4. Value Method Job Plan

   ---

   4. Analysis Phase

      Creativity phase endeavors are tuned to generate the maximum amount of concepts. It is production oriented and not efficiency oriented. The benefit for high production is that there are many good concepts to chose from. The disadvantage is that the number of ideas make sorting though them cumbersome. The analysis phase is optimized to take care of this feature.

      Other analyses issues that needs to be addressed during decision-making are related to the roadblocks built into all people. One of the major issues is the number of ideas people can keep in the forefront of their mind at any one time. The analysis phase techniques are tuned to overcome these limitations too.

      During this phase ideas are ordered, collected into concepts with similar features, solidified into potential alternatives for proposal, and ranked. Several techniques are available. The objective is to use resources as optimally as possible (i. e., optimize assets). The result of the analysis phase is a series of ranked potential alternatives. Its products are examined to identify the "best of the best" ideas. Only these "best of the best" are carried to the next phase, which can then, during the development phase, be evaluated with regard to their benefits, disadvantages, risks, and costs.

      The most common two techniques used are "criteria weighting matrix and evaluation analysis ranking," and "performance of the function determination and study team consensus ranking."

      1. Criteria Weighting Analysis Matrix and Alternative Analysis Weighting Matrix. This is the technique taught to all students during the fundamental how-to course (Module I). It is the accepted "medium level" of analysis effort. This technique is the relatively simple to use and is very powerful:

         1.) Criteria Weighting Analysis Matrix. Criteria and limits are classified as "hard" and "soft." When items are designated to be unavailable to change, i. e., may not be breached under any situation, they are as designated to be hard criteria. An alternative that violates a hard criterion in any fashion is unacceptable and may not be selected. During a value study, people will often tell you a restriction is a hard criterion. However, this is rarely the case. Hard criteria are actually rare. Commonly, if sufficient stimuli are found to be present; such as money, time, or other benefits, most criteria can be transgressed. Such criteria are considered soft. Every job has soft criteria and other important features that cause one alternative to be selected over another.

         Usually, the important features to be used in comparison of alternatives are numerous, complex, and have several nuances. Their number and complexity far exceed our human limitation of three to four items in the forefront of thought that was discussed previously in the roadblocks to good decision-making section. The Criteria Weighting Analysis Matrix allows the criteria governing the selection to be better compared and weighted in their relative importance. It avoids the roadblock problems by making each assessment relative to no more than two major criteria, with nuances, at any one time. The process creates weightings for each resulting criteria that can then be readily used in the comparison of alternatives.

         The generation of a Criteria Weighting Analysis Matrix is a three-fold process begun during the information phase. A criteria analysis was one of the parameters that established the value base before subsequent operations began.

         a.) The first step is best done during the information phase. The criteria and limits determination are identified and evaluated to see if any of them are hard criteria. This analysis includes a recognition of the source generating each criterion. The generation of this first step of the analysis can be simple or complex as is warranted. Some activities can use a simple discussion and listing of the criteria and their sources, other use one of the Owner, User, Stakeholder analysis models, and a few use customer surveys and their related models.

         b.) The second step may be done during the information phase or analysis phase. Its timing is dependent on the group dynamics and results of discussions. If the team struggles with the value-base definitions during the information phase, it is done at that time. If the team has already reached a high-efficiency point, it is delayed until the analysis phase.

         It is during this step the fundamental criteria that the more crucial factors in serving the higher-order function, derived by the FAST diagram for the activity, are determined. Each criterion is defined so that it understood by all. The primary and fundamental criterion is the basic function. It is also defined in terms the team can utilize in comparisons.

         These comparative definitions are done in a way such that, when they are used in the comparative discussion, a clear, understandable and reproducible choice can be made. Further, to avoid confusion, provide clarity, and avoid results that could potentially overrate a specific criterion, each individual criterion is identified such that the criterion elements do not appear more than once.

         c.) Finally, during the analysis phase, a procedure for weighting the relative importance of the various criteria, governing the specific activities, is performed. Weighting sequence procedures and individual comparisons are done on an individual basis through a two-step process. First, a comparison is done using a one-on-one contrasting viewpoint. This is usually done through a discussion and voting procedure. It derives which individual criterion has the higher priority. Next, a relative measurement of the level of how much a higher priority, greater than the criterion determined to be the lesser priority, is derived. The typical scale used is a 1 to 4 scale of 4=major preference, 3=medium preference, 2=minor preference, and 1=no preference.

         Within these operations, the original criteria are often further defined and clarified as needed. This is done until the described criteria definition and weighting results are fully defined. Procedures are applied to ensure that the voting is balanced such that no specific entity had a greater voice than is warranted in the weighting process, and that complete discussions occurred that demonstrated that full and fair evaluation of the criteria is performed. The final step of this process is to assign a weight to the meeting of essential function. Options to increase the basic function weighting are allowed. However, a rule of at least equal to, but no greater than twice, the highest criteria weight derived during the Criteria Weighting Analysis Matrix, is applied.

         2.) Alternative Analysis Weighting Matrix. During the creativity phase, ideas related to the identified basic function(s) shown in the FAST diagram were generated, refined, and consolidated. After the criteria have been fully examined, weighted, and ranked in the previous technique, the consolidated ideas need to be discussed, evaluated, ranked, and the concepts for highest potential return selected for further development. The Alternative Analysis Weighting Matrix technique performs these tasks. It uses a five-fold approach. It is designed to avoid wasteful resource expenditure on concepts that have medium or low potential value enhancement during both the analysis phase and subsequent development phase.

         a.) Each concept is first evaluated on a pass/fail basis to detect each idea's applicability to meet the customer's essential need(s). Items that have no potential are not evaluated further. This step rids the value study operations of concepts that have absolutely no potential for development. Usually, these were the enjoyable and necessary "pie-in-the-sky" ideas used during the creative process.

         b.) Each of the remaining ideas are placed in a matrix and evaluated. Typically, this is on a scale of 1 through 5. The standard rating for this scale is 5=excellent, 4=very good, 3=good, 2=fair, and 1=poor. The first rating is in terms of the item's capacity, after an expected further development by the available resources, to perform the basic function(s). Each item not receiving a rating of 4 or greater is immediately dropped from further discussion. Such ideas are presumed to not have a high enough potential for adding value for the customer and their ultimate purpose. Therefore, further use of value study resources on these ideas are considered to be unjustified. The surviving ideas can be expected to have very high potential to meet the basic functions and governing criteria for alternative selection.

         c.) The ideas warranting further evaluation and analysis (i. e., those that receive a 4 or greater rating) are then evaluated relative to the criteria derived in the Criteria Weighting Analysis Matrix. The second rating must use the same scale as the first rating (e. g., the 1 through 5 scale). Each idea is sequentially evaluated with regard to the same criteria so that discussions and comparisons remain valid and improvement to the concepts may be derived. Once the idea comparisons are exhausted on one criterion, the next criterion is evaluated with regard to each idea. This process continues until each idea's ability to meet all the pertinent criteria has been evaluated.

         d.) The next step is purely computational. The ideas that received a 4 or greater rating in meeting the basic function were further evaluated in terms of the idea's potential for meeting the criteria matrix specification. Each of these ideas have a high potential for adding value to the project. A raw score of these ideas relative value potential is computed by multiplying the determined rating for the specified criteria and criteria weight.

         e.) The concepts are then ranked in accordance with their raw score grouping. If the highest raw score is 400 and three other concepts have scores of 398, 397, and 395 respectively, they are relatively equivalent in terms of value potential and they would all be ranked number 1. This means they should have the highest priority for the next phase of the value study (development phase). The ranking process takes account of the natural grouping found in the concept raw scores and a break point is determined. Items below the break point, while having high potential for value enhancement, are not pursued further. This is because of the presence of the other ideas that have much higher potential value. Only alternatives with the highest raw score (the "best of the best") are retained for further development as a value study proposal. Their development is conducted in accordance with the resulting prioritization created by the alternative matrix evaluation. If additional information becomes available during the development process, it may be determined that the proposal priority should be reevaluated and/or the concept should be combined with another idea being developed. This is expected as a part of the normal value study process and is used during the development phase decision process.

      2. Performance of the Function Determination and Consensus Ranking.

         This is simplest analysis technique and is much less exhaustive. It is appropriate when numerical values that have a strong basis are not required. If the activity is highly controversial and subject to "second guessing," the previous procedure should be used. If not, this is an excellent technique that can save time and resources, as compared to the previous procedure.

         The objective in this technique is the same that as described in the previous technique. Remove the implausible, order the remaining, and determine the "best of the best." A numerical rank is usually not designated.

         1.) The first step is to remove ideas considered infeasible or outside the scope of the study team. It is a simple approach. The team briefly reviews each concept and, after discussion, if deemed infeasible or outside the scope of the study team, as defined by the FAST diagram, note this fact on the records of concepts examined and remove the concept from further consideration.

         2.) The next step is to revisit the needs identified in the information phase and drop any ideas not meeting the needs from further consideration. Again this fact is noted on the records of concepts examined.

         3.) Once the concepts that are infeasible, out of the scope, or not meeting need  have been dropped from further consideration in steps 1 and 2, it is helpful to write a short description of each of the remaining concepts on a 3-inch by 5-inch card or Postit© note.

         4.) During the next step the study team measures how well each concept has the potential to fulfill or exceed the basic functions. This is usually done by comparing the concept, assuming it was fully developed, to the preferred concept presented to the value study team. During this prossess some ideas will be identified as belonging as a part of other ideas. Often, additional new ideas are generated.

         As this is being done, collect and group the Postits© containing the ideas using  similar thoughts. Sometimes they are grouped in terms of ideas which will require similar discipline activity during the development phase. During this activity, we also want to add thoughts that would improve the concept.

         5.) After grouping, it is time to prioritize the concepts. Two similar techniques are common: discussion ranking and vote ranking.

         a.) Discussion Ranking. This is a process of team discussion and consensus ranking. The most likely candidates of the remaining items are placed in a loosely ranked order according to one of three expected potentials: high, medium, and low. The most obvious and most likely items for high value enhancement are placed at the top of each group and the obvious more unlikely items are placed at the bottom. This leaves the concepts falling in between these two extremes in the middle area.

         b.) Voting Ranking. This is a limited voting, ordering, discussion, and consensus ranking technique. Count the number of concepts remaining. Divide the result by 10, e. g., 110 concepts/10=11. This is the number of votes a person is allowed. If the number is less than three, use three votes as the number allowed. Give each team member two colors of color dots. One color will represent high potential ideas, the other low potential. The number of each color of the color dots given should be equal to the team member's allowed vote (e. .g, 11). Without discussion, each team member places the dots on the concepts for the position they believe the concept should be located. High quality concept color dots are placed on each concept that they consider to be high quality and low quality concept dots on those they consider to be low quality. (Make sure everyone remembers which color is which.) They can place all their dots on any single concept. The ideas are ordered in relation to the number of dots received. The team groups the lists into similar areas. Finally, after discussion of the involved factors (discussed below), the top two or three items in the top of the each grouped list are rank are refined by team consensus.

         Several factors need to be examined during discussions. If an alternative is overly hard to implement or design, it may need to have a low ranking even though it meets the criteria and essential need very well. The assumed costs, including design, development, and the time effects should be considered in ranking. (However, it should be remembered that they are assumed costs.)

      3. Individual Assignments of Responsibility and Action Plans. Upon completion of the priority ranking, an action plan and work oversight responsibility process should be established. Each technical team member should take an assignment to be responsible for a particular idea or group of ideas. The priority ranking should be retained and no team member should take too great a workload. Non-technical group members should take an assignments to assist one or more technical group members achieve their responsible tasks. Any team member with ideas about how to establish progress milestones should express these thoughts. They should be listed on a easy to access and review media such as a flip chart. This should also cover contingency plans should a top choice fail to meet its expected progress and value enhancement before the team has a status meeting. The team should establish a first status meeting time for all team members to be present (see the next phase). This is one way the team will regain a measure of its cohesiveness. Everyone should endeavor to be present at the appointed time to discuss progress. Progress meetings should be short, but tuned to allow the team members to add thoughts to improve the concept value under development. Individual action plans for proceeding are always helpful to all team members. Each team member should make a plan of action to perform their individual tasks. Finally, everyone should remember that it is a team effort and the team needs to reach a consensus on the direction of the team.
         
      4. Summary. The analysis phase can be as little as measuring a "meets the basic function" criteria and a prioritization procedure of the remainder-- or it can be extremely complex. A summary of what is done during this phase is as follows:

         1.) Once generated, each idea is collected and consolidated as required into an alternative with the potential to serve the customer's needs.

         2.) Even after considerable effort, some ideas will not meet their essential function. Thus, value study endeavors on those ideas are not considered to be productive and those ideas should be dropped from further consideration.

         3.) Other ideas merit attention or have attributes that make it more difficult to determine which concept has the most promise. To limit the resource requirements (time, people, etcetera) each alternative is analyzed. This is usually done though a two-step decision process. The first is done during the analysis phase, and the second is done during the development phase (next).

Content © 1995-2003 by SAMI, http://www.value-engineering.com