You inherit a project with a cost performance index (CPI) of 0.65. An audit finds the cost estimate was done analogously and something was missed. What should have been done to avoid this?

Bottom-up estimating involves estimating individual work package costs and then rolling them up to get a total project cost. This detailed approach provides a more accurate estimate than analogous estimating, which relies on historical data from similar projects and is less precise, especially if the current project has unique characteristics or complexities that were missed. The CPI of 0.65 indicates significant cost overruns, suggesting the initial estimate was severely flawed. While three-point estimates improve accuracy by considering optimistic, pessimistic, and most likely scenarios, they are still a form of expert judgment and might not catch fundamental omissions in scope. Validating the SPI is a monitoring activity and wouldn't prevent an initial estimating error. Including lessons learned is good practice but might not fully address a flawed estimating methodology if the lessons don't specifically highlight the need for more detailed cost estimation in similar contexts.