You Are Now Ready To Apply Costing Methods And Tools

Assignmentyou Are Now Ready To Apply Costing Methods Tools And Techn

There are many costing methods, tools, and techniques available to assist in estimating a project’s overall budget and the durations of individual tasks. These include expert judgment, analogous estimating, parametric estimating, bottom-up estimating, three-point estimating, reserve analysis, cost of quality, project management estimating software, and vendor bid analysis. Using the plan developed in previous weeks, you are responsible for applying two of these methods to determine a worst-case scenario budget for your key assignment project. The calculations should be presented in a spreadsheet, including a section that discusses your chosen methods' support for developing a realistic budget, example computations for select activities, and a table showing two different total project budgets based on the selected methods. Additionally, you should discuss the contingency budget you will implement based on these estimates to mitigate underestimation risks.

Paper For Above instruction

Effective project budgeting is a critical component of successful project management, especially when estimating the worst-case scenario costs. Applying appropriate costing methods ensures that potential risks are accounted for, providing project managers and stakeholders with realistic financial expectations. In this paper, I will discuss two costing methods—analogous estimating and three-point estimating—their relevance for estimating a comprehensive worst-case project budget, provide computation examples, and analyze how contingency planning can help mitigate potential underestimated costs.

Choice of Methods and Their Support for a Realistic Budget

Analogous estimating utilizes historical data from similar projects to predict costs for the current project. Its primary advantage lies in its simplicity and speed, as it relies on expert judgment and past experience. This method is especially useful in the early project phases when detailed information might be lacking. For a worst-case scenario, analogous estimating provides a conservative estimate that accounts for potential variations by selecting higher-end cost data from comparable projects, thus reducing the risk of underestimating costs.

In contrast, three-point estimating involves calculating three different estimates for each activity—optimistic, most likely, and pessimistic—and then deriving an expected cost based on these figures. This technique explicitly incorporates risk and uncertainty, making it highly suitable for worst-case scenario budgeting. By considering the upper bounds of potential costs, three-point estimating helps ensure that the budget accounts for unforeseen expenses, making it a valuable tool in high-risk projects.

Computational Examples for Selected Activities

Suppose one key activity involves constructing a foundation. Using analogous estimating, historical data from similar projects suggest a cost range between $20,000 and $25,000. To prepare for the worst case, we might select the higher figure of $25,000. In applying three-point estimating, we might estimate an optimistic cost of $20,000, a most likely cost of $22,000, and a pessimistic cost of $28,000. Using the formula for the expected cost: (Optimistic + 4 × Most Likely + Pessimistic) / 6, we get: (20,000 + 4×22,000 + 28,000) / 6 = (20,000 + 88,000 + 28,000) / 6 = 136,000 / 6 ≈ $22,667.

Constructing Project Budgets and Contingency Planning

By summing the worst-case estimates derived from these methods across all activities, the project team can formulate two comprehensive project budgets—one based on analogous estimating and another based on three-point estimating. These estimates help identify the range within which actual costs are likely to fall. To mitigate the risk of underestimation, a contingency budget—typically a percentage of the total estimated costs—is allocated. For instance, a 10-15% contingency can cushion against unexpected expenses, scope changes, or estimation errors. The higher of the two budgets would guide contingency planning, ensuring the project maintains financial flexibility to address unforeseen challenges.

Conclusion

Applying both analogous and three-point estimating methods provides a balanced approach to worst-case scenario budgeting. Analogous estimating offers a quick, experience-based estimate, safeguarding against overly optimistic projections, while three-point estimating explicitly incorporates risk and uncertainty, offering a more nuanced view of potential costs. Combining these estimates with appropriate contingency planning ensures the project’s financial risks are managed prudently, thereby increasing the likelihood of project success despite uncertainties. Careful selection and application of these methods enable project managers to develop realistic budgets that prepare stakeholders for potential financial challenges and facilitate informed decision-making throughout the project lifecycle.

References

• Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Wiley.
• PMI. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). 6th Edition. Project Management Institute.
• Heldman, K. (2018). Project Management JumpStart. Wiley.
• Chapman, C., & Ward, S. (2011). How to Manage Project Risks and Opportunities. Wiley.
• Gido, J., & Clements, J. (2018). Successful Project Management. Cengage Learning.
• Fleming, Q. W., & Koppelman, J. M. (2016). Earned Value Project Management. Project Management Institute.
• Meredith, J. R., & Mantel, S. J. (2017). Project Management: A Managerial Approach. Wiley.
• Patil, S. (2020). Cost Estimation and Budgeting in Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(3), 04020008.
• Prasad, K., & Kumar, S. (2015). Risk Analysis in Project Management. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 321-332.
• Rosenau, S. (2010). Strategic Risk Management: A Primer. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(5), 22-34.