Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.
Scribd will begin operating the SlideShare business on December 1, 2020 As of this date, Scribd will manage your SlideShare account and any content you may have on SlideShare, and Scribd's General Terms of Use and Privacy Policy will apply. If you wish to opt out, please close your SlideShare account. Learn more.
Published on
Once a project or a turnaround team has developed a cost estimate, they are usually required to assign an accuracy range to the estimate and calculate the contingency. Some teams take a simplistic view that if the design package has been developed to a certain standard or class, then the accuracy range can be assigned according to common rules of thumb. However, this route can bypass the requirement to calculate contingency, and it looks at only the “systemic” uncertainty in the estimate, while ignoring any “project specific” uncertainty and risk. In addition, copious evidence over the past 30 years shows that, if left unguided, teams are generally over-optimistic and hence under-estimate the contingency required and assign too tight an accuracy range. If we look at the common methodologies used by teams, there are a number of common misconceptions and errors that contribute to this under-estimation.