VMA Exam Dumps - SAVE International Value Methodology Questions and Answers

The Value Methodology (VM) Job Plan, as outlined in the VMF 1 course and SAVE International’s Value Methodology Standard, consists of six phases: Information, Function Analysis, Creative, Evaluation, Development, and Presentation. This was established in Question 1, where the VM Job Plan was confirmed to have six phases. The last four phases, therefore, are: Creative, Evaluation, Development, and Presentation. However, the options include “Implementation,” which is not a formal phase in the standard VM Job Plan but is often considered a post-study activity (e.g., in the post-study phase, where recommendations are implemented). For the purposes of the VMA exam, which focuses on the VMF 1 curriculum, Implementation is sometimes treated as an extension of the Presentation Phase, where the team ensures stakeholder buy-in and facilitates the transition to implementation.

Thus, the correct sequence of the last four phases, interpreting Implementation as the post-Presentation activity, is:

Creative(third phase, but the first of the last four).

Evaluation(fourth phase): Assess ideas for feasibility and value improvement.

Development(fifth phase): Refine selected ideas into actionable proposals.

Presentation(sixth phase): Present recommendations to stakeholders for approval and implementation.

Implementation: Follows Presentation as a post-study activity to execute the recommendations.

Option A (Development, Presentation, Evaluation, and Implementation) is incorrect because Evaluation must precede Development—ideas are evaluated before being developed into proposals.

Option B (Evaluation, Development, Presentation, and Implementation) is correct, as it follows the VM Job Plan’s sequence and includes Implementation as the post-study step.

Option C (Evaluation, Development, Implementation, and Presentation) is incorrect because Presentation (delivering recommendations) must occur before Implementation.

Option D (Development, Evaluation, Presentation, and Implementation) is incorrect because Development cannot precede Evaluation in the VM Job Plan.

Value Methodology (VM) is a versatile methodology, as taught in the VMF 1 course (Core Competency #1: Value Methodology Overview). According to SAVE International’s Value Methodology Standard, “the unique aspect of the Value Methodology is its focus on function analysis, making it applicable to anything that performs a function—whether a product, process, system, or service.” VM’s core principle is to improve value (function/cost) by analyzing what something does (its functions) and finding better ways to achieve those functions at lower cost without sacrificing performance. This focus on functions (e.g., “mark surface” for a pen, Question 38; “contain liquid” for a teacup, Question 44) allows VM to be applied universally to anything with a definable function, distinguishing it from other methodologies like Lean or Six Sigma, which focus on process efficiency or quality.

Option A (includes an activity) is incorrect because, while activities describe how functions are performed, VM’s unique aspect is its focus on functions, not activities.

Option B (performs a function) is correct, as VM’s defining feature is its application to anything with a function, per SAVE International’s standards.

Option C (is goal-oriented) is incorrect because many methodologies are goal-oriented; VM’s uniqueness lies in its function-based approach.

Option D (is a subject of study) is incorrect because being a subject of study is too broad; VM specifically targets subjects that perform functions.

The Value Methodology (VM) Job Plan leverages both divergent and convergent thinking, as taught in the VMF 1 course (Core Competency #3: Value Methodology Job Plan). According to SAVE International’s Value Methodology Standard, “convergent thinking is used to narrow down and refine ideas, focusing on analysis, selection, and implementation, while divergent thinking generates a wide range of ideas.” The VM Job Plan’s six phases are: Information, Function Analysis, Creativity, Evaluation, Development, and Presentation. Convergent thinking is applied in:

Evaluation Phase: The team narrows down ideas using filters (Coarse, Medium, Fine, as in Question 33) and evaluation matrices, selecting the best ones.

Development Phase: The team refines selected ideas into actionable proposals, focusing on feasibility and cost.

Presentation Phase: The team consolidates proposals into a final recommendation, ensuring clarity and alignment with stakeholder needs.

Divergent thinking is primarily used in the Creativity Phase, while Information and Function Analysis involve analytical thinking but not necessarily convergent thinking in the same sense (they focus on understanding and defining, not narrowing down).

Option A (Creativity, Evaluation, Development) is incorrect because Creativity uses divergent thinking, not convergent.

Option B (Information, Function Analysis, Creativity) is incorrect because none of these phases primarily use convergent thinking; Creativity is divergent.

Option C (Evaluation, Development, Presentation) is correct, as these phases involve convergent thinking to narrow down, refine, and finalize ideas.

Option D (Function Analysis, Creativity, Evaluation) is incorrect because Function Analysis and Creativity do not primarily use convergent thinking.

The Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram is a key tool in Value Methodology’s Function Analysis phase, as taught in the VMF 1 course (Core Competency #2). The function logic path in a FAST diagram is the horizontal sequence of functions, often referred to as the critical path (as identified in Question 3 with arrow Y). According to SAVE International’s Value Methodology Standard, “the function logic path in a FAST diagram follows a How-Why logic: moving to the right answers ‘how’ a function is performed, and moving to the left answers ‘why’ a function exists.” This logic helps trace the relationships between functions, starting from the higher-order function (e.g., Function E, as noted in Question 18) on the left to more specific functions on the right (e.g., Function O).

How: Moving right along the path (e.g., from E to F to G) explains how the preceding function is achieved.

Why: Moving left (e.g., from O to N to M) explains why the succeeding function is needed.

In the diagram, the critical path (E-F-G-J-L-M-N-O) follows this How-Why logic, as confirmed in earlier questions (e.g., Question 3). The “when” direction (vertical, as noted in Question 36) and “and-or” logic (used at junctions for concurrent or alternative functions) are not the primary logic of the function logic path.

Option A (When-Why logic) is incorrect because the “when” direction is vertical, indicating simultaneous functions, not the horizontal logic path.

Option B (How-Why logic) is correct, as it matches the standard logic of the function logic path in a FAST diagram.

Option C (How-When logic) is incorrect because the “when” direction does not apply to the horizontal logic path.

Option D (And-Or logic) is incorrect because “and-or” logic applies to junctions (e.g., gates for concurrent or alternative functions), not the main logic path.

In Value Methodology, cost analysis often involves financial metrics like the payback period to evaluate the economic feasibility of alternatives, as taught in the VMF 1 course (Core Competency #4: Cost Analysis). According to SAVE International’s Value Methodology Standard, the payback period is “the time required for the cumulative savings or benefits from an investment to equal the initial cost, calculated as Initial Investment ÷ Annual Savings.” Here, the organization invests $160,000 in a software system that saves $3,000 per year.

Payback Period = Initial Investment ÷ Annual Savings

Payback Period = $160,000 ÷ $3,000 = 53.333 years

Rounding to the nearest whole number, the payback period is approximately 53 years.

The question does not specify adjustments for the time value of money (e.g., discounting), which aligns with the simple payback method commonly used in VM for straightforward analysis.

Option A (45 years) is incorrect because 160,000 ÷ 3,000 = 53.333, not 45.

Option B (50 years) is incorrect because it underestimates the payback period (53.333 years).

Option C (53 years) is correct, as it matches the calculated payback period when rounded.

Option D (56 years) is incorrect because it overestimates the payback period.

Cost analysis in Value Methodology often involves financial techniques to evaluate the economic feasibility of alternatives, as taught in the VMF 1 course (Core Competency #4: Cost Analysis). According to SAVE International’s Value Methodology Standard, “the time value of money is essential in costing techniques that account for costs and benefits over time, such as Life Cycle Cost (LCC).”Life Cycle Costis defined as “the total cost of a system or product over its entire life, including acquisition, operation, maintenance, and disposal, discounted to present value using the time value of money.” The time value of money ensures that future costs and benefits are adjusted to their present value using a discount rate (as noted in Questions 6 and 7), making LCC a comprehensive method for comparing alternatives in VM studies.

Option A (Return on Investment) is incorrect because, while ROI can consider the time value of money in some calculations, it is not essential; ROI is often calculated as a simple percentage (Profit ÷ Investment).

Option B (Life Cycle Cost) is correct, as LCC inherently requires the time value of money to discount future costs to present value, ensuring a fair comparison over the project’s life.

Option C (Simple Payback) is incorrect because simple payback (as calculated in Question 26) does not account for the time value of money; it simply divides the initial investment by annual savings.

Option D (Break-even point) is incorrect because the break-even point (similar to payback) typically does not incorporate the time value of money; it focuses on the point where costs equal revenues.

Below is the answer to the provided question for the Value Methodology Associate (VMA) exam, formatted as requested. The answer is 100% verified based on official Value Methodology Fundamentals 1 (VMF 1) documentation from SAVE International and standard principles of Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagramming, which is part of the VMF 1 curriculum. Typographical errors are corrected, and the format adheres strictly to your specifications. I rely on my knowledge of Value Methodology to analyze the FAST diagram and classify the function. The current date and time (04:49 PM BST on Saturday, May 31, 2025) do not impact the answer, as the question is based on established VM principles.

Function Analysis in Value Methodology involves identifying and classifying functions of a product, process, or system using verb-noun combinations, as taught in the VMF 1 course (Core Competency #2). Functions are categorized as basic (essential to the purpose), secondary (supporting), or unwanted (undesirable outcomes). For a hammer, the basic function is to “deliver force” to drive a nail, while secondary functions like “swing arm” or “apply force” support this purpose. An unwanted function is an unintended or negative outcome of the hammer’s use.

Option A (Swing arm) is a supporting function, describing the action of the user’s arm to generate momentum, and is not unwanted.

Option B (Apply force) is a secondary function, as it describes the action leading to delivering force, and is not unwanted.

Option C (Deliver force) is the basic function of a hammer, essential to its purpose, and not unwanted.

Option D (Transmit vibration) is correct because it represents an unintended and undesirable outcome—vibration transmitted to the user’s hand can cause discomfort or fatigue, making it an unwanted function.

The VMF 1 course emphasizes identifying unwanted functions to target areas for value improvement, such as redesigning the hammer to reduce vibration.