01 / The problem
The team needed to understand the route behind the cost.
Sand casting, gravity casting and high-pressure die casting each bring different tooling, cycle-time, yield and finishing assumptions. A comparison must account for those differences and the machining that follows.
The engagement uses customer drawings and reference costs to examine the engineering basis. The part revision, production volume and cost inclusions need to agree before a difference can be interpreted.
02 / Our solution
A costed process plan, built from the drawing.
LevelPlane’s method connects the drawing requirements to process selection and a virtual factory. Material usage, machine time, labor, yield, tooling and overhead build the estimate operation by operation.
03 / How we did it
Check each operation against the reference.
Reviewers can trace a difference to its source: a machine assumption, a cycle time, a yield allowance or an item included in one reference but excluded from another. This makes the review about the manufacturing basis as well as the price.
Read the requirements
Drawing revision, material, features and production volume.
Choose a feasible route
Casting method, finishing operations and machining.
Inspect the cost basis
Machines, cycle times, rates, yield and tooling allocation.
Reconcile the reference
Match the scope and explain operation-level differences.
04 / What LevelPlane added
A factory model with reviewable assumptions.
The same part can have a different cost in a different factory. LevelPlane keeps the machine, rate and production assumptions visible, so the team can review whether they apply to its manufacturing context.
An accepted correction belongs to a defined plant, process or part family. Keeping that scope with the decision gives later matching work a starting point the team can explain.
05 / Business benefits
Put expert time into the decisions that need it.
| Manual preparation | With LevelPlane |
|---|---|
| Assemble drawing requirements, factory rates and process assumptions for each estimate. | Start the review with a prepared process route and operation-level cost breakdown. |
| Reconcile totals, then find the assumptions behind the differences. | Review machines, cycle times, yield and tooling against the same reference. |
| Re-enter accepted corrections in the next matching cost sheet. | Retain the approved correction with its plant, process or part-family scope. |
Business value
A prepared cost basis for review, fewer repeated inputs and corrections that carry into the next relevant part.
Cost engineers can concentrate on whether the route fits the part, which assumptions need changing and what the buyer can use in a supplier discussion. The prepared analysis and accepted corrections remain available for the next matching review.
Customer identities are withheld. Images illustrate the work.
