From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 10 Aug 93 15:42:18 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.i
ns.cwru.edu!agate!overload.lbl.gov!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.uta
h.edu!u.cc.utah.edu!tcrook@ucbvax  (Tom Crook)
Subject: Re: Profitability of Ada Educational Sales (was: Ada is not a failure.
)
Message-ID: <1993Aug10.154218.5848@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1993Aug9.145311.25290@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
 writes:
>
>However, I'm not sure I agree that NPV is always the correct way to
>cost projects, because it tends to neglect the element of risk present
>in any long-term project.

Not true.  It all depends on how sophisticated your model is.  You can
easily represent increased risk by increasing the cost of capital (i.e.
assuming higher future interest rates.)  You can also limit the number of
years you go out without falling back on break-even analysis.

Although this may have something to do with software project management,
we're getting away from the charter of comp.lang.ada.  If anyone has
further thoughts, let's take it to email.
-- 
Thomas Crook
tcrook@u.cc.utah.edu