NMC Data Flow Model Comparison for Cost Estimation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Bidders face challenges in accurately estimating the customization cost of Network Monitoring and Control (NMC) systems for solution projects due to varying non-functional requirements and the need for precise software and hardware development within tight bidding periods.

Innovation Solution

A method that compares a proposed NMC unit's data flow model with a previously developed model, identifying differences in sensors, equipment, and actuators to estimate the customization cost, using a modeling formalism that includes status and control data types, and compiles these differences into a data processing tool for cost calculation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If bidders manually analyze and estimate customization requirements for NMC systems, then the accuracy of cost estimation can be improved, but the time required for offer development increases significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecost estimation accuracyVSAvoidoffer development time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by pre-establishing a database of historical NMC system projects with their customization requirements, component lists, and cost data. Before bidding, the system stores and organizes this historical information in structured formats, enabling rapid retrieval and comparison during the bidding process. This pre-prepared knowledge base allows bidders to quickly estimate costs without manual analysis of each new project from scratch.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent uses copying by creating standardized templates and models of NMC system configurations based on historical projects. These templates include predefined component lists, data flow models, and cost structures that can be copied and adapted for new bids. The system captures the essential patterns from historical projects and reproduces them as reusable models, significantly reducing the time needed to prepare new offers while maintaining estimation accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

2Reliability

If bidders conduct detailed analysis of all NMC system customization requirements, then the reliability of cost estimation improves, but the complexity of the estimation process increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecost estimation reliabilityVSAvoidestimation process complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies segmentation by breaking down the NMC system customization analysis into distinct modular components: data flow model analysis, component identification, historical project matching, and cost calculation. Each aspect is handled separately through dedicated processing modules, making the overall complex estimation process more manageable and reliable. The system segments historical project data into comparable units that can be systematically evaluated.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces an intermediary computational system that acts as a mediator between the complex customization requirements and the cost estimation output. This intermediate processing layer automatically compares new project requirements against historical data, identifies relevant patterns, and performs calculations according to predefined rules. The intermediary system handles the complexity internally, presenting simplified results to users while ensuring reliable estimation through systematic analysis.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Adaptability or versatility

If NMC systems are customized to meet specific non-functional requirements for different solution projects, then the adaptability of the system improves, but the customization cost increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem customization capabilityVSAvoidcustomization cost
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies parameter changes by systematically varying key configuration parameters of NMC systems based on historical project data and specific client requirements. The system identifies which parameters (such as monitoring points, control functions, communication protocols) need to be changed for different applications and calculates the associated costs. By parameterizing the customization process, the system can efficiently evaluate different configuration scenarios and their cost implications without complete redesign.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements universality by creating a standardized core NMC system platform that can serve multiple different solution projects through configuration rather than complete customization. The system identifies common functional requirements across historical projects and builds a universal base platform that can be adapted to specific needs through parameter adjustments and module selection. This multi-functional approach reduces customization costs by avoiding redundant development while maintaining the ability to meet diverse client requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentUS8712754B2Requirements model comparative analysis method for effort estimation in customizing a network monitoring and control system
Publication Date: 2014.04.29 SIEMENS CORP
  • US8712754B2 patent drawing
  • US8712754B2 patent drawing
  • US8712754B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method, including: receiving, at a processing device, an input, wherein the input includes a first model of data flows between a proposed Network Monitoring and Control (NMC) unit and devices connected to the proposed NMC unit, wherein the first model is based on a Request for Proposal (RFP) and the data flows are defined by data types and primitives conforming to a modeling formalism; and comparing, by using the processing device, the first model with a second model, wherein the second model is a model of data flows between a previously developed NMC unit and devices connected to the previously developed NMC unit, wherein the second model is based on a prior RFP and the data flows are defined by data types and primitives conforming to the modeling formalism, wherein the comparison identifies differences between the data flows of the first and second models.