What Number Of Distinctive Estimating Systems Was Discussed

What Number Distinctive Estimating Systems Were Talked About For Th

Identify the different estimation methods discussed in the case, including three-point estimation, analogous estimation, and database estimation. Explain how a project manager evaluates and compares different estimates when they vary. Discuss which estimation approach you would choose if you were the project manager, considering project complexity and available expertise.

Paper For Above instruction

Project estimation is a critical phase in the project management lifecycle, involving processes and techniques to predict the resources, time, and costs necessary to complete a project successfully. The case discussed exemplifies various estimation systems used in project management, notably three-point estimation, analogous estimation, and database-driven estimation, each with their unique applications, strengths, and limitations. Analyzing these methods provides insights into their appropriate circumstances and how project managers can select the most suitable approach based on project characteristics and available data.

One of the primary estimation methods discussed is three-point estimation, which involves calculating an optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic estimate to derive an average or weighted estimate. This method provides a range of potential outcomes, accounting for uncertainty and project risks. As exemplified in the case, the estimating team used the three-point estimation with optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic durations of four, thirteen, and sixteen weeks, respectively. The calculation of these three estimates offers a probabilistic view, aiming to generate a more realistic project timeline, especially when uncertainty is significant.

Analogous estimation is another key method highlighted in the case. This technique compares the current project with historical data from similar projects, adjusting for differences such as complexity, scope, and resources. Peter, the subject matter expert, indicated that based on past experiences with similar work packages, a duration of around 16-17 weeks was more realistic, especially considering project complexity. This method benefits from expert judgment and historical data, making it particularly useful when detailed information about the current project is limited but comparable past projects are available. However, it relies heavily on the accuracy of historical data and the similarity between projects.

Database or parametric estimation forms another system discussed. This approach employs statistical data and models to predict project parameters based on established relationships. For example, it might use cost per unit, duration per unit, or other ratios derived from past projects to estimate current work. While not explicitly detailed in the case, databases often include techniques to account for project complexity, either explicitly or through averaging. When properly applied, database estimation can offer quick and reasonably accurate estimates, especially for routine tasks with stable historical data.

Determining which estimating system is superior when estimates vary depends on several factors. These include the availability and quality of historical data, the project's complexity, the experience of the estimate providers, and the degree of uncertainty inherent in the work scope. As suggested in the case, project managers must evaluate the context of each estimate: a three-point estimate offers a probabilistic range; analogous estimates incorporate expert judgment based on historical scenarios; database estimates depend on existing data and statistical models. Selecting the best estimate involves assessing which method aligns best with project specifics, risks, and available information.

When estimates differ significantly, a pragmatic project manager should consider multiple criteria. First, reviewing the underlying assumptions and data sources for each estimate is crucial. For example, an estimate based on expert judgment that accounts for project complexity might be more reliable than a simplified three-point estimate that ignores such factors. Second, assessing estimates against historical data and past project performances helps validate their credibility. Third, considering the risk tolerance and flexibility of the project, along with stakeholder expectations, guides the selection. Often, sensitivity analysis and scenario planning are employed to understand the implications of each estimate and to choose the most realistic and risk-aware forecast.

If I were the project manager, I would prioritize a combination of methods tailored to the project context. Since the case emphasizes complexity and expertise, I would lean toward analogous estimation validated by historical data and expert judgment. Peter’s insight into past durations and the project's complexity suggests that a longer duration estimate (around 16-17 weeks) aligns better with reality than the simplified three-point estimate of 4-16 weeks. Additionally, incorporating database estimates, if available, would provide further validation. Combining these approaches enhances the robustness of the estimate, facilitates stakeholder buy-in, and helps in risk management.

In conclusion, the accurate estimation of project duration and costs necessitates understanding the various estimation systems and their applications. Three-point estimation, analogous estimation, and database-driven estimation each serve different scenarios, with their own advantages and limitations. Effective project managers evaluate estimates holistically, considering data quality, project complexity, and historical performance, to decide on the most accurate and feasible estimate. When estimates diverge, a careful assessment of assumptions, data sources, and risk factors helps in selecting the best estimate, ultimately supporting successful project delivery.

References

  • Kerzner, H. (2013). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
  • PMI. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). 6th Edition. Project Management Institute.
  • Fleming, Q. W., & Koppelman, J. M. (2010). Earned Value Project Management. 3rd Edition. Project Management Institute.
  • Maini, K., & Saini, G. (2019). "Risk analysis and project estimation techniques." International Journal of Project Management, 37(5), 761-772.
  • Atkinson, R. (1999). "Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria." International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337-342.
  • Potts, C. (2008). "There’s no such thing as an average project." International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(2), 185-189.
  • Kenley, R., & Wilson, G. (2013). Estimating in Building and Construction. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Sliwas, R., & Wakefield, R. (2015). "Estimating accuracy and project success." Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 141(7), 04015031.
  • Gao, J., & Li, Y. (2016). "Application of parametric estimating models based on historical data." Automation in Construction, 66, 59-68.
  • Hogarth, R. (2018). "Decision making under risk and uncertainty." Handbook of Experimental Economics, 3, 123-152.

Related Assignments