SAVE International Updated VMA Exam Questions and Answers by tomos

A Value Methodology (VM) study is a structured effort that applies the VM process 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, a VM study is defined as “a systematic application of recognized techniques by a multi-disciplined team to identify the functions of a project or process, establish a worth for each function, and develop alternatives to achieve those functions at the lowest overall cost while maintaining performance.” The VMF 1 course emphasizes that a VM study follows the six-phase VM Job Plan (Information, Function Analysis, Creative, Evaluation, Development, and Presentation) to systematically improve value, making it a structured effort.

Option A (structured effort using the VM process) directly aligns with SAVE International’s definition of a VM study, focusing on the systematic application of the VM process to enhance value.

Option B (must be led by a Certified Value Specialist) is incorrect because, while a Certified Value Specialist (CVS) often leads VM studies, the VMF 1 course and VMA certification allow non-CVS team members to participate in and contribute to VM studies under guidance, meaning it’s not a requirement.

Option C (undertaken after the design is completed) is incorrect because VM studies can be conducted at various stages of a project lifecycle—concept, design, or implementation—not only after the design is completed. The VMF 1 course highlights that early application of VM yields the greatest benefits.

Option D (business improvement best practice) is a broader statement and not specific to the definition of a VM study, though VM can contribute to business improvements. It does not best describe a VM study compared to Option A.

Risk management in Value Methodology (VM) includes strategies for both threats and opportunities, particularly during the Implementation Planning phase, as taught in the VMF 1 course (Core Competency #8: Implementation Planning). According to SAVE International’s Value Methodology Standard, which aligns with project management best practices (e.g., PMI’s PMBOK, as noted in Question 28), risk response strategies for opportunities include:

Exploit: Ensure the opportunity is realized by taking actions to make it certain (e.g., assigning the best resources).

Share: Partner with others to increase the likelihood or benefit of the opportunity (e.g., joint ventures).

Enhance: Increase the probability of the opportunity occurring and/or the magnitude of its beneficial results (e.g., by improving conditions or amplifying benefits).

Accept: Take no action to influence the opportunity.

The question specifically asks for the strategy that seeks to “increase the probability of an opportunity occurring and/or the magnitude of results being beneficial,” which directly matches the definition ofEnhance. For example, in a VM study, enhancing an opportunity might involve marketing a new feature to increase its adoption rate (probability) or improving its design to maximize savings (magnitude).

Option A (Exploit) is incorrect because exploiting ensures the opportunity happens, not necessarily increasing its probability or magnitude.

Option B (Share) is incorrect because sharing involves collaboration, not directly increasing probability or magnitude.

Option C (Mitigate) is incorrect because mitigation applies to threats, not opportunities.

Option D (Enhance) is correct, as it focuses on increasing the probability and/or magnitude of an opportunity’s benefits.

In Value Methodology’s Function Analysis, functions are classified based on their role in the system, as taught in the VMF 1 course (Core Competency #2). According to SAVE International’s Value Methodology Standard, thehigher-order function“represents the specific goals or needs for which the subject scope exists—it answers ‘why’ the system or project is needed.” In a FAST diagram, the higher-order function is located to the left of the basic function, just inside the left scope line, as seen in Question 18 (Function E). It defines the overarching objective or customer need that justifies the existence of the system (e.g., for a car, the higher-order function might be “provide mobility,” while the basic function is “transport passengers”).

Option A (Basic) is incorrect because the basic function is the primary purpose of the system within the scope (e.g., “transport passengers”), not the overarching goal.

Option B (Lower Order) is incorrect because “lower-order” is not a standard term in VM; it may refer to functions to the right of the basic function, which are more specific, not goal-oriented.

Option C (Higher Order) is correct, as it represents the specific goals or needs for which the subject scope exists, per VM standards.

Option D (Secondary) is incorrect because secondary functions support the basic function and do not represent the overarching goals.

The Evaluation Phase of the Value Methodology (VM) Job Plan involves assessing ideas using a three-level filtering process, as taught in the VMF 1 course (Core Competency #7: Evaluation and Selection of Alternatives). According to SAVE International’s Value Methodology Standard, the three levels of filters are Coarse, Medium, and Fine (as confirmed in Question 33). The standard further specifies that “the Fine filter applies detailed evaluation techniques, such as an evaluation matrix, to select the best ideas for development by scoring them against weighted criteria.” An evaluation matrix (e.g., a weighted matrix, as noted in Question 11) is a tool where ideas are scored based on criteria like cost, performance, and risk, with weights reflecting their importance (as in Question 51). This detailed, quantitative approach is used in the Fine filter to make final selections after the Coarse (initial screening) and Medium (shortlisting) filters have narrowed down the ideas.

Option A (Fine) is correct, as the Fine filter uses an evaluation matrix technique for detailed idea selection.

Option B (Reasonable) is incorrect because “Reasonable” is not one of the three filter levels; the correct levels are Coarse, Medium, and Fine.

Option C (Medium) is incorrect because the Medium filter involves a more general assessment (e.g., comparing ideas against criteria), not the detailed matrix technique.

Option D (Coarse) is incorrect because the Coarse filter is for initial screening (eliminating unfeasible ideas), not detailed evaluation with a matrix.