A Comparative Study of Linear and Nonlinear Estimate at Completion Methods

Controlling costs in the acquisition of new defense systems is a major challenge in today's environment of declining budgets and rapidly changing technology. One of the challenges faced by program managers and cost analysts is selecting the most appropriate Estimate at Completion (EAC) method for their program. This study compares the performance of the popular index-based EAC methods with several newer nonlinear, regression based EAC methods to determine whether the complex nonlinear methods perform better than the simpler index-based methods. In addition, the sensitivity of the results to stage of contract completion, system type, program phase, contract type, department of Defense service component, and inflation effects are also investigated. Eighty-eight contracts were examined in this study and it was found that overall the index-based EAC methods performed significantly better than the nonlinear regression based methods as measured by two criteria, the accuracy and stability of the EACs. In addition, the top performing method overall was determined to be the index-based method using the Composite Index (0.2SPIcum+0.8CPIcum). The best performing method was, however, sensitive to all of the factors investigated in the sensitivity analysis.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.