Project Estimating Software

I had expected to present my webinar,  “Best Practices for Cost Effectiveness Studies using TruePlanning” in early August. As you might know, I was planning to show a real world example from a recent engagement with a government customer. Unfortunately, since the Source Selection has not concluded with a downselect, I was not able to obtain the public release in time. However, for this month’s blog I will continue share some of the highlights of the webinar.

In last month’s blog we explored the uses of TruePlanning during Source Selection from the Supplier’s (or Contractor’s) perspective. This month, I would like to share with you some of the uses of TruePlanning cost estimating software from the Customer’s (or Government’s) perspective:

• Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) – Is proposed technical baseline cost-effective against other competing alternatives?
• Cost Realism – Are the performers bidding within an accurate range
• Data Driven Estimating – Are the performers bidding based on appropriate, traceable historical data points.
• Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) – Using the performer’s technical configuration, what does a completely independent look say about the performer’s bid?
• Risk Analysis – Is our bid over conservative, how much risk are we willing to take and how much cost exposure can we absorb?
  
• Schedule Estimating – Can we really do the job within the schedule constraints?
• Growth Estimating – What other configurations, materials or technologies might we consider?

While TruePlanning is useful in estimating project costs and all of the above types of analysis, I have found it most useful in developing AoAs. During Source Selection, TruePlanning provides a structured, repeatable framework that can rapidly develop cost estimates across a range of alternatives. These results are often incorporated directly into Operational Effectiveness models along with Measure of Effectiveness and Measures of Performance. In some cases, clients using tools such as Phoenix Model Center can directly link TruePlanning with optimization tools as well. 

I  recently moved and thought about the need to do a new household budget. This got me to thinking of the budgeting capability in TruePlanning. First, you can use TruePlanning to determine a budget. The time phased output, either monthly or annually, is ideal for establishing a budget and budget profile for your project. 

TruePlanning also splits the time phased costs into development, production, and operating and support categories. Be cautious, however, in using the Phase report. The System cost object costs are assigned by schedule duration, which may not necessarily reflect the actual project cost flow. A better choice may be the Activity Type report. Use the development and production costs from this report as calculated by TruePlanning and then split the System costs between development and production as appropriate for your project.    

Second, in the project Properties, you can enter your budget (if you already have one) and then compare the TruePlanning phased output to your budget profile. This will give you a heads up as to where you may have a budget shortfall or overage. This type of information well in advance can lead to a more successful and productive project. Happy budgeting!!!  

John Long
Solutions Consultant, PRICE Systems

Over the past several weeks several users have inquired about the best way to estimate costs associated with porting existing software to a new hardware environment. Normally for this situation some of the existing software will require some amount of adaptation to operate on a new server. However, a large portion of the existing software will only require integration into the new environment.  

Estimating software costs associated with the above will require the use of several cost objects:

- Systems cost object if program management, Quality Assurance, configuration, and    documentation costs are to be included in the estimate

- Assembly cost object to estimate integration costs

- Software component cost object to estimate software adaptation costs

- Software COTS cost object to model all existing software requiring only integration effort 

The main input parameter that should be reviewed with care in the system cost object is project complexity. The default value for this input is nominal. Recommend the low value be reviewed since the team size will be small.

The main input parameter that should be reviewed with care in the assembly cost object is system complexity. If the software is just be ported to the new environment, recommend a low value be selected, since the requirements definition system design has been completed previously. 

The software component input parameters will be treated in a normal fashion. All adapted software will be modeled as adapted new design, code and test. 

The main input parameters that should be reviewed with care in the software COTS cost object are software size, integration team maturity, and external integration. This cost object should be used for all software that will only be integrated in the new environment. Functional size should be used if the size is unknown. The input parameters for integration maturity and external integration must be reduced. The recommended value is 0.05, which is the lowest value accepted by the model. This value will account for much lower integration activity for the existing software.

If you have any further questions, please contact a PRICE Systems Support.

The following is an extract from a paper written in 1978 from one of the founders of PRICE Systems: 

Two questions are often asked by those unfamiliar with TruePlanning’s approach to cost modeling: What is your CER (cost estimating relationship)? And what is your data base?

These questions are closely related.  Both are based on the assumption that the PRICE modeling approach is the same as that customarily used in developing cost estimating relationships.  This is not the case. 

The customary approach is to first gather as much relevant data as possible, then screen the data for consistency, reduce the data by formal statistical procedures and present the results in the form of one or more estimating relationships.

In contrast, the PRICE approach is process oriented rather than data base oriented. 
Models are designed to emulate the processes by which experienced managers, engineers and cost estimators assess the impacts of key cost and schedule drivers.

The strength of the classical approach is that it enables investigators to test hypotheses and identify significant factors that have affected past developments.  PRICE does not ignore these results.  Indeed, similar procedures are often used in preliminary model development.  As a consequence, there is nothing in the PRICE models that is inconsistent with classical results.  The difference is that these results are not an end in themselves.  When blended with quantifications of other subjective, but no less valid, perceptions by experience people, they contribute substantially to the PRICE methodology.

The weakness of the classical approach is that it is data base limited.  It does not extrapolate well when applied as a cost estimation procedure to new situations.  In fact, it usually does not even adequately describe the underlying data base.  Data definitions are often inconsistent, and data poorly recorded that fitted equations are questionable at best.  Extensive screening to eliminate inconsistent and unrepresentative data results in so few cases that the richness of single equation models is severely limited.  These models simply cannot account for all of the factors that drive costs.

The principal reason for the success of the PRICE model is that it does not depend on a single CER or on a single data base.  By focusing on the process of rational cost estimation, it preserves for the user the flexibility to tune the model to the particular data base most relevant to the estimate in question.  This will normally be cost histories of previous projects within the users’ own organization or product line. 

In effect, the PRICE model develops a new family of CERs to fit each specific application based on the data base it is tuned against.

Recently the Director of the Office of Management & Budget (OMB), Peter Orszag issued a directive that was posted on the OMB blog that outlined three specific actions for IT reform. The actions include a freeze on all new IT modernization task orders for financial systems, reviews of current high risk IT projects and require agencies to submit improvement plans to the CIO; thirdly, the OMB Deputy Director will develop recommendations within 120 days to improve the federal government’s overall IT procurement and management practices. Orszag states:

“While a productivity boom has transformed private sector performance over the past two decades, the federal government has almost entirely missed this transformation and now lags far behind on efficiency and service quality.  We are wasting billions of dollars a year, and more importantly are missing out on the huge productively improvements other sectors have benefited from.

Quite simply, we can’t significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal government without fixing IT.”

My experience is that government IT project managers are very competent people and they want to deliver on time, on budget results.  However, as confirmed by this survey, 78% of government IT project managers feel that they are not equipped with the people, processes and tools to determine accurate project estimates and to conduct effective program affordability management.  The root cause of late, over budget IT projects are inaccurate, over-optimistic project estimates.  I and others at my company have worked hard to change this, and to ensure that government IT project management are educated about project estimating software but little has changed over the past ten years.  Fundamental change will only result from greater leadership focus on estimating accuracy throughout OMB and agency program management. 

Next month (8/4 @ 12pm EST) I am presenting a webinar to discuss using TruePlanning on Source Selections. What prompted me to develop this webinar were the many recent success stories I’ve had using TruePlanning during the Source Selection process. Going a bit further, I am going to show an actual case study where TruePlanning was used to conduct an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) exercise – along with cost/effectiveness results. We will explore a bit about the technical side of the proposed designs, develop the modeling in TruePlanning and discuss the results.

In addition, we will explore the uses of TruePlanning during Source Selection from both the Customer and Supplier’s perspective. While they are similar, there are a few differences. Some of the uses of TruePlanning from the supplier’s perspective are listed below.

Supplier’s Perspective

• Should Cost – Are my vendors quoting us the best price?
• Ghosting the Competition – What are my competitors most likely to bid?
• Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) – What does an completely independent look say about my bid? Are we competitive?
• Risk Analysis – Is our bid over conservative, how much risk are we willing to take and how much cost exposure can we absorb.        
• Schedule Estimating – Can we really do the job within the schedule constraints?
• Trade Studies – What other configurations, materials or technologies might we consider?

Over the past several weeks several users have inquired about the best way to model software code translation when estimating software costs. Software code translation consists converting existing legacy software source code that was developed in a specific high order language (such as Ada or C) and translating it to a new high order language (such as C++). The translation does not add new functionality. For example, translating Ada code to C++, simply results in C++ code. The major benefit of the translation is maintenance. Ada experts are not needed to maintain C++ software for this example. The code and unit test activity is the major cost driver for a software translation.

Modeling this type of code translation is very straight-forward in the TruePlanning for Software model. Two input parameters should be evaluated for modeling this scenario: Auto-Translated Code Size and Auto-Translation Tool Efficiency. The translated code size should be entered for Auto-Translated code size. However, the translator may or may not be very efficient. This is the purpose of the translated tool efficiency input parameter. A drop-down dialog box is available.. The range is from “Very Low” to “Very High.” The efficiency of the translator should be selected from this dialog box. 

The purpose of the dialog box is to account for additional cost or effort due to a poor translator. For example, if the code translation size entered is 10,000 and the translation tool efficiency is Nominal or 80%, then the model will assume that 20% or 2,000 SLOC (source lines of code) will have to be manually translated into the new HOL. 

If you have additional questions concerning software code translation, please contact one of our PRICE Cost Research Analysts.

Jim Otte
Solutions Consultant, PRICE Systems
 

While sitting in the operatory chair yesterday, my dentist said something that made me stop. He was complaining about an increasing rate of incompetence and apathy he observes in those delivering services to him. And while I do agree with him in principal, he and I are of the age where some folks label us as grumpy old men. So, it may not be as bad as we think. Regardless, the statement he said he made to the an unfortunate poor-quality service provider was, “If you don’t have the time to do it right the first time, when are you going to have time to fix what you did?” Apparently, the excuse offered by the provider was that he didn’t have the time to do the job the correct way, so he tried a short-cut.

Wow! This hit me right between the eyes. I immediately expelled all the material and apparatus he had placed in my mouth so I could tell him how impressed I was with his logic. Plus, I had never heard that expression before. But how true it is and in it I see a glimmer of hope for realizing a key initiative of WSARA (Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009) - getting things right from the start with sound systems engineering, cost-estimating. The path to getting this accomplished is through the people doing the work and not through DoD leadership. As I reflect on my experience with DoD Systems Engineers and Cost Estimators, most I know want to do the job right the first time. If every one of us involved in planning and estimating software, hardware, and IT projects pledges to never take short-cuts, we can make the difference.

There are two reasons for why I don’t think this is just rhetoric: 1. getting things right from the start can’t happen if we are not committed to it; 2. I am unable to conjure up a single example of anything I have experienced in any dimension of my life that started out wrong and turned out right.

I recently had the opportunity to work directly for one of our clients on a high visibility, must-win proposal. The contractor was just about ready to commit to the bid number, but wanted to know the likely bids of the other two performers. We were asked to do a “Ghosting the Competition” study where we ethically collect open source data on two competing designs and combined with engineering technical data to develop a best cost estimate of the competitor’s bid positions.

Unfortunately, not much intelligence was known about the competing configurations, but the engineers recently noticed the other companies displaying their latest technology at a tradeshow event. Based on that information, plus some published marketing data, the engineers arrived at reasonable technology configurations and weight statements. We also established a cost baseline for the client by calibrating past data and using the client’s direct rates and overheads.  Using the TruePlanning estimation software we were able to complete all of the cost estimates in about ten hours including detailed reporting down to the resource and activity level.

Once we were done and happy with the results we were asked to brief the company President. Taking one glance at our estimates, he remarked that what he really needed was an Independent Cost Estimate or ICE in addition to our Ghosting study. The purpose of the ICE was to determine if they were really offering the best value possible to the government…and not just the lowest bid. He requested the ICE within four hours. This caused great concern for the engineers and finance as they had never done an ICE in this short amount of time.

However, using the same cost estimating tools and models (TruePlanning) we built for the Ghosting the Competition study, we were able to quickly and easily generate the ICE in less than four hours. This was done by removing the calibrated inputs for manufacturing and electronics complexity and replacing them with values from the PRICE knowledgebase. We also reverted back to the industry average rates contained in the worksheet sets.

Finally, we completed a producibility study on process improvement using the Manufacturing Process Index input. Using TruePlanning we quickly generated all of the reporting formats at the activity/resource level and export the results to EXCEL, WORD and Powerpoint.

The bottom line was that the versatility of the TruePlanning tool allowed the client to quickly and efficiently develop several types of analysis required for a must-win proposal with minimal impact on staff and in a very short amount of time.

Parametric modeling is excellent for all aspects of early-concept cost estimation, including go/no-go decisions downstream. So, in the spirit of bringing a transparency to (ethical) financial engineering…
why not apply our craft to pricing “real-options”?

The latter are essentially strategic opportunities for engaging resources (cost/schedule) into projects, ventures, investments, or even abandonments. The opportunity choice has value itself! 

Unlike static project Net Present Value (often, but not exclusively, approximated with Discounted Cash Flow) assuming pre-defined decisions, real-options reflect the merit of flexibility. If an R&D or proof-of-concept presents viability/ marketability learning, the option has positive value, above and beyond DCF. The more the flexibility, the higher the value. Likewise, a real-option appreciates with more uncertainty.

By now, you’re asking—“Wasn’t this a parametrics blog? I’m an engineering/ computing/ math/ science type, not a quantitative-finance geek. How could the above possibly help me any”?

Answer: In some situations, specifically go/no-go, the value of your flexibility created with the strategic choice to move forward (or not) can exceed its “option” cost. Not all options should be executed, just as all go/no-go decisions aren’t go’s. But, over time, continuing to pay less than their market value creates an opportunity to average out with total economic-value creation.

But, you say— “How do I find the cost of this flexibility/uncertainty option? It sounds great that I can make investment decisions based on buying/ executing (or not) these options, but do I really need to learn fancy finance stuff like Black-Scholes, Value Trees, Binomial-Risk Neutral Pricing… based on risk-free rates of return and (expected) discounted cashflows…. Yikes!”

Answer: (& bottom-line, for now) No. Use your parametric estimating tool! Concerned about the hardware cost of pilot-production/ tooling? “Buy” an option priced as the cost of preliminary design. 
{Note that the latter cost is your option’s premium, and the go-ahead cost is your option’s strike price.}
Interested in the nonrecurring cost of large-scale full software development? Buy an option for the
cost of first iteration increment. Concerned about COTS versus assembly? Estimate the development (and integration) of both scenarios. 

The point is take an economically-disciplined approach to valuing your strategic choices downstream. Parametric modeling works here and is “data-driven” defensible.  It is certainly applicable to strategic investment, capital -budgeting and new business decisions within both the public and private sectors. Transparency through mathematics is a good thing.

I have been working with several clients on data collection and repository creation this spring. One common theme that comes up is what data to collect and how to use it to make intelligent decisions about projects. And that’s the impetus for my little limerick above. 

The goal of data collection is wisdom. In the estimation world wisdom means knowing when it’s safe to bet your shirt on this new project you want to initiate. If you keep that perspective in mind it becomes much easier to identify what information you need to make wise decisions and what data you have to have to generate the necessary information. Every data item you collect costs time and money, transforming that data into information cost more time and money. So be frugal, figure out what you need to know to make you choices the correct ones and you will be that much closer to being happy and wise.

The GAO just published a report saying that strong leadership is key to planning and executing stable weapons programs. And, evidence is presented to back the claim, including result from study of a subset of the 21% of the 2008 defense programs that were deemed stable - on track with original estimates of cost and schedule. What kind of strong leadership made these programs stable? Things like experience, continuity, and open and honest communication, knowledge-based planning, disciplined execution of plans, and establishment of realistic cost and schedule estimates that account for risk are all cited. 

Here’s what bothers me about this when I think of it in the context of WSARA (Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009) – what’s in the act to increase the incidence of strong leadership on weapons programs? I don’t see anything, and I’m aware of the planned 20% increase to the stable of acquisition professionals in DoD. That’s good and may result in more strong leaders, but in 20 years. Problem is, we need them now and even if a handful are scarfed up in the 20% influx, they won’t be in a position to lead. For now, keeping Mr. Gates in charge of DoD is probably our best hope for more strong leadership – he has shown the willingness to replace those who don’t exhibit the strength we need for stability. I just hope he has enough bench strength when he needs to make a replacement.

Bruce Fad
VP of Professional Services, PRICE Systems

Currently we are exploring the best approach to including a more comprehensive cost estimate for Total Ownership Costs (TOC) into TruePlanning. The current version of the software has focused on development and production costs with some life cycle costing including. The life cycle costs included are focused on the system specific O&S costs such as initial spares for priming the supply pipeline, maintenance, replenishment spares, etc. It is a system view as opposed to a program view of TOC.

As we better understand the need to conduct affordability studies it has become clear that design decisions which can be assessed in regards to their total ownership cost will result in more affordable systems. In order to do this we need to include a greater range of cost elements such as construction of system support facilities, O&M of infrastructure and system facilities, some personnel cost which are enterprise level not necessarily systems specific and so forth. What is not clear is how these elements differ from different customer perspectives.

For example, our current lifecycle costs have an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) flavor to it. Whereas I speculate that a PEO, PM, or service staff analyst might have a need for a broader set of elements. Feedback in this regard from our customers would be very beneficial.

Bob Koury
Senior Cost Research Analyst, PRICE Systems

One of the great features of the TruePlanning cost management software is the fact that it makes it easy to handle complications of inflation and estimating projects performed in different countries and currencies. The costs associated with doing work in different countries, and the relative value of different currencies is constantly changing. To address this, the cost research team at PRICE does an annual economic update performed by the cost research team, and this blog will introduce some of basic concepts and research that goes into maintaining this feature every year.

The price of goods and services changes over time, and this value is measured by inflation rates (if prices have gone up) or deflation rates (if prices have gone down). These inflation/deflation rates are constantly updated for many different currencies by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In TruePlanning, we use past and predicted inflation rates published by the IMF  to determine the cost in today’s currency of doing work in the future, for whatever currency you want to use. Within the TruePlanning tool, these factors can be applied to help produce a cost estimate of work that takes place over a long period of time, with the cost estimate shown in today’s currency values.

In addition to inflation/deflation rates for different currencies, we also recognize that the price of goods and services may be different from one country to the next (i.e. a U.S. Dollar exchanged and spent in India will buy more haircuts than a dollar spent in the United States). The degree of these price differences can be measured by looking at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) data of a country. Standard PPP values are calculated or compiled and published by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The PPP rates published by the OECD are used in the TruePlanning tool to estimate costs of performing projects in different countries, as the cost of doing the same amount of work in different countries can vary significantly.

By automating the application of these and other economic complications of cost estimating, the TruePlanning tool helps create a process in which the effects of these economic factors can be applied consistently and correctly for all your cost estimates.

Earlier this week I conducted a webinar intended to make PRICE users aware of the Cost Research Services available to them as part of the license fee they pay to use PRICE products. I thought I would recap the highlights of this webinar for those of you who might have missed it.

At PRICE we understand that cost estimating tools, while useful and valuable, do not always present the complete solution. Every single cost estimation projects presents new and unique challenges.  We think it's important that in addition to solid, time trusted cost estimating models, our users have access to the many years of experience we have as seasoned costestimators, subject matter experts and operations researchers.

This service is nothing new.  For the 30 years that PRICE has been in existence, we have worked as partners with ourcustomers to optimize their use of our models and methodologies.  This was just an opportunity to formalize the offerings and remind the community what services are available.

So what does the Cost Research team at PRICE have to offer the cost estimating commmunity?  On average our researchers have more than 24 years of experience with hardware estimating, software estimating, operations research or some combination of the three. We are constantly engaged in cost research projects addressing market needs as they arise.  The results of these studies vary depending on the need they attempt to address.  In some cases, data collection indicates custom models should be developed.  These can be developed and deployed in TruePlanning, the flexible cost estimating framework.  Some results are published as updates to tables or calculators in the PRICE Software and Hardware cost estimation models.  White papers, webinars and the PRICE blog are all means we use to communicate the results of cost research studies.  

PRICE's Cost Research Team is available 24/7 to address users cost estimating question on an as needed basis.  Some issues require more attention than a single phone call.  Users are encouraged to schedule working sessions with one or more of our analysts to take a deeper dive into cost estimating issues that perplex or intrique them.

Some areas the team is currently studying include Total Ownership Costs, Joint Confidence Level, Performanced based models for technologies such as FPGAs and ASICs, semi-rigid cables, and  Operations and Support costs for space systems. 

The most important thing the cost research team at PRICE wants to do is make our clients better estimators while adding value to the cost estimating community as a whole.  We can't do this without input from our clients.  Share your cost estimating challenges with us.  Call, email or comment on our blog.  856-608-7201 or info@pricesystems.com


 

From my perspective as a cost researcher, the calibration tool is one of the most powerful analysis capabilities built into the TruePlanning cost management software . One way I can use this tool is to go back to an old estimate for a project that is now completed, and analyze the correctness of the previously entered input values. With this analysis, I can find ways to improve our methods of soliciting input values from the user to ensure the best values are entered the next time. This way, the TruePlanning models keep getting “smarter” as new information becomes available.

TruePlanning models calculate a cost estimate based on a set of inputs about the project being estimated. After the project is completed and we have actual cost data available to us, we can go back to TruePlanning and explore the various reasons why an estimated cost may have been different from the actual cost.

Let’s say we are estimating a project involving a brand new electronic technology, and we are uncertain of the values we selected to describe its complexity. The calibration tool allows us to enter the actual costs of the project, and reverse-engineer the value of an input we were uncertain about (i.e. manufacturing complexity for electronics) that would lead to the correct answer. This allows us to identify incorrect input values so we can identify problems, then review and refine our methods used to pick the value in the first place. 

Over the years, we have used this (and many other) TruePlanning analysis capabilities to further our understanding of our cost estimates and our cost estimating methods. There are many analysis tools built into TruePlanning, and many ways to slice and dice information about a cost estimate. This makes it quick and easy to standardize the cost estimation methods used, and continually review and refine our methods to get the most accurate cost estimate possible. With more analysis tools and more information becoming available all the time, TruePlanning will keep getting smarter.

I have been frequently asked to do crosschecks on other people’s software cost estimates which are potentially done in a variety of tools from spreadsheets to SLIM.

One of the common operator errors I see from other users is not understanding what activities and resources are included in the outputs of the particular tool that they are estimating with.

This is akin to deciding between two cars and not knowing if both come with the same sets of features (stereo, AC, heated seats).   With software estimation tools you need to know what work is getting estimated by the tool. (Requirements, Design, Code, Test, Documentation, System Test) and what resources are included in the effort estimates to accomplish those task/activities. (Programmers, Analysts, Architects, Systems Engineers, Testers, Tech Writers, Project Managers, QA and CM)

A common mistake I see is generating an estimate with a tool then adding in Program Management effort and cost when the tool utilized already includes those activities and resources in the estimate.

That’s why I drive a pearl black TruePlanning 2 door coupe.

With so many acquisition programs over budget and behind schedule, the term “Cost Realism” is suddenly very popular. In my experience as an estimator on many major acquisition programs, two things have remained certain over years (besides death and taxes). First, the probability of the program ever achieving the original cost estimate is exactly zero and second, the more information that is known about a program, the more it will exceed its original cost estimate.   

With that said, the move to Cost Realism is so important because it recognizes these two fundamental facts. Much of the interest in Cost Realism is driven by the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. According to US Senator Carl Levin “Report after report has indicated that the key to successful acquisition programs is getting things right from the start with sound systems engineering, cost estimating, and developmental testing early in the program cycle. The WSARA also calls for a “Director of Independent Cost Assessment to ensure that cost estimates for major defense acquisition programs are fair, reliable, and unbiased.”

If we go a bit further and look at definition of Cost Realism in the Parametric Cost Estimating Handbook we find  that “no one expects a cost estimate to precisely predict what a hardware or software project costs or a time and material service will cost. So, cost realism is not about the exact cost estimate. It's about the system of logic, the assumptions about the future, and the reasonableness of the historical basis of the estimate. That is, it's about the things that make up the foundation of the estimate.”

So while we recognize that at its core cost estimating can never be exact, cost realism seeks to ensure estimates are closely tied to the fundamental realities of the program as we know them at the time, without regard to politics or undue optimism.   As I finish this blog, I’m struck by the line in a Few Good Men “You can’t handle the truth!” As estimators, we need to always reflect the truth, and that is what cost realism is all about.