Analytics
A.Estimating performance
How fast and how accurately the team estimates — targets from the platform business case.
was 1–4 days before the platform · 24 mo trend
91.8% → 94.2% of estimates inside band · 24 mo trend
4.8% today vs 15–25% pre-platform baseline · 24 mo trend
Vendor quotes flagged as the bottleneck
Vendor quotes 5.1d — bottleneck
±15% target cone shaded; each point is a historical program
Ballparks average 3.6% under final — 0.0% across 8 historical programs.
gray bar shows the pre-platform baseline
B.Pricing & win/loss
Where target prices, recommended prices and realized margin diverge across open jobs and programs.
Cliff at 29% CM — wins cluster 26–28.5%
Above 29% CM win rate falls to 31% and below.
premium classes win less often but at higher margin
Gray bracket = matrix target range
Complex below band — see lost Charlotte Tilbury program.
8 tracked opportunities, 24 months
- Price62%
- Timeline23%
- Capability15%
green = headroom to raise price, red = recommended is above target — drops off once the estimate is initiated
TCL target $1000 vs recommended $508 (+97% headroom) · Dior target $520 vs recommended $565 (-8% gap) · Givenchy pending
cost build-up to final price — final bar is the price
Final price $0.00
C.Vendors
Response speed, quote accuracy and delivery reliability by vendor.
lower is better
Duraco is the slowest responder
from vendor scorecards
one row per vendor — trailing six months
D.Market
Where input costs and freight are moving — and which open work that exposure touches.
indexed to 100 at start of period
Acrylic +6.2% highlighted; China→US ocean freight −11.0% is the largest favourable move.