---
id:
aliases: []
tags:
  - topic/estimating
---
# Estimating Detail

In [[construction-estimating]], the acceptable level of detail of an estimate is a contentious subject.
What's worse, estimators often disagree on what makes an estimate more detailed than another.
With our [[risk-oriented-estimating]] approach,
detail is essentially the inverse of epistemic [[uncertainty]].

That said, the correct answer is this.

> As detailed as possible, given required turnaround and available estimating resources.

%%
TODO: This analysis is not much better than the common belief.
A commonality of both is the implication that more time ought to be preferred,
when the reality is that when considering larger organizational factors (strategy),
ideal estimate certainty is likely far lower than most expect.

The _correct_ correct answer involves optimizing for these factors:
* value of increased bid certainty
* value of increased estimate volume
%%

An estimate's detail is irrelevant to its quality.
A less detailed estimate is a more [[risk]]y bid,
but **it is not the role of the estimator to determine acceptable risk**.

## Experiment

Perform a system takeoff (lighting for example) in exacting detail,
the maximum amount you would ever consider using,
and measure the time required to do so,
as well as the cost of the scope.

Have another estimator takeoff the same scope using the proposed time saving strategy.

Repeat the test on additional projects.

Treat the detailed takeoff as the true value
and find the error of the time saving strategy.

$\frac{d\sigma}{dt}$

### Expectation

Time-saving strategies will overestimate or underestimate detailed takeoff
depending on the assumptions used in their creation.

## Human Error

It is commonly understood that a "detailed takeoff"
is more "accurate" than a square foot estimate.
