What tool or technique of Estimate Activity Durations uses parameters such as duration, budget, size, weight, and complexity from a previous, similar project as the basis for estimating the same…

Question

Options

• ABottom-up estimating
• BAnalogous estimating
• CParametric estimating
• DThree-point estimates

• A
  10% (4)
• B
  80% (32)
• C
  3% (1)
• D
  8% (3)

Explanation

Analogous estimating is correct because it directly uses historical data from a similar previous project - parameters like duration, budget, size, weight, or complexity - as the basis for estimating a new project. It's essentially "learning from the past" at a high level, making it fast but less precise.

Bottom-up estimating (A) is wrong because it works in the opposite direction: you estimate individual work packages or activities in detail and then aggregate them upward - no historical project is used as the reference point.

Parametric estimating (C) is a common mix-up - it also uses historical data, but applies it through a statistical relationship or formula (e.g., cost per square foot, hours per line of code). The question describes a direct parameter-to-parameter comparison, not a calculated relationship.

Three-point estimates (D) is wrong because it uses optimistic, pessimistic, and most-likely duration values to compute a weighted average (PERT), with no requirement for a prior similar project.

Memory tip: Think "Analogous = Analogies." Just as an analogy compares one thing to another similar thing, analogous estimating compares your new project to a similar past project - simple, direct, and based on experience rather than formulas or detailed breakdowns.

No community discussion yet for this question.