Optimization & Cost (VAVE)

Should-Cost Modeling
& Benchmarking

Bottom-up cost models that reveal what a part should cost — and the gap to what you actually pay.

Without a should-cost view, you negotiate and design in the dark. We build bottom-up cost models — material, process, labour, overhead and margin — that show what each part should cost, so you can benchmark suppliers and target the gap.

The problem

When you don’t know the real cost

Paying quoted prices without a should-cost baseline leaves money on the table.

01

Price-taker position

Without a cost model, you accept quotes you can’t challenge.

02

No benchmark

No way to tell a fair price from an inflated one.

03

Opaque cost build-up

Material, process and margin are bundled and invisible.

What we do

Cost, from the bottom up

What it really should cost.

Should-Cost Models

Bottom-up models covering material, process, labour and overhead.

Benchmarking

Quoted prices compared to should-cost and to market.

Gap & Target Setting

The cost gap quantified into negotiation and design targets.

What you get

What you receive

A defensible cost baseline.

Should-cost models

Bottom-up cost for each target part.

Benchmark report

Quoted vs should-cost vs market.

Negotiation targets

The quantified gap to pursue.

Book a 60-minute working session

Bring a real decision or dataset — we’ll show you how KEPLER would approach it, with no obligation.

Book a 60-minute session
Where we start

A focused, low-risk first step

We start with a short diagnostic — the decision to improve, the data behind it, and a first slice that proves value fast. See how we engage →

Sample outputs

Typical cost & VAVE artifacts you’ll receive

BOM cost modelShould-cost workbookSupplier cost benchmarkTeardown cost bridgeMaterial substitution shortlistVAVE opportunity tracker
Engagement model

Engage at the level that fits

From a quick diagnostic to a fully managed service — start small and scale as value is proven. How we engage →

How we work

How should-cost is built

From part to a defensible target.

Decompose

The part is broken into cost elements.

Model

Each element is costed bottom-up.

Benchmark

Should-cost is compared to quotes and market.

Target

The gap becomes a clear target.

Apply

Targets feed negotiation and design.

Outcome

Never negotiate blind again

Every part has a defensible should-cost and a target gap.

  • Bottom-up should-cost per part
  • Quoted vs should-cost gap
  • Market benchmarks
  • Targets for sourcing and design
CostBottom-up
BenchmarkMarket
GapQuantified
TargetsClear
FAQ

Common questions

How accurate are the models?
They’re built from real process, material and labour data, and validated against known costs — accurate enough to set hard targets.
Do you cover our commodities?
We build models across the categories that matter to you, starting with the highest-spend, highest-gap parts.
Use cases

Representative use cases

Common problems in this area, how KEPLER solves them, and the likely outcome.

Heavy automotive · Sourcing

Negotiating thousands of parts with no independent cost view

5–7%cost typically addressable
The problem

A programme sources thousands of machined and cast parts and negotiates on last year's price plus an increase. With no independent view of what a part should cost, every negotiation starts from the supplier's number, and the overpriced parts stay hidden.

How KEPLER solves it
  • Build bottom-up should-cost models from material, process, overhead and a fair margin
  • Compare each model against the quoted price and surface the biggest gaps
  • Give category managers a part-by-part gap list to open negotiations from fact
Probable outcome

On a scope of several thousand parts, five to seven percent typically shows up as addressable, concentrated in the highest-variance items (illustrative).

Electronics / EMS · Cost estimation

Quotes are slow and two estimators price the same board differently

~50%faster quote turnaround
The problem

When every estimator builds quotes their own way, turnaround is slow and the same assembly can be priced two ways. That inconsistency costs credibility on the bid and sometimes the bid itself.

How KEPLER solves it
  • Turn the estimators' logic into one parametric should-cost engine
  • Standardise material, labour and overhead assumptions in one place
  • Keep the assumptions visible so any quote can be defended line by line
Probable outcome

Quote turnaround drops sharply and estimates land on a consistent, explainable basis that holds up in front of the customer.

Industrial components · Procurement

Annual price increases on single-source parts get paid unchallenged

2–4%avoidable price increase
The problem

Price-increase letters arrive from single-source suppliers and get paid, because without a cost basis there's no way to tell a justified increase from an opportunistic one.

How KEPLER solves it
  • Model should-cost for the exposed parts and track it against real material indices
  • Benchmark the same parts across regions where alternatives exist
  • Give procurement the evidence to accept, question or reject each increase
Probable outcome

Price increases move from automatic to negotiated, each one met with a costed counter-position.

Know what it should cost

Pick a high-spend part and we’ll build its should-cost.

Talk to our VAVE team