In reply to Joe Martin鈥檚 letter 鈥淓asy as LCC鈥� (7 March, page 39), I thoroughly endorse his exhortation to do life-cycle costing (LCC).

Is LCC complicated or not? There is no doubt the concept of LCC is simple: you just have to consider costs-in-use, as well as capital costs. However, there may be differences of opinion about how to do this. The equation E = mc2 may be simplicity in itself, but LCC equations are more complicated. Not that I鈥檓 suggesting LCC is on a par with the theory of relativity; it鈥檚 just that simple concepts do not necessarily have a simple execution.

The current state of LCC modelling is simplistic and based on assumptions that provide a calculable and idealised LCC.

When we start to model LCC more realistically, we enter the world of probability. Here we have to grapple with uncertainty; if you like, the LCC

equivalents of the Heisenberg principle and Schr枚dinger鈥檚 cat paradox. The good news is that doing LCC and using feedback from actual maintenance and costs-in-use, we have the opportunity to validate and improve our initial forecasts.

LCC need not be complicated 鈥� let鈥檚 do it, certainly, but let鈥檚 also be realistic about the answers and grasp opportunities to improve LCC. The forthcoming UK LCC guidance will be very helpful.

Peter Mayer, Research and Development Manager, BLP

Topics