User Guide & Methodology

The starting point is a development-hours-per-finished-hour ratio. The tool then applies the work type, source-content readiness, accessibility effort, review complexity, technical delivery, media, localization, SME effort, team capacity, and optional AI assumptions you select.

The result is intentionally a planning estimate—not a quote, guarantee, market price, accessibility certification, or sourcing recommendation. Every Cahill multiplier is visible and editable so your team can replace generic assumptions with its own evidence.

Your data stays private. Calculations and saved history remain in your browser unless you explicitly download a workspace or CSV. The tool contains no third-party data-collection script.

1. The number of modules and expected finished minutes per module.
2. Whether the work is a new build, conversion, or refresh, plus the condition of the source content.
3. The required interaction level—from passive information through complex simulation or adaptive experience.
4. The intended delivery and tracking method: web/simple LMS, SCORM, xAPI/cmi5, or custom/LTI integration.
5. The expected review rounds, active reviewers, review turnaround, and productive team capacity.
6. Your build-team rate, SME/reviewer effort, media, narration, localization, tools, licenses, and vendor costs.
7. Any AI effect you can defend after prompt preparation, human review, quality control, and rework.

STEP 1 Scope

Define what is being produced.

• Project name identifies the saved workspace and report.
• Currency may be a symbol or three-letter code. Codes such as USD are displayed with spacing.
• Project type distinguishes a new build from conversion or refresh work.
• Modules × finished minutes determines total finished learning time. Module count also drives setup and technical-delivery overhead.
• Content readiness reflects how much analysis, research, rewriting, and SME clarification remain.

STEP 2 Production profile

Select the closest overall experience and production conditions.

• Level 1: passive information and simple checks.
• Level 2: limited interaction, decisions, practice, and feedback.
• Level 3: branching, simulations, and varied responses.
• Level 4: real-time or highly adaptive experiences.
• Accessibility effort allowance models extra effort; it does not establish WCAG conformance.
• Reviews and reviewers increase the core-production factor when they exceed the editable baseline.

Open Benchmark and advanced production assumptions to choose ATD, Chapman, or a custom ratio. Chapman provides Levels 1–3 only; selecting Level 4 automatically returns to ATD because no Chapman Level 4 average exists.

Open Cahill planning heuristics to inspect or change every work-type, content, accessibility, review, delivery, and team-scaling value.

STEP 3 AI scenario (optional)

The report always compares traditional and AI-assisted scenarios. Select whether the AI-assisted result should be the headline.

• Net reduction applies only to variable core-production labor—not fixed setup, per-module overhead, technical delivery, or media labor.
• AI voice and machine-assisted localization have separate editable reductions and retain human QA.
• The public input is capped at 35%; assumptions over 30% are explicitly flagged as aggressive.

STEP 4 Cost & schedule

Add the labor rates, capacity, hard costs, and production elements that should not be hidden inside the benchmark ratio.

• Blended rate prices build-team hours in the quick estimate.
• Contingency creates a flat planning-cost-plus-allowance scenario; it is not a statistical confidence interval.
• Team size, productive hours, and marginal efficiency model capacity without assuming perfect scaling.
• Review wait time adds client turnaround to production time.
• Media, voice, SME/reviewer, localization, tools, licenses, and vendor costs remain visible and separate.

STEP 5 Report

The printable report includes the headline estimate, traditional-versus-AI comparison, labor phases, cost structure, complete assumptions, formulas, exclusions, source links, solution-fit guidance, calibration status, and staffing scenarios.

Use Print / Save PDF to create a shareable planning document. The disclaimer and methodology remain in the printed version.

TOOL 1 Solution fit

The transparent rubric tests whether eLearning is proportionate to the performance problem. It considers cause, practice, audience size, content stability, consequence of error, completion tracking, urgency, technology access, audience location, hands-on verification, reinforcement, and language or accommodation complexity.

• Stop signals, such as a process or incentive problem, override favorable delivery economics.
• Hands-on or high-consequence complex performance points toward blended, coached, or observed practice.
• Urgency, volatility, weak access, and limited reinforcement create explicit cautions.

Apply interaction and tracking profile transfers the suggested interaction level and, when documented completion is required, SCORM tracking. It does not silently change the accessibility allowance.

TOOL 2 Roles & scenarios

Replace the blended labor rate with role-specific effort shares, loaded rates, and weekly availability. The tool compares in-house, vendor, and hybrid delivery using visible assumptions for:

• Role allocation and capacity.
• Vendor labor premium and relative production speed.
• In-house and hybrid dependency allowances.
• Vendor onboarding and procurement/security lead time.

TOOL 3 Actuals & calibration

Record completed-project core, media, and localization hours separately. Core hours include analysis, design, development, QA/accessibility, project management, and setup.

• Mark a project eligible only when its scope remained comparable.
• The calibration cohort must match the current level, work type, content readiness, accessibility allowance, and delivery method.
• The suggested ratio is the median, reducing the influence of a single unusual project.
• At least three eligible comparable projects are required before the ratio can be applied.
• Older records without phase-level data remain visible but are not eligible.

Export completed-project history periodically. CSV imports accept files exported by this tool; potentially executable spreadsheet values are neutralized during export.

Benchmark ratios

The ATD survey defined eLearning as asynchronous and self-paced. Both benchmark sets are dated, directional planning evidence—not current market prices. Use a custom ratio when your organization has enough comparable actuals.

• ATD 2017 practitioner survey
• Chapman Alliance table reproduced by Learning Guild
• W3C WCAG 2.2

Calculation sequence

• Save downloads a workspace JSON containing estimator inputs, solution-fit responses, roles, role-scenario assumptions, and completed-project actuals.
• Load restores a current workspace and remains compatible with older estimate-only files.
• The active estimate and Team Mode configuration are also auto-saved in this browser.
• Export history CSV creates a portable actuals file; Import history CSV accepts the estimator's own export format.
• Report → Print / Save PDF creates a stakeholder-ready summary that includes methodology and Team Mode results.
• Reset clears the estimate and Team Mode configuration but deliberately keeps completed-project history. The confirmation message states this before resetting.
• Example loads an illustrative project and displays a notice until you edit an input.