Understand the full cost
of your next ERP decision.
TCOengine is a Formula1-IT consulting tool for exploring the financial and operational tradeoffs of higher-education ERP modernization, including infrastructure, staffing, integrations, transition effort, and ongoing responsibility.
Its Monte Carlo model turns one-point estimates into confidence ranges, so leaders can see the median case, the safe budget, and the downside risk before they commit.
Finance leadershipCFOs, vice presidents for finance or administration and finance, and chief business officers.
Technology leadershipCIOs, CTOs, vice presidents for information technology, AVPs/VPs for IT, and leaders responsible for infrastructure, cloud, networks, and enterprise platforms.
This Formula1-IT demo shows only a small part of what the full tcoengine application and consulting assessment can do. Its simplified workflows and sample results are for demonstration purposes only.
For access to the complete tool, contact Doug Wismer at doug.wismer@formula1-it.com for an access key, or visit Formula1-IT.
A confidence range beats a single guess.
The real question is not just, “What will this cost?” It is, “What will this really cost and when will we really finish if some things go wrong?” TCOengine runs the project thousands of times with different combinations of risk events and schedule outcomes, then shows the likely range.
That means a modernization plan can move from “$4.2M, done in 18 months” to “median, safe budget, conservative case, and schedule exposure.” It is built for the conversations leaders actually have before committing.
Only 1 in 10 runs did better.
A coin flip whether you beat it.
8 in 10 runs came in at or under this.
Only 1 in 10 runs did worse.
Repeatable runs make the model auditable. The demo keeps the caveats plain: risks are treated independently, base cost starts from the deterministic calculator, and placeholder figures are illustrative.
The full engine plus Formula1-IT consulting is built to produce better modernization outcomes.
A full TCOengine assessment combines the TCOengine model with consulting from Formula1-IT. Together, they give your institution an independent baseline for evaluating vendor quotes, identifying negotiation priorities, and pursuing a stronger overall agreement, not simply the lowest headline price.
- Clearer budget confidenceReplace a single estimate with risk-adjusted ranges and a defensible safe budget.
- Better timing decisionsTest schedule exposure against academic calendar, capacity, registration, aid, and payroll constraints.
- Fewer hidden surprisesSurface integration, staffing, renewal, AI, data, and governance work before contracts are signed.
- Stronger executive alignmentGive leaders a neutral scorecard and plain-English story for why a path is worth taking.
- Vendor quote analysisThe tool compares quotes against the same cost model so exclusions, assumptions, and duplicated charges are easier to see.
- Vendor negotiation supportFormula1-IT consulting uses the model to identify pricing, term, renewal, implementation, and responsibility issues to negotiate.
Juniper Valley University
Fictional institution · Illustrative estimates · USD
$289,255 higher cash spend over 7 years.
Two paths. The full picture.
Cash difference excludes staff time. Staff time is reported separately and should not be treated as payroll savings.
Cost over time
Nominal costs, including allocated staff time. Exact values are in the table below.
Renewal sensitivity
| Increase at each renewal | Net NPV vs current |
|---|---|
| 0%Modeled | ($623,615) |
| 5% | ($654,822) |
| 10% | ($686,030) |
| 15% | ($717,238) |
| 20% | ($748,445) |
| 25% | ($779,653) |
| 30% | ($810,861) |
Renewal increases re-price the subscription or managed-cloud fee and any priced AI license line. They are not counted as AI cost.
One estimate is not a plan.
The demo plays the project forward with risk events and schedule variation, then shows the range of likely cost and timing outcomes instead of one fragile number.
Read this as: optimistic, middle, safe budget, and conservative outcomes. Wider ranges mean more decision risk, even when the median looks attractive.
Calendar schedule
Calendar drag: 7 weeks. Go-live marker: 2028-05-15.
Annual cash flows & discounted comparison
Dollar values are rounded for display. Parentheses show negative amounts. The last cash column is discounted at the selected rate.
| Year | Current | Target | Cash savings | Cumulative PV cash savings | Staff time freed (FTE) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2027Year 0 | $2,511,318 | $5,908,346 | ($2,950,792) | ($2,950,792) | -3.9 |
| 2028 | $2,536,818 | $2,183,234 | $110,854 | ($2,843,687) | 1.9 |
| 2029 | $2,563,413 | $1,550,764 | $445,418 | ($2,427,885) | 4.8 |
| 2030 | $2,591,150 | $1,501,457 | $522,463 | ($1,956,653) | 4.8 |
| 2031 | $2,620,080 | $1,528,038 | $524,811 | ($1,499,310) | 4.8 |
| 2032 | $2,650,253 | $1,555,537 | $527,485 | ($1,055,182) | 4.8 |
| 2033 | $2,681,723 | $1,583,986 | $530,506 | ($623,615) | 4.8 |
| Total | $18,154,755 | $15,811,361 | ($289,255) | ($623,615) | 22.0 |
Cost breakdown by category
| Total over 7 years | Current | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Software, hosting & integration tools | $4,775,529 | $4,783,096 |
| Infrastructure & disaster recovery | $2,478,000 | $0 |
| Staffing & ongoing support | $9,086,000 | $4,384,615 |
| Custom applications & release cycles | $1,815,226 | $0 |
| Transition & implementation | $0 | $6,643,650 |
| Total | $18,154,755 | $15,811,361 |
Largest target cost drivers
Implementation effort behind the estimate
8,141 illustrative internal hours from the work package model. Demo timing places these costs in 2027.
| Work package | Hours | Labor estimate |
|---|---|---|
| Readiness and governance | 160 | $8,504 |
| Contracting and procurement | 285 | $14,387 |
| Current state discovery | 400 | $21,261 |
| Baseline remediation | 1,142 | $71,375 |
| Data preparation | 732 | $38,052 |
| Architecture and security | 320 | $20,000 |
| Identity and access | 240 | $15,000 |
| Integration migration | 1,150 | $71,875 |
| Configuration | 649 | $31,240 |
| Reporting and analytics | 478 | $24,629 |
| Testing | 1,165 | $57,130 |
| Training and change management | 440 | $20,096 |
| Cutover preparation | 320 | $16,548 |
| Go live | 160 | $8,181 |
| Stabilization | 300 | $15,458 |
| Decommissioning | 200 | $12,500 |
Responsibility doesn’t disappear.
10 direct database dependencies need a supported access pattern. Integration ownership remains institutional.
Retained functional and IT effort remains in the model. Confirm regression testing and custom application support are adequately funded.
Operational risk to discuss: No dedicated test team is assumed; validate testing capacity before committing to a date. Service disruption and reputational effects are qualitative considerations, not dollar adjustments.
Assumptions you can inspect.
A decision you still own.
Every result depends on the scope, timing, and costs you enter. These are fictional examples using placeholder constants pending calibration. They are not institutional assessments or vendor quotes.
What goes into the comparison
Current-state costs include infrastructure, disaster recovery, software and database support, allocated staff time, custom application maintenance, and release cycles.
Target costs include the service fee, retained staff and integration work, implementation services, data conversion, remediation, training, internal project effort, and the cost of running the current system until go-live and through the parallel run.
For Anthology Student, both paths keep the same product, so the hosted path still carries software maintenance, database licensing, release review, and custom applications.
Staff time is an economic cost, not cash. Freed staff time does not mean a smaller payroll, a position you can cut, or a responsibility you can drop. That is why it is reported separately from cash.
How cash, staff time, and payback work
The first modeled year is 2027. A seven-year analysis runs from 2027 through 2033. In this example, 2027 is the implementation year and go-live is at the start of 2028.
Until go-live, the current system keeps running at full cost. After go-live it runs for the parallel-run period you set, 3 months by default, and then stops.
Service fees and retained operations start at go-live. Training is charged in 2028 and archival in 2029. Recurring costs grow from their start year at their escalation rate; costs without a rate stay flat. One-time costs are charged in the year they start, even when the work spans more than one year.
Cash difference is current-state cash spend minus target-state cash spend. Staff time freed is the difference in modeled staff effort, in full-time equivalents. The two are never added together.
Present value = annual amount ÷ (1 + discount rate)^years from 2027. The year 2027 is not discounted.
Payback is the first year in which cumulative discounted cash savings reach zero. Staff time is excluded. It marks a first crossing, not a promise that savings stay positive. If there is no crossing inside the analysis period, the result reads "Not recovered" and explains that discounted cash savings stay below zero through the selected horizon.
About these numbers
Juniper Valley University is fictional, and every constant in this demo is illustrative. The values are set for demonstration. They are not the values used in client work.
Timing is simplified. All implementation effort is charged in 2027. A full assessment schedules that effort against your team's actual capacity and your academic calendar. Browser rounding can differ from the full engine by a few dollars.
Monte Carlo in plain English
The simulation answers the question: if we switch platforms, what will it really cost and when will we really finish, given that some things can go wrong?
Each run starts with the same baseline cost, rolls the dice against project risks, picks a duration from the best-likely-worst schedule range, and records the result. After thousands of runs, TCOengine reports percentiles: P10 for optimistic, P50 for the middle, P80 for a safer budget, and P90 for a conservative case.
The spread matters. Two options can have similar median cost, but the one with the wider downside range is the riskier bet. The full decision scorecard counts that exposure instead of hiding it behind a single average.
What a full assessment adds
A full TCOengine assessment is a Formula1-IT consulting engagement designed to produce better modernization outcomes: clearer budget confidence, better timing decisions, fewer hidden surprises, and stronger executive alignment. The demo shows the shape of the analysis; the client work replaces the sample assumptions with your institution's facts.
- Your institution's actual costs, contracts, and staffing in place of illustrative constants, with every line tagged by source and confidence.
- An implementation schedule built on your team's capacity and your academic calendar, with go-live kept out of registration and aid-year windows.
- A risk register with dollar and schedule exposure, and risk-adjusted cost and go-live dates.
- Monte Carlo ranges, P10 to P90, on cost, NPV, and implementation duration.
- A 12-criterion decision scorecard that ranks options without recommending one.
- For Anthology Student: replacement paths, to Ellucian Student or another system, compared alongside the support horizon, using your contract terms.
Never included: reputational-loss estimates, tax and financing effects, costs beyond the analysis period, or contract and exit charges that have not been disclosed. Qualitative risks stay separate from dollars.
Your edits stay in this browser session, including when you switch steps or platforms. Reloading restores the example. Nothing here connects to an institutional system.