• Predictive Analytics for Improved Cost Management  



Blog



Of the many features that help TruePlanning stand out as the premier predictive cost analytics tool, TruePlanning’s ability to calibrate is frequently cited by users as the most important feature in TruePlanning. Users can create models that are highly tuned to the organizations and processes that they are modelling. The 50,000-foot description of calibration is to increase the fidelity of a model to a known process or organization by using ‘actuals’ (known result data) and driving TruePlanning inputs so that the known values are obtained. A concrete example would be knowing the number of hours it took create a ...
One of the most frequently asked questions from new users is:  At what level should I be estimating my project in TruePlanning®?  To be clear, the question involves how detailed the product breakdown structure should be.  The answers can vary widely, as seen in the two examples below for an aircraft. Figure 1.  F-22 template available in TruePlanning® 2016 Note: subassemblies collapsed to fit PBS onto one page.   Figure 2.  F-22 estimated as one hardware cost object. The preceding examples might be extreme ends of a spectrum.  In the first example, we have provided a template in TruePlanning® 2016 that models a fighter ...
Recently, I was contacted by an Air Force estimator with a novel challenge.  The estimator’s product breakdown structure modeled the development and production of various hardware items over several years.  TruePlanning can easily assist in spreading production quantities or tracking “ship sets” of items required for a weapon system.  In this case, the user wished to have different quantities for different items.  Typically, we use a System cost object or the System Folder to spread production, which is then attributed to all components within the estimate.  Coming up with multiple production schedules within the same estimate presented a challenge. In ...
In the previous (second) blog in this series, we discussed using the NIST Special Publication 800-171 Appendix E to list all possible cyber security requirements.  We then down selected the entire list of 123 items into roughly 60 that may directly impact the software development process.  Now, we will cover how the impact of those 60 items could possibly be included in a TruePlanning® estimate. I will offer three primary methods for accounting for additional effort of cyber security requirements.  We will look at modeling the requirements as individual cost objects in the estimate.  We will then consider setting inputs ...
We will pick up where we left off on estimating the cost of cyber security by looking at requirements.  Recall from a previous blog that the requirements for Cyber Security are outlined in Appendix E of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-171 document titled “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations.”  In Appendix E, there are a series of tables that outline the requirement, as well as the responsible authority for ensuring those requirements are met.  There are four categories of requirements*: NCO: Not directly related to protecting ...
When first creating your resume it can be overwhelming to know where to start. Personally, I would start by opening a Word Document and look through the pre-created templates. These templates help guide you to the best place to insert your information and provide an overall layout of a good resume. The same thing happens when you open TruePlanning® to create your first cost estimate. Like the pre-created templates in Microsoft Word, our templates were created by our cost research team to provide you with a guide on how to get started on your estimate. One of the templates we ...
For those reading from my last post, let’s say you wanted to use one of our templates to model your own project. The project in question is an aircraft in the development phase and you know nothing except for its overall desired weight and its intended max speed is Mach 3. Let’s search in the PRICE server: After entering the “aircraft” category, you will see a wide assortment of aircraft related projects. Since we are trying to estimate a supersonic aircraft, click the “Aircraft Template 881C” project. The project was constructed based on our research of supersonic fighter aircraft, which ...
The 881C templates have been desired heavily by PRICE users long before PRICE even knew who I was. Now that I’m here, have a year under my belt, and have the template number approaching the century mark, I think it’s time I updated everyone on what’s going on and the plan moving forward. First off, let’s take a minute to fill everyone in. The PRICE templates are based on the widely used MIL STD 881C product breakdown structures. In other words, these templates are projects that the cost research team made in TruePlanning® to model helicopters, fighter jets, battleships, tanks, ...
In previous versions of TruePlanning, it was difficult to add items relating only to Life Cycle. Adding a Hardware element meant having the Weight of the object added to the Assembly and System weights. In TruePlanning 2016, a Life Cycle only (no Acquisition Costs), may have zero weight. The Life Cycle inputs are effectively separated from the Acquisition inputs. You can give an object deployment, Maintenance and Spares locations, Hours of Operation and individual costs and shipping weights. These values will give all the necessary Life Cycle outputs, without affecting the Acquisition Costs. For further details, please consult your named PRICE System Solutions ...
TruePlanning 2016 takes a large step forward in allowing Maintenance calculation. For example, in previous versions of TruePlanning, the only way a user could specify different on equipment maintenance was by adding a complete worksheet to change the percentage of work done on the equipment. TruePlanning 2016 has a number of Life Cycle inputs added to Hardware and COTS objects to make calculation easier. Among the most important are: Average Number of Parts per Repair – Complex repair may need more than one part per repair. False Failure Fraction - Some pieces of equipment may have ...