PRICE Systems

Happy Easter!  What is the weight of the world's largest jellybean?  Submit your answer in the comments section!

What is the aircraft speed record, in mph or km/h, for an unmanned jet airplane?  Submit your estimate in the comments section!

The following is a collection of some of the more common installation issues.  If you have additional questions, concerns, or issues with any upgrade or installation, please call our Technical Support line anytime at:  1-800-43-PRICE.

Default Password Override

TP’s default password may not be strong enough based on your security policy.  Please review your specific requirements for passwords and follow the directions below to change the default:  When you get to the screen, uncheck the “Use Default Password” and enter a valid password based upon your specific security settings.  Then click next and continue the installation process.

Existing TruePlanning Installations

If TruePlanning 2008 SR2 is currently installed, it is recommended that users export their projects, then uninstall TruePlanning, making sure to backup their database when prompted to do so during the uninstall. The uninstall of TruePlanning can be initiated from the Control Panel.  Also, please select the option to uninstall MSDE when prompted during the uninstall.  Once this is complete, install the new version of TruePlanning, making sure to manually import the projects which were exported from the older release once the installation is complete.  Upgrades from TruePlanning 2009 and above do not require TruePlanning  to be uninstalled as the TruePlanning 2010 installation will automatically upgrade the projects in the database; however, it is recommended that users still export their projects manually and before the upgrade to be safe. 

Administrative Rights

The user installing TruePlanning requires administrator rights on the machine.  On Vista it is advisable to launch the installation of TruePlanning by navigating the “Setup.exe” file on the TruePlanning CD and initiating the installation using the “Run as Administrator” option. This option is available from the right click menu in Windows Explorer (My Computer). 

XmlLite

XmlLite is a resource provided by Windows to perform certain XML parsing abilities. It is a prerequisite for installing TruePlanning 2010. If TruePlanning 2010 is installed on a computer that does not have XmlLite, and error will occur when TruePlanning is launched.  The installation will not produce any errors or warnings. This error is Windows XP specific. Vista and Windows 7 contain the XmlLite natively. Normally XmlLite is installed when Internet Explorer 7.0 (or newer) or Windows XP SP3 are installed. Installing either of these resources should resolve the error.  Some customers are not able to install IE 7.0 or Windows XP SP3 and should therefore install XmlLite directly. It is available from Microsoft at: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/915865. It should be noted that TruePlanning 2010 has features that rely on Internet Explorer 7.0 or higher. Some of the Calculators contained in TruePlanning will not function properly without Internet Explorer 7.0 or higher.  Therefore, if possible, upgrading Internet Explorer is the preferred option. 

MSXML6 SP2

There is a known issue installing TruePlanning 2010 on computers that have Windows XP SP3 and MSXML6.0 SP2 installed.  The issue occurs because of an incompatibility between SQL Server 2005 Express and MSXML6.0 SP2. This issue is described by the following Microsoft Knowledge Base article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/968749. MSXML6.0 SP2 is installed by the Windows XP Service Pack 3. This is not an issue on Vista.  The above MS KB article provides a fix for the issue. It is advisable to execute the fix before attempting to install TruePlanning 2010. It is possible to identify computers that have had MSXML6.0 SP2 installed by examining the “Add/Remove Programs” feature under the Control Panel. If the issue in encountered during the installation of TruePlanning it can be identified by the failure of SQL Server to install. The failure will be identified as pertaining to MSXML6. This can be ascertained after the installation has been exited, by examining the log of the SQL Server installation. The summary of the SQL Server 2005 Express installation can be found at the location defined by the following support page: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143702%28SQL.90%29.aspx. If the error has been encountered please contact PRICE System’s Support for help resolving the issue.

In mph or km/h, what is the average cruising speed of a Boeing 737 jet?  Submit your estimate in the comments section!

In 1961 at the MIT Centennial, John McCarthy opined “if computers of the kind I have advocated become the computers of the future, then computing may someday be organized as a public utility just as the telephone system is a public utility…. the computer utility could become the basis of a new and important industry”  [1].  In 2006, Amazon Web Services was launched providing computing on a utility basis.  Since that time the notion of cloud computing has been emerging and evolving.

Cloud computing is a paradigm that makes the notion of utility computing a reality.  Instead of Information Technology (IT) organizations investing in all of the hardware, software and infrastructure necessary to meet their business needs, cloud computing makes access to hardware, software and infrastructure available through the internet, generally utilizing a pay for use model.  Basically cloud computing allows an organization to adopt a different economic model for meeting IT needs by reducing capital investments and increasing operational investments, a model which is likely to offer cost savings to many organizations.

There is still a great deal of hype around cloud computing, as many vendors have their marketing engines further into the clouds then their technology supports.  Despite this Gartner predicts that by 2012 one in five businesses will not own its own IT assets. [2].  In late 2010 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under direction from the White House told federal agencies that starting in 2012 they are expected to consider cloud first “whenever a secure, reliable, cost-effective cloud option exists.” [3]

There are certainly many reasons why an organization would consider moving at least some of their IT functions into the cloud.  In addition to potential cost savings the cloud offers the possibility of increased availability, easier collaboration, lower capital costs, scalability and virtualization.  There are of course concerns as well.  The technology is still relatively immature with no definitive set of standards for interface or compliance with regulations.  Businesses lose hands on control of their IT resources with little recourse if their IT vendor shuts down or goes out of business.  Additionally,  there are security and data privacy concerns.  There is also the fact that not all ventures into the cloud will be cost effective for the business.

This paper introduces the concept of cloud computing and discusses the potential benefits for a business as well as those things which could be barriers to adoption.  It examines the types of applications where cloud computing is an efficient cost effective solution and the types of applications where its use could be problematic or costly.  Several examples of successful cloud implementations are presented and discussed.

For a white paper describing this reearch on cloud computing email info@pricesystems.com with the code word CLOUD in the subject line.  To share your cloud computing experiences comment on this post

This FREE workshop features government and industry speakers discussing how the current fiscal environment impacts the day-to-day estimating challenges faced by government program offices and their commercial counterparts.  These events seek to bring leaders together to share ideas and experiences about their most pressing issues.

We are looking to professionals, such as you to contribute ideas and best practices.  For more information or to register:http://www.pricesystems.com/services/predictive_modeling_schedule.asp

“I think we have an obligation to work with industry to ensure that our suppliers do not just remain world class in defence, but aspire to be world-class manufactures that can withstand comparison to other industries.”

Chief of Defence Procurement, Sir Robert Walmsley

Is this a practical proposition or is it a pipe dream?  The following excerpt from Dale Shermon’s Systems Cost Engineering attempts to make the case that this type of comparison is possible.


Many of the statements in proposals and marketing literature stating the superiority of a company are anecdotal or at best qualitative evidence. It has not been possible to quantify the productivity of industry to demonstrate that one manufacturer is more efficient than another.

In the ship building industry it is possible to benchmark commercial ship yards using a metric called Compensated Gross Tonnage (CGT). CGT measures the complexity of building a ship. It is calculated by multiplying the gross tonnage by the relevant CGT coefficient (calculated by the Organisation for Economic and Commercial Development [OECD]).  However, this is only applicable to this one industry. Other metrics exist in other industries, but what is really required is a single benchmarking technique and measure.

Benchmarking with Cost Normalization.  Forty years ago, PRICE Systems developed a metric that can be used to normalize cost and support the benchmarking practices needed to reach Sir Walmsley vision.  Manufacturing Complexity represents the normalized cost density of an item that has been manufactured. It has two dimensions: technology and productivity. Hence, more than one Manufacturing Complexity can exist. As aircraft are made using different technologies and by different companies, these have various complexity figures. However, if the technology is constant, the only dimension that changes is productivity. As a result, it is possible to compare the efficiency of companies that produce similar technologies.

Supplier Assessment.  One obvious and practical application of this technique is Supplier Assessment. This technique exploits the capability of parametric models to compare organization’s normalized cost density or Manufacturing Complexity. If, on paper, you have very similar proposals, how can you judge which organization will provide the best value for money? Heritage data will determine the level of development that is required and Operating and Support Cost will establish the Through Life Cost, but if these cannot differentiate the proposals perhaps the productivity of the companies should be considered. This is not a simple comparison, but with manufacturing complexity this can be achieved easily.

This process will lead to your suppliers knowing that you are able to control them; they will need more control on themselves. It will enable you to perfect your negotiation skill, leading to more success, as better negotiation material is utilised based on technology cost drivers. A parametric questionnaire is a possible tool to enable proposal validation in minutes.  All this information can be garnered at a very early stage in a project if required, providing better estimating accuracy for the purchased items. Normalization enables a bigger data sample as previous proposals received from the same companies can be compared. This in turn enables the establishing of trends. Are the suppliers becoming more or less efficient? Ultimately, these comparisons can be used to determine preferred suppliers.

Conclusion.  This method of benchmarking a project or company can be used for all environments. With the ability to move across environments it is possible to compare commercial and military organisations equally. Decisions and judgments can be made between Commercial and Military suppliers where no military competition exists.  It is possible to assess the productivity of an organisation or country at System, sub-system and equipment levels. The technique can be used to compare the whole cost or just the labour cost if that is the focus of your efficiency drive.

It is possible to determine preferred suppliers on a justified basis, or alternatively it is possible to demonstrate the efficiency of your organisation when the customer is skeptical about your productivity or your drive to improve productivity.

Finally, many organisations already have a license to use the PRICE models and over 8,000 people worldwide have been trained and are familiar with the PRICE methodology. This is not a new idea, PRICE has been established since 1975, but this new application of an established technique can help decision maker take the right decision regarding source selection cross industry and national companies. Alternatively, it can enable industry to demonstrate, with proof, that they are more effective than other solutions.

Competition seems like a sensible practice on the path to best value.  However, is it possible to create a truly competitive environment?

“It is a tradition that we don’t trust our business partners, people don’t have a clear understanding of how sharing information would result in better performance.  The lack of understanding induces fear and skepticism.”
Hau Lee, Graduate School of Business at Stanford University

There are two behaviors that debunk competition in regards to complex systems wrought with uncertainty: over-optimism and deception.  Government buyers share the dual burden of seeking advanced technologies to meet future capabilities while asked to determine best value of goods and products that lack historical reference or data.  The real challenge in meeting cost reduction and competitive initiatives falls in the hands of those responsible for defining and achieving best value for their organization – acquisition and purchasing professionals. 

Acquisition professionals must be armed with tools, knowledge, and methods that provide rapid, credible identification of predicted cost and risk.  Knowledge capture and estimating practices have proven to detect deceptive estimating, eliminate mistakes and anticipate the risks associated with optimistic predictions of new technologies.   From better selection of COTS, to benchmarking suppliers, to supporting real business case - our customers are working to understand the systems they are acquiring and the goods they are purchasing.  They are finding ways to come to the negotiating table from a position of knowledge - a position that promotes cost realism and ultimately honest competition.

Have you seen real competition at work in your industry?

I’m not a golfer. But we’ve all heard one say “that’s why I play” after hitting a shot and feeling like it all came together. What “it” is, in terms of mechanics and timing, I’m not really sure. 

In our own world of parametrics, it’s the feeling of adding value in that golden moment of facilitating decisions and forward momentum. We wear many hats: estimating, consulting, systems engineering...even cost accounting.  Building an AoA, ICE or ROM is where rubber-meets-the-road in regards to configurations and assumptions. 

Not too long ago I was in a discussion with a number of Subject Matter Experts and realized that most of us at the table hadn’t had a chance to hear each other’s perspectives. Enter the consensus-maker! With parameter pick-lists and definitions displayed as talking points, we talked through the scenarios and operational expectations. 

We clearly needed a common frame of reference to get to a real-time resolution. The group built momentum, carrying over past the meeting. My role that day was to facilitate. When it all comes together, bridging between representatives from business operations, program management, systems engineering and field operations, it’s a very good feeling to add value. Maybe not as perfect as a hole-in-one, but I’ll take “it” every time!

1. A round table peer review, where we describe and defend our parametric modeling approach as well as consistency across similar objects/ systems/ alternatives. 
2. Introduction of an independent 3^rd party, not part of the estimating team, who is an experienced modeler. This resource can take the client perspective in reviewing, say, procurement versus cost-of-ownership as well as comparables from similar program experiences.  
3. Take an agile approach where your project leader is the “product owner” who reviews all interim deliverables top-down.  
4. Another option is incorporating a client representative into your pre-release reviews for similar validation testing. 
5. Finally, we pair off internally to verifying each other’s work against the real-time documentation we keep per common templates.  (Available from PRICE Systems, for both hardware and software modeling inputs). They are great visualization tools for internal parameter-tracking, plus external pre/ post model review with customers.

...wear the worst shoes. The cobbler was a master at his craft; he was just too tired to practice it when he got home from the shop.  Sound familiar?

A disciplined approach to understanding (functional) requirements as well as analogous projects (with actuals) is our not-so-secret sauce. Why run the risk of creeping back up our career learning curve? There’s already enough scope creep to keep us busy. Plus, for you management types charged with prospecting, a consistent approach towards estimation is a great way to connect with people who've felt the pain of being the cobbler's kids.

I recently reconnected with a colleague who found himself immersed in an early-stage, large-scale federal software project. Discussion points ranged from parametrics utility to sizing to Earned Value Management. Not leaving my toolset at the shop translated into good conversation with followup request. A bad example is yours truly, a year ago, so immersed in a highly-featured personal project, that he neglected to find agreement on scope and cost with his team. Bad idea! Now my “shoes” (a one-off custom hot-rod) are way behind schedule and way over budget. Keeping on my professional cost estimation consulting hat would have saved on both… bigtime! 

True Planning results have many options, including viewing Costs by Activity. While simple, this view can be quite powerful, especially when exported for re-organization manipulation. 

In a recent exercise, the WBS mapping of common objects, estimated by separate multiple scenarios, presented a non-trivial chore in Excel. “Transposition” features work fine for matrices, as do pivot tables. But how does one map object by activity grids into activity lists, similar to MIL-STD 881a, with singular “roll up” instances of all nonzero object costs? 

The secret is in how True Planning appends each activity output with the [object] tag. Once exported (via “Send to Excel” or “Copy Grid” options), a simple Data-Sort by Activity name will, by default, alphabetically group activities. From there, either then group by phase and/or group by scenario. The latter can be the original organization or an entirely new one. Next, use Excel’s Data-Group option to build subtotaling and roll up controls. This also gives you the ability to hide/view object instances, which are essentially activity subtotals. Finally, at your discretion, shred any scenario-shared costs such as SE/PM or personnel. Of course, build checksums to cross-check. 

Last piece of advice on this: for each step in your approach, document process refinements and save your interim artifacts as templates. The next time you are asked to rework the steps with a new scenario set or organization, your life will be even easier.

In my blog last week on Work Breakdown Structures, we reviewed the subtleties of using the [object] tag to your advantage in creating different sorts and roll up subtotals. As a followup, I’d like to drill down a bit on the initial step of using the “copy grid” exports. Each row number is unique, thus creating an identifying key for the vlookup function in Excel. Since all object X activity instances are allocated 100% to one of the three phases (with very rare exception), these row keys allow you to sort and re-group outputs while maintaining lookup visibility to corresponding grids. In the case of that rare exception, percentage spreads easily solve for allocation of that shared activity cost. 

The real trick to transpose into a WBS "Activity then Object" listing is to use the [object] tags as group delimiters. As long as you keep the row-key associated with the cost outputs, your options are not limited to just one activity list order. You could map to 881A format or to your accounting system. You could map your PBS transposition to 1921 or 1921-1 orders. In the end, cost will still match TruePlanning's output. Grouping by phase or by system won't change the bottom line.

One note: If you need activity subtotals immediately, True Planning’s Activity by Cost Object output works just fine. It’s a grid that is available for export to Excel, Word or XML. My process above solves for the often-demanded request of listing (and numbering, indenting, subtotaling) linearly. In the near future, look for PRICE Systems to utilize the COM layer feature of TP 2010 SR1 to give you yet another option in mapping PBS to WBS format. 

My previous blog discussed a “Should Cost” methodology used by PRICE Systems to complete an analysis. In the article I included a chart depicting calibration results for manufacturing complexities for each weapon system (X-Axis). Manufacturing complexities are a major cost driver within the model. This parameter can be derived from model knowledge tables, generators or from calibration. Many times the calibrated results are simply averaged and used for predicting cost for the new system. This assumes that the new system is very similar in technology and performance as the systems used for calibration. In general this is not the case. Below I discuss how data driven cost estimating relationships (CER) can be developed between the calibration results and a selected independent variable. The CER will then be used to derive the manufacturing complexity, which then matches much closer to the new technology.

Figure 1. Calibration Results for each Weapon System

Since the data was already collected and calibrated within the model, the next step was to identify an independent variable. For manufacturing complexity for structure, thrust was selected. However, other variables could have been selected.  Maximum take-off weight, range, ceiling, empty weight, thrust per pound, or speed were all candidates for an independent variable. For manufacturing complexity for Electronics, frequency speed was selected as an independent variable. Again there are many potential candidates for an independent variable for electronics. 

The next step was to graph and complete regression analysis. Figure 2, depicts the results for manufacturing complexity for structure, and figure 3, depicts the results for manufacturing complexity for electronics.  I normally select a power function when regressing data. One could select any function except linear. Linear regression does not always work very well and as a practical matter technology advancements are rarely linear. 

Figure 2.  Manufacturing Complexity for Structure

Figure 3. Manufacturing Complexity for Electronics

Using the above equations now require information be collected on the aircraft thrust requirement for structure, and frequency speed for electronics. These requirements are then used to calculate the appropriate manufacturing complexity. This approach insures that the cost estimate now match up with the requirements. 

The next time you need to complete a cost analysis, talk to one of our expert PRICE Solutions consultants for help.