banner

Project Management & Systems Engineering Solutions

John Galanos
BE, MSEng, ACE, MIE(Aust), CPEng, MIEEE

Trade Studies

 

What is a Trade Study?

One of the best definitions of a trade study is this:

"Trade Studies is the System Engineering (SE) element that multidisciplinary teams use to identify the most balanced technical solutions among a set of proposed viable solutions. It is a key tool in developing designs that meet stakeholder requirements in the most cost-efficient manner possible. The application of Trade Studies prevents program/project management from committing too early to a design that may not be cost effective or meets all system requirements. Through Trade Studies, desirable and practical alternatives that better combine cost and effectiveness may be identified, resulting in beneficial selections among the alternatives." ( FAA, System Engineering Manual Version 3.1, Section 4.6, Trade Studies, Federal Aviation Administration, 2006)

General use of trade studies

While the above definition is a systems engineering perspective, the approach applies to any situation where a decision needs to be made on which option to select by trading benefits and penalties for each solution.

Some typical examples of situations that benefit from performance of trade studies are:

  • Choosing a technical solution (performance, cost, risk, etc)

  • Choosing a supplier source (performance, cost, risk, delivery schedule, continuity, etc)

  • Choosing a financing source (interest rate, establishment fees, termination, risk, etc)

  • Contract amendment proposal (eg, cost/benefit, probability of success, contract implications, etc)

The trade parameters are more often quantifiable as numbers (cost/price, risk probability, performance, etc). Some trade parameters will be qualitative and need to have a numeric value ascribed to them (eg, supplier reliability, damage/benefit to company, etc)

Ultimately, the purpose of the trade study is to select the most balanced solution in terms of cost/price, schedule, quality/performance, risk, and qualitative factors, from a set of viable alternatives using a set of defined criteria.

Trade Study approach

The FAA, System Engineering Manual Version 3.1, Section 4.6, Trade Studies, Federal Aviation Administration, 2006 provides an excellent description of the process and you are referred to that for an in-depth description.

A Case Study

A good way to describe the trade study process is to do it using a simple case study (note that trade studies can become much more complicated than this simple example):

Case: Your company has sought tenders for a 250kVA power generator it urgently needs as an emergency backup for a mission critical operation. Three bids received from Companies A, B, and C. Select the preferred bidder.

The following table shows a summary of the three bids:

Table 1. Characteritics of the three received bids

Characteristic

Bidder A

Bidder B

Bidder C

Price

100,000

95,000

105,000

Delivery

60 days

75 days

45 days

Technical compliance

95%

90%

98%

Support

In country, support facility

In country agent, Singapore support facility

In country agent, US support facility

2 years of on-site spares

30,000

50,000

25,000

Installation Price

30,000

22,500

35,000

Installation Method

local team

local team with UK supervisor

local team with US supervisor

Product track record

In service

New product

New product

Source track record

A reliable

B reliable

A reliable

Operator/Maintainer familiarity

Earlier model in service

Nil

Earlier model in service

Warranty Price

5,000

6,000

7,000

Warranty Duration

2 years

2 years

3 years

Weighting Factor

Make a comparative, value assessment for each charcateristic. In other words allocate a weighting factor of importance against each characteristic. For our example, see Table 2.

Table 2. Weighting Factors

Characteristic Rationale Weighting

Price

Important but not critical
1.5

Delivery

Mission critical facility
4

Technical compliance

Mission critical facility
4
Support Mission critical facility
4

2 years of on-site spares

Less significant
1.5

Installation Price

Important but not critical
1.5
Installation Method Important but not critical
1.5

Product track record

Of interest
1

Source track record

Important but not critical
1.5

Operator/Maintainer familiarity

Less important
1

Warranty Price

Less important
1

Warranty Duration

Important because of mission critical facility function
2

 

Normalization

Define a set of normalised values for each characteristic in Table 1 as shown in Table 3A and 3B. Note that although this tends to be subjective process, the rationale is based on the value placed on each characteristic.

Table 3A. Normalised Values

Price ($) Delivery Technical Compliance Support 2-Years On-site Spares ($) Installation Price ($) Normalized Value
80,000
40
100%
In country support facility
20,000
20,000
10
85,000
45
98%
25,000
25,000
9
90,000
50
96%
In country agent, US/UK support facility
30,000
30,000
8
95,000
55
94%
35,000
35,000
7
100,000
60
92%
In country, other location support facility
40,000
40,000
6
105,000
65
90%
45,000
45,000
5
110,000
70
88%
No in-country agent, US/UK support facility
50,000
50,000
4
115,000
75
86%
55,000
55,000
3
120,000
80
84%
No in-country, other location support facility
60,000
60,000
2
125,000
85
82%
65,000
65,000
1

 

Table 3B. Normalised Values

Installation Method Product Track Record Source Track Record Operator &Mantainer Familiarity Warranty Price ($) Warranty Duration (Years)
Normalized Value
Local team with local supervision
In service product
"A" reliable
Earlier model currently in service
0
5 years
10
Local team with UK or US supervisor
New product based on earlier design
3,000
4 years
9
Local team with other supervisor
New product, new development
"B" reliable
Some similarity with in-service model
4,000
3 years
8
5,000
2 years
7
"C" reliable
New product, no previous experience
6,000
1 years
6
7,000
5
8,000
4
9,000
3
10,000
2
11,000
0 years
1

Weghted Comparison

Combine all the data as shown in Table 4.

Note that for each characteristic, Total point score = x-Factor x Normalised value

Table 4. Final Trade Table

(a)
(d)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Characteristic
X-Factor
Rationale
Bidder A
Bidder B
Bidder C
Norm'd Value
Total
Norm'd Value
Total
Normal'd Value
Total
Price
1.5
Important but not critical
6
9
7
10.5
5
7.5
Delivery
4
Mission critical facility
6
24
3
12
9
36
Technical compliance
4
Mission critical facility
8
32
5
20
9
36
Support - 
4
Mission critical facility
10
40
6
24
8
32

2 years of
on-site spares

1.5
Less significant
8
12
4
6
4
6
Installation
Price
1.5
Important but not critical
8
12
10
15
7
10.5
Installation
method
1.5
Important but not critical
10
15
9
13.5
9
13.5
Product track
record
1
Of interest
10
10
8
8
6
6
Source track
record
1.5
Important but not critical
10
15
8
12
10
15
Operator & Maintainer
familiarity
1
Less important
10
10
8
8
6
6
Warranty Cost
1
Less important
7
7
6
6
5
5
Warranty
duration
2
Important because of mission critical facility function
7
14
7
14
8
16
Total
200
Total
149
Total
189.5

As seen from Table 4, Bidder A has the highest score based on the weighting factors and Normalisation spread used. Clearly manipulating the these two factors could produce different results, however selection of a prudent rationale is a key factor in choosing realistic weighting factors, and selecting characteristic spread judiciously results in arealistic trade outcome.

In Summary

The above example was used to demonstrate a simple, but effective type of trade study where a complex analysis is undesirable. For an in depth trade study analysis, refer to the above referenced FAA, System Engineering Manual Version 3.1, Section 4.6, Trade Studies, Federal Aviation Administration, 2006).


WHITE PAPERS
Plain-speaking solutions for everyday problems encountered by project managers and engineers.

 

 

CONTACT DETAILS

Mob/Cell:
+61-430-950-841 (Int’l)
0430-950-841 (Nat’l)

E-mail: johng@galanos.com.au

URL: www.galanos.com.au

Mail:
2 Cabena St,
Donvale VIC 3111 Australia

© 2009 Professional Engineering Services Pty Ltd.  All rights reserved.
Reproduction of this white paper is permissible providing attribution to and contact detail for Professional Engineering Services Pty Ltd is clearly stated.

© 2009 Professional Engineering Services Pty Ltd. All rights reserved,