Need
help solving a project problem?
At this point, you have completed several
key parts of project planning. You defined and bounded project
scope, developed a project work breakdown structure, and built a
network diagram that described the preferred sequence in which
activities (work packages) would be performed. This chapter will
teach you how to estimate the time, cost, labor resources, material
costs, travel expenses, equipment rental, and other costs to
accomplish each activity included in the work breakdown structure.
Estimates are predictions and have varying
degrees of confidence. Predictions rest on assumptions and have
associated probabilities of coming true. All estimates have some
confidence and risk associated with them. Estimates are predictions
for three plan parameters:
Time: How long it will take to
accomplish the work in terms of hours, days, weeks, or months.
Resources: How many units of labor,
equipment, or supplies are likely to be used.
Cost: How much each work package will
cost and how much the entire project will cost.
The resources required for each work
package are estimated and applied to the schedule. This is called
resource allocation or resource distribution. If
imbalances exist—usually because demand exceeds supply or because
requirements exceed capacity—then the process selectively repeats
itself. This iteration is called resource smoothing. The net
effect is that, in a resource-limited environment, we arrive at a
reasoned solution that allocates the right people with the right
skills to the right activities at the right time.
The project budget is the WBS expressed in
financial terms. In an ideal world, we create a plan-driven budget,
not a budget-driven plan. As the planning process goes on,
management has several opportunities to fine-tune or to calibrate
the relationships among time, cost, and scope. Clearly, the key to
this recalibration is the accuracy and usefulness of the estimates
for each work package.
The work breakdown structure is the
foundation for estimating. The WBS is typically constructed from the
top down. Functional decomposition progressively gets to smaller and
smaller pieces of work until, at last, we get to work packages or
activities that are small in size, unique in terms of organizational
responsibility, and consumers of time, resources, and cost. These
work packages are the basis for estimating.
Work package estimates of time and cost are
then rolled up or summarized to create project master plans for
schedule, resource usage, and costs. These work packages are then
used to monitor and control work, to detect variances from the
approved plan, to initiate corrective actions, and to serve as a
basis for lessons learned during the project closure process.
It is important to note that a poorly developed
or erroneous WBS will create problems when estimating time and cost.
For example, any task that is missing from the WBS will not be
estimated and not included in the project’s schedule and budget. In
which case, you will almost be guaranteed to go over schedule or
over budget, or both!
To properly estimate each activity (work
package), use the following three steps:
1. For each activity,
develop a statement of work that succinctly defines the work to be
accomplished in the activity. Then ask team members to complete an
estimate for each, supported by the following:
Technical specifications
of the end products, such as performance, quality, reliability,
survivability, operability, and maintainability.
Compliance with standards
(governmental, institutional, international, and organizational).
Project assumptions,
constraints, and exclusions (a description of what is not included
in this work package).
2. Ask the functional
groups to document how the estimate is made, including assumptions
and factors that might affect the validity of the estimate. For
example, did the cost projections make allowances for the suppliers’
annual price increases?
3. Review the estimates for
all the activities in the project and clear up discrepancies.
The four basic methods for estimating
activities are analogous, parametric, bottom-up, and simulation.
This approach uses the actual costs and
durations of previous, similar projects as the basis for estimating
the current project. Because known historical information is the
best source for creating estimates, organizations should build a
project database with information on the actual time, cost, and
labor used to complete activities. You can then compare the current
project against the database. If the new project is easier to do
than the standard, revise the estimate downward. If the new project
is more complex than the standard, revise the estimate upward.
The analogous approach is also called a
top-down estimate, because it relies on information from the top
row of activities of the work breakdown structure. It can be used to
estimate projects with a limited amount of detailed information.
Such an analogous approach is generally less costly than other
approaches.
Parametric modeling uses mathematical
parameters and industry standards to predict project costs. An
example is residential home construction that is often estimated
using a specified dollar amount per square foot of floor space.
Complex examples can be found in the software development industry,
where models use various factors to predict the complexity of the
software.
This approach estimates the cost and
duration of the individual work packages from the bottom row of
activities of the work breakdown structure, then totals the amounts
up each row until reaching an estimate for the total project. This
approach can produce a more accurate estimate, but at a higher cost
to create the estimate.
In this approach, a computer calculates
multiple costs or durations with different sets of assumptions. The
most common is the Monte Carlo method, in which a range of probable
results is defined for each activity and used to calculate a range
of probable results for the total project. Simulation can provide a
more accurate estimate and is principally used on large or complex
projects.
Estimates should be realistic and
achievable. The following are guidelines and considerations for
developing good, solid estimates.
Generally, the most accurate estimates
come from those who are answerable and held accountable for
performing the work on the project. If a separate group of
estimators are used to create the estimates, the project workers
should at least review and validate the estimates for which they
will thereafter be held accountable. The reason for this rule is
twofold:
Subject matter experts (or practitioners)
know more about specific work packages than the project manager
does. If the project manager is skeptical about the initial
estimates received, she should respect the expertise of others.
An estimate dictated to a functional group
or department from higher up generates little or no loyalty to the
estimate by those who perform the work. A project manager who
dictates an estimate (for example, “You'll have to get this done by
the fifteenth of next month and your budget is $6,500.”) sets
everyone up to fail.
When the functional or resource manager
cannot predict which employee will be assigned to the work package,
then she should assume average performance and productivity of the
work group.
The smaller the unit of work being
estimated, the more accurate the estimate is likely to be.
In any scenario, the best estimate has the same
likelihood of being over as being under the actual time or cost
(normal distribution). Using only the worst-case (pessimistic)
estimate generates arbitrarily high estimates. And using the
optimistic estimate generates scenarios that are desirable but
probably not realistic. A good estimate includes three kinds of estimators:
1. The worst-case estimator is represented by the curve on the left of the
graph. On a regular basis, this estimator presents estimates for
work packages, and then routinely beats the estimates. Initially,
this seems to be a positive outcome, but it has several genuine
flaws:
Estimates routinely commit the organization’s
resources that could have been used elsewhere.
The organization may incur unforeseen costs
for inventory storage, product obsolescence, or decay and
malfunction.
If the estimates are needed to attract new
business, none will materialize because the prospective customers
see too high a price or bear too great a share of the risk.
Estimators in this field need coaching to
help them learn to take prudent risks when asked to estimate.
2. The overly optimistic estimator is represented by the curve on the right
of the graph. Looking at life through rose-colored glasses, she
estimates work packages on assumptions of a best-case scenario.
Regrettably, this type of estimator makes promises that do not
materialize because risks were neither identified nor quantified.
The net result is the distribution pattern where activities are
completed later than they should be, use more resources than were
planned, and cost more than the approved budget. The net effect is
that the anticipated benefit streams, regardless of how they are
calculated, do not materialize, and the customer is disappointed in
the project’s return on investment.
3. The ideal estimator is represented by the middle curve, which shows
little variance (0, plus or minus 1) and has no left or right skew.
In short, what was estimated is what routinely occurred with only
minimal variances both over and under the estimates.
The distribution of estimates guideline
suggests that we (1) do not politicize estimates in an attempt to
make supervisors, customers, or clients happy; (2) tell the truth;
(3) negotiate requirements first and budgets second; and (4) provide
estimates that are neither too lean nor too heavy.
People cannot be expected to perform their
activities with uniform production over a business day. When
considering an eight-hour workday, be sure to consider the
following:
Lost productivity when shifting from working
on one project or task to another.
Variations in productivity across workers due
to skill levels and individual capabilities.
Lower productivity during certain hours of the
day and during extended shifts.
Missed productivity from vacations, sick
leave, holidays, meetings, and training.
There is a trade-off among time, cost, and resource hours needed for a work package. Assume an activity could be done by one practitioner working without interruption over the course of a week. If we must add another expert to the activity, then we discover that the total time may be compressed, but labor hours and costs increase because the additional communication and complexity may reduce the team’s efficiency in completing the task. Further, when staff members are assigned to multiple activities simultaneously, they become increasingly less productive with each newly assigned activity.
The time, cost, and resource estimates for
a work package should reflect the degree of risk associated with
that activity. If an activity is well understood, familiar to
practitioners, routinely done, and frequently recalibrated to
reflect best practices, then the estimate for the work package
should consider a low-risk factor. The distribution pattern of a
low-risk item spikes at
or near variance of zero, with neither left nor right skew.
Activities with this low risk level are often found in estimating
handbooks or guidelines for auto repairs and construction.
The program evaluation and review technique
(PERT) is a weighted-average
estimating equation. This equation requires you to gather three
estimates: a most likely estimate (given what you expect to happen),
an optimistic estimate (if everything goes very well), and a
pessimistic estimate (if things go poorly). You then combine the
three estimates to calculate the average expected duration or cost
for the activity, using the following formula:
estimated time = [optimistic + (4 X most
likely) + pessimistic] / 6
This weighted estimate accounts for the
uncertainty and variability inherent in project work and provides a
risk-adjusted estimate. It works equally well for both time and cost
estimates.
In early planning, you might be asked to
provide a preliminary or conceptual estimate, also called an
order-of-magnitude estimate.
This level of estimate is usually -25 percent to +75 percent. Thus,
the range of the order-of-magnitude for a $50,000 estimate would be
$37,500 to $87,500. Later, at the project approval stage when more
definition is available, you might be asked for a budget estimate,
which usually ranges from -10 percent to +25 percent. During project
planning, when well-defined specifications are available for
individual activities, you might need to provide definitive
estimates that can be used for bid proposals or contract
negotiations. Definitive estimates usually use a bottom-up approach,
and typically range from -5 percent to +10 percent.
The more specific the
details, the better the estimate, and therefore the greater the
chance of meeting the project objectives. However, the greater the
detail, the greater the cost and time to get the estimate and the
less time and budget will be left to accomplish the project.
To increase the accuracy
and consistency of your estimates, you might want to:
Use several independent
techniques and sources.
Compare and iterate
estimates.
For example, you might
ask two independent groups to use the same estimating method, or one
group to use two different methods. Investigate the differences
among the estimates and adjust the estimating approach to what is
appropriate for your project. An analysis after the project is
important to determine if your approach was valid. This helps you
learn from each project and produce a better estimate on the next.
When creating estimates, consider whether
the activity is duration-based or resource-based.
A duration-based activity has a defined duration for
completion, independent of the number of people assigned to work on
it. Examples include laboratory experiments to grow specific tumors
in mice, auto travel, or curing cement (once poured, it takes
forty-eight hours to cure). Adding staff does not compress the
schedule but may add considerably to labor costs.
A resource-based activity may be compressed in duration by
adding staff. However, beyond a reasonable point, costs and risks
may rise.
Increasingly, project managers are asked
to create aggressive schedules with limited or untested resources.
They are pressured to prepare or accept estimates that are driven by
political rather than technical considerations. It is best practice
to build in some tolerance or
contingency when establishing the budget and duration of a
project or even, in some cases, individual activities. Building
contingency into project schedules and budgets brings an element of
reality into project management. This contingency provides leeway
for unforeseen factors that inevitably will occur in any project.
The amount of contingency
to build into the project schedule and budget depends on the degree
of risk or uncertainty of the project, as well as the industry and
culture of your organization.
Degree of risk. In a
project with high risk or uncertainty, it is typical to include more
contingency in the schedules and budgets.
Industry standards.
Specific industries have commonly accepted levels of contingency.
For example, engineering and construction companies may use these
estimating guidelines:
Conceptual phase: +50%
Preliminary engineering phase: +25%
Detailed engineering phase: +10%
Construction phase: +5–7%
A good project management system improves
the quality of estimates over time.
Within a project, the
confidence in your estimate should improve as your project
progresses, because you have accomplished some tasks and have less
work in front of you.
Across projects, you
should be able to create more accurate estimates with each
succeeding project because of lessons learned on previous projects.
To learn more about the concepts discussed on this page, see Improving Your Project Management Skills.
Recommended Books
Improving Your Project Management Skills.
American Management Association.
Buy at Amazon