ValueLens: Value Engineering Foundations

Who it is for

Engineers, designers, cost and procurement specialists, project and operations staff who take part in or prepare value studies.

Prerequisite: A verified PVology account. No prior certification is required.

Learning effort: about 25 hours, calculated from the authored lessons, activities and checks.

Case study: Riverside Water pump station renewal. Riverside Water is a fictional municipal water utility. All people, figures and datasets are invented for teaching.

Syllabus

1. Module 1. Value methodology, ethics, required performance, and value versus cost cutting

   • 1. What value means and why it is not cost cutting · about 40 minFree preview
   • 2. The eight-phase Job Plan and the three study stages · about 40 min
   • 3. Ethics and the PVology Value Lens · about 40 min

   Learning outcomes

   • Explain value as the relationship between the functions a subject performs and the resources it consumes
   • Compare a cost-cutting change with a value-improving change using function, performance and cost evidence
   • Classify a proposed change as value improvement, cost cutting or loss of required function
   • Sequence the eight Job Plan phases and state the main output of each
   • Classify study activities into pre-workshop, workshop and post-workshop stages
   • Calculate the effort of a value study and compare it with the cost of the subject
   • Apply the PVology Value Lens (Need, Function, Outcome, Alternatives, Value) to frame a value study subject
   • Identify ethical risks in a value study, including hidden loss of function and overstated savings
   • Draft a Value Lens statement for the Riverside Water pump station

2. Module 2. Study preparation, objectives, multidisciplinary roles and information quality

   • 1. Selecting the study subject and timing · about 40 min
   • 2. Objectives, sponsor, facilitator and the multidisciplinary team · about 40 min
   • 3. Data requests, information quality and confidence · about 40 min

   Learning outcomes

   • Explain why the timing of a value study changes how much it can influence
   • Calculate the addressable cost of candidate subjects from their estimate and committed share
   • Compare candidate subjects and justify which should receive a value study first
   • Draft study objectives that combine function, performance and resource aims
   • Describe the responsibilities of the sponsor, facilitator, team members and project manager
   • Justify the composition of a multidisciplinary team against the subject's main cost and performance drivers
   • Draft a data request list proportionate to the study subject
   • Classify information by source and confidence level
   • Calculate a simple confidence profile of a cost estimate and identify where better data would most reduce uncertainty

3. Module 3. Stakeholder needs, constraints, performance and information-phase analysis

   • 1. Stakeholder needs and the constraints register · about 40 min
   • 2. Performance attributes: defining what good looks like · about 40 min
   • 3. Information-phase analysis: cost drivers, Pareto and assumptions · about 40 min

   Learning outcomes

   • Identify stakeholders of a value study subject and express their needs in their own terms
   • Classify stated requirements as mandatory constraints, preferences or assumptions to test
   • Calculate the cost carried by preferences and untested assumptions in a design
   • Define performance attributes with a description, a measure and a required or target level
   • Distinguish mandatory performance thresholds from attributes that can be traded
   • Calculate a quantified performance measure for a baseline design and compare it with an alternative
   • Construct a Pareto ranking of cost elements with cumulative percentages
   • Identify the cost and performance drivers that deserve the team's attention
   • Draft an assumptions log entry that states effect, test, owner and date

4. Module 4. Function statements: active verb and measurable noun, basic and secondary functions

   • 1. Writing function statements: active verb and measurable noun · about 40 min
   • 2. Basic, secondary and other function classes · about 40 min
   • 3. Building the Riverside Water function list · about 40 min

   Learning outcomes

   • Write function statements as an active verb and a measurable noun
   • Identify common errors in function wording and correct them
   • Explain why naming functions independently of the current solution opens new alternatives
   • Classify functions as basic, secondary, required secondary or unwanted secondary
   • Identify the higher-order and lower-order functions that bound a subject
   • Calculate the share of a subject's cost associated with each function class and interpret it with care
   • Draft a classified function list for a facility, linking each function to the elements that perform it
   • Justify the choice of basic, higher-order and lower-order functions for the Riverside Water pump station
   • Calculate the share of the estimate in elements that directly perform the basic function and interpret it

5. Module 5. Introduction to FAST logic, function relationships and scope boundaries

   • 1. How and Why logic, the critical path of functions and scope lines · about 40 min
   • 2. Building the first FAST model for the Riverside Water pump station · about 42 min
   • 3. Applying FAST to a service and reviewing common mistakes · about 40 min

   Learning outcomes

   • Explain how How and Why questions link functions into a logical chain
   • Classify functions as higher-order, basic, critical-path, supporting or input in a simple FAST model
   • Draft a text outline of a FAST critical path with left and right scope lines
   • Check a function chain by reading it in both directions
   • Construct a FAST critical path for a pump station from a verb–noun function list
   • Justify the placement of the basic, higher-order and input functions with How–Why reasoning
   • Classify supporting functions as when-triggered or all-the-time and place them correctly
   • Compare two candidate scope lines and explain how each changes the study
   • Construct a FAST outline for a service process, not only for a physical asset
   • Identify and correct five common FAST mistakes in a draft model
   • Justify scope line positions against a stated study objective

6. Module 6. Function cost, worth, cost models and improvement opportunities

   • 1. Allocating cost to functions and estimating worth · about 40 min
   • 2. A cost and worth model for the Riverside Water pump station · about 45 min
   • 3. Applying cost and worth to a service and choosing priority functions · about 40 min

   Learning outcomes

   • Allocate element costs to functions using a simple element-by-function matrix
   • Explain worth as the lowest cost to reliably perform a function at its required performance
   • Calculate a value index as worth divided by cost and interpret the result
   • Compare the value index convention used in this course with the cost/worth ratio used by some practitioners
   • Calculate function costs for the Riverside Water station from an element-by-function matrix
   • Calculate value indexes and gaps for each function and for the station as a whole
   • Rank functions by improvement opportunity and justify the priority list
   • Explain why required functions are kept at full worth
   • Calculate function costs, value indexes and gaps for a service using annual operating cost
   • Rank functions using both value index and absolute gap and justify the ranking
   • Identify where a worth estimate would wrongly remove a required function or exclude a user group

7. Module 7. Creativity, idea generation, facilitation and avoiding premature judgment

   • 1. Separating idea generation from judgment · about 40 min
   • 2. Running the Riverside Water creativity session · about 42 min
   • 3. Brainwriting, facilitation choices and guarding against groupthink · about 40 min

   Learning outcomes

   • Explain why idea generation and judgment are kept in separate phases
   • Apply the core rules of brainstorming to a function-based prompt
   • Draft 'How might we' prompts from priority functions that carry required performance forward
   • Identify and redirect premature judgment during a session
   • Plan a creativity session for several priority functions with time and idea targets
   • Apply attribute listing to generate ideas for a physical function
   • Calculate idea counts and duplicate rates and interpret what they say about the session
   • Calculate the idea capacity of a brainwriting round and compare it with actual output
   • Select a creativity technique for a given team situation and justify the choice
   • Apply a three-signal check to detect groupthink during a creativity session

8. Module 8. Evaluation criteria, weighted comparison and risk screening

   • 1. Deriving criteria from performance attributes and weighting them · about 40 min
   • 2. Screening and weighted evaluation for the Riverside Water enclosure · about 45 min
   • 3. Why a weighted matrix is only as good as its criteria and weights · about 40 min

   Learning outcomes

   • Derive evaluation criteria from agreed performance attributes and separate them from mandatory requirements
   • Calculate criterion weights from a pairwise comparison, including a base point to avoid zero weights
   • Draft anchored 1–5 scoring scales for criteria
   • Check a pairwise comparison for consistency
   • Apply mandatory screening to an idea list and record reasons for every decision
   • Calculate weights and weighted totals for alternatives in a professional example
   • Compare performance scores with cost to identify alternatives worth developing
   • Classify key risks of alternatives as part of evaluation screening
   • Demonstrate how treating a mandatory requirement as a weighted criterion can select a non-compliant option
   • Calculate how a change in weights changes the ranking of alternatives
   • Identify overlapping criteria and false precision in a weighted matrix
   • Justify an evaluation recommendation that states its sensitivity to weights

9. Module 9. Alternative development, feasibility and introductory life-cycle costing

   • 1. From shortlisted idea to developed alternative: testing feasibility · about 40 min
   • 2. Introductory life-cycle costing: comparing alternatives over time · about 42 min
   • 3. A first look at discounting and completing the value alternative · about 42 min

   Learning outcomes

   • Explain the difference between an evaluated idea and a developed value alternative
   • Classify feasibility concerns as technical, cost, schedule or risk
   • Draft a feasibility summary for a value alternative that states assumptions and open questions
   • Justify whether an alternative is ready to present, needs more work or should be dropped
   • Identify the main life-cycle cost elements: initial, operating, maintenance, replacement and end-of-life
   • Calculate an undiscounted life-cycle cost for two alternatives over a stated study period
   • Calculate a simple payback period and explain its limitations
   • Compare an initial-cost saving with the life-cycle result and explain any difference
   • Calculate a present value factor using 1 ÷ (1 + r)^n and apply it to a future cost
   • Calculate the present value difference between two alternatives using yearly and single-year factors
   • Compare discounted and undiscounted results and explain why they differ
   • Draft the cost section of a value alternative with both views and stated assumptions

10. Module 10. Presentation, recommendation approval and implementation ownership

    • 1. Presenting value recommendations to decision makers · about 40 min
    • 2. Decisions: accepting, rejecting or modifying proposals · about 40 min
    • 3. Implementation planning and ownership · about 42 min

    Learning outcomes

    • Identify the decision makers and other audiences for a value study presentation and what each needs
    • Structure a presentation that leads with decisions needed rather than with the study process
    • Present recommended value without mixing initial-cost and life-cycle figures or overstating certainty
    • Draft an executive summary for a set of value proposals
    • Distinguish accept, accept with conditions (modify), defer and reject decisions and when each is appropriate
    • Calculate the approved value of a set of decisions and the revised estimate
    • Record a decision with its reason, approved value, conditions, owner and follow-up date
    • Justify the rejection of a proposal that would weaken a required function
    • Draft an implementation plan for an approved value proposal with actions, owners, dates and dependencies
    • Sequence conditional actions so that savings are not committed before conditions are met
    • Explain how approved proposals enter project change control
    • Assign implementation ownership and follow-up responsibilities for each approved proposal

11. Module 11. Benefits verification, quality, sustainability and preventing loss of required function

    • 1. Benefits verification: measures, baselines and the realization ledger · about 40 min
    • 2. Verifying an operating saving: normalizing data and comparing with forecast · about 42 min
    • 3. Quality, sustainability and preserving required function after implementation · about 42 min

    Learning outcomes

    • Distinguish identified, recommended, approved, forecast, realized and verified value
    • Define a measure, baseline, data source and timing for an approved value proposal
    • Explain what evidence is needed before value is recorded as realized and who should verify it
    • Draft realization ledger entries for a set of approved proposals
    • Calculate a normalized operating saving using a performance indicator such as energy per unit of output
    • Compare realized value with a forecast adjusted for actual conditions
    • Explain why a raw before-and-after comparison can mislead
    • Draft a realized ledger entry with amount, period, outcome and evidence
    • Apply a required-function preservation check to an implemented value proposal
    • Classify evidence that safety, reliability, regulatory and performance requirements have been preserved
    • Distinguish a measured sustainability benefit from an estimated one
    • Draft a post-implementation review that covers cost, function, quality and sustainability

12. Module 12. PVology value-study lab and integrated value proposal

    • 1. Guided lab: running the Riverside study in PVology Value · about 45 min
    • 2. The capstone: brief, rubric and a fully worked model · about 50 min
    • 3. Capstone self-review, common mistakes and submission · about 40 min

    Learning outcomes

    • Set up a formal value study with charter, team, discount rate and study period in PVology Value
    • Record functions with cost and worth and read the resulting FAST diagram and worth-to-cost figures
    • Calculate a weighted evaluation score by hand and confirm it against the tool, including a mandatory-criterion flag
    • Enter life-cycle cost items, record a decision and make forecast and realized ledger entries with evidence
    • Describe the required parts of the ValueLens capstone and how each is assessed
    • Apply the five-criterion rubric to judge the quality of a value proposal
    • Trace a complete model capstone from function analysis to implementation proposal and check its calculations
    • Select a suitable capstone subject with clear required functions and available cost data
    • Apply the rubric to score a draft capstone and identify the changes that would raise it
    • Identify and correct common capstone mistakes in functions, numbers and recommendations
    • Check every calculation in a capstone by an independent method
    • Prepare a capstone for submission with a clear decision summary and stated assumptions

Capstone: Optimize a practical product, service or facility element while preserving required functions: function analysis, a simple FAST model, a cost and worth view, evaluated alternatives, a life-cycle comparison and an implementation proposal.

Certification exam

60 questions in 90 minutes; provisional pass mark 70%. Questions are scenario-based drawn from a private, reviewed bank. Results stay provisional until academy review. These are PVology assessment policies.

Across the domains, about 65% of questions test professional knowledge, 20% applied tools and 15% PVology concepts.