Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 264–269
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

55th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems

Machine Learning based Cost Prediction for Product Development in

Mechanical Engineering
Christoph Hennebolda , Kevin Klöpfera , Peter Lettenbauera , Marco Hubera,b,
a Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstr. 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
b Institute for Industrial Manufacturing and Management IFF, University of Stuttgart, Allmandring 35, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 711 970-1963; Fax.: +49 711 970-717-1963; E-mail address: Christoph.Hennebold@ipa.fraunhofer.de

Abstract
An accurate forecast of the final manufacturing costs in the early product development phase is a key element, especially in mechanical engineer-
ing. An accurate and reliable prediction allows, on the one hand, estimating the economic feasibility and, on the other hand, deriving necessary cost
reductions. It is essential to evaluate and monitor compliance with the cost target initially and throughout the entire development process. Most
cost estimation methods are primarily based on simple heuristic and statistical approaches that provide only limited accurate predictions in the
early development phase. Sufficiently precise cost estimations, especially for customer-specific developments, are only possible in the late phase
of the development process using finely parameterized models and cost rates at the component level. The supporting use of Machine Learning
(ML) has not yet played a major role in cost estimation in mechanical engineering. Therefore, this article shows the general applicability of ML
for predicting manufacturing costs in mechanical engineering and that even in the early phase of product development, precise predictions with
little known information about the final product are possible. In addition, we present a generic feature set for ML-based cost prediction regarding
machinery. Furthermore, the quality of different created ML models was evaluated based on real data of a mechanical engineering use case, and
high accuracy in predicting manufacturing costs was demonstrated.
© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the International Programme committee of the 55th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
Keywords:
Machine Learning; Artificial Intelligence; Cost Prediction; Mechanical Engineering; Product Development

1. Introduction a company’s performance and effectiveness, as overestimation

Mechanical engineering companies face increasing com-
petitive intensity in their industry [5, 27]. Incumbent small
and medium enterprises (SMEs) must compete with start-ups
and new global low-cost competitors, meeting essential cus-
tomer requirements at a much lower price [7, 33]. These in-
cumbent SMEs provide technologically sophisticated machines
marketed according to the “engineer to order” principle. Most
customer orders are followed by an adaption and further devel-
opment of an existing product architecture according to the cus-
tomer needs. The individual fulfillment of all and very specific
customer requirements is their decisive competitive advantage.
Nevertheless, an increasing cost pressure enforces price reduc-
tions even for those firms, and they have to deal with smaller
profit margins. Accordingly, estimating the final manufacturing
costs is a decisive process in the early phase of a customer-
specific development project. Cost estimation directly affects
can lead to loss of contracts, and underestimation can lead to
financial losses [23]. Due to the limited information about the
final product in the early development phase [13], cost estima-
tion is associated with a high degree of uncertainty [26, 11, 12].
In summary, the use case of SMEs in mechanical engineering
sets specific requirements for a suitable cost estimation method:
applicability and already high estimation accuracy in the early
product development phase (1); applicability in lot size one de-
velopment projects (2); applicability despite a small database
regarding comparable previous developments (3).
Separating approaches for product cost estimation during the
development process into qualitative and quantitative methods
[23], there are decisive shortcomings for both groups. Most
quantitative methods require an advanced product design and
a high degree of detailed information about the final product
to be applicable. Qualitative methods are based on an exten-
sive database regarding previous and comparable development
projects. The company’s experience from completed, success-

2212-8271 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the International Programme committee of the 55th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
10.1016/j.procir.2022.04.043

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Christoph Hennebold et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 264–269 265

ful developments is evaluated and related to the current de-

velopment project. This enables cost-referred statements in the
early product development phase. However, the application of
the qualitative methods in the early product development phase
is insufficient for a reliable economic evaluation and for deriv-
ing design decisions [8] in the context of mechanical engineer-
ing SMEs due to a high estimation uncertainty [26, 12].
The article is structured as follows. In Chapter 2, an eval-
uation of widespread cost estimation methods and a review of
cost estimation approaches utilizing artificial intelligence (AI)
techniques is given. In Chapter 3, the ML-based cost prediction
approach is described. In Chapter 4, the procedure and results
of an exemplary application of the proposed approach are pre-
sented. Chapter 5 comprises the discussion of the results and
future research directions.

2. Background

In this chapter, a review of widespread cost estimation meth-

ods and cost estimation approaches utilizing AI techniques is
given. Furthermore, a summary and the need for a novel ap-
proach using ML for predicting manufacturing cost in SME re-
lated mechanical engineering is argued.

2.1. Product cost estimation methods

Various researchers attempted to categorize cost estimation

methods [8, 4, 9]. Niazi et al. (2006) combine multiple ap-
proaches and break down cost estimation methods into quali-
tative (intuitive and analogue) and quantitative (parametric and
analytical) ones [23]. They also classify relevant cost estimation
methods according to their proposed systematic. Based on this
classification, the applicability of widespread cost estimation
methods in different product development phases was evaluated
for this work. The necessary division of development projects
into different development phases is based on the framework of
Kossiakoff et al. (2020), and structuring into early, middle and
late phase was chosen [13]. The evaluation result is presented
in Figure 2.1. Methods can be suitable (+), not suitable (-) or
only applicable under certain conditions (o). Additional rele-
vant cost methods were included, which were assigned to the
software cost estimation (SW) methods [31, 36] and the para-
metric methods [9]. The evaluation was built upon various pre-
decessor works [23, 9, 31, 36, 14, 21, 28, 19, 18, 25, 34, 2, 16,
22, 29, 30, 15].
The evaluation of the cost estimation methods carried out
shows that the quantitative methods generally require sufficient
knowledge of the product-specific characteristics and, in par-
ticular, a small database on previous and comparable develop-
ment projects. The essential need for product-specific data re-
sults in the predominant applicability of quantitative methods
in the middle or late product development phase. Qualitative
methods are based on a broad database regarding previous de-
velopments, while a smaller set of product-specific data is re-
quired. The company’s experience from completed, successful
developments is evaluated and related to the current develop-
Fig. 1. Evaluation of the suitability of cost estimation methods for different
phases of product development based on the systematic of Niazi et al. (2006)
[23]
ment task. This enables cost estimations in the early and middle
product development phases. However, qualitative-based cost
estimations are demonstrably subject to enormous uncertain-
ties and prediction tolerance [26, 11, 12]. Niazi et al. (2006)
already considered AI-based cost estimation methods and clas-
sified them as analogical ones [23]. Though, applying these
methods requires knowledge of product-specific features that
are available only through advanced product design. Therefore,
these methods are only applicable in the middle and late devel-
opment phases, unlike most qualitative methods. Nevertheless,
various researchers have recognised the potential of AI tech-
niques to overcome the high estimation uncertainty of classical
qualitative cost estimation methods. A review of relevant ap-
proaches is presented in the following.
2.2. AI techniques in cost estimation
Most of the relevant literature regarding the application of AI
in cost estimation relates to construction engineering projects.
Wang et al. (2021) tested artificial neuronal networks (NN) and
support vector machines (SVM) to predict costs and sched-
ules in the conceptual design phase, based on 92 construction
projects. The prediction accuracy for cost success was 92 % and

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 266 Christoph Hennebold et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 264–269
for schedule success, 80 % [35]. Ambrule and Bhirud (2017)
used an NN model for cost prediction of reinforced concrete
buildings, whereas results show 93 % average accuracy with a
mean squared error (MSE) of 0.038 [1]. Cao et al. (2018) de-
veloped a multi-layer ensemble learning model for predicting
unit price bids for highway rehabilitation projects [6]. The en-
semble learning model shows a mean absolute percentage er-
ror (MAPE) of 7.56. Kim (2013) incorporated Analytical Hi-
erarchy Process and case-based reasoning (CBR). They built a
reliable cost estimation model for highway projects in South
Korea, resulting in a mean average error(MAE) of 2.76 [16].
Leśniak and Zima (2018) also used a CBR approach to estimate
costs for sports field construction using 16 predictors based on
143 construction projects. The model shows a final total er-
ror of 14 % [17]. Other researchers applied regression mod-
els to estimate the cost of road construction [24] or residential
construction projects [32] achieving high prediction accuracy.
Arabzadeh et al. (2018) developed NN, regression and hybrid
models for spherical storage tank cost estimation and showed
the best result for hybrid NNs [3].
There are some works regarding AI techniques in cost esti-
mation despite the construction business. For instance, Orlando
et al. (2008) successfully developed an NN model for early cost
estimation of shell and tube heat exchangers [10]. Loyer et al.
(2016) evaluated different statistical models for cost estimation
of jet engines and showed that gradient boosted trees and sup-
port vector regression are up to two times more efficient than the
ones typically encountered in the literature like Multiple Linear
Regression and NNs [20]. Soyong (2020) applied a deep learn-
ing model to estimate the manufacturing cost of mechanical
components based on 3D models [37]. Due to the monolithic
and simple character of the components analyzed, the adapt-
ability of this approach to a complete machine is limited.
2.3. State of the art analysis
Cost estimation methods, differentiated into quantitative and
qualitative methods, are characterized by different suitability
for specific product development phases. While quantitative
methods tend to provide precise estimations in the middle and
late development phases, qualitative methods are already appli-
cable at an early development stage. However, qualitative meth-
ods are associated with enormous uncertainty [26, 11, 12]. But
especially in the early development phase, reliable cost estima-
tion is crucial for SMEs in mechanical engineering, although
detailed knowledge of the final product is not available. AI tech-
niques for cost estimation are established in the scientific liter-
ature, and preliminary work has shown that AI-based cost es-
timation methods can provide accurate results. However, these
approaches also have shortcomings regarding the applicability
in the early phase of product development in mechanical en-
gineering. The bespoken approaches require sufficient knowl-
edge about the final “product” like construction plans or de-
tailed 3D models [37]. Consequently, neither the current mod-
els nor the specific feature engineering can be directly applied
to the use case of technical complex machinery due to the lack
of product-specific data in the early development phase. There-
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
fore, machine type independent and early known features have
to be identified, suitable AI techniques have to be determined
and small training data sets in SMEs have to be considered.
3. Machine learning based cost prediction
As shown in Chapter 2.2 a multitude of classical and AI-
based approaches exist for estimating the manufacturing or con-
struction costs during the design stage. As already reviewed, the
use of AI in manufacturing cost prediction has proven feasible
and advantageous. However, these approaches are not applica-
ble in the early development phase in mechanical engineering
SMEs. There are major differences in features, some of which
are very different from those available in mechanical engineer-
ing. These approaches already require a sound knowledge of
the final product design, which usually is not available in the
early development phase. Furthermore, there isn’t a consensus
on which AI techniques are best for cost prediction, and NNs
require huge data sets that won’t be available in mechanical en-
gineering SMEs.
To address these challenges, a concept of a manufacturing
cost prediction is proposed in this chapter, which is applica-
ble in the early development phase in mechanical engineering.
This concept covers aspects, such as a generic feature set and
the creation of a suitable data set. Furthermore, different ML al-
gorithms are considered and evaluated concerning applicability
and prediction accuracy.
The creation of a sufficient data set is the first part of the
concept. In this regard, selecting suitable features is very im-
portant here, since they need to be available in the early devel-
opment phase. Therefore, a generic feature set is proposed be-
cause different areas of mechanical engineering may have very
domain-specific features that cannot be applied to all areas of
mechanical engineering as a whole. Table 1 shows an overview
of all features used in this proposed approach. On the one hand,
features were derived from existing cost estimation methods ap-
plicable in the early development phase, such as the weight and
dimensions of a machine which are derived from the kilo cost
method. On the other hand, features based on early available
technical data like energy consumption and power supply were
selected.
The second part of the concept comprises the selection of
suitable prediction algorithms. In this regard, different algo-
rithms are considered capable of dealing with small data sets.
Table 1. Used Features
Feature Unit of measure Origin
{Length, Width, Height} mm Kilo Cost Method
Weight kg Kilo Cost Method
Machine Type {A, B, C, D} technical data
Power Supply Volt (V) technical data
Energy Consumption kw technical data
Performance pcs/h cost function
Level of Automation {manual, semi, automatic} software
Manufacturing Cost € software
 Christoph Hennebold et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 264–269
Therefore, the linear regression (LR), decision tree (DT), ran-
dom forest (RF), K-nearest neighbor (KNN), and support vec-
tor regression (SVR) are considered. The prediction accuracy of
those algorithms in the context of the mechanical engineering
use case was tested and compared during validation (cf. Sec-
tion 4.2). The respective results were evaluated by means of the
MAE and root rean squared error (RMSE) metrics in order to
be able to compare their applicability and forecasting accuracy.
4. Validation
In this chapter, the validation of the proposed ML-based ap-
proach for manufacturing cost prediction presented in Chap-
ter 3 is described. The approach was validated by means of a
use case of a mechanical engineering company. In this regard,
a data set was created on the basis of different packaging ma-
chine types from cardboard processing and represent cardboard
sealing, cardboard erecting, shrinking, and strapping machines
which are respectively abbreviated from A to D in Table 1. First,
the created dataset, correlations in the data and peculiarities in
the used features are described. Based on the created data set,
the regression algorithms mentioned in Chapter 3 are tested for
their applicability in manufacturing cost prediction. Moreover,
the cost prediction results are evaluated using the MAE and
RMSE metric
4.1. Dataset
The data set consists of 81 data points comprising the
generic features mentioned in Table 1 as well as the manu-
facturing costs of the respective machines as target. The data
set was compiled manually in the course of this work and is
based on information from product data sheets and the website
content of the use case company. Occasionally, features of data
points were not completely available. To fill in the missing fea-
tures based on existing data points, an iterative imputer with
Bayesian Ridge Regression estimator was utilized. The maxi-
mum number of imputation rounds was set to 10 and missing
values were initialized with the computed mean. The manu-
facturing costs stored in this data set are in a price range be-
tween approx. 500–€28,000. The correlation matrix of the cre-
ated dataset in Figure 4.1 shows the correlations of the used
data. The high correlation between the dimensions and the ma-
chine’s weight is not surprising. In addition, depending on the
size and weight, its power supply also changes, reflected in a
relatively high correlation. It is also noticeable that the degree
of automation of a machine affects its size and therefore also
its weight, whereby the size and thus also the weight increases
with an increasing degree of automation.
4.2. Evaluation
To validate the applicability of the different regression algo-
rithms for manufacturing cost prediction and to evaluate their
prediction accuracy, they are examined by 10-fold cross val-
idation on the metrics MAE and RMSE to investigate, first,
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
267
Table 2. Cost prediction results.
Algorithm MAE RMSE
KNN €672 ±€451 €703 ±€449
LR €994 ±€625 €1178 ±€801
RF €2,675 ±€1,990 €3,073 ±€2,412
SVR €2,711 ±€2,031 €3,042 ±€2,351
DT €2,742 ±€2,273 €3,232 ±€2,952
the mean deviation and, second, the effect of possible outliers
on the cost prediction. The calculated error metrics for each
method are shown in Table 4.2.
The application of the KNN algorithm results in an MAE of
€672, showing the best prediction accuracy of all compared al-
gorithms, which is due to the property of KNN to average the
results of the k-nearest neighbors for decision-making. Even if
the predicted manufacturing costs increase, the averaged value
leads to a more accurate result. A similar result occurred with
the LR algorithm, which is slightly higher with a MAE of €994.
It is noticeable that the DT, RF and SVR algorithms predicted
manufacturing costs in a similar range with an MAEs between
2,600 - €2,750 and are also suitable to determine the manu-
facturing costs. It is worth noting that the results of KNN and
LR differ greatly from those of RF, SVR, and DT, forming
two different clusters of algorithms. In this context, observing
the RMSE metric shows the calculated error (deviation) of the
model predictions from the target value. It provides additional
information about possible outliers in the predictions, which
negatively affect the computed value. As can also be seen in Ta-
ble 4.2, across all algorithms, the calculated RMSE values lie
close to the manufacturing costs computed in MAE. The RMSE
value of all algorithms is about €200 to €600 higher, which can
be explained with possible outliers in the calculations as previ-
ously described. The application of the existing test data for the
prediction of manufacturing costs has shown that ML can be
applied for cost prediction in the field of mechanical engineer-
ing. However, the very small size and the unbalanced nature
of the data set is a problem in calculating manufacturing costs.
The very small amount of training data does not allow the algo-
rithms to reasonably learn the transitions between the price seg-
ments of different machines. This effect is exacerbated by the
unbalanced nature of the data set. It contains machines from a
wide range of price segments, although not every price segment
is represented by the same amount of machines. However, in-
creasing the size of the data set with additional data seems very
worthwhile to improve the predictive accuracy of the methods
further. Moreover, the enlargement of the database also enables
utilizing deep learning methods, which were not yet considered.
5. Discussion and Outlook
This article presented a novel and ML-based approach to
predict manufacturing costs of new products during the early
phase of product development of mechanical engineering SMEs
comprising a generic feature engineering. Due to that, the ap-
 268 Christoph Hennebold et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 264–269
Fig. 2. Feature correlations of the used data set.
proach is generically applicable to different machine types
(packaging machines, machine tools, etc.). The exemplary ap-
plication of our approach testing different types of ML algo-
rithms initially showed good results, whereat the best were
achieved with KNN and LR. A look into existing literature re-
veals different shortcomings of machine learning techniques for
cost estimation purposes in various domains. For instance, NNs
generate inaccurate results with small training dataset, and can-
not handle missing data values [40]. Though using an impu-
tation technique to fill in missing data values, we still don’t
have a large test dataset, which is why we refrained from test-
ing NNs in general. The current state of our approach offers
plenty of room for future research, like e.g. refinement of the
used generic feature set to specific machine types (e.g. machine
tools) which offers the possibility to even more accurate predic-
tion results. Another important part is to address the black box
nature of ML models by taking uncertainty and model decisions
into account. Therefore, an additional confidence computation
can give further insights and support design decisions in the
development project. Learning the transition between different
price segments of machines is also an important aspect which
affects the model quality and needs to be enhanced. Addition-
ally, the use of generative adversarial networks (GAN) to gener-
ate further synthetic training and test data is also an interesting
possibility we deem worth pursuing further in order to enhance
our database which finally allows the use of NNs in mechanical
engineering use cases, especially concerning SMEs.
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Baden Wuerttemberg
Ministry of Economic Affairs, Labor and Tourism for funding
this work concerning the projects Center for Cyber Cognitive
Intelligence and Center for Frugal Products and Manufacturing
Systems
References
[1] Ambrule, V.R., Bhirud, A.N., 2017. Use of artificial neural network for pre
design cost estimation of building projects. Int. J Recent Innovat. Trends
Comput. Commun 5, 173–176.
[2] An, S.H., Kim, G.H., Kang, K.I., 2007. A case-based reasoning cost
estimating model using experience by analytic hierarchy process.
Building and Environment 42, 2573–2579. URL: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013230600165X,
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.06.007.
[3] Arabzadeh, V., Niaki, S., Arabzadeh, V., 2018. Construction cost estima-
tion of spherical storage tanks: artificial neural networks and hybrid re-
gression—ga algorithms. Journal of Industrial Engineering International
14, 747–756.
[4] Asiedu, Y., Gu, P., 1998. Product life cycle cost analysis: State of the
art review. International Journal of Production Research 36, 883–908.
URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/002075498193444, doi:10.1080/
002075498193444.
[5] Bauernhansl, T., 2014. Die Vierte Industrielle Revolution – Der Weg in
ein wertschaffendes Produktionsparadigma. Springer Fachmedien Wies-
baden, Wiesbaden. pp. 5–35. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-658-04682-8_1, doi:10.1007/978-3-658-04682-8_1.
 Christoph Hennebold et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 264–269
[6] Cao, Y., Ashuri, B., Baek, M., 2018. Prediction of unit price bids of resur-
facing highway projects through ensemble machine learning. Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering 32, 04018043.
[7] Christensen, C.M., 2013. The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies
cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
[8] Chwastyk, P., Kołosowski, M., 2014. Estimating the cost of the new
product in development process. Procedia Engineering 69, 351–360.
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1877705814002458, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.
2014.02.243. 24th DAAAM International Symposium on Intelligent
Manufacturing and Automation, 2013.
[9] Coenenberg, A.G., Fischer, T.M., Günther, T., 2016. Kostenrechnung und
kostenanalyse. Schäffer-Poeschel.
[10] Duran, O., Rodriguez, N., Consalter, L.A., 2009. Neural networks for cost
estimation of shell and tube heat exchangers. Expert Systems with Appli-
cations 36, 7435–7440.
[11] Hegazy, T., Ayed, A., 1998. Neural network model for parametric cost esti-
mation of highway projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Man-
agement 124, 210–218. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1998)124:
3(210).
[12] International, A., 2004. Recommended practices. https://web.aacei.
org/resources/recommended-practices.
[13] John Wiley Sons, L., 2011. The System Development Pro-
cess. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/
10.1002/9781118001028.ch4, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781118001028.ch4.
[14] Jung, J.Y., 2002. Manufacturing cost estimation for machined parts based
on manufacturing features. Journal of intelligent manufacturing 13, 227–
238.
[15] Kim, G.H., Shin, J.M., Kim, S., Shin, Y., 2013. Comparison of school
building construction costs estimation methods using regression analysis,
neural network, and support vector machine .
[16] Kim, S., 2013. Hybrid forecasting system based on case-based reasoning
and analytic hierarchy process for cost estimation. Journal of Civil Engi-
neering and Management 19, 86–96.
[17] Leśniak, A., Zima, K., 2018. Cost calculation of construction projects in-
cluding sustainability factors using the case based reasoning (cbr) method.
Sustainability 10, 1608.
[18] Lin, C.K., Shaw, H.J., 2017. Feature-based estimation of preliminary costs
in shipbuilding. Ocean Engineering 144, 305–319. URL: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002980181630542X,
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.11.040.
[19] Lin, Z.C., Chang, D.Y., 2002. Cost-tolerance analysis model based
on a neural networks method. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 40, 1429–1452. URL: https://doi.org/10.
1080/00207540110116282, doi:10.1080/00207540110116282,
arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540110116282.
[20] Loyer, J.L., Henriques, E., Fontul, M., Wiseall, S., 2016. Comparison of
machine learning methods applied to the estimation of manufacturing cost
of jet engine components. International Journal of Production Economics
178, 109–119.
[21] Mahadik, A., Masel, D., 2018. Implementation of additive man-
ufacturing cost estimation tool (amcet) using break-down ap-
proach. Procedia Manufacturing 17, 70–77. URL: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351978918311302,
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.10.014. 28th
International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent Man-
ufacturing (FAIM2018), June 11-14, 2018, Columbus, OH, USAGlobal
Integration of Intelligent Manufacturing and Smart Industry for Good of
Humanity.
[22] Naranje, V., Kumar, S., Hussein, H., 2014. A knowledge based system for
cost estimation of deep drawn parts. Procedia Engineering 97, 2313–2322.
[23] Niazi, A., Dai, J.S., Balabani, S., Seneviratne, L., 2005. Product Cost
Estimation: Technique Classification and Methodology Review. Journal
of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 128, 563–575. URL: https:
//doi.org/10.1115/1.2137750, doi:10.1115/1.2137750.
[24] Ogungbile, A.J., Oke, A.E., Rasak, K., 2018. Developing cost model for
preliminary estimate of road projects in nigeria. International Journal of
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
269
Sustainable Real Estate and Construction Economics 1, 182–199.
[25] Ozbayrak, M., Akgun, M., Turker, A.K., 2004. Activity-based cost estima-
tion in a push/pull advanced manufacturing system. International Journal of
Production Economics 87, 49–65. URL: https://EconPapers.repec.
org/RePEc:eee:proeco:v:87:y:2004:i:1:p:49-65.
[26] PMI, A., 2008. December. Guide to the project management body of
knowledge: Pmbok 2000. project management institute.
[27] Schuh, G., Riesener, M., Dölle, C., 2016. Concept for development project
management by aid of predictive analytics, in: 2016 Portland International
Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET),
pp. 2040–2047. doi:10.1109/PICMET.2016.7806640.
[28] Sequeira, S., Lopes, E., 2015. Simple method proposal for cost
estimation from work breakdown structure. Procedia Computer
Science 64, 537–544. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S1877050915026940, doi:https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.559. conference on EN-
TERprise Information Systems/International Conference on Project
MANagement/Conference on Health and Social Care Information Sys-
tems and Technologies, CENTERIS/ProjMAN / HCist 2015 October 7-9,
2015.
[29] Shehab, E.M., Abdalla, H.S., 2002. A design to cost system for innova-
tive product development. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 216, 999–1019.
[30] Siadat, A., Dantan, J.Y., Mauchand, M., Martin, P., 2007. A cost estima-
tion system for manufacturing product using ontology and exepert system.
IFAC Proceedings Volumes 40, 37–42.
[31] Singal, P., Kumari, A.C., Sharma, P., 2020. Estimation of soft-
ware development effort: A differential evolution approach. Pro-
cedia Computer Science 167, 2643–2652. URL: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050920308097,
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.343. interna-
tional Conference on Computational Intelligence and Data Science.
[32] Stoy, C., Pollalis, S., Dursun, O., 2012. A concept for developing construc-
tion element cost models for german residential building projects. Interna-
tional Journal of Project Organisation and Management 4, 38–53.
[33] Sullivan, F., 2021. Increasing competitive intensity to push major suppliers
out of business in the north american brakes aftermarket.
[34] Wang, Y.j., Yang, J.x., Shi, J.l., 2011. Study on activity-based cost esti-
mation of steel enterprise, in: 2011 IEEE 18th International Conference
on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, pp. 968–972.
doi:10.1109/ICIEEM.2011.6035317.
[35] Wang, Y.R., Yu, C.Y., Chan, H.H., 2012. Predicting construction cost
and schedule success using artificial neural networks ensemble and sup-
port vector machines classification models. International Journal of Project
Management 30, 470–478.
[36] Yadav, N., Gupta, N., Aggarwal, M., Yadav, A., 2019. Comparison of
cosysmo model with different software cost estimation techniques. 2019
International Conference on Issues and Challenges in Intelligent Comput-
ing Techniques (ICICT) 1, 1–5.
[37] Yoo, S., Kang, N., 2021. Explainable artificial intelligence for manufactur-
ing cost estimation and machining feature visualization. Expert Systems
with Applications , 115430.