This page explains how the four separate pieces built across this course, a sales-history forecast, a phased weekly plan, a re-forecast check, and a cost comparison between over- and under-forecasting, come together into one complete worksheet for a real style. It is for a buyer, planner or factory contact who must run all four steps together for a style under a hybrid ordering arrangement.
At work, a buyer such as Cedar & Co. does not use forecasting, phasing, re-forecasting and cost weighing as separate, disconnected exercises; it runs them together, in sequence, for every style it forecasts. Treating them as separate tools that never meet is a real problem: a forecast built without its own phasing plan cannot be delivered against; a phasing plan never checked against real sales cannot be trusted mid-season; and a re-forecast made without knowing which direction of error costs more cannot be set with the right amount of caution. This lesson brings all four pieces together into one worksheet, using a single hybrid order as the example that runs through it.
You need: lessons 3.1 to 3.4's forecasting, phasing, re-forecasting and cost-comparison methods; each is drawn on directly in this lesson.
By the end of this lesson you can:
Not covered here: this is the course's final lesson; it assembles the four previous lessons rather than introducing a new method.
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Forecast | A company's own estimate of what it expects to sell, used to decide how much to produce before any specific sale exists. |
| Phasing | Spreading a total forecast quantity across the weeks of a season, timed to a style's own real selling pattern rather than delivered as one lump sum. |
| Re-forecast | Updating the remaining part of a season's forecast once real sales data shows a sustained gap from the original estimate. |
| Asymmetric cost | A situation where the cost of one direction of forecast error is genuinely different from the cost of the other direction, for the same style. |
| Hybrid production | A factory building part of a run to its own forecast before a buyer confirms it, and finishing the rest once the buyer's own order is confirmed. |
| Reorder point | The quantity of stock remaining at which a Make to Stock buyer places its next production order against the standing forecast. |
A single style's own ordering plan draws on all four pieces built across this course, in a fixed sequence. First, a forecast built from the style's own sales history. Second, phasing that spreads the forecast across the season's weeks to match its own selling pattern. Third, a re-forecast check once real sales data starts arriving, updating the remaining weeks where a sustained gap is confirmed. Fourth, a cost check using the style's own asymmetric cost, so any caution built into the plan leans toward whichever direction of error is genuinely more expensive. Run in this order, on a real hybrid order, the four pieces become one worksheet rather than four disconnected checks.
| What can differ | The shapes you will meet | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Domestic, hybrid, buyer-led | Cedar & Co. commits 3,000 pieces of a style to a standing forecast with Delta Garments, and confirms a further 1,200 pieces only once early sales data supports it. | A hybrid buyer runs the full four-step sequence twice in effect: once for the committed portion's phasing, and again for the confirmed-later portion's re-forecast trigger. |
| Export, Make to Order, single confirmed order | Northline Apparel runs the same four-step sequence once, before its order is confirmed, since a Make to Order order has little room to re-forecast mid-production. | A single confirmed order still benefits from all four steps, even though the re-forecast step mainly informs the next order rather than the current one. |
| A style with strong asymmetric cost | A style whose under-forecast cost is nearly three times its over-forecast cost, such as Order A's own T-shirt at Fairway Stores, should be forecast with a deliberate lean toward the higher end of its history-based range. | Skipping the cost-check step leaves a forecast set without knowing which direction it should lean toward if genuine doubt exists. |
| A style with balanced asymmetric cost | A style where the markdown rate and the margin are closer together carries less reason to lean the forecast in either direction, and can be set closer to the plain history-based average. | Not every style needs a deliberate lean; the cost check itself tells a buyer whether one is justified. |
Cedar & Co. sells Order A's own T-shirt domestically and arranges a hybrid order with Delta Garments: a 3,000-piece portion committed to a standing forecast built from sales history, and a further 1,200-piece portion confirmed only once early sales data supports it. Cedar & Co. runs the style through forecasting, phasing, re-forecasting and the cost check together to set this split with real numbers behind it, rather than choosing 3,000 and 1,200 as round, unexamined figures.
| Question | Treating the four steps separately | Running the four steps as one worksheet |
|---|---|---|
| What sets the 3,000-piece committed figure? | A round number chosen without reference to sales history | The style's own history-based forecast, phased across the season |
| What happens once early sales data exists? | No defined trigger for reconsidering the confirmed-later portion | The re-forecast check flags whether the 1,200-piece portion should move |
| What sets which way the plan leans if in doubt? | No defined basis, so the plan might drift either direction by habit | The cost check, showing which direction of error is genuinely more expensive for this style |
Cedar & Co.'s worksheet starts from a 4,140-piece history-based forecast (built as in lesson 3.1), phases 3,000 pieces into the standing-forecast portion and 1,140 pieces into the confirmed-later portion, then applies the cost check from lesson 3.4 once early sales data confirms a sustained gap of 140 pieces above the phased plan (as in lesson 3.3).
A common mistake is building a careful sales-history forecast and a careful phased plan, then skipping the re-forecast check once the season starts, or skipping the cost check when deciding how to round a confirmed-later portion. If Cedar & Co. had stopped after phasing the 1,140-piece confirmed-later portion, without checking real sales or running the cost check, the 140-piece sustained gap and the style's own asymmetric cost would both go unused, leaving the confirmed-later portion at 1,140 pieces when the fuller picture points to 1,300.
A complete forecasting and phasing worksheet is not four separate tools kept in different places; it is one sequence run for a single style. First, a forecast built from real sales history. Second, a phased plan that spreads that forecast across the season to match how the style actually sells, split further for a hybrid order into a committed portion and a confirmed-later portion. Third, a check of real sales against the phased plan once the season starts, re-forecasting the confirmed-later portion if a genuine, sustained gap appears. Fourth, a cost check that confirms which direction of forecast error is more expensive for this specific style, so any rounding or final lean in the plan favours avoiding the costlier mistake. Run together, in this order, the four steps produce one final, defensible figure rather than four separate, disconnected checks.
Delta Garments' own production slot for Cedar & Co.'s confirmed-later portion closes in three days, and Delta Garments asks for a final quantity.
Should Cedar & Co. confirm 1,140 pieces, the original phased figure, or 1,300 pieces, the figure after all four worksheet steps? Decide before you open the answer.
1,300 pieces, the figure produced by running all four worksheet steps. The original 1,140-piece phased figure was correct at the time it was set, but it predates both the confirmed sustained sales gap and the cost check, both of which are now available and both of which point toward a higher figure.
First, why the re-forecast step changes the figure. A confirmed, sustained 140-piece gap between real sales and the phased plan is exactly the condition lesson 3.3 sets for updating a figure; ignoring it discards real, checkable evidence in favour of an earlier, less-informed number.
Second, why the cost check sets the final rounding direction. This style's own numbers show under-forecasting as the more expensive direction; rounding from 1,280 up to 1,300, rather than down, reflects that specific, calculated asymmetry rather than an arbitrary rounding choice.
Cedar & Co. should confirm 1,300 pieces with Delta Garments before the current production slot closes, since this figure is the one that reflects every step of the worksheet, not just the earliest one. This closes the course: a complete forecast is one that has been phased, checked against real sales, and weighed for its own cost asymmetry before it is finalized.
Framed using the same cost-check method from lesson 3.4, applied to the gap between the outdated and the fully worked figure.
Confirming the earlier, phased-only figure instead of the fully worked worksheet figure would forgo approximately USD 1,904 of margin on demand the worksheet's own re-forecast and cost-check steps had already identified as real and worth planning for. The four-step sequence exists precisely to catch a gap like this before a production slot closes rather than after.
The workbook's "Summary" sheet draws the total forecast from the "Sales history and forecast" sheet, the phased split from the "Phasing" sheet, the re-forecast figure from the "Re-forecast" sheet, and the recommended rounding direction from the "Forecast cost comparison" sheet, presenting one final confirmed-later quantity with each contributing figure still visible beside it.
Cedar & Co.'s own row shows 4,140 pieces total forecast, 3,000 pieces standing-forecast, 1,140 pieces confirmed-later before re-forecast, 1,280 pieces after re-forecast, and 1,300 pieces as the final cost-checked figure confirmed to Delta Garments.
1. Why does a complete forecasting and phasing worksheet run forecast, phasing, re-forecast and cost check in sequence rather than as separate, unconnected exercises?
2. Cedar & Co.'s confirmed-later portion was phased at 1,140 pieces, then re-forecast to 1,280 pieces after a confirmed sales gap. What should the cost check do next?
3. Delta Garments' production slot is closing and needs Cedar & Co.'s final confirmed-later quantity. Which figure should Cedar & Co. confirm?
| EN | AR | FR | TR | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forecast | التوقع (توقع المبيعات) | Prévision (prévision des ventes) | Tahmin (satış tahmini) | A company's own estimate of what it expects to sell, used to decide how much to produce before any specific sale exists. |
| Phasing | التوزيع على مراحل | Phasage | Aşamalandırma | Spreading a total forecast quantity across the weeks of a season, timed to a style's own real selling pattern rather than delivered as one lump sum. |
| Re-forecast | إعادة التوقع | Reprévision | Yeniden tahmin | Updating the remaining part of a season's forecast once real sales data shows a sustained gap from the original estimate. |
| Asymmetric cost | تكلفة غير متماثلة | Coût asymétrique | Asimetrik maliyet | A situation where the cost of one direction of forecast error is genuinely different from the cost of the other direction, for the same style. |
| Hybrid production | الإنتاج الهجين | Production hybride | Hibrit üretim | A factory building part of a run to its own forecast before a buyer confirms it, and finishing the rest once the buyer's own order is confirmed. |
| Reorder point | نقطة إعادة الطلب | Point de recommande | Yeniden sipariş noktası | The quantity of stock remaining at which a Make to Stock buyer places its next production order against the standing forecast. |
You have completed Course 3's full forecasting and phasing worksheet. Course 4 turns to what happens once a forecast's own surplus needs to be resolved: deciding when a style needs its first markdown. Back to the course map