01
Price-taker position
Without a cost model, you accept quotes you can’t challenge.
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.
Paying quoted prices without a should-cost baseline leaves money on the table.
Without a cost model, you accept quotes you can’t challenge.
No way to tell a fair price from an inflated one.
Material, process and margin are bundled and invisible.
What it really should cost.
Bottom-up models covering material, process, labour and overhead.
Quoted prices compared to should-cost and to market.
The cost gap quantified into negotiation and design targets.
A defensible cost baseline.
Bottom-up cost for each target part.
Quoted vs should-cost vs market.
The quantified gap to pursue.
Bring a real decision or dataset — we’ll show you how KEPLER would approach it, with no obligation.
Book a 60-minute sessionWe 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 →
From a quick diagnostic to a fully managed service — start small and scale as value is proven. How we engage →
The industries this work serves.
R&D, safety and commercial analytics.
Operational and patient-flow analytics.
Project controls, cost and schedule analytics.
Demand, pricing and customer analytics.
Quality, throughput and maintenance analytics.
From part to a defensible target.
The part is broken into cost elements.
Each element is costed bottom-up.
Should-cost is compared to quotes and market.
The gap becomes a clear target.
Targets feed negotiation and design.
Every part has a defensible should-cost and a target gap.
The category, capabilities and expertise this connects to.
Common problems in this area, how KEPLER solves them, and the likely outcome.
5–7% cost typically addressable
View details →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.
On a scope of several thousand parts, five to seven percent typically shows up as addressable, concentrated in the highest-variance items (illustrative).
~50% faster quote turnaround
View details →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.
Quote turnaround drops sharply and estimates land on a consistent, explainable basis that holds up in front of the customer.
2–4% avoidable price increase
View details →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.
Price increases move from automatic to negotiated, each one met with a costed counter-position.
No use cases match this filter yet — but the problem is almost certainly one we can help with.
Ask us about your problem →Pick a high-spend part and we’ll build its should-cost.
Talk to our VAVE team
