Continency Cage Match
Range vs. Parametric Estimating
AACE International
North Florida Section
Thursday, October 8th, 2020
Thursday, October 8th, 2020
Section Meeting and Webinar Notice
| Meeting Summary | |
| Date: | Thursday, October 8th, 2020 |
| Time: | 6:30 p.m. Virtual Networking / Introductions 6:45 p.m. Business Mtg / Announcements 7:00 p.m. Technical Presentation |
| Please Note: Meeting and Technical Presentation will be Virtual / Webinar ONLY | |
| Technical Program: | Continency Cage Match - Range vs. Parametric Estimating |
| This will be a MS Teams virtual meeting - RSVP to receive an e-mail with the meeting link. | |
| RSVP/ Questions | Click here to e-mail. |
Of the four main methods of contingency assessments support by AACE, two offer reasonable sophistication and detail: recommended practice 41R-08 Range estimating (Monte Carlo simulation); and, 42R-08 Parametric estimating (systemic analysis). Both offer probabilistic results, risk register integration and leverage project team’s knowledge and expertise. There are proponents within AACE of both methods who expound their favored approach (this Author being no exception). The ideal rapprochement is to use both methods simultaneously to offer two sets of “data points” on possible project cost outcomes. In the real world, budgets and project team availability, preclude this contingency Utopia.
Matthew has over 25 years of project
experience covering a broad range of industries including manufacturing, heavy
industry, food processing, infrastructure with a particular focus on the oil
and gas industry. A big picture thinker with an intrinsic desire for
logical, efficient processes, Matthew approaches projects from a business perspective
with a clear understanding of the profit motive. With the mantra
“predictability is better than perfection” Matthew has streamlined processes
and developed coherent stage-gate processes. His natural affinity for numbers
has allowed the creation of world-class models. In these, Matthew’s
curiosity naturally led to a desire for better uncertainty, risk and
contingency assessments. After completing over $100B of assessments on
hundreds of projects, Matthew is familiar with all methods of risk management.
As an expert in the field, Matthew is one of North America’s foremost
practitioners of the parametric/systemic approach and published several papers
on capital project risk management. Despite his logical quantitative
bent, Matthew is both effusive and engaging in demeanor and was ranked as the
#1 overall speaker at AACE 2016.
Click here to RSVP before end of business day Wednesday, 10/07/2020.
►Live Webinar Attendance - Continuing Education Credits
For AACE members who hold professional certifications, Webinar attendance counts toward renewal points as long as online attendance for the entire presentation is verified.
In 2012, the Author had the opportunity to simultaneously complete both methods on a large, now substantially complete, project. This paper will review the project’s post mortem implementation of the two contingency approaches; their predictive results against actual results; and, consultant and project team hours expended for each method.
Who will win this Contingency Cage Match? Will there be a clear winner? This paper will review the effort – accuracy relationship between the two approaches along with other time saving methods.
Speaker/Panelist: Matthew Schoenhardt, P.Eng, MBA, PMP, RMP
RSVPs must be received on or before 5pm on Wednesday, 07-Oct- 2020. Your friends and colleagues are always welcome to sign up for this virtual meeting; membership in AACE International is not required.
Click here to RSVP before end of business day Wednesday, 10/07/2020.
►Live Webinar Attendance - Continuing Education Credits
For AACE members who hold professional certifications, Webinar attendance counts toward renewal points as long as online attendance for the entire presentation is verified.
