Original Post Date: Friday, October 4, 2013

In his August 2010 blog-entry, Zac Jasnoff outlined typical client perspectives for the different types of analyses that True Planning can accommodate.  Working on a large project, we’ve experienced situations that, realistically, can happen where the initial intent... and model structuring… later has the boundaries of model appropriateness stretched.  An AoA, for example, is meant to measure deltas between baseline and its alternatives.  If common costs “wash” then they can be excluded… which becomes an issue when treated as a Rough Order Magnitude for customer budgeting.

Likewise, if a ROM or ICE of acquisition/ ownership costs is extended to Program Lifecycle Costs, significant gap analysis is in someone’s future.  True Planning can handle it all.  But obviously it’s always best to establish use of an estimate and its underlying model, beyond initial application.  True Planning has enormous flexibility.  We analysts endeavor to do the same.  Clients… particularly those new to parametrics… just need coaching and synchronization up-front sometimes.  They may think they have “the estimate” when it only covers certain configurations, activities, phases or cost-categories.  Expanding a model is simple enough;  creating and defending make-well changes can be tough for the customer internally.  I’m continuing to realize that when in doubt, make it clear what an estimate & model is meant for, and what it’s not.