Project Management Cost Estimating Model

Project Management Cost Estimating Model

Project Management Cost Estimating Model

Delphi – Round 1

I. Participant Information:

Name: Employer name:

Division: Location (City, State):

Email address: Phone:

Date prepared:

Professional certification:

Years of experience in project management and planning:

Years of experience in cost modeling and estimation:

Years of experience with COCOMO and/or COSYSMO:

Which category would best describe your application domain? (Check all that apply)

By participating in this research effort, results of this survey and future research will be provided and shared with you and your organization. Thank you very much for your participation and contribution.

Contact Person:

Leone Young

Research Assistant

The Systems Development & Maturity Laboratory (SysDML,

Stevens Institute of Technology

Email:

Phone: (415) 279-3216

II. Introduction

As an effort to further understand systems centric project management cost estimation, we have proposed a research model for estimating project management effort required for systems development phase. The proposed model was synthesized via the framework of the Constructive Systems Engineering Cost Model (COSYSMO). However, the proposed model contains different types of measuring method and classification. In addition, the rating scales of the EM (i.e. efficiency) drivers would differ from those (effort multipliers) of COCOSYSMO due to differences between systems engineering (SE) and project management (PM) efforts.

Throughout literature, many have suggested that there is a relationship between SE and PM, and evidently, a significant amount of research has been dedicated to SE cost estimating. Yet, there is a void in PM effort costing (see Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1 – Research Motivation

We define project management services as the work of initiating, planning, executing project plans, as well as monitoring and controlling project processes, activities and resources. For the proposed research, managerial responsibility, activities and processes are the focus, which excludes the technical aspects that SE is responsible of.

III. Instructions

The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first portion includes open-ended survey questions and importance ratings for the proposed PM cost models. The second portion includes PM efficiency drivers and its scale rating on PM people, process and tools (PPT).

For your convenience, the current values of the drivers given in Software Development Cost Estimating Guidebook (USAF Air Logistics Center, 07/2009) are provided to serve as the starting point for each PPT efficiency scale rating. If you disagree with these values, you may provide the appropriate values based on your own experience and expertise. However, please do notice that this intention was suggested by a subject matter experts’ (SME), and those values were generated by other SMEs estimates and historical data.

IV. Open-Ended Survey Questions and Rating of Importance

In your opinion and based on your professional experience with managing projects, please answer the followings:

1. Between model #1 and #2, which model would be more adequate and appropriate to measure and reflect project management effort? Please justify.

1. Please recall the possible cases (Case 1, 2 & 3) of project management effort presented today. In your opinion, which case and effort function scenario would appropriately represent the realistic SE/PM projects in industries? Please justify your choice.

1. How do industry corporations and government estimate PM costs? What type of estimating method do they use to estimate PM effort? What PM related cost factors or drivers do they currently use?

1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed models? How can the proposed model become more practical and applicable for industry use? What is missing in this research effort and what other factors do we need to consider?

1. Considering Model #1, please check-mark the importance and appropriateness for each of the following 18 PM effort multipliers.

1. Below is a list of attributes that represent PM capability associated with planning, organization, direction and monitoring. Please check-mark the importance for each PM attribute.

1. Project Management Efficiency Driver Rating Scale on People, Process & Tools (PPT)

Exhibit 2 – General View of Project Management Cost Estimating Model #2

People – PM Capability & Attributes

Project Management Capability & Attributes are defined as the following:

• Communication skills

• Team builder & player

• PM experience

• Ability to evaluate and select project resources

• Information sharing willingness

• Goal oriented

• Delegates appropriately

• Courage and conflict solving skills

• Well-organized

• Problem solver

• Supports and motivates project team

• Take initiative

• Open-minded and flexible

• Creativity

• Provide constructive criticism

• Integrator (team, PM activities, etc)

• Positive attitude

• Decision making skills

• Technical competency

As a starting point, a subject matter expert has suggested us to adapt the human capability ratings from the Software Development Cost Estimating Guidebook (SWDCEG), which was published by the United States Air Force’s Air Logistics Center in July, 2009. Please provide the value that you think is appropriate for PM capability. If you disagree with these values, you may provide the appropriate values based on your own experience and expertise.

Process – Project Management Process Maturity

Process maturity can be measured by adapting different maturity measuring tools, such as CMMI, the Berkeley Project Management Process Maturity Model, or the Organization Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) by Project Management Institute (PMI). The maturity is generally classified as the following:

(Least Mature) Initial => Repeatable => Defined => Managed => Optimized (Most Mature)

Tools – Efficiency and Support

The automated tool support parameter represents the degree to which the project development practices have been automated and will be utilized in the project development life cycle processes.

1