VMA Exam Dumps - Value Methodology Associate

Value Methodology (VM), as defined by SAVE International in the Value Methodology Fundamentals 1 (VMF 1) course, is a systematic, step-by-step approach to improve the value of a project, product, or process by optimizing the function-to-cost ratio. According to SAVE International’s Value Methodology Standard, VM is described as “a systematic and structured approach for improving projects, products, and processes… to achieve the optimum balance between function, performance, quality, safety, and cost.” The VM Job Plan, a core component of VM, involves a step-by-step process (six phases: Information, Function Analysis, Creative, Evaluation, Development, and Presentation) that can be likened to a design review because it evaluates and enhances the design or process to improve value.

Option A (suggestion program) is incorrect because VM is not merely about collecting suggestions; it is a structured methodology with defined phases and tools like function analysis.

Option B (cost reduction exercise) is incorrect because VM focuses on improving value, not just reducing costs—cost reduction may occur, but only if it does not compromise essential functions.

Option C (step-by-step design review) aligns with VM’s systematic nature, as the Job Plan reviews and improves designs or processes through structured phases, making it the best fit.

Option D (eight-phase process) is incorrect because the VM Job Plan has six phases, not eight, as established in SAVE International’s standards.

The Pareto Principle, often referred to as the 80/20 rule, is a concept used in Value Methodology to focus efforts on the most impactful areas during cost analysis. In the context of VM, as taught in the VMF 1 course (Core Competency #4: Cost Analysis), the Pareto Principle is applied to identify high-cost areas that offer the greatest potential for value improvement. According to SAVE International’s Value Methodology Standard, “the Pareto Principle in VM states that approximately 20% of the elements (components, functions, or items) typically account for 80% of the total cost.” This allows the VM team to prioritize their efforts on the small number of elements that drive the majority of the cost, thereby maximizing value improvement (function/cost). For example, in a project, a few components (like a specialized motor in a machine) might represent the bulk of the cost, and optimizing those components can yield significant savings.

Option A (20% of risks impact 80% of elements) is incorrect because the Pareto Principle in VM focuses on cost distribution, not risk impact.

Option B (20% of elements represent 80% of the cost) is correct, as it directly aligns with the application of the Pareto Principle in VM cost analysis.

Option C (80% of functions represent 20% of components) is incorrect because it reverses the principle and does not reflect the cost-focused application in VM.

Option D (80% of the whole includes 20% of the resources) is incorrect because it misapplies the principle and is too vague for VM’s specific use of Pareto in cost analysis.

Risk management is a critical aspect of Implementation Planning in Value Methodology (VM), ensuring that VM proposals are feasible and sustainable, as taught in the VMF 1 course (Core Competency #8: Implementation Planning). According to SAVE International’s Value Methodology Standard, risk management in the context of VM follows a standard process aligned with project management best practices, such as those in the Project Management Institute (PMI) framework, which VM adopts for implementation. The correct order of steps in risk management is:

Risk Management Planning: Define how risks will be managed, including methodologies, roles, and tools.

Risk Identification: Identify potential risks that could impact the VM study or its implementation (e.g., cost overruns, delays).

Risk Analysis: Analyze the likelihood and impact of identified risks (qualitative and quantitative analysis).

Risk Response Planning: Develop strategies to mitigate, avoid, transfer, or accept risks.

Risk Monitoring and Control: Monitor risks throughout implementation and control them as needed.

The VMF 1 course emphasizes this sequence in the Development and Presentation Phases, where risks associated with VM proposals are assessed and mitigated to ensure successful implementation. This order ensures a systematic approach, starting with planning, followed by identification and analysis, then response planning, and finally monitoring.

Option A (Risk Management Planning, Risk Analysis, Risk Identification, Risk Response Planning, Risk Monitoring and Control) is incorrect because Risk Identification must precede Risk Analysis— you cannot analyze risks before identifying them.

Option B (Risk Identification, Risk Management Planning, Risk Analysis, Risk Response Planning, Risk Monitoring and Control) is incorrect because Risk Management Planning must come first to establish the framework for the process.

Option C (Risk Management Planning, Risk Identification, Risk Analysis, Risk Response Planning, Risk Monitoring and Control) is correct, as it follows the standard risk management process.

Option D (Risk Management Planning, Risk Identification, Risk Response Planning, Risk Analysis, Risk Monitoring and Control) is incorrect because Risk Analysis must precede Risk Response Planning to inform the response strategies.

The original Value Methodology (VM) Job Plan, developed by Lawrence D. Miles in the 1940s, was rooted in a problem-solving approach inspired by the scientific method. As outlined in the VMF 1 course (Core Competency #1: Value Methodology Overview), Miles adapted a systematic problem-solving framework to create the VM Job Plan, which later evolved into the six-phase process used today (Information, Function Analysis, Creative, Evaluation, Development, Presentation). The original problem-solving approach, as described in SAVE International’s historical documentation of VM, follows the scientific method’s four steps: Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, and Conclusion.

Observation: Observe the problem or system (e.g., high costs, inefficiencies) to understand the current state, aligning with the Information Phase.

Hypothesis: Form a hypothesis about how to improve value (e.g., identifying key functions or alternatives), similar to Function Analysis and Creative Phases.

Experimentation: Test the hypothesis by developing and evaluating alternatives, akin to the Evaluation and Development Phases.

Conclusion: Draw conclusions and implement solutions, corresponding to the Presentation Phase.

This order—Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, Conclusion—is the standard sequence of the scientific method, which Miles used as the foundation for VM’s systematic approach to problem-solving.

Option A (Hypothesis, Observation, Experimentation, Conclusion) is incorrect because observation must come first to identify the problem.

Option B (Observation, Experimentation, Hypothesis, Conclusion) is incorrect because hypothesizing should precede experimentation.

Option C (Hypothesis, Experimentation, Observation, Conclusion) is incorrect because observation must come before forming a hypothesis.

Option D (Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation, Conclusion) is correct, as it matches the scientific method’s order, which underpins the original VM Job Plan.

In Value Methodology’s Function Analysis, functions are classified based on their characteristics, as taught in the VMF 1 course (Core Competency #2: Function Analysis). According to SAVE International’s Value Methodology Standard, “all-the-time functions are those that occur continuously or are always active during the operation of the system.” In a FAST diagram, all-the-time functions are often shown vertically (e.g., “when” direction) alongside the critical path, indicating they are ongoing while the main functions are performed. For example, in a car, “provide safety” (e.g., through seatbelts) is an all-the-time function because it is always active when the car is in use. This aligns with the FAST diagramming convention of showing simultaneous functions.

Option A (Outside the study scope) is incorrect because all-the-time functions are within the scope if they are part of the system’s operation, though they may be supporting functions.

Option B (A drain on resources) is incorrect because all-the-time functions are not necessarily resource-intensive; they are simply continuous.

Option C (Continuous) is correct, as it matches the definition of all-the-time functions in VM.

Option D (Undesirable) is incorrect because all-the-time functions are not inherently undesirable; they may be essential (e.g., “provide safety”).