be-

covering the four quarters that started varied from the outcome by 3.4 months tween 58% and 65% for the traditional

in January 2003. We looked at a range rather than the 4.4 months of the tradi- model. On average, the improvement in

of factors related to purchase behavior tional approach. performance for the proposed model

(such as number of products purchased We performed the same experiment is about 33% compared with the tradi-

from different product categories and for a large corporation selling ﬁnancial tional model. The average deviation in

number of products bought within the investment, banking, and insurance purchase timing was about 3.1 months

same category) and timing (interpur- products directly to consumers. This for our method compared with 4.2

chase times, for example, and frequency time, we used four years of data on months for the traditional method.

of marketing contact).

We then applied the traditional

methodology (using the same set of cus-

tomer variables) to derive a second

probability cube. The probabilities ob- Estimating the Likelihood of Purchase

tained by the two methods produced

At the heart of our method for predicting customer behavior is what we call

very different numbers, as can be seen

in the exhibit “How Different Are Our the likelihood function. The function estimates the likelihood (Li) that a

Numbers?” The exhibit compares the customer or household (i) will purchase a given product at a given time:

probabilities of a single, very frequent Cr

Ri J i

customer choosing to buy one or both ijt 1−Cr

of two products over a period of four Li = fi t, j Si t i

quarters. ri = 1 j=1

We compared the probabilities we de-

rived by both methods with the actual where:

observed behavior of a number of cus- Ri is the number of interpurchase times for customer or household i

tomers of our B2B ﬁrm during 2003 and

th

2004, and a sample of our ﬁndings is if the ri interpurchase time extends beyond

0 the observation

given in the exhibit “How Accurate window

Cr =

Were We?” Our method was much bet- i

1 otherwise

ter at predicting what customers would

actually do than the traditional method.

if product j is bought by customer or household i at time t;

When our methodology, for example, 1

predicted that a particular customer ijt = the probability that ijt = 1 is Pij (t)

had a high probability (deﬁned as more 0 otherwise; the probability that ijt = 0 is (1− P ij (t))

than 50%) of purchasing product 1 in a

given quarter, in 85% of cases, the cus-

and fi (•) and Si (•) denote the density and survivor functions, respectively.

tomer did indeed purchase that prod-

The term involving Si (t) accounts for right censoring of the data, because

uct. (The hit rates for buying product 2

the end of the data collection period usually does not coincide with a purchase

individually and buying both products 1

and 2 together were 74% and 80% re- for all households. Consequently, this term does not depend on Pij (t).

spectively.) But when the traditional Standard maximum likelihood methods can be used to estimate the model

methodology indicated that a customer parameters. We have implemented the model-estimation procedure in

had a high probability of purchasing a Gauss program.

product 1, the prediction was correct in

T O O L K I T • K n o w i n g W h at t o S e l l , W h e n , a n d t o W h o m

The charts in this exhibit compare the probabilities B2B FIRM:

of purchase for a single customer over time and PROBABILITIES OF PURCHASE USING…

across product types. The ﬁrst chart shows the num-

bers according to our Bayesian estimation model; OUR MODEL

the second reﬂects the traditional method. As the Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

numbers show, the two models predict very different Product 1 0.75 0.1 0.17 0.36

purchasing behaviors for the same customer. The Product 2 0.1 0.15 0.66 0.35

results in the ﬁrst table indicate that a given customer Both Products 1 & 2 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.2

is expected to buy product 1 (say, a router) in Q1,

products 1 and 2 (a router and an antivirus software

program) in Q2, and product 2 (an antivirus program) TRADITIONAL MODEL

in Q3. The results in the bottom table indicate that Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

the same customer is expected to purchase a router Product 1 0.5 0.7 0.05 0.2

in Q2, a router and an antivirus program in Q3, and Product 2 0.4 0.1 0.25 0.6

an antivirus program in Q4.

Both Products 1 & 2 0.05 0.15 0.65 0.2

This exhibit compares the predictive Made Did not make

power of our method with that of the OUR MODEL a purchase a purchase

traditional method of estimating pur- Of the customers predicted to buy 85% 15%

chase probabilities. We see that 85% of Of the customers predicted not to buy 13% 87%

the customers of the B2B company who

our method predicted would purchase

product 1 actually went on to do so. In TRADITIONAL MODEL

contrast, only 55% of the customers Of the customers predicted to buy 55% 45%

predicted to be purchasers by the Of the customers predicted not to buy 41% 59%

traditional method actually did so.

More Bang for the panies may be actively damaging their we conducted a ﬁeld study to see what

Marketing Buck customer revenues in attempts to make impact applying strategies suggested by

Our experiments highlighted the im- sure that no opportunity for a sale is the model would actually have on the

portance of interdependencies between missed. This ﬁnding reinforces anec- proﬁts and revenues at our two compa-

the variables. Of particular interest was dotal evidence: How do you, as a cus- nies, both of which we suspected were

our ﬁnding that purchase acceleration tomer, feel about the space taken up in guilty of overcommunicating.

was linked to marketing communi- your mailbox by special offers from We split each of our samples (20,000

cation in a highly nonlinear fashion. credit card companies? customers at the B2B ﬁrm and 10,000 at

Below a certain threshold frequency of The corollary is that a careful reduc- the ﬁnancial services ﬁrm) into a test

marketing contact, customers were held tion in communication by these same group and a control group. The commu-

back from purchasing; but above a cer- companies to the right levels would lead nication strategy for the customers in

tain threshold, customers were put off. not only to lower costs but to an increase the test groups was determined by the

In other words, communicating too in revenues per customer. To test the ef- variable relationships and the probabil-

much can harm you as much as commu- fectiveness of our methodology in help- ity predictions generated by our model.

nicating too little. Clearly, many com- ing companies ﬁnd those right levels, The contact strategy for customers in

K n o w i n g W h at t o S e l l , W h e n , a n d t o W h o m • T O O L K I T

What Was the Impact on the Bottom Line? amounted to over $4 million. Extended

to the ﬁrm’s total customer population,

Reducing the level of marketing communication with customers, as the proﬁt improvement would amount

suggested by our approach, sharply improved returns on marketing to $200 million.

investment at both companies we studied. Revenues also increased A great proportion of this improved

across the board at both ﬁrms for the test group customers. We ob- proﬁtability, of course, can be attributed

to the costs saved by reducing the level

served that total revenues from the test groups were higher than rev-

of communication (31% at the B2B ﬁrm

enues for the control groups by about $4 million for the high-tech

and 26% at the ﬁnancial services ﬁrm).

ﬁrm and about $1.7 million for the ﬁnancial services ﬁrm. The impact

But note that the revenues generated

of rolling this out to the entire customer bases of these ﬁrms is for all product groups also went up. The

clearly signiﬁcant. At the B2B ﬁrm, for example, we estimate a poten- $365 average per-customer difference in

tial revenue improvement of $73 million. revenues at the B2B ﬁrm, for example,

implies that sales could be as much

IMPROVEMENTS IN PERFORMANCE (PER CUSTOMER) as $73 million higher if the new method-

ology were rolled out to all 200,000

HIGH-TECHNOLOGY COMPANY (B2B) customers. It appears, therefore, that

our model does indeed do more than

Revenue ($) Proﬁt ($) ROI (%) just allow companies to stop spending

Product 1 605 1,649 150 money on unreceptive customers–it ac-

Product 2 306 1,897 160 tually helps companies recover sales

that their traditional marketing strate-

Products 1 & 2 198 1,273 170

gies may currently be losing.

FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY (B2C) •••

The secret to achieving a good market-

Revenue ($) Proﬁt ($) ROI (%) ing ROI is simple: Give customers more

Product 1 208 591 180 of what they truly want and less of

Product 2 247 428 170 what they don’t. It’s always been hard

to work out what customers do and

Product 3 182 397 180

don’t want, let alone when they do or

Products 1 & 2 97 402 200 don’t want it, so marketers have re-

Products 1 & 3 58 336 220 sorted to offering them everything all

Products 2 & 3 101 381 220 the time. Our new technique makes

it perfectly feasible for companies to

Products 1, 2, & 3 164 402 210

avoid this trap. And thanks to the wide-

spread availability of rich databases,

computing power, methodological ad-

vancements, and quantitative empiri-

cal thinking, the list of companies that

the control groups was determined by At the B2B ﬁrm, the new methodology can beneﬁt from this approach is large

their company’s traditional approach. increased proﬁts by an average of and growing larger. Companies that

Over the course of a year, we collected $1,600 per customer, representing an take advantage of the new technology

per-customer data on revenues, costs improvement in ROI of 160%. Given the in the right way will doubly beneﬁt –

of sales and communication, number of sample size of over 20,000 customers, the overall reduced level of marketing

contacts before a purchase is induced, the increase in proﬁts amounted to will stop them from alienating custom-

proﬁt, and return on investment for the about $32 million for the sample group ers while making more dollars available

sample customers. alone. Since the company’s entire cus- for tailored pitches to existing custom-

The exhibit “What Was the Impact on tomer base numbered 200,000, the po- ers and for outreach initiatives to new

the Bottom Line?” gives a breakdown tential proﬁt improvement would total ones. When companies offer customers

of the differences between the two $320 million. For the ﬁnancial services what they want, when they want it, sales

groups at each company for each mea- ﬁrm, the average proﬁtability improve- will rise.

sure tracked. The communications plans ment per customer was about $400, rep-

determined by our model resulted in resenting an ROI improvement of 200%. Reprint R0603J

sharp improvements in proﬁtability. Given the sample size of more than To order, see page 151.

- Quantitative Applications in ManagementHochgeladen vonYashpal Malik
- Beer DemandHochgeladen vonSneha Khurana
- ICAS Sci 2011 Paper FHochgeladen vonvtendean
- Municipal Solid Waste Generation Modelling Based on Fuzzy LogicHochgeladen vonIkhwan Mardiyah Putera
- cook annotated bibliographyHochgeladen vonapi-237019401
- Predicting the Future of Car Manufacturing Industry using Data Mining TechniquesHochgeladen vonIDES
- sessional 1Hochgeladen vonsadamkhan
- 695_WooHochgeladen vonjayjam_scribd
- 0000Hochgeladen von3rlang
- Toledo GasHochgeladen vonRongor10
- Mendenhall MinitabHochgeladen vonkaled1971
- Module 1 Lesson 4Hochgeladen vonandri00
- an Observational Study on Two Wheeler Buying ChoiceHochgeladen vonIJAERS JOURNAL
- no linealidades stock watsonHochgeladen vonjlcastleman
- Forecasting Fints Using Mr, Mlp, Rbf, AnfisHochgeladen vonACERGY
- data analysisHochgeladen vonshri
- Wohl 2011Hochgeladen vonJhonathan Cuenca
- stataHochgeladen vonHe H
- 1-s2.0-S0094730X12000836-mainHochgeladen vonrikirdn27
- 2DS01lec1Hochgeladen vonfarukh jamil
- Voters Rationalization StudyHochgeladen vonoffego
- Final Report of BRMHochgeladen vonnaqihuma
- Bukita Dan Iskandar (2009)Hochgeladen vonrikky adiwijaya
- Transport Re vs fHochgeladen vonBrian Mnichowicz
- Regression 1Hochgeladen vonanshuman kandari
- Pobreza e InteligenciaaHochgeladen vonJuan Ospina
- CB Weighted RegressionHochgeladen vonMarto BM
- Non parametrical Estimation of the Regression used in Economic AnalysesHochgeladen vonLoredana Gheorghe
- Sperate Product Mean EstimatorHochgeladen vonHaroonButt
- content ratingsHochgeladen vonapi-252860425

- iBatisHochgeladen vonci_73
- TP Link Switch EmulatorHochgeladen vonsdmitar
- Streaming Video Over Variable Bit-Rate Wireless ChannelsHochgeladen vonNguyễn Đình Vũ
- DM_V83_ENHochgeladen vonRobson Bueno
- Probability Boolean ExpressionsHochgeladen vonCristina Gollandka
- Midterm Hw123problems Hw123solHochgeladen vonGavie Marquos
- Street Hype Newspaper January 1-18, 2015Hochgeladen vonPatrick Maitland
- KEP ReportHochgeladen vonStephen McGarry
- 2013_JUPITER-Z1__1M1DY460EA__rev1 (2).pdfHochgeladen vonmomo
- Cfda-nrega Monitoring and Evaluation ReportHochgeladen vonAnand Sugandhe
- MS0516Hochgeladen vonelauwit
- Developing Business Plans and Pitching OpportunitiesHochgeladen vonAbdulMoneeb
- Affiliateservice API v4Hochgeladen vonLuca Ele Ale Stefi
- omnibus731_qsqHochgeladen vonbgibsoncap
- Business Planning BRIEFHochgeladen vondevrana27
- Lecture 4 Cost Advantage Strategies SNHochgeladen vonHamzaJamal
- ALL G.Os.Hochgeladen vonRaghu Ram
- CS Form No. 212 Revised Personal Data Sheet 2 (NEW FORM)Hochgeladen vonPlan Can Jox
- Research TopicsHochgeladen vonpgk242003
- SUNDARAM CLAYTON – WINNING THE DEMING PRIZEHochgeladen vonApoorv Jhudeley
- Gasoline and Diesel Production via Fischer Tropsch Synthesis Over Cobalt Based CatalystHochgeladen vonFrançois Leroy
- FLOYD_Q&AHochgeladen vonPaulo Castillo
- Iare Caed Lab ManualHochgeladen vonSudheer Nani
- Epoch 4Hochgeladen vonilu20
- GatesTBRMHochgeladen vonJosé Benavides
- 2009_5_PierreHochgeladen vonCelia Dana
- Mobile Payments 2012 Innopay v1.01Hochgeladen vonMartina Bagarić Galić
- Case Study Notes_CSIHochgeladen vonRinder Sidhu
- Dixell-XR60CHochgeladen vonCarlos
- 6. Chua v MesinaHochgeladen vonnazh