SBX. Shutterbug Exchange Inc. Sustain. Build. eXcel.
HomeTechnologyMeasure value & impact

Measure value & impact

Does the better decision create practical value?

Connect customer discovery, cost scenarios and lifecycle questions to a measurable case for adoption.

Economics & impact research
  1. 01Define the baseline
  2. 02Measure full route costs
  3. 03Compare observed outcomes
  4. 04Test sensitivity and impact

The practical question

Higher model accuracy alone does not establish a useful business. Extra testing can consume the value it was intended to preserve, and a recovery pathway has its own environmental burdens.

The research approach

Compare candidate testing policies with the operator’s efficient existing workflow at matched routing-error and decision-coverage limits. Include setup, handling, failed and repeated captures, mandatory qualification, expert review, logistics, equipment/software allocation and error consequences. Assess net environmental effects separately using remaining useful generation, displacement, material quality and process burdens.

Who would use it

For operators and future commercial collaborators: a decision about whether a workflow improves net value under realistic conditions.

Research to date

Customer discovery through NSF I-Corps and Cleantech Open, circular-PV feasibility and commercialization planning shaped the adoption questions. The illustrative calculator teaches reuse-versus-recovery arithmetic. The proposed operator study will test incremental value against an efficient existing workflow using measured costs and independently assessed outcomes.

The next validation gate

Agree one operator population, module source, downstream acceptance requirements and who would pay for the workflow. Measure full incoming-module costs and prospective operating time. Separate modeled proceeds from transactions and evaluate environmental effects against a defined lifecycle alternative.

Compare the environmental pathways

Compare the qualified module’s remaining useful generation and the realistic product or material it would displace with the burdens of transport, testing, repair, reinstallation, failures and eventual end-of-life treatment. For recovery, compare usable material yield and quality with the actual alternative route. The comparison needs a stated boundary and downstream evidence; financial savings alone cannot establish environmental benefit.

Illustrative scenario / User assumptions

When does better testing pay?

The starting values are hypothetical; replace them with operator-specific estimates. Compare added diagnostics with an all-to-recovery alternative.

Illustrative incremental value · USD / incoming module+$2.80 / modulePositive incremental value under these assumptions.

Assumes correct routing, with recovery for every nonqualifying module.

Explore sensitivity and break-even
Illustrative scenario / Your assumptions

When does added testing cover its cost?

Vary the share qualifying for reuse while holding the other three inputs fixed. The scenario assumes correct routing and compares added diagnostics with sending every module to recovery.

Illustrative incremental value versus reuse-qualifying shareThe curve is calculated from user assumptions, not observed SBX performance.Illustrative incremental value (USD / incoming module)Share qualifying for reuse route (%)

0% qualify
Your assumed share
100% qualify

Above zero: positive incremental value under these assumptions. Below zero: negative. A break-even share is displayed only when one exists within 0–100%; it is rounded for readability.

V(q) = q × (qualified-route net proceeds − recovery-route net proceeds) − added diagnostics/review cost. q is the fraction qualifying for reuse. Monetary inputs are USD per module; the result is USD per incoming module. The boundary below defines net proceeds and excluded costs.

Boundary: one incoming module. Qualified-route and recovery-route net proceeds include downstream testing, logistics and processing. Capital, overhead, taxes, price changes, unpriced safety risks and misrouting losses are excluded. The proposed operator study evaluates those practical costs and error consequences.

Advanced: compare an operator workflow
Operator / analyst estimates

Does the candidate improve the whole operating case?

Compare your current workflow with a candidate workflow, including efficient fixed testing or an adaptive method. Enter operator or analyst estimates in USD per incoming module, averaged across the same defined population. Starting zeros are entry placeholders, not measured costs or SBX results.

Workflow costs · USD / incoming module
Cost itemCurrent workflowCandidate workflow
Capture, setup & handling

Include acquisition, setup, loading, failed or repeated captures and handling time.

Mandatory qualification

Retain all required safety and qualification procedures; allocate their full workflow cost.

Specialist review

Allocate expert time across every incoming module, including cases sent for review.

Allocated equipment & software

Include relevant overhead once. Use consistent throughput, useful life and utilization assumptions.

Logistics

Include transport and storage not already counted in another cost or downstream value.

Expected error consequences

Use documented error rates and consequences where available; do not count a loss twice.

Optional, signed USD per incoming module, including modules with no sale. Use documented realized value when available; otherwise use clearly identified estimates. Deduct downstream processing costs only if absent from the rows above. Exclude every cost and error loss already entered above, including transport. With this option off, equal downstream value is assumed to cancel; actual outcome equivalence still needs testing.

This confirms the basis of your scenario, not demonstrated equivalence. Establish comparable outcomes and coverage with independent evidence before treating a modeled advantage as useful operating value.

Modeled candidate advantage · USD / incoming module—

Enter workflow estimates and confirm a common comparison basis.

Current workflow total cost
—
Candidate workflow total cost
—
Break-even candidate capture/setup & handling cost
—

The break-even amount is the total candidate capture/setup & handling allowance, not an extra allowance. A negative amount means the other candidate costs already exceed the available value even with zero capture cost.

Candidate advantage = (candidate downstream value − candidate total cost) − (current downstream value − current total cost).

Break-even candidate capture/setup & handling cost = current total cost + (candidate downstream value − current downstream value) − all other candidate costs.

Count each item once on a common per-incoming-module boundary. Separate one-time research/reference-testing costs from recurring operating costs. A modeled operating advantage does not establish financing, cash availability, demand or adoption.

Define the environmental comparison separately.

A lifecycle assessment needs qualified remaining generation, the product or material displaced, transport distances and modes, testing/repair/processing energy, usable yield, failure outcomes and final treatment within a stated boundary. Financial inputs alone cannot quantify environmental benefit.

Help measure the operating case.

Bring intake-baseline, route-cost or lifecycle expertise to a partner-informed evaluation.

Explore collaboration