R D. he Futdii of VM: we Heading? contents: Dr: Derek S. Thomson, Editor, Value World. 2 Where are. Charles W. Bytheway, CVS. Dan A.

Transcription

1 Volume 28 I Number 2 I FaH 2005 R D contents: Editor's Comments Dr: Derek S. Thomson, Editor, Value World Genesis of FAST Charles W. Bytheway, CVS Function Models: A General Framework for Design Technical Dan A. Seni, P Eng, PhD How-Why Logic Paths and Intentionality Mohammed Ali Berawi, Di: Roy Woodhead The If-Then Modelling Relationship of Casual Function and Their Conditioning Effect on Intentionality 111ohammed Ali Berawi, Dt: Roy Woodhead VA Tear-Down: A New Value Analysis Process Yoshihiko Sato, CVS, FSAVE; J. Jerry Kaufman, CVS, FSAVE i shd t1s ssue he Futdii of VM: 2 Where are we Heading?

2 Welcome to the Fall/Winter Value World This issue of Value World presents a retrospective of the state of the art from the 2004 Annual SAVE Conference in Montreal. The papers were selected to stimulate debate among current practitioners, generalists and theorists. They cause us to question: Are we heading in the right direction? What have we learnt that we can build on? What are we in danger of leaving behind that we should not forget? These are issues I encourage you to reflect on when reading this issue. If you are sufficiently stimulated, I appeal to you to submit a considered response or examples of informative practice for possible publication. At the time of the 2004 conference, we had begun to question the fundamental nature of function and were re-examining the principles upon which our practices are based. As such, the papers selected cover a spectrum of issues associated with value from the origins of FAST to retrospective analysis of the functionality of existing products. In the first of the five papers presented, Bytheway discusses the insights that led to his development of FAST. In doing so he illustrates the potential of intuitive thought to lead to such advances. In commenting that it took seven years to fully recognise the nature of his internal how-why logic and by noting that he seldom completes a FAST diagram, Bytheway reminds us of the need to accommodate creative thinking and flexibility within our structured processes. Seni builds on Bytheway's review of the origins of FAST by positioning function analysis, FAST and related techniques against a theory of design that helps us to understand designers' conceptualisation and modelling of value. Seni contributes the observation that function analysis and related techniques should be thought of as tools that designers use to model the system to be implemented, rather than as stand-alone explanations of functionality. Seni's insight reminds us of the need to consider function at the conceptual, rather than the practical level to stimulate design creativity in team problem solving. When modelling the relationship between design conceptualisation and development, Seni touches upon Hume's fact-value distinction and opens the door to evolving function analysis from the perspective of changing a situation. In the first of two linked papers which have been updated since their original conference presentation, Ali Berawi and Woodhead revisit the principles of Bytheway's FAST and discover that its howwhy logic is suited to explaining the relationship between scientific and engineering thinking. They establish this by considering howwhy logic from a teleological viewpoint which allows them to determine that the main logic path of a FAST diagram must explain designers' intentional thinking alone. They find that FAST can relate the conceptual thinking of designers to the practical thinking required to create physical artefacts embodying sought functions. As such, they position FAST as a technique suited to high technology applications which require greater alignment between scientific thinking and practical know-how. In their second paper, Woodhead and Ali Berawi examine the vertical 'when' axis of FAST diagrams and highlight the need to distinguish between the vertical and horizontal axis when compiling FAST diagrams to achieve the distinction between intentional and causal function relationships required by high technology applications. They conclude that the ambiguity with which FAST diagrams are sometimes currently developed can prevent this distinction from being expressed. They recommend that improvements be made to FAST to emphasise and assist in the development of causal representations on the vertical 'when' axis. Sato and Kaufman conclude our review by approaching the analysis of functionality in the opposite direction by examining the functions performed by existing products in a "VA Tear-Down" process that informs the development of more competitive alternatives. While their approach informs the improvement of functionality and the reduction of production costs, Sato and Kaufman are careful to ensure that those functions which made the original product successful in the eyes of the customer are identified so that they are retained. As such, their process creates opportunities to link the insights provided by function analysis with the customer's sense of value. What's happening with Value World? You may have noticed that the production of Value World has been somewhat erratic over the past year. The reasons for this are multiple but, suffice to say, I recognise that this pattern is unacceptable to the SAVE International community. With this in mind, it is my intention to move Value World into a regular publication cycle. Depending on the co-operation of those authors whose papers are making their way through the review process, I anticipate that the current backlog of submitted material will be expended within the year. Value World therefore asks each of its readers to consider submitting a paper within the next twelve months. These papers may discuss or explore the theory on which our field is built, they may analyse data you may have gathered, they may review other published work, or they may present case studies of your practice. Anything will be considered, so long as the editorial board consider it to sufficiently advance our understanding. Building a reliable stream of submissions is critical to the future of our journal as the regular publication ofpapers of sustained high quality is a prerequisite to being listed in academic indices and databases. By achieving this goal, our work can be readily searched and accessed worldwide. This will help us share our knowledge with the wider community and, in time, should encourage that community to consider Value World and SAVE International as avenues for sharing knowledge. If you are currently considering submitting to Value World, I therefore strongly encourage you to do so. You can be assured that your work will if judged of appropriate quality by referees drawn from the Editorial Board see the light of day in what I hope will become a key journal for the development and discussion of knowledge relating to value. For guidance on submitting a paper, please visit Value World's homepage at I am also happy to provide advice to those who may be considering making a submission but are unsure of what is involved. I can be contacted at derek.thomson@gcal.ac.uk and will gladly accept and respond to any comments you may have on the direction and content of Value World. Your feedback is important to the success of our journal as it will guide its future development. MVP-1 171W OR LD Volume 28, Number 2, Fall

3 Genesis of FAST Charles W Bytheway, CVS I was asked to tell about the origin of FAST. In 1960 while working for a division ofthe Sperry Rand Corporation in Salt Lake City, Utah, I was transferred into the Stress Analysis Department after obtaining my Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering. At the same time our division was requested to start a Value Engineering Department. Since I was being transferred from a Research and Development Department, I was asked to take a temporary assignment and conduct the first Value Engineering Seminar within the corporation. I knew nothing about Value Engineering so I enrolled in a Value Engineering Class at the University of California at Los Angeles, better known as UCLA. It was the first class ever offered at a university on Value Engineering. Toni Tacco and Roman Dombrow were our instructors. The Value Engineering Job Plan developed by Lawrence D. Miles was taught to us. On about the third day we were taught about functions. It was the first time I had ever heard about expressing things as functions using a verb and a noun. The function concept fascinated me. It was a new way of thinking for me. When I returned from California, I immediately organized a workshop to teach what I had learned. We selected six assemblies and recruited 30 or 40 people from various departments to participate. Our seminars usually lasted for about 60 hours and we conducted several every year. There was no method of identifying the basic function at that time. Finally, one day, I was able to coin a question that could always isolate the basic function from a list of functions. A year or so later, after a very successful seminar in which I had sparked lots of creativity, my boss, C. S. Grey, said to me, "It works for you but it doesn't work for anyone else because we don't know how you think." He said, "Why don't you write down how you think!" As far as I knew, all I did was ask Why and How of functions. As I started to record how I was thinking, I discovered that I was establishing relationships between functions as I analyzed a list of functions. I needed a name for my method of thinking about functions. I named it "Functional Analysis System Technique." I was unaware that Functional Analysis was a known mathematical technique that already existed. Therefore, it was later changed to "Function Analysis System Technique." The acronym for this technique is FAST. As I tried to explain how to analyze functions and show their relationships, I created my first logic diagram which tied three or four functions together logically. I named this logic diagram a FAST Diagram. That is when I realized I had discovered something very unique; therefore, I decided to write a paper about what I had discovered. That paper was presented in 1965 in Boston, Massachusetts and was titled, "The Basic Function Determination Technique." I used the incandescent light bulb shown in Figure 1 to demonstrate this technique and also to show how to construct a FAST Diagram. The technique is very simple when analyzing an existing assembly. Merely list all of the components that make up 4/6/-/7SULS olggimezp FILAMENT LEAD-IN WIRES STEM PRESS INSULATION Figure 1: Light bulb assembly GLASS BULB SUPPORT WIRES HEAT DEFLECTING DISC STEM BASE RIM CENTER CONTACT the assembly. Then name all the functions performed by those components including the complete assembly and place them in a list. Next select the function you think is the basic function and insert it into the Basic Function Determination Question which reads as follows: "If I didn't have to perform this function would I still have to perform any of the other functions listed?" If each of the remaining functions yields a "no" response, then you have identified the basic function. Not only that but the basic function caused all of the other functions to come into being or existence. For the light bulb example the basic function became "Produce Light." The paper not only identified how to find the basic function but also how to find higher level functions which might be more productive to investigate creatively by asking Higher Level Logic Questions such as "Why must produce light be performed?" My answer for this question was "Provide Luminous Energy." Provide was a good word in Value Engineering circles back in 1965 and listing actions upon physical parts such as "Heat Filament" was perfectly acceptable and also considered to be a good function. I have no trouble using these words even today because I can role play what a "filament" goes through as it is heated but have difficulty role playing "Supply Power" because it is so abstract. I basically always use my FAST technique to be creative. The book I am writing on FAST is basically a creativity book which utilizes the Why-How Logic to create logic diagrams for any subject or project. Because I wanted to demonstrate how functions were inter-related and how to develop and read a FAST Diagram, I developed and completed my first FAST Diagram as shown in Figure 2 for the light bulb. The functions posted from left to right in the middle of Figure 2 is the Primary Path of functions that perform the basic function 2 Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 MTniTTMW 0R LD

4 ragt 40446oPAM FOR L1G4T BULB OS REDUCE BASE TEMPERATURE 06 POSITION FILAMENT 10 DEFLECT HEAT 14 POSITION SUPPORT WIRES 14 POSITION BUTTON 1 S MOUNT LAMP MECHANICALLY OT I I IT 20 PROVIDE PRODUCE CONVERT HE AT SUPPLY CONDUCT CONNECT MOUNT 41. LUMINOUS LIGHT ENERGY FILAMENT POWER CURRENT LEAD-1N LAMP ENERGY WIRES ELECTRICALLY \ 18 INSULATE CONDUCTORS - PATH 09 PREVENT FILAMENT OXIDATION i OF SUPPORTING FUNCTIONS 09 PREVENT FILAMENT EVAPORATION EXCLUDE OXYGEN 13 INSERT INERT 6AS 19 CONSTRAIN GASES PROVIDE A1R-TIGHT SEALING Figure 2: Light bulb FAST diagram in the present design of the incandescent light bulb. My original paper called these functions Critical Path Functions which was a poor definition because too many people think of a Pert Diagram when they hear critical path. If you change the method of performing anyone of these Primary Path Functions, you immediate change all the functions to the right of that function. The supporting functions are posted above and below the Primary Path. For example, if you have to "Heat Filament," what other functions also have to be performed for the light bulb to function properly and reliably? These supporting functions are identified by asking: "If or When a Primary Function is performed, what other functions have to be performed?" They, in turn, have their own primary path of functions. Note that the FAST Diagram in Figure 2 has 21 functions. That means that you can ask 42 questions about this light bulb. The answer to each of your questions is just one function to the right or one function to the left of the function you investigate. All you have to do is ask Why and How of each function to form those 42 questions. If the logic is correct, the answer to each Why Question is located at its left and the answer to each How Question is located at its right. If the answer is not yet posted you have the opportunity to record a higher level function or perhaps several lower level functions. Several years ago I was afflicted with hypoglycemia. A devastating illness that allows your body either to store too much sugar when you need it or fails to release enough sugar when your blood sugar level is low. It plays havoc with your mood swings. The quickest remedy is to just eat more sweets which generally just makes the conditions worse an hour or two later. A partial FAST Diagram for this illness is shown in Figure 3. I researched this illness for two years at the University of Utah's Medical Library and wrote a book on the subject. The most common cause of this illness is hypothyroidism. Once I was placed on thyroid supplement, my symptoms soon vanished. This FAST Diagram contains the same type of question and answer information as existed for the light bulb. If you want to know about a given function just ask Why of that function and the answer should be at the left in the form of another function. If you want to know How a particular function is performed, just look at the function or functions at its right. This diagram was made before I completed my book and since I have no medical background, I cannot state that the logic is always correct. During the Vietnam War our Defense Division received the contract to build a timer for the Briteye Flare for the United States Navy. Cyril F. Andersen, the research engineer assigned to this project, and I worked together using my FAST technique to simplify a very complex timing linkage. The timing escapement mechanism of the clock was supplied by another defense contractor. I was told that the linkage that allowed it to function was taken from a design used by the Navy on torpedoes during World War II. Based on that design a breadboard unit was created. The breadboard unit was a push-button design which proved to be expensive because it required several timing buttons and parts in order to provide all of the desired time durations. The next de- WEIXITIW 0R LD Volume 28, Number 2, Fall

5 WITHDRAW GLUCOSE FROM BWOD CONVERT GLUCOSE rwro GLYCOGEN STORE HOW? 1 GLYCOGEN CONVERT SUPPLY LACTIC ACID ENDES INTO CONTAINIIE 1 GLYCOGEN VITAMIN B1 ACTIVATE DIGESTIVE ENZYMES ACTIVATE LIVER AND MUSCLES SUPPLY INSULIN ACTIVATE PANCREAS WHY? 7 INCREASE BLOOD SUGAR LEVEL 1 CONVERT GLECCGEN INTO GLUCOSE CONVERT BODY PROTEIN INTO GLUCOSE dsupply ADRENALINE I DESTROY CFJJA ACTIVATE ADRENALS RAPIDLY DISTRIBUTE CORTISONE SUPPLY SUPER STIMULANT ACTIVATE ADRENALS CREATE SHOCK OR FEAR SUPPLY STIMULANT.1 INCREASE STRESS OR TENSION INHALE STIMULANTS F DRINK OR EAT STIMULANTS F STORE BODY PROTEINS Figure 3: Hypoglycemia FAST diagram sign was changed to a round dial where the time could be set at any time duration between a minimum and maximum time. The back side of this prototype unit is shown in Figure 4. The clock escapement mechanism is housed in the round cavity at the bottom of Figure 4. Note that there is an arming lever over a plunger in the center of the clock mechanism. When the arming lever moves to the side, this plunger springs out and the clock starts, causing the timing disc to rotate. The relative location and arrangement of the internal parts along with their names are shown in Figure 5. The timing lever rides on the outer surface of the timing disc until it reaches the hole in the timing disc. At that instant the spring loaded timing lever pivots into the hole which in turn causes the sear lever to be released, which causes the cocking shaft to rotate because of the off center spring force created by the firing pin spring. As soon as the cocking shaft rotates the firing pin is released which strikes a detonator which ignites a flare. Since the unit was still rather complicated, I was asked to work with the research engineer to see if Value Engineering principles could simplify the design. We used the same approach that was used in the light bulb example. After the functions were names and the basic function was P ARTIAL F AST DIAGRAM of HYPOGLYCEMIA PROBLEM dinject STIMULANTS determined using the Basic Function Determination Technique, the Primary Path of Functions which are shown at the top of Figure 6 were developed by asking the Why-How Logic Questions. Then the If / When questions were used to determine if any functions supported the Primary Path Functions. The completed FAST Diagram appears in Figure 6. Since we always concentrate on the Primary Path Functions which describe how the basic function is accomplished, we started by identifying all the parts that contributed to the performance of those functions as shown in Figure 7. We used Charles F. Kettering's approach to creativity by role playing the timing lever. The timing lever is identified and can be seen in Figure 5. Our first approach was to see if we could redesign the timing lever so that it could perform the three functions enclosed within block A of Figure 7. After we built this prototype unit, we decided we could get our new timing lever to perform three or four more functions. Every time we built a new prototype, we thought of another way to improve our design. Our fourth design as shown in Figure 8 made it possible for us to eliminate fifteen parts. This was a tremendous accomplishment. Note that the design shown in Figure 8 only required 6 internal 4 Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 WEI IITTMW 0R LD

6 FIRING PIN ARMING WIRE, COCKING SHAFT PLUG FIRING PIN SPRING PIVOT PIN RELEASE PIN,SEAR LEVER 0 RING' ARMING SPRING; ;SPACER SHAFT ARMING PIN WASHER ACTIVATION PIN IIl STUD STOP SHAFT TIMING LEVER SPRING MING LEVER ARMING LEVER- START STOP PLUNGER TIMING DISC Figure 4: Back side of prototype unit Figure 5: Internal parts of prototype unit parts compared to 22 in the first Prototype Timer shown in Figure 5. Two of these parts we were not allowed to change. The clock, we had no control over, as well as the arming wire which had to be attached to the aircraft so the timer could be activated when the unit was deployed from the aircraft. So in reality we had only 20 parts to work with and were able to reduce them to only 4. In other words we eliminated 16 parts using Function Analysis. Imagine for a moment the time and cost to manufacture these 16 parts. Not only that but the expense of documentation, inventory, assembly, and all other costs associated with these parts. About this time I had a bright idea. I said, "Why don't we make the timing lever out of spring steel and then we can eliminate the DETONATE PRIMER 2 RELEASE FIRING PIN 3 RELEASE COCKING SHAFT 4 RELEASE SEAR LEVER 5 ROTATE TIMING LEVER SHAFT 6 RELEASE TIMING LEVER 7 ROTATE TI M ING DISC 8 START CLOCK 9 RELEASE START STOP PLUNGER 10 PIVOT - ARMING -10 LEVER RELEASE ARMING PIN 12 REMOVE -10; ARMING WIRE 16 COMPRESS FIRING PIN SPRING 14 WIND CLOCK 13 SEAL - ARMING PIN 17 ROTATE COCKING SHAFT 26 ROTATE TIMING DISC COCK FIRING PIN 18 POSITION SEAR LEVER 17 LATCH TIMING LEVER 20 POSITION TIMING DISC 21 ROTATE CLOCK ASSEMBLY 22 SEAL CLOCK HOUSING 23 ROTATE -10 CLOCK HOUSING 25 COCK START STOP PLUNGER 2, POSITION ARMING LEVER 28 COMPRESS PLUNGER SPRING 24 LOCK CLOCK HOUSING ' 9 MOUNT COVER PLATE Figure 6: FAST diagram of prototype unit &71 ITFAIW OR LD Volume 28, Number 2, Fall

7 www IANMINIUm MOM , eill0 0 CRITICAL PATH FUNCTIONS: DETONATE PRIMER 2 RELEASE FIRING PIN -r 3 RELEASE COCKING SHAFT RELEASE SEAR LEVER 5 ROTATE TIMING LEVER SHAFT COMPONENTS REQUIRED _ TO PERFORM FUNCTIONS: I. FIRING PIN 2. SPRING COCKING SHAFT RELEASE PIN PLUG I 6. SEAR LEVER I 7. SPACER 8. SHAFT 0 a 0 9. TIMING LEVER SHAFT 10. TIMING LEVER II. STUD 12. STOP 13.SPRING a 6 RELEASE R OTATE TIMING TIMING LEVER DISC START CLOCK 9 R ELEASE START STOP PLUNGER 10 PIVOT ARMING LEVER RELEASE ARMING PIN 12 REMOVE ARMING WIRE a. TIMIN G DISC 14 CLOCK ASSEM BLY 1 5. ARMING LEVER 6. PIVOT b. CLOCK c. START STOP I PIN PLUNGER 17.ARMING \, I 21. ARMING PIN \ ir WIRE 18.ACTIVATION\ PIN 19.SPRING WASHER SEAL 4.1 L ARMING PIN RING Figure 7: Primary path functions of prototype unit firing pin spring and perhaps the firing pin itself by making a sharp point on the timing lever?" This design was very creative and is discussed in my book. However it cost almost three times more than our fourth design shown in Figure 8. Therefore, our fourth design became our Production Unit. The internal parts of this production unit cost only 20 percent of the parts shown in Figure 5. The various steps and creativity ideas that allowed us to accomplish this are explained in greater detail in the book I'm writing. The title of my book is "FAST Creativity - Using Function Analysis." You should keep in mind that during this entire exercise we concentrated on finding a better way of performing the Primary Path Functions shown in Figure 7. The basic function was "Detonate Primer." How did we perform this function? We released the firing pin. How did we release the firing pin? We pivoted or rotated our redesigned timing lever which replaced 17 parts. Many people have asked me how I was able to conceive my FAST Diagraming Technique. I believe that God gave me the gift to role play as I ask Why and How of many different functions. It took me seven years after I published my first article about FAST before I became aware that I was intuitively switching roles whenever a given role failed to increase my understanding or failed to stimulate my creativity as I analyzed a particular function. I have stated many times that I normally don't complete a FAST Diagram. Why should I change my way of thinking just because I wrote an article explaining how I think? I liken it to a person who doesn't know how to read music but is able to play any tune by hearing a tune played just once. If someone asked that person to record what notes he played for a given song, would they expect him to never play again unless he recorded the notes first? Of course not! Then why would anyone expect me to start developing FAST Diagrams every time I worked on a project just because I explained how I think by using a diagram to demonstrate it? I continued to do what I had normally been doing. I didn't need a diagram to get results. Generally when I engage in Function Analysis, I'm searching for information about the subject under discussion and any facts that may be missing. The Why-How Logic allows that to occur within the shortest amount of time. While this is happening, many creative ideas surface and are expanded upon in search of a better way of performing one or more functions. When these ideas materialize into worthwhile proposals, there is no reason for me to complete a FAST Diagram. At that point in time, I have already found what I went in search of. I hope Value Engineers after reading this short explanation understand why I said that I usually don't finish a FAST Diagram. I now normally document the functions of a project in the form of a FAST Diagram or a FAST Tree whenever I'm going to explain my project to someone else. 6 Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 MYEIRTMWORLD

8 "FAST reduces the time for complex analysis.... One diagram may be worth more than many times one thousand words. It can be understood and appreciated by almost anyone." A staff member from that same facility wrote: "One Pennsylvania agency produced an agency plan by another method which required 638 pages. FAST would produce a more comprehensive and meaningful plan using less than 50 pages!" Richard Park, Manager Value Control, Chrysler Corporation in Detroit, Michigan said: "The FAST Diagram... clarifies a problem and pinpoints the area to apply creativity. It then helps to sell the idea by providing a concrete plan to demonstrate and guide discussion." Think about what FAST Diagramming could do for you. I believe many people use FAST because it keeps them focused on functions which assures them results in less time. FAST appears to be one of the best communication tools because of the various intuitive roles people play whenever they answer the Why-How Logic Questions. When you look at a FAST Diagram, do you just see a diagram listing a bunch of functions? If that is all you see, you do not understand FAST Logic. Every entry on a logic diagram contains a function and two questions. Not only that, but every entry also contains two answers. That's a lot of information in a small amount of space. Perhaps this paper will give those who have never used FAST the incentive to at least try it. Charles W Bytheway, CVS, was president of Functional Research. After retiring ftom Sperry Rand's Univac Division he was appointed Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Salt Lake Community College. He was the first recipient of the Lawrence D. Miles Award. Figure 8: Fourth time design The creation of a logic diagram becomes a melting pot for exchanging ideas and concepts because each person who participates with me in creating a diagram, intuitively plays a role based on their life's experiences, mingled with their knowledge and education. Since these roles are different for each participant, their logic is also different which causes a discussion to take place. When this happens, new points of view are presented which enlightens the minds of all concerned. Then new ideas and concepts are expressed and discussed until consensus is reached and all participates agree that the diagram or ideas presented correctly expresses their concerns. I've devoted a whole chapter to this subject in my book. This same type of logic thinking can be beneficial to any task force group. Shortly after I wrote my first article on FAST, I distributed a number of shirt pocket cards at two or three SAVE Conferences that contained eight "Thought-Provoking Questions." These questions are the basic components of my FAST technique. How they are used to develop FAST Diagrams and stimulate creativity are also covered in my book. Several years ago I received a letter from Donald P. Goss, Director, Bureau of System Analysis, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in which he said: WEI 'Taw ORLD Volume 28, Number 2, Fall

9 Function Models: A General Framework for Technological Design Abstract The purpose of the paper is to set function analysis and its associated teclmiques within the context of a more general perspective of engineering and technological design methodologies. First we construe VE, VA and VM as systemic general design disciplines for specifically addressing issues of value improvement. In doing so, we contrast so-called classical design with value-based design methodologies with the specific aim of isolating the particular characteristics of value methodologies that lead to a focus on value improvement. We argue that the analysis and the modeling of functions rather than things is central to the value design methodologies, and that this is one of its key central and unique distinguishing features. We then analyze the idea that common to all design methodologies is the capability of establishing a model of that which is to be implemented. In other words, we submit that modeling capabilities underlie all forms of design including VE, VA and VM. Moreover, we propose that the function analysis techniques common to the value methods are in fact techniques aimed at model construction. The paper then discusses the process of model construction in classical design, that is, of design in the non-value disciplines, and contrasts these with value modeling as it is presently practiced in current FAST methods. We then propose a general framework for value modeling which expands on current FAST methods and suggest how present function modeling can be improved to meet the requirements of this more general framework. Keywords: Design, Function, FAST, Modeling relations, VE/VA/ VM practices. 1. Introduction The analysis of function is used by VE/VA/VM practitioners in a variety of ways and has a number of meanings. Some see it as a technique for consensus building in teams whereas others see it as a way to organize and discipline the process of creative team thinking and divergence. Finally, others such as we, being more analytically inclined, consider function analysis to be a means of explicitly representing something, a means of analyzing a system to be improved. We thus attribute a more objective connotation to the term of "functional model". Be that as it may, we can summarize by saying that function analysis has been looked at in two broad classes of way: First as technique for aiding the process of consensus building in teamwork and, second as an explicit approach to concretely representing a system of interest. It is in this second way in which we wish to analyze function analysis in this paper. As a matter of fact we see function analysis methods, taken in the broad sense of the term, to be the single main contribution of the VE/VM/VA disciplines to the design of sys- Dan A. Seni, PEng, PhD tems in general. In this sense function analysis goes far beyond the characteristic bounds and practices of VE/VA/VM to encompass design methodologies in general. Function analysis thus becomes a general conceptual approach to system design, and it is in this sense in which we will argue for the meaning of the term. In fact, we argue that function analysis is a general high-level approach to systems modeling, a central phase in the design of these systems. Common to all design methodologies is the capability of producing a model of that which is to be implemented. In other words, we submit that modeling capabilities underlie all forms of design including VE, VA and VM. Moreover, we propose that the function analysis techniques common to the value methods are in fact techniques aimed at model construction. 2. On Design and the Design Disciplines We construe the design disciplines to include all technologies including engineering, architecture, medicine, accounting and finance, agronomy, management and many of the applied sciences, both social and natural. In other words we take a broad view of design. Moreover, the act of design itself is not confined to these disciplines alone since it is intimately involved both in the crafts and in the arts. Even further, the case can be made that design is a common conceptual problem-solving process in which all participate on a daily basis. In other words, we take design, broadly speaking, to be a particular form of problem-solving that deals with the improvement of value. What is it that confers upon us the ability to problem-solve on a conceptual level so as to improve the value of our artifacts, that is, to design things of value? It is exactly the ability to elevate artifacts from their factual level to a conceptual level, from the level of their concreteness to the level of ideas, so to speak. In other words, it is the ability to model artifacts that allows us to anticipate and thus to shape the world around us. For purposes of our discussion therefore we define the concept of design thus: Definition I : Design is invention, a form of problem-solving involving value improvement and arising from the ability to model the world and thus to anticipate and to shape it. Of course, invention does not occur in isolation. It is rooted in the context of both our knowledge of the systems we are working on, as well as on our judgment of what constitutes improvement, progress, or the value of the things that we make and that surround us. In other words, design or invention is the link between discovery and innovation. Figure 1 summarizes the relationships between the conceptual processes of discovery, invention and innovation and the science-technology-industry connection. The idea of central importance to us in both science and technology is the so-called modeling relation, that is, the relation between things or systems and their representation in ideas. Without the ability to model and to verify these models, neither science nor 8 Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 'fl!!t1w 0R LD

10 Discovery I nvention Innovation Science (knowledge) 4 Technology (knowle dge a nd designs for things) Industry (making valuable th ing s) Figure 1 Design is invention, a form of problem-solving (valueimprovement) arising from the ability to model and this to anticipate and consequently to shape the world technology would be possible. In this sense the modeling relation seeks to be both objective (factual) and explicit (formal). The modeling relation is central to the scientific enterprise: After all, what are scientific theories and scientific models if not conceptual representations of parts of the world. And the modeling relation is equally pervasive in technology and design; architects build scale models, engineers make drawings, build prototypes and construct mock-ups, geometers make maps, accountants make financial statements and balance sheets, governors make policies, managers design strategies, programs and organizations, production engineers construct run-schedules, and so on. All of this begs the following question: If the value disciplines are in fact, or even aspire to be, a systematic set of methods for designing systems of all sorts, then are function analysis and FAST methods not simply (albeit often embryonic) attempts at constructing objective and formal models of these systems? We believe this to be the case. And if this is so, this simple idea opens up a new agenda for the development of the value disciplines. Function analysis and FAST methods become function modeling explicit, formal and objective subject to criteria of both truth and utility. Which brings us to our second definition: Definition 2: Function analysis and function modeling is a systems approach to technological design integrating both cost criteria (economic variables) and performance criteria (technical variables). 3. From Classical Design to Value-Based Design In light of the above definition, value-based design stands in sharp contrast to classical or technocratic design. Indeed, a systems approach coupled to team design with a task orientation focusing on formal function modeling constitutes a revolutionary break with traditional approaches to technological design. Whereas in classical design the designer is a lone individual, expert or craftsman, in value-based design the designer is a team engaged in "collective" design. In this sense, classical design is technocratic in that the goodness or the worth of a design rests on the authority of the individual designer (his talent, his ingenuity, his education, his social standing, and so on). In collective design, the team is open-ended and the worth of a design rests on the truth and the utility of the models on which the design rests. In classical design the designer asks " What should the thing be like?" in value-based design the key question is "What is the mechanism? How should the thing work?" Whereas in classical design, the designer is concerned with object or thing models based on the methods and the knowledge of the state-of-the-art in a particular discipline or profession, value-based design focuses on systems models independently of the particular disciplines. In fact systemenvironment relations transcend both disciplines and professions. In classical design the designer seeks to invent a thing-model that best meets the constraints of a problem. In value-based design the team first elevates the system model to a more abstract level, the level of a function model. The function model then allows for the invention of a class of systems models from which the one that best meets the criteria of performance of function and value can be analyzed. Finally, classical design is at best a form of constrained optimization, that is, given a set of thing-models (possible solutions), find the one among them that best meets a technical goal (objective Classical or technocratic design Value-based design a) The designer is a lone e) The designer is a team individual, expert or engaged in collective craftsman. design rather than single b) Focus is on thing-models, expert design. disciplines or states of Focus is on systemsthe art. What is the models. What is the thing? systems-in-its c) Seeks to fmd best environment? How do possible thing-model they work? within the constraints of g) Elevates or abstracts the problem. systems model to d) Focuses on constrained function-based model. optimality. Seeks to find the thingmodel that best performs the functions wanted. h) Focuses on functional value and economic value. Table 1 : Main intellectual contribution of VE/VA/VM: Value-based approach to design vs. Standard or classical approach to design function). On the other hand, value-based design focuses, not only on the technical constraints, but on the integration of both function value (performance) and economic value (resources expended). Table 1 summarizes these points. We now turn to an analysis of the modeling relations in the design process under different forms of practice. We compare the modeling relations in classical design with the modeling relation in VA/VE/VM design as it is presently practiced, that is, under the assumption that function modeling is simply a stimulus to team creativity and consensus. Finally, we propose a representation of the modeling relations under the ideal assumption that function analysis involves a full fledged sequence of models where the goal of function analysis is no longer simply to be a tool for team creativity but a key step in the process of value invention and value creation. For purposes of illustration we represent the design process and the modeling relation in state-space (see Figure 2). The state-space is divided into two areas; (a) the universe of real things, objects and systems, and (b) the domain of constructs, ideas and concepts, particularly, the domain of models of things, of objects or of real systems. The vertical axis represents degrees or levels of abstraction II W OR LD Volume 28, Number 2, Fall

11 Ideas Level of abstraction Ideas Things Level of abstraction Things CImplicit model from tacit knowledge f i Implicit model from tacit knowledge Problem-solve or invent Problem -solve or invent Problem-solve or innovate (test-prototype-implement) Figure 2: The modeling relation in classical design and the horizontal axis represents time. We are interested in two periods oftime, the present t o and some point t 1 in the future. Solid arrows represent the explicit movement of ideas in processes of design and broken arrows represent implicit relations or processes. 4. The Modeling Relations in Classical Design Figure 2 illustrates the design process in classical, conventional or common design as a sequence of models. The designer movers from the object as-it-is to a model of how the object ought-to-be. If the object model is implemented, then the object as-it-ought-to-be is built or realized. Note that in order to build an explicit object model the lone designer relies on an implicit model from his tacit knowledge. The movement from implicit to explicit models are processes of problem solving "in the head" as it were, that is, acts of invention. The movement of the real object from the present to the real object in the future is a process of innovation. The proto- Problem-soke or innovate (test-prototme-implem ent) Figure 3: The modeling relation in "creative" VA/VE/VM type for this kind of design is the work of the architect or the design engineer; he moves from a program of work at time to to a plan, blueprint, mock-up or model of the object in the future at time t 1 which is then built, constructed or realized. 5. The Modeling Relations in Current or "Creative" VA/VE/VM In Figure 3 we depict current or actual VA/VE/VM practice as described by state-of-the-art value engineering manuals and as specified in the well-worn "VE/VM Job Plan". This describes the pro- Time Time cess followed by most VANE practitioners and consultants. Unlike classical design, the goal is to elevate the analysis to the level of a functional model first so as to be as "creative" as possible in the design of an object model incorporating the desired functions and eliminating the unnecessary ones. Moreover, since the relation between function model and object model is a one-to-many relation the designed object may differ significantly from the implicit object model with which the team started off. The prototype for this form of design is the 40-hour VE/VA study. Note the following important points in this approach to design: a) The process is one of team design rather than a process under taken by a lone designer. b) The team is assumed to operate on the same common object-as is (which is often not the case in practice) and is also assumed to share the same common implicit model ofthe object (which may often not be the case in practice, since the team is usually composed of individuals from different backgrounds and different disciplines). c) The process from the as-is object to a functional model is a process of function analysis. d) The process from function model to object model is a process of invention. e) We reiterate that the relation from function model to object model is a one-to-many relation, that is, for any given function model there is a whole class of possible object models, each member of the class being an adequate representation of the functions. Consider for example the many equivalent devices appropriate to the function of "indicating the time". The strength of the whole approach to function modeling resides in this property of the relation between function model and object model, since once appropriate functions are identified, the range of possible solutions becomes far wider than is the case in classical design. The potential for significant innovation, even for radical innovation, is increased. 6.Proposal for a General Function Design Modeling Approach for VE/VA/VM: Designing for Value Figure 4 describes the process of value design as a proposed process of explicit modeling. The aim of the proposal is to be as general and as consistent as possible. Again, as before, the design is undertaken by a team. The as-is object is modeled systemically at time t o, that is, following explicit system-environment modeling methods. These methods (system dynamics, soft systems analysis, prototyping, etc.) will vary with the object to be modeled, with the task, with the modeling approach chosen and with the resources available. The team now has before them a common constructed object model, and most ambiguities in usual VE/VA FAST modeling practices are eliminated. Based on this system model the team can then move to a higher-level function-model using FAST methods. FAST techniques are facilitated since the explicit system model provides 10 Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 MiTnITMIN 0R LD

12 Level of abstraction Ideas Things Explicit systemenvironment model P roblem-solve or evaluate Problem-solve or invent Problem -solve or innovate Ctest-prototwe-implement) Figure 4: A general modeling relation for VA/VE/VM: Design for Value a clear indication of system mechanism, that is, an indication of how the system works or "ticks". In the next stage, the process incorporates an explicit resource or cost model. Since system value is some trade-off or ratio between function performance and cost or resource expenditure, function-model 1 provides measures of value of the system as-is. These value metrics together with the analysis of function-model 1 and the resource model allow for the design of an improved second function-model 2 using improved FAST techniques. This then leads the team to design (invent) a new object model to be implemented at time t i. Note the following points in this new approach to system design: a) The process is more demanding in terms of modeling capabilities than is the case in present practices since all models are made explicit and are validated by data. On the other hand the case is much stronger that the final design improves value. b) The process incorporates a wider range of modeling activities than is presently the case since all models are made explicit and are tested for truth and validity (recall that in current VE/VA studies FAST modeling relies on a tacit understanding of the system to be improved and requires simply that consensus be established within the team as regards a single FAST model). c) The design process incorporates an explicit cost or resource model. d) The design process therefore brings together both technical or performance variables with economic or resource variables, thus leading to a clear indication of value invention and value creation. e) The "creativeness" of a new design can be assessed more clearly and exactly since final object model designs are based both on an improvement of function models (the movement from function-model l to function-model 2) and on the movement from function model 2 to the object model. 0 Finally, the process is far more demanding of the exactness and the depth of function modeling techniques since a consistent theory or "logic" of functions is now required in order to build function models. Time Present flaws in VE/VA/VM No explicit as-is objectsystem modeling. No explicit systemenvironment modeling. Therefore no measure of "creativeness" of solutions. No explicit as-is function modeling. So we don't agree about what we are improving. No explicit and consistent cost and resource modeling theory. Therefore no explicit value metrics. So what improvement have we proposed? Future VE/VA/VM improvements Model explicitly the object to be improved as a system-environment complex so as to eliminate ambiguity Develop a consistent and explicit "logic" (theory" of functions so as to relate object-systems to functions and thus be able to compare and assess function models. Develop explicit resource and cost models (theory) so as to be able to arrive at value improvement metrics. Table 2: Present flaws in VE/VA/VM design methodology and the road to improvement 7.From Current Design Practices to a General VE/VA/VM Value Design Approach Table 2 summarizes some of the main points we have covered and contrasts existing value practices with some desirable improvements. The adoption of such an approach has a number of implications both for existing practice and for future research. Among them we propose the following: a) The current job-plan common to most VE/VA studies will have to be revamped. b) The current short and discrete duration (40 hour workshops) of most value studies will have to be expanded and perhaps be even completely rethought as ongoing design and innovation processes within organizations. c) A general value design approach opens up a whole new research agenda focusing on the necessity of making function modeling (FAST) far more consistent and valid. Dt: Dan A. Seni is professor of innovation and technology management and professor of corporate strategy in the Department of Management and Technology at the University of Quebec at Montreal. He is also head of the Science, Technology and Industty Center at the Institute for the Management of the Bio-Industries, in Montreal, Canada. Wfl ITTMW OR LD Volume 28, Number 2, Fall

13 How-Why Logic Paths and Intentionality Abstract The concepts of function in technology can be explained and described within models using etiological (causality and determinism) and teleological (intentionality) view. The function explains the prevalence and (or) persistence of object types by citing their contributions and relationships in the artefact or system. Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) is a technique for analysing the functional structure used in the Value Methodology. Therefore, this paper describes the relationships between function, goals and the purpose of a system as represented in the HOW-WHY logic of Classic FAST's 'Major Logic Path'. Meanwhile the other paper at this edition of Value World explains etiological function in the WHEN logic path of Classic FAST. A teleological function is that which needs to be done in order to achieve a purpose. In other words, what an object brings about in a system needs to serve its purposes and goals of the system in order to be called a teleological "function." To optimise at the detailed level only may undermine value at the purpose level and how the teleological functional theory has been selected from the intentional design of an agent (e.g. a manufacturer). The focus of this paper is on the horizontal arrangement of functions in the HOW-WHY direction. The reason such articulation is needed is to enable the use of Classic FAST to be taken into High Technology projects that require greater alignment of engineering and scientific thinking. The underlying theory is an adaptation of Aristotle's "Teleological cause". The HOW- WHY logic path comprises functions that need to be done in order to achieve a purpose and is a feature of how engineers develop practical expectations that underpin invention. It is this means-end logic that makes the How-Why logic path teleologic. The need to combine engineering intentionality with scientific knowledge in an explicit form provides Value Engineering an advantage because Classic FAST can represent the link between practical and theoretical intelligence. This paper uses teleological functions as the way in which the Major Logic Path structures purposive decisionmaking and so aids engineers to think more clearly about what needs to be done. It is a different logic from the accompanying paper in this edition of Value World (Woodhead & Berawi, 2004) which discusses etiological functions in the When direction of Classic FAST. Keywords: Classic FAST, Major Logic Path, Function, Teleology, Intentional, Purpose, Goal, FAST Diagram Introduction There have been many long debates around functional theories for many years (Preston, 1998). Similarly, there are still problems in formulating functional theories in accordance with the expectations of scientific explanation and the need for corroborative phenomena (Godfrey-Smith, 1993). We will argue that phenomena referred to in a Classic FAST diagram in the How-Why logic path are cognitive and reside inside the world of ideas. This paper is a step towards unifying the relationship between a FAST Model and Mohammed Ali Berawi, Dr Roy Woodhead scientific explanation but is by no means complete; we ask that it is seen as work in progress. This paper will explain an approach to functional theory used in the design and development of technological artefacts; for example, a chair (see figure 1). The function of an object (e.g. a chair) cannot be specified without also establishing the context in which the system (e.g. chair and person sitting on it) is analysed. Just as the function of a teacher cannot exist without the function of a student, and the function of a door cannot exist without the function of a wall, we must make the interconnectedness of functioning objects explicit. That is, when it comes to functional explanations, we can must take into account 'developmental constraints' that are the conditions in which alternative uses/functioning may exist. We must accept that the drive to achieve a purpose brings with it a bounded rationality (Simon, 1997). Functional explanations as set within the major logic path may explain the reason why an object, such as a chair's armrest, exists in a certain system, but the way the function is performed via a physical artefact (e.g. a purple armrest made from bundled wires) may have additional value that it is unexpected (e.g. an accidental function that enables us to pass electric current through the armrest for some additional purpose to the armrest's original reason for being there). Functional Theory In previous work we have cited Mahner and Bunge's (2001) work and believe their taxonomy is an important contribution that the world of VE will move closer to. Given the brevity needed in papers such as this, here we limit ourselves to one philosopher that deals with issues pertinent to this paper and is a mark of the fact this research is on going. Achinstein (1977) describes three accounts of function which involve different ways of viewing a meansend relationship and the idea of design, or use or benefit. He argues that functional doctrine can classified into: (1) The good-consequence doctrine: the function x (resident in object S) is linked to function y if and only if x does y (in S) and doing y (in S) confers some good (upon S, or perhaps upon something associated with S). For example, the function of a heart (x) in a human (S) is to 'Pump Blood' (x in this case is 'pump blood') is linked to the function 'Distribute Oxygen' (This is function y) if and only if pumping blood (x) does distribute oxygen (y) in a human (S) confers some good. In science this is also known as 'Aptation' from which the more commonly known word 'adaptation' comes from. (2) The goal doctrine: the function of x (in S) is to y, if and only if, x does y (in S) and doing y (in S) is or contributes to some goal which x (or S) has, or which the user, owner, or designed of x (or S) has. So for example, the pumping of blood enables the distribution of oxygen that leads to electrons passing through cell walls via protein pumps so that energy is transferred; the goal here then is 'Transfer Energy' 12 Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 MTniTraw 0RLD

14 Why? Required Functions Improve Appearance (e.g. design style, colour etc) How? Support Increase Alternative functions Body Comfort not considered: e.g. hold door, raise person, etc Load Seat Transfer Load Stress Distribute Mechanism Person Weight Cornponents Component Load Extended function not _I..: considered as in the case of say an electric chair Transfer Current Enable Positioning Reduce Friction Scope Line Figure I: Typical classic FAST diagram of a chair (3) The explanation doctrine: the function of x is to y, if and only if, x is there because it does y, and y is a consequence of x's being there. Here we must pause for this is how the Classic FAST uses functions during the creativity stage. If the goal/purpose is to Transfer Energy to billions of cells inside the human body and this is done through the distribution of oxygen enabled by the pumping of blood enabled by the process of a beating heart, then we can either seek another methodology to distribute oxygen or swap a beating heart for a mechanical heart that pumps blood via a rotary pump. Making theories explicit allows us to move beyond a craft based approach to the formation of the major logic path and closer to union with scientific approaches. Furthermore, Achinstein distinguishes three types of function: design functions, use functions and service functions. This could be seen alongside Miles' views of 'use functions and 'aesthetic functions' not so much as a challenge but as a refinement that opens greater possibility for the role FAST diagramming can play in the Knowledge Economy. Achinstein explains that doing y or that y is done- is an end with which x's function can be associated if one or more of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) x was designed (produced, created, established, appointed, etc.) to be or to serve as a means of doing y (design functions views) (2) x is used as a means of doing y (use functions views) (3) y is in fact done by means of x and either (1) or (2) or y's being done confers a good (service functions views) This can also be considered alongside Mahner and Bunge's (2001) view of intrinsic and extrinsic functions. The important thing is that all types of function are not so much what we would see written on a single sticky note, but the meaning they convey about the relationships across and within functions on the major logic path. One only has to see Kaufman's (1998) view of a function in relation to its goal and its method to see the way we think about functions on the major logic path is in two stages; first the individual function and then the function in the means-end chain. As we argue that the function on a major logic path is free from any solution or way it should be performed (i.e. technique) we must make it clear that it must therefore be the intention we the designers want to be achieved. Let us take a chair in the room as an example to make the link between intentionality and implementation explicit. Suppose that a chair has the proper function of supporting the weight of a seated person (see Figure 1). Note how a preconceived view of usage, that is seated person, has been established and with this purpose comes a limit on what we consider. But at the same time the chair can be used to hold the door open, as a step-up to take something from high cupboard, so on so forth. When articulating the functions on a major logic path we thus exclude consideration of co-incidental usage. This is why the major logic path needs to be generic and apply to all types of 'thing'. The major logic path is thus the central part of how a certain thing comes to have a certain identity such as a chair is for sitting on, a watch is for telling the time and so on. If analysing an existing product or thing, we need to be able to explain why and when the thing (e.g. a chair) can be used in relation to its function. The starting point is to establish the purpose of the thing which Heidegger argues comes from the way it is used; we thus see everything in the modern era as resources to be used (Heidegger, 1926). Next we need to untangle the design team's intentionality and why various things end up in the solution that in this instance is a chair. To do this, we have to consider how the designers thought about the chair's structure, material, its loading, and direction at the time it has been used. Here we are using the full set ofaristotle's four causes (Woodhead and McCuish, 2002): Material Cause: why is this girder strong? Because it is made of steel. Formal Cause: why is this piece of metal a key? Because its Warraw ORLD Volume 28, Number 2, Fall

15 shape opens a lock. Efficient Cause: why is the riverbed smooth? Because the water has eroded the rough edges. Teleological Cause: why does the sunflower turn its head to the sun? Because it functions in such a way to achieve goals that ensures maximum sunlight capture to achieve its purpose of converting energy to survive and prosper. In addition to theories of necessity we must also link them up to the real world in which the laws of the universe are not subservient to the will of man. For example, we have to know about the law of gravitation, the properties of materials, Newtonian mechanics and the like; the stuff of science and observable phenomena. These theories of science enable us to model the behaviour of reality under given situations. They represent the physical structure of an object, and are 'controlled conditions' that are in reality our interpretation of certain aspects of reality, such as the law of gravitation, the theory of aerodynamics, provide 'general rules.' The 'controlled conditions' describe anticipated events that might happen at a certain time and place, and general rule(s) connect these 'controlled conditions' to the functional explanandum -why and when the chair can be used- by the statement that, whenever events of one kind occur, events of the other always occur (Refer to Achinstein's 'good consequence doctrine' and to his 'goal doctrine' above). It can be stated in the following formulation as shown in Table 1 (see below). If I have certain conditions such as a person weighing less than X Kg and a chair designed within rules so that it can resist crushing, buckling, shear, gyration and overturning for loads of less than Xkg we have a means of manipulating reality. However, it has no value unless this know-how leads to something that is useful. Teleological Functional Theory in VE As we argue that the concept of function is an abstract set of processes, therefore, the Classic FAST concept is about the modeling relation (teleology), conditioned by causality and determinism (etiology). Line Number Source of Truth (From line number) Propositions that form an argument 1 1 There is intention in an agent with forethought 2 2 There is a purpose in what the agent is considering. 3 3 There is a set of conditions that limit what the agent is considering. 4 1,2 There exists a purposes for the agent's intention 5 2,3 There exists a purposcs in order to consider the characterisation of the conditions 6 6 There is a set of rules in explaining the conditions. 7 3,6 There are instances when both the conditions and the rules are logically united 8 1 to 8 Every function explanation is such that if conditions and rules coincide then it is an explanation Table 1: Formulation of function explanation So far in this paper we have distinguished between a real artefact and a FAST diagram's major logic path and the process by which the major logic path is made. This enables us to examine statements made during the development of the FAST diagram. We 14 Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 can see that functional representation and physical implementation are two things that mutually operate on two different levels of thinking. On one level we talk about the functions to be performed in order to achieve a purpose. On top of this level we talk of the methods or techniques or solutions selected to perform the function. The challenge is thus to link the explicit intentionality within the major logic path to represent the way we want reality to work. If we also see intentionality as a product of investigation and the way humans construct explanation such a move would bring VE closer to high technologies. It is because the intentionality must not inhibit the search for alternative solutions that functions in the major logic path should comprise an active verb operating on an abstract noun as is common practice in VE. For example, if the function "move chair" was in the major logic path it would fail because; 1. It has a specific noun 2. It does not convey the underlying intentionality 3. As it can be perceived in the everyday world it is a process or solution to some underlying intention. The value of function in an artefact can be explained by our purposes, goals and technologies, because the successful artefact must always serve some good of ours in a better way than alternatives (Woodhead, & Downs, 2001). Additional value is achieved when the parts of an artefact not only carry out their respective functions, but other functions if something about the object and the system it's in changes (e.g. a chair is used to prop open a door). Artifacts are generally the result of a selection process; intentional design of an agent with forethought. They are idiosyncratic functions. The different aspects of the cognitive apparatus (intentionality) could have different purposes; different parts or aspects of a design plan, and could be aimed at different ends or goals. Line Number Source of Truth (From line number) Propositions that form an argument 1 1 The first premise is that there exists a set of conditions that we are considering. 2 2 The second premise is that there exists a set of Rules by that we are considering as a means to characterise the conditions 3 1 &2 The third premise is that there are instances when there are both the conditions and rules are logically united 4 1,2 &3 Every scientifically valid explanation is such that if conditions and rules coincide then it is a valid scientific explanation 5 5 There is a purpose in the world of intentions 6 6 There is a function to be performed in the world of intentions 7 5,6 In order to achieve the purpose the function must be performed 8 8 Value is achieved when a purpose is performed in the real world 9 1 to 8 Every form of value is such that if the relevant purpose is achieved by performing the relevant function and every scientifically valid explanation is such that if conditions and rules coincide then it is a valid scientific explanation Table 2: Combining intention, design and science. WEI ITTMIN 0R LD

16 Agents' intentionality is determined within etiological structures (external condition and physical structure) or developmental constrains in which they are embedded. It's an explained account of what it is to do something intentionally. Intentional action is purposive action, and purposes can originate either inside or outside of a specific agent's will. Intentional facts may become social facts by collective intentionality. It can be stated as shown at Table 2. Conclusion A teleological function is that which needs to be done in order to achieve a purpose. In other words, what an object brings about in a system needs to serve its purposes and goals of the system in order to be a "teleological function". To optimise at the detailed level only may undermine value at the purpose level and how the teleological functional theory has been selected from the intentional design of an agent (manufacturer). The challenge in FAST is thus to link the intentionality, made explicit, within the major logic path. If we see intentionality as a product of investigation and the way humans construct explanation then the intentionality must not inhibit the search for alternative solutions that functions in the major logic path enable management planning to co-ordinate other theories of function such as etiological perspectives. The reason such articulation is needed is to enable the use of Classic FAST to be taken into High Technology projects that require greater alignment of engineering know how and scientific knowledge. References Achinstein, P. (1977), What is an Explanation, American Philosophical Quarterly 4: 1-15 Godfrey-Smith, Peter (1993), "Function: Consensus Without Unity", Pacific Philosophical Quarter 74: Heidegger, Martin (1926), "Being and Time", trans., John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson, New York: Harper & Row. Kaufman, J. (1998), "Value management: Creating Competitive Advantage", Crisp Publication Inc. Mahner, M and Bunge, Mario (2001), "Function and Functionalism: A Synthetic Perspective", Philosophy of Science 68: Preston, B. (1998),"Why is A Wing Like A Spoon? A Pluralist Theory of Function", Journal of Philosophy 95: Simon, H.A. (1997), "Models of Bounded Rationality", (Vol. 3), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Woodhead, R.M. & Berawi, M.A. (2004), "The If-Then modelling relationship of causal functions and their effect on Intentionality". Value World. SAVE International. Fall. Woodhead, R.M. & Downs, C.G. (2001), "Value Management: Improving Capabilities", London: Thomas Telford. Woodhead, R.M. and McCuish, J. (2002), "Achieving Results: How to Create Value", London: Thomas Telford Mohammed Ali Berawiat, B.Eng (Ina), MEng.Sc (Mal), MIEI, MISCMP, is based within the Department of Real Estate and Construction Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom, where is studying for a doctoral degree. Roy Woodhead, BsC, HONS, PhD, CVS, is in the Department of Technology Management and VE at Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom.. ITFIW OR LD The Value Society SAV E International Give Yourself the SAVE Advantage The best and most convenient way to learn the techniques of the Value Methodology and their application and to contribute to the growth and development of value technology is as a member of SAVE International. Apply for SAVE membership on line, download a printable application, or get more information about SAVE membership benefits at The Value Society SAVE International 136 South Keowee Street Dayton, OH 45402, U.S.A (FAX) info@value-eng.org Volume 28, Number 2, Fall

17 The If-Then Modelling Relationship of Causal Function and Their Conditioning Effect on Intentionality Abstract This paper compliments another paper by the same authors within this edition of Value World that explains teleological functions in the HOW-WHY major logic path of Classic FAST (Berawi & Woodhead, 2004). The focus of this paper is on the vertical arrangement of functions in the WHEN direction. The reason such articulation is needed is to enable the use of Classic FAST to be taken into High Technology projects that require greater alignment of engineering and scientific knowledge. The paper examines the use of WHEN in the Classic FAST and argues that it is inappropriate as it implies both causality and time-sequence. As such it leads to a level of ambiguity that undermines the value Classic FAST can provide to scientists and engineers working in High Technology. The failure to make the difference between functions in the HOW- WHY and the WHEN logic explicit, leads to inconsistency with respect to intentional-functions, causal-functions, co-incidentalfunctions, processes and activities. Whilst this ambiguity may be of little concern to those that see FAST as simply a means to stimulate ideas, it is an impediment to the role Value Engineering can play in High Technology such as drug development. This paper views the HOW-WHY logic as purposive and as such it is teleological and intentional. However, the focus of this paper is on the etiological functions that are found in the context of causal relationships and so represent a way in which scientists can become involved in the development of the way functions in nature can be used to support the intentionality of engineers. Just as unprotected steel can be used to form a roof in a wet climate, it will rust because of the etiological functions related to the causal account of oxidisation. The paper concludes that 'WHEN' should be replaced in a new version of Classic FAST with the logical operand "IF-THEN." Keywords: Function, Etiology, Causal Contributions, Classic FAST, Value Engineering, When, How-Why. Introduction This paper is part of a continuing theme that seeks to develop greater use of Function Analysis (Miles, 1972) in the context of science (Paley, 1999). Let us begin by introducing two very old words that may be new to many VE practitioners. The first one comes from Aristotle and is a word used to convey the 'joined up' consideration of a functioning system that has a purpose and operates within goals in a means-ends type of 'being.' The word is "Teleology" and is used in this paper in the intentional sense a designer would think about doing X to achieve Y in order to get Z. The second word, still common in some healthcare contexts, is "Etiology" (See also Aetiology) which refers to the causal history Mohammed Ali Berawi, Dr Roy Woodhead of how an effect today has been arrived at. So, that someone's poor spectacles led to even worse eyesight would be a causal account of an etiological type within this paper. Rather than explaining what Classic FAST is so as to enable newcomers to engage with our paper we must concede to brevity and ask that they become familiar with Classic FAST and the difference between this approach and others commonly used in VE practice (See Kaufman, 1990; Woodhead & Downs, 2001, Woodhead & McCuish, 2002 for examples of Classic FAST; see Fowler, 1990 for examples of Customer FAST; see Snodgrass& Kasi, 1986 for examples of Technical, Task and Customer FAST; see Miles, 1972 for example of Function Analysis) This paper is aimed at experienced VE practitioners wanting to use new forms of VE in Knowledge Industries and high-tech firms in such industries. It sets out to explore and expose ambiguity practiced in the identification, naming and representing of functions in the WHEN direction of a Classic FAST diagram. It will argue the case for another approach to modelling functions in the WHEN direction by replacing that operand with "IF-THEN." As VE is often seen as a 'project improvement toolkit,' one amongst several competing methodologies, many VE practitioners are forced into a 'do it quickly' culture by clients wanting to minimise the cost of consultancy fees in relation to project budgets. This undermining cycle of trying to 'perform' VE more and more quickly runs contrary to our aim where we seek to increase the truth-value of a functioning representation to help scientists, engineers, business managers and investors gain reliable and penetrative insights that feed breakthrough innovation. A few days spent saving several years, as we check our claim that the function of a 'thing' is really the thing's function, seems a worthwhile investment in the context of Research and Development (R&D) projects. Our vision for new approaches growing out of VE is radically different to the interventionist attitudes of 'get in quick, get done quick, get out quick, get paid quick' forced by task oriented Project Management cultures where getting a deliverable 'on time, in spec, under budget' takes priority over the deliverable's contribution to sustainable growth in 'value-added'. We see VE as offering far more than quick fixes that are often trapped within the project they were applied in, but also accept that's where the main market for VE is today. The key to this new capability is to develop an approach that opens the door for scientists and engineers to collaborate in ways that are not yet common. In this paper we argue for new ways of developing Classic FAST models that lower ambiguity so that R&D such as drug development can enjoy greater levels of systematically realised innovation. We see the major logic path (Kaufman, 1998) as being a way in which managers and engineers set out their intentions. How- 16 Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 MYF1 ITraW 0R LD

18 ever, for such intentions to become reality we must also have a means of linking in non-intentional functionality, such as the function DNA has in triggering certain developments in the growth of a human embryo. Consider the internal combustion engine in which the engineer needs to create turning motion and so takes the expanding properties of ignited petrol as the driving force on a piston and through connecting rods to a rotating crankshaft. The piston, connecting rods and crankshaft are designed to function in such a way that the engineer's intentions are achieved. This means-ends view is achieved by the effect of ignited petrol in the confined space of the cylinder. Petrol does not exist in order to combust at a specific moment in a specific place though. Engineers use spark plugs to cause this effect. Petrol burns because that's what petrol does; it's one of its properties. There is no intentionality within petrol as it is a mindless material; the intentionality is in how we use its properties for our own ends. Diesel engines use the Universal Gas law (Derived from Charles' and Boyle's Laws) and the fact that increasing compression raises temperature to such a point that injected diesel oil combusts in what is known as a "Compression Ignition." Again the practical ingenuity of the engineer borrows understanding made by science. To be able to model our intentions and what we want mindless 'things,' such as petrol or diesel, to do, is to help scientists and engineers to collaborate in new ways. We will argue that the WHEN logic provides a way of combining a science-knowledge to underpin engineering's practical intentionality and in so doing provide a way of seeing FAST models developed from a technology base rather than craft base. It is important that we see the difference in teleological and etiological functions if we are to devise a way of using Classic FAST to help high-tech firms and their R&D projects. One only has to consider the cholera ridden streets of London in the mid 1 800s to understand clearly why functions in the HOW-WHY (Berawi & Woodhead, 2004) must be conditioned by causal functions as suggested by the causal-when direction of Classic FAST today. The initial assumption was that cholera was airborne and so prospective 'airborne' solutions sought to deal with that assumption. If we had built a major logic path under such assumptions we might have suggested a function such as "Clean Air" and whilst conforming to the rules of FAST have modelled worthlessly. Dr Snow deduced cholera was waterborne by studying cases that spread from the use of a particular water pump in Soho; a notion of functioning was drawn from the observation and interpretation of real-world data. The functionality that was actually happening was therefore different to the functionality people thought was happening. Therefore, there are at least two different ways in which we can think of functionality. For Classic FAST to become useful in high-tech situations we need to develop a capability to join actual functional causality to intentional functionality so that our FAST models correspond or reference to an external reality. The HOW-WHY is more about the way an engineer might approach problem solving than say a scientist looking down a microscope to singularly understand how a cell reacts to a hormone with no other motive in mind. The engineer has practical ambitions whilst the scientist has theoretical ambitions. In this paper we want to concentrate on the way a scientist might find usefulness in a Classic FAST model. Let us accept that the horizontal HOW-WHY logic is about linldng purpose with functional intention in what is referred to as a teleological explanation. Let us concentrate on the WHEN relationship in a Classic FAST diagram. Here we might be dealing with co-incidental or accidental functions such as having to cope with the unwanted heat generated by a light inside a projector. Similarly we might be dealing with some requisite function that enables another function on the major logic path to be performed; for example, the relationship between 'Illuminate Bulb' and 'Connect electric supply.' Because common practice uses the functions to stimulate creativity in hurried sessions lasting no more than a day, the imperative is simply to get the secondary functions placed somewhere on the FAST so they can be used to brainstorm. We want to move beyond this view so as to use a FAST not merely as a stimulus for 'haphazard' creativity but as a way to represent a functioning reality in order to build a deep and shared understanding as we believe that to try to improve something without understanding how it works brings a short-term attitude to innovation that may actually be counter productive. Our vision of a more powerful VE is heading towards an approach that searches beneath superficial understanding to explore fundamental problems and opportunities in a developmental, rather than interventionist, use of thinking methodologies'. The Current Use of When The major logic path is about how we want a 'thing' to function and intentionality is justified in terms of 'why.' Kaufman (1998) advocates a process whereby the context for a Classic FAST is established in the Pre-Event. Following this it is common to cite components or equipment and in a process known as "Random Function Determination" to establish their 'stand alone' function; for example, a sieve might be cited as a component and its function determined as "Separate particle sizes." This approach is close to the method set out by Larry Miles in that the search for function is derived from phenomena which are things that exist and can be perceived. That is, to ask the question "What does it do?" requires 'it' to exist in an irrefutable way. In Classic FAST the functions are then laid out on a horizontal major logic path in a means-end logic represented in the HOW- WHY direction. However, there is a subtle change in the style of thinking when we move from asking "What does the object do?" to a logically constructed chain that explains How and Why various actions (i.e. verbs) on things (i.e. nouns) have some coherent interdependence. This is why we see HOW-WHY as being more about intentionality than actual causality; it is also heavily influenced by the mental models (Senge, 1990) of those people that craft the FAST and so their biases and limited knowledge must be dealt with in high-tech applications. The functions in the HOW- WHY are not so much about what real things do 'in of their self' anymore, but what we want them to do to achieve a progression through means-ends methods that operate within goal-orientations and in order to achieve a purpose. ' We wish to acknowledge Andrew Garnett (also known as Alf) a freelance consultant <agarnett.ptc@virgin.net > for his work in articulating the difference between intervention, development and how they can be used to leverage organisational wisdom by asking fundamental questions in a collaborative inquiry. RTF1 ITTMW OR LD Volume 28, Number 2, Fall

19 The Confusions in the Use of When The most common difficulty with the term WHEN is that to many it implies both sequence and time rather than causality. In figure one we have a HOW-WHY major logic path for a compression ignition engine such as a diesel engine2. In this hypothetical example we also have four functions that need to be 'unambiguously' positioned in relation to the HOW-WHY logic path. Under the WREN rule we could place them above or below any function and argue "WHEN we do X we also do Y" and for most VE workshops in time constrained Project Management contexts such an approach is satisfactory as that quickly sets them up for creativity later in the Job Plan (Woodhead & Downs, 2001). In R&D contexts, where we really need to understand functioning more accurately, such an approach would not necessarily force us to develop keener insights into how a system 'actually' works. Transmit Torque How? Rotate Crankshaft Introduce Turning Moment Lower Piston Raise Piston Ignite Fuel Transfer Momentum Where shall we place these functions in the When direction? Introduce Fuel Compress Fuel Move Connecting Rod Expand Fuel Figure 1: Functions in a compression ignition engine Remove Exhaust Gas The distinction between the intentional-teleological world we socially construct and the natural world we exist within becomes mixed and confused as we stick functions anywhere without any guiding rules to force us to think very clearly. In the case of the 1800s cholera epidemic in London, an alternative approach grounded in the culture of scientific investigation, would force us to test our assumptions and in so doing realise our problem was not airborne but waterborne. A function in the WHEN is supposed to be in a causal relationship. In the current approach to WHEN, functions are not related to each other and their position in the vertical can simply be a matter of chance. They are in a relationship with the intentional functions on the HOW-WHY logic path. The Benefits of Clarity If we can become sensitive to the different thinking styles at play as we consider intentionality and causality then we can use both of them to develop representations of 'real' functioning and in ' To aid readers we have used "Rotate Crankshaft" and "Move Connecting Rods" as functions when they are really specific processes. The distinction between functions and processes was discussed within a paper titled "Is Drink Beer a Function" by Woodhead, Kaufman and Berawi in Value World Vol. 27, No 1, Spring 2004 so doing gain insights into how things work. Such an approach would bring a new capability to high-tech industries as they grapple with the cutting edge of what is known. We want to develop FAST models that will allow scientists to model real systems, such as cancerous cells growing in a lung, so as to make the objective knowledge explicit and enable 'informed creativity' to be simulated. The question, "What is a FAST diagram?" is an important one. Practitioners offer explanations as to what it might achieve but few state a theory of what it actually is. For example, we have heard it described as a way of getting "everyone on the same page" in an act of collaborative learning, but such truisms also fail to encourage explanations that distinguish a 'good' FAST from a poor one. To achieve a measure of how good a FAST is we must set out to remove ambiguity. For us, a Classic FAST diagram is a logical representation of reality that aids our ability to diagnose where best to innovate in a complex system. Towards a Consistent Theory of Causal Representation We will now outline a theory for the WHEN direction that is markedly different from the teleological use of function in the HOW- WHY direction. This theory is etiological and it operates at the causal level; Darwin's theory of evolution is an example of an etiological explanation of functional adaptation. Another logical operand that could be swapped for 'WHEN' is `IF-THEN.' The 'IF' refers to a link between the function and if it is performed. The 'THEN' refers to a causal corollary that links the interconnectedness of one function to another. Larry Wright (1973) described functions as having distinctive explanatory consequences. The ascription of a function to a feature explains both its utility and its etiology. He argues that the function of X is Z means: a. X is there because it does Z, and b. Z is a consequence (or result) of X's being there. It is important to distinguish this use of function from that in the major logic path. X is not there ' in order' to Z in some purposive or designed sense; it's simply there and whilst there it coincidently enables Z. The reason the distinction is important is because this is how many scientists use the word function and it is also very close to the word function in mathematics. It's about cause and effect mappings. Furthermore, Wright indicates that it is the nature of the etiology, the history of effects discussed through their causation that determines the validity of a functional explanation. The function of 'X is to do Z' means that X is there because it does Z with no further qualification by explaining how X came to be there; it's just the way it is. There are two aspects we need to elaborate for etiological accounts of functional explanations. First, the object must have the capacity and/or disposition to function under appropriate circumstances; for example, diesel oil must combust under intense compression for it to function in a diesel engine. Second, the history of the object determines which of its capacities/dispositions account for its being there. That diesel oil can be used in other ways, such as a fuel for heaters, because of its 'other' properties, is irrelevant 18 Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 MTF1 ITTMW 0R LD

20 when our practical ingenuity considers what we want to happen inside an engine. The history of why we have traffic lights at highway intersections is causally linked to the history of Henry Ford inventing mass produced cars; one innovation created a problem that begat a further innovation. This is important for it allows us to understand how systems forcing decisions can be seen as etiological and so other traffic flow solutions such as the roundabouts of England and the un-invented external control of a car's speed via microwaves at junctions never emerged from the causal history that gives us traffic lights at intersections in North America. The way we can view Darwin's theory of evolution is also an etiological explanation. Those creatures that lacked the ability to adapt, lacked the functionality to survive and that is why they are no longer with us. The missing ingredient from Darwinian type adaptation is 'choice.' We argue it is 'the ability to choose' that is absent from truly etiological considerations; clouds do not choose to rain they simply play a part in the causal explanation. We could look at explanations of human development and the ability of hands to manipulate, combined with brains that could imagine uses, as examples of etiological functioning; the source of the capability to invent, that is the actual possession of a thinking brain, is etiological but what is done with that functionality is the act of inventing which is a product of choices guided by intentionality; the two are different but inseparable in their co-existence. The first part of Wright's explanation displays the etiological form of functional ascription: a. X is there because it does Z, and The second part distinguishes functional etiological from teleological theories: b. Z is a consequence (or result) of X's being there. Furthermore, part 'a' can be seen as that the function of something has to do with what something does. That is, some performance in which it is involved. This performance can be either active (such as a car's engine to produce torque, or a cigarette lighter to produce a flame, etc) or passive (such as the chair not yet sold being able to support a person sitting on it). The 'passive' functionality may not be in use as in the case of a chair not yet sold, and so this view of function requires a specification of capacities or dispositions to be performed under appropriate circumstances. We must not forget co-incidental or accidental functions when thinking about making the FAST more useful to scientists. Whilst the beating of a heart is about blood circulation the co-incidental fact that it makes a noise is used in a scientific way to judge the health of the heart inside a person (Mahner & Bunge, 2001). We must be sure not to confuse proper functions with co-incidental ones. We must avoid being distracted from the proper function which for Miles flows from his view of the customer determining value. Thus, the engine in a car has function, not because it makes a noise, but because it produces torque, which allowed it to power motion. That petrol ignites and 'unknowingly' expands to push a piston down in an internal combustion engine is not driven by intentionality (i.e. teleological function) but by causality (i.e. etiological function) brought about through the conditions created by the engineer with an intentional ambition. We see this as a need to distinguish etiological from teleological explanations and that the logic of the HOW-WHY is markedly different to that used in the causal sense of WHEN. This distinction establishes the basis to achieve a combination of functional explanation types in the act of modelling Classic FAST. From an etiological perspective functional explanations help us to understand causal mechanisms. Combined with the HOW-WHY the role they play also directs our engineering creativity when considering which materials to use, or chemicals to suppress, etc. When Miles began with retrospective Value Analysis and the identification of a function for a part that already existed he was conceiving function in this etiological sense. His analysis was connecting function ascriptions to performances that account for why the thing existed in the first place. Replacing WHEN The term WHEN is inappropriate because the temporal-causal ambiguity misleads. What we are trying to talk about are etiological relationships that have as their purpose a function on the HOW- WHY major logic path. The purpose is that which we give to some 'usefulness' we see in nature that can be adapted for our benefit; such is practical intelligence. That is, in order to achieve the intentionality within the HOW-WHY major logic path we are conditioned by our often inadequate ability to control etiological functions because of ignorance; for example, the school boy's puzzlement that given hydrogen mixed with oxygen combusts, why can't the fresh water (H 20) of Lake Ontario be burned? This realization of different types of functional explanation provides an explicit means to combine how engineers think with the way scientists think. For this reason we argue WHEN should be replaced by `IF-THEN' so that the ambiguity is reduced. The positioning of causal functions is now logically coherent in terms of relationships between other causal functions and other intentional functions. Transmit Torque How? Rotate Crankshaft Introduce Turning Move Connecting Rod Lower Piston Raise Piston Remove Exhaust Gas Introduce Fuel Compress Fuel Compress Fuel Ignite Fuel Expand Fuel Transfer Momentum Figure 2: Functions in a compression ignition engine Causal Continuation WEI ITZW OR LD Volume 28, Number 2, Fall

21 Figure two shows how the problem of figure one is unambiguously addressed. The previously unattached functions have a logical place on the Classic FAST model that can be refuted on the basis of how a 'thing' really functions as opposed to how we 'think' it functions. Furthermore we can link causal continuations and see that to get rid of such functions we must look to the left of them and realize that the function "Move Connecting Rod" (see footnote 2) in order to "Introduce Turning Moments" is the focus of innovation that would lead us to consider alternative functioning-causality such as that embedded within an electric motor. Conclusion Clients in Project Management contexts play a critical role in limiting the capability of VE but may not realise it because they are uninformed. In attempts to lower consultancy budgets clients place time constraints on the act of FAST and so practitioners use their ingenuity to try and give the best they can under those 'limiting' conditions. In the case of Research and Development contexts the time constraints must be seen in terms of 'days saving years' with the aim to produce insights that lead to significant innovations and new products. The goal of breakthrough innovations requires an approach to VE that seeks the best possible outcomes for each stage of the Job Plan regardless of how long it takes. The justification for such an approach is that the methodological structure underpinning VE will lead to significant reductions in development time. To get outstanding ideas we need accurate representations of how things really work. This requires us to model intentions such as strategy and then to condition such ambitions with causal realities; we must combine teleological and etiological functions in our Classic FAST models. This cannot be done adequately with the "WHEN" rule and so this paper concludes that for R&D projects additional time is needed to build clearer understanding of functionality using the logical operand "IF-THEN." This paper makes the case for a new mode of engaging the underpinning truths upon which VE is founded; all things function whether that be intentional or etiological functioning. References Cottingham, J. (ed), (1996) Western Philosophy: An Anthology, Oxford: Blackwell Publisher. Fowler, T.C. (1990) Value Analysis in Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Kaufman, J. J. (1998) Value Management, Creating Competitive Advantage, USA: Crisp Management Library. Kaufman, J.J. (1990) Value Engineering for the Practitioner, USA: North Carolina State University. Mahner, M. & Bunge. M. (2001) "Function and Functionalism: A Synthetic Perspective", Journal of Philosophy of Science. Vol 68, No 1, pp Miles, L. D. (1972) Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering. 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York. Paley, A.I. (1999) "The Case for Function Science". Proceedings of the 39th Annual SAVE International Conference Proceedings. San Antonio, Texas, USA. Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organisation. London: Century Business. pp Snodgrass, T. J. and M. Kasi (1986). "FunctionAnalysis: The Stepping Stones to Good Value", University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin. Woodhead, R.M. and Downs, C.G. (2001) Value Management: Improving Capabilities, London: Thomas Telford Publisher. Woodhead, R.M. and McCuish, J. (2002) Achieving Results: How to Create Value, London: Thomas Telford. Woodhead, R.M. and Berawi, M.A. (2004) "How-Why logic paths and Intentionality". Value World. SAVE International. Fall. Wright, Larry (1973) "Functions", Philosophical Review: Mohammed Ali Berawiat, B.Eng (Ma), M.Eng.Sc (Mal), MIEI, MISCMP is based within the Department of Real Estate and Construction Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom, where is studying for a doctoral degree. Roy Woodhead, BsC, HONS, PhD, CVS, is in the Department of Technology Management and VE at Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom.. Reader comments are welcome Are you interested in what you're reading in this issue of Value World? Do you have any reactions to these papers, opinions or other experiences that you think the value community would be interested in? If so, then please consider sharing your thoughts with the editor and other readers of Value World. See page 28 of this issue for information and guidance on how to do this, or visit the journal section of the SAVE web site at catalog_valueworld.php or send to the editor at derek.thomson@gcal.ac.uk. 20 Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 WEI rriw 0RLD

22 ItIpPefilw Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 MITALM e,.

23 VA Tear-Down: A New Value Analysis Process Yoshihiko Sato, CVS, FSAVE;.1 Jeny Kaufman, CVS, FSAVE Abstract Dissecting a competitive product to determine what makes it "tick," and why it is enjoying high sales, is not a new process. Many hard goods manufacturers conduct some form of "Tear-Down" as a way to compare performance, features, and attributes in their attempt to protect, or improve their competitive position. VA Tear-Down combines the Value Analysis methodology with the Tear-Down process to produce a systematic, structured way to dissect, analyze, and determine innovative ways to excel in the market place. This paper describes the sequence and steps that make VA Tear- Down a new and effective way to perform new product development and product improvement, focusing on the customer's sense of value. Introduction In "Wheels," a novel about developing and manufacturing automobiles, Arthur Hailey refers to a room where competitive products were disassembled, dissected, and evaluated against the manufacturer's product offering. U.S. automakers were using a form of product dissection and analysis long before VA Tear-Down was developed as a value analysis process to stimulate ideas for product improvement. The method learned from General Motors, described in this paper, is similar to the process described in "Wheels." In that GM demonstration, the lesson learned was that there is a systematic way to disassemble and compare competitors' products, production processes to determine "best value." GM-type methods were being used in the daily operations of many manufacturing companies, with slight variations between companies and products. One popular process rooted in the method is "reverse engineering" which reverses the product development process. Reverse engineering starts with a competitive product's performance, dissects the product to relate the components' contributions to product performance and in this way works back into the conceptual phase of the product's development. However, the methods used by automakers and consumer appliances manufacturers in the U.S., Germany, England, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan was little more than disassembly, inspection, and simplistic comparative analysis. The process described in this paper is far beyond these methods. Definition VA Tear-Down is a method of comparative analysis in which disassembled products, systems, components and data are visually compared, and their functions determined, analyzed and evaluated, to improve the value adding characteristics of the project under study. Descriptions of the definition elements are: Comparative Analysis - comparing two, or more elements of a product, or system having the same function. Product - The end item sold to the market being served. System An active part of a product consisting of multiple components. Component A single part or multiple pieces forming a single replaceable part. Data Elements of information that when combined form the basis for analysis. Function - A function is a description of an intended action upon a defined object necessary to achieve a desired purpose. Although this definition may appear simple, it incorporates the powers of observation, deduction, and a broad range of value analysis techniques. This new approach separates VA Tear-Down from the simple disassembly and comparison techniques of conventional teardown. The VA Tear-Down method provides a means to do much more then compare what has been physically disassembled. Using value analysis techniques helps user's, understand problems and uncover improvement opportunities in a systematic, analytical way. Many engineers initially regarded the teardown process as a simple disassembly and inspection process. But VA Tear-Down also proved an effective way of performing reverse engineering, new product development, model additions and modifications, and competitive analysis studies. The term "disassembled" in the above definition means dissecting the project being studied and scrutinizing the details of a product or process focusing on their function contribution. The "data" includes the analysis of the processes that produced the components in addition to the data obtained as a result of analyzing the components. The word "visually" in this definition stresses the need to compare a variety of alternate components that perform essentially the same valued function and verify the selections. There are some differences even in identical twins. Even the human face is not symmetrical comparing its right and left sides. When shopping for an item, two products performing the same function may look similar, but if other companies produce the product there are many subtle differences. By scrutinizing such differences and analyzing the advantages and disadvantage of each feature, or attribute, we can conceivably come up with a synergistic product that is better than the two being compared. In the VA Tear- Down process, users determine the product's function advantages, the cost to perform those functions, and whether the features, or attributes, contribute to the value of the product as determined in the market place. In addition to benchmarking whatever advantages there are in the products being compared, the objective of VA Tear-Down is to stimulate new ideas for function improvement and cost reduction. Human nature does not easily translate written information or 22 Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 avr1 IITTMIN OR LD

24 knowledge into specific ideas. Examining an actual product brings all senses into play. What one sees, feels, hears, or otherwise perceives stimulates one's thought to create new and better ideas through the methods of VA Tear-Down. From Concept to Application The contributions made by Value Analysis were to focus on the function of the product and its components under study. Value Analysis is the study of functions and their relationship to other dependent functions. A physical part being studied in teardown is the result of some designer's concept of the way a function, or group of functions, should be implemented. Value analysis differs from other cost improvement initiatives by questioning, defining, and analyzing the functions of components, rather then determining how a "part" could be made better, or cheaper. Understanding the function being served by the component can significantly alter the component's geometry, integrate its function with other components, or eliminate the need for the function and its part. The Thinking Process VA Tear-Down combines the traditional "dissect and analyze" methods with Value Analysis to stimulate the search for new and better ideas. The thinking process starts with the stimulus of the language signal. When you read this paper, your imagination or thinking function is focused on the written text and illustrations. You are not (or should not be) thinking about politics or sports, which are topics not related to the subject of this paper. Because no outside language signals are triggered that relate to politics or sports, the reader maintains focus on the subject. However, the moment you see these words, some readers may think of a recent political event, or of their favorite professional baseball player. This is also the result of the language signal at work. Some triggers in VA Tear-Down that stimulate language signals are: 1. Comparative method Compare the description and illustrations of like products for the purpose of selecting the best features. 2. Actual products, data Physically dissect competing products and evaluate their component characteristics. 3. Choose & combine advantages Same as 2, above, but using the comparative analysis to create a new option 4. Actual products, data Functions Same as 2 and 3, above, except determining the functions of the components, selecting the best functions, then compare competitive approaches that best achieve the desired functions. This step combines Value Analysis with conventional dissection practices, and is key to the VA Tear-Down process. As mentioned earlier, the VA Tear-Down method is a comparative analysis process in which ideas are created by analyzing competing products. The spring of ideas, that is, analyzing the competitor's products used in the comparison creates the origin of language signals. This is a form of imitation and creation technol- ogy. Referring to the diagram in Figure 1, there are four containers, which are used for different purposes, but they have common functions of "storing liquid," "pouring liquid," and "carrying liquid." In addition, some have the features of spraying water or keeping water temperature constant. In value analysis, this is referred to as "function definition," but the attributes and the shapes that enable each pitcher to achieve its objectives are not the same. An Example of VA Tear-Down There are two basic approaches used in the comparative analysis process. The first is to look at the products, compare, and select. For example, the differences in pitcher handles were each designed to suit a particular need. In this simple, imitation-type thinking, we would select the shape that best suits our purpose. The second VA Tear-Down approach is to let the sight of the containers turn itself into the language signals that helps us select and regroup information and ideas from our memory. This is a research-type thinking process stimulated by imitation. The result is a newly configured handle, different from those being analyzed. COMPARATIVE METHOD Figure 1 Actual Products Choose & combine advantages er Actual products Data, Functions The handle of the improved pitcher shown in Figure 1 is the product of many ideas prompted by the language signals that were sent out by the handle of the earthen teapot. The ideas include those concerning materials, manufacturing processes, surface treatment, etc. There is, however, a limit to what one person can think of simply because creative thought is limited to what is stored in the one's mind. No one can trigger memories that have not been experienced. This is the reason why multi-functional teams are used in VA Tear-Down projects. Simply stated, "Two heads are better than one." The practice of VA Tear-Down begins with simple imitation. As confidence and proficiency in the process develops, more creative approaches and innovative solutions emerge as a result of triggering more language signals. Value Analysis' Contribution to the Teardown Process Value Analysis was formally created in 1945 by Mr. L. D. Miles at General Electric and was introduced into Japan in It has been widely used in the U.S. and other countries including Japan as a method for cost reduction and product improvement through function analysis. In the mid 1950's Japan's consumer products manufacturers made dramatic progress gaining market share from their global Irn T raw ORLD Volume 28, Number 2, Fall

25 competitors in some targeted fields. Major credit for this success is attributed to Japan's dedicated use of these product and process control techniques. In Japan, these three initially different techniques have merged with Japan's work ethics and grown into a comprehensive technology that has enabled Japan to effectively compete and win market share over U.S. and European companies in many markets offering functionally responsive, cost effective, quality products and services to an informed market. In a SAVE International Conference in the U.S. a speaker observed, "Japan has taken Miles and Deming (the founder of QC) away from the United States." Many initiatives have branched out of Miles' original value analysis concepts. Among these initiatives are quality function deployment (QFD), failure tree analysis (FTA), and failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA). Value Analysis and Value Engineering are now among the most widely used methods in Japan for controlling and directing technology. The primary emphasis of value engineering is on understanding, identifying, and classifying product related functions. Once defined, the creative value engineering steps encourage a broad search for ideas to implement those functions and produce innovative products. In today's market, it is essential that our products have some differences in the way functions are implemented, and cost to produce, to separate us from our competitors and attract the attention of potential customers. While it is taken for granted that our products have functions that our customers are willing to pay for, the proliferation of product offerings and model options have made determining what functions and features the customer wants a difficult marketing search. What functions in products, systems, or processes would raise the value adding perception of our customers, including aftermarket systems and services? In short, how can we improve FUNCTION and reduce COST in the value equation? In figure 2 above, increasing functions to improve value im- Figure 2 2nd Look Product Improvement 1st Look Punetton CREATIVITY New Product plies that the market is willing to pay for those function improvements, or additions. Value can also be improved by reducing cost and functions, but the VA Tear-Down study team must be assured that those functions being reduced, or eliminated are not "customer sensitive." If not careful, the team could remove those functions that made the product successful. Value Analysis and Value Engineering As we saw in its definition, the VA Tear-Down method is rooted in value analysis and value engineering. How, then, are they different? See Figure 3. RESEARCH TYPE: Competing products provide creativity clues IMMITATION TYPE: Compare and select Figure 3 > 2ndLlook VE: Borrow from existing products to create new products. -- 1st Look VE: Create using identified needed features Look VE: Create by identifying needed and wanted function and features -- Tea r Down : Comparing competing products stimulates innovative ideas BCI (Mona Lesa Method): Determine best in class. Benchmark features VM Method: Convert study elements into modules. Then combine and select best module Day CR Method: Analysis by multi-disciplined team seeking "complete" solutions. -- Kg unit-cost Method: Compare and analyze against defined parameters. In Japan, value engineering is divided into 2 phases: secondlook VE and first-look VE (sometimes called zero-look VE). In second-look VE, often referred to as value analysis, the product exists. Functions are defined on the basis of actual, existing goods or systems, while in first-look VE the product is in the concept stage of development. Functions are defined through market analysis before the product is designed or manufactured, that is, in the product development planning stage where user needs are analyzed. In both approaches the process starts with the analysis of functions. Defining the functions is a process characteristic of both value analysis and value engineering methods. Second look Value Engineering (VA) it is a process where the components of an existing system or product are "blasted" into pieces, which are then translated into the more abstract concept of functions. Determining the use of the individual parts and how they contribute to the system are translated into verbal descriptions (language signals) that define the functions of the parts. Since the creative process focuses on unique ways of performing functions, rather then focusing on the actual product, or it's components, our minds are encouraged to stretch our imagination in searching for new approaches. Thus value engineering is a research-type thinking process. Conventional teardown methods do not define functions. Competing products are visually compared to find their features and advantages. The first step is to find differences, and then take advantage of the best approach by incorporating it into our own products. Conventional teardown triggers the language signals by observing the physical product or data, while value engineering triggers language signals by identifying the functions performed by the components under study, or "blasting" the product into basic function terms. The VA Tear-Down process is equally effective applied to "First Look" Value Engineering. Once a needed function is identified in the development phase, many concepts can be evaluated to find the best way of performing those functions. Conventional teardown method needs the physical product to dissect. VA Tear-Down starts from "Blast", goes to "Create" and then to "Refine." Conventional teardown has no "Blast" (the analysis of function) step. VA Tear-Down begins with function determination. 24 Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 IMYF1 IT raw OR LD

26 VA Tear-Down and Improvement/Innovation We are always improving existing things products, processes, systems, etc. and creating new things. A company dies when these activities stop. Companies must continuously improve and innovate to maintain market position. How are these two concepts different? Improvement means modifying existing things to achieve incremental enhancements. Small, but continuous improvements, piled one on top of another, are essential to the business success of any corporation. As a Japanese proverb says, "Little and often make a leap in time." Irmovation means making major change in concept and configuration. VA Tear-Down produces both improvements and innovations. Improvement and innovation cause different degrees of change. With this distinction, VE is innovation focused, while VA is more intended for improvement. Taking the best parts of both processes, the VA Tear-Down method integrates Value Analysis and the principles of Value Engineering with the creative stimuli it produces. The synergistic effect is the emergence of a powerful technique for product and process improvement and innovation. In this technology accelerating, competition-oriented society, improvement alone cannot provide the strategic advantage to win over competitors. Some level of innovation is also needed to gain strategic advantage. The VA Tear-Down method described in this paper, producing both improvements and innovations, can help achieve a high level of success, with a minimum of investment and risk. The investment in capital and time in VA Tear-Down activities is significantly less then traditional applied research and development activities addressing the same business improvement objec- tives. The VA Tear-Down Method and its Components Conventional teardown comparative methods were limited to displaying what is to be evaluated and letting the viewer's imagination and experience find differences. Lacking a systematic, structured approach, ideas were randomly produced without a focused objective or an organized way of processing them. Today's procedures, developed from past experiences and the incorporation of the VA/VE discipline, comprise a systematic way of comparison and analysis. Any product includes a variety of factors measured in terms of cost or time. Some of those factors are: materials, construction, assembly, test methods, and those investment expenses classified as fixed and capital cost. The VA Tear-Down process focuses on each of those factors, comparing and analyzing them in search of problems or opportunities. Then the process sets about improving each item that has surfaced in the course of the analysis The VA Tear-Down process makes it possible to concentrate on a particular area and objective called a "theme," or an issue of concern. Since a great number of ideas develop in the course of analysis, the analysis process can be directed to meet specific objectives, or themes, such as; cost reduction, process reduction, commonality, introducing new functions, improving existing functions, etc. Suggestions for proposed solutions can also be collected and directed to a specific theme. VA Tear-Down Applied to Product Manufacturing The purpose of the VA Tear-Down process is to analyze and understand the competitive advantages of our, and competing products. The process also allows the products being dissected and analyzed to be benchmarked and to create product improvement goals. As a creative stimulus, the process encourages developing new ideas that will improve functions, features, and attributes of products in direct competition to a targeted competitor. The products are then displayed (static) and used for information sharing and networking with everyone concerned, including the top management, joint ventures and major systems suppliers. Using the static displays to reinforce the business case presentations adds credibility and interest to the request for new, or major product improvement investments. The following discusses the effect of VA Tear-Down on manufacturing, specifically for producing component parts, assembly, and test of consumer products. Analysis Validating and implementing the ideas collected through the VA Tear-Down process on existing products can produce some immediate, direct improvements such as, lower material and direct labor cost, or improved functions. Product improvement ideas that cannot be immediately implemented are recorded and set aside for future use. Such ideas are stored in a "Product Improvement Library," or a product development idea bank. This database, properly used, can reduce product development lead-time and capital investments, as well as the unit cost. The ideas are also used to build business cases and justify the need for acquiring new capital equipment and advance manufacturing technology. Setting Targets The VA Teardown process can be used to focus on which parts need to be improved, and to what extent and in what sequence to achieve a competitive edge. This information is used to establish cost and performance function targets for product improvement. It isn't necessary to target every component in a product. Using Pereto's maldistribution rule, approximately 80 percent of a product's cost resides in 20 percent of its components. Identifying and addressing the 20 percent of the components makes the target cost program more manageable to plan necessary actions and establish priorities for such actions. Setting product improvement targets on the basis of an understanding of customer needs and wants, competitive pressures, and business objectives is more credible, and generates more enthusiasm then those targets established through some abstract financial business planning processes. Display By presenting the results of various analyses in an easy-to-understand physical display, concerned team members can use all of their senses to easily recognize the competitive features or disadvantage as well as scope the problems that are inherent in their products. Thus, everyone participating in the VA Tear-Down activities can share their information about their individual concerns, ideas, and constraints and agree to a corrective course of action. taw 1174W 0R LD Volume 28, Number 2, Fall

27 Such actions will affect everyone involved including design, development, production and business management. Recognizing Parts Suppliers' Competitive Capability Few companies today design, produce, and assemble all of their product systems and components. It is a common practice that assemblers and parts suppliers cooperate to make a final product. As the Japanese yen appreciated and Asian manufacturers caught up with Japanese counterparts in product quality and functions, it became no longer necessary to restrict parts souring to a limited number of qualified domestic suppliers. Limiting supply sources could significantly detract from competitive cost and price advantage. Determining the competitive capability of a finished product, function and quality advantages can be easily determined, but analyzing a competitor's manufacturing costs are much more difficult. Knowing the competitor's price does not give a clue to his product cost, unless his price strategy, discount policies, internal accounting structure, and level of manufacturing technology are known. The VA Tear-Down display makes it easier to determine what the competitor's product "should cost" by applying reverse engineering techniques to the dissected model. Such analysis will uncover information about the competitor's processes, assembly, materials, labor hours, capital equipment, and many other manufacturing details. VA Tear-Down is also used to evaluate parts supplier candidates. Through the VA Tear-Down process a supplier's development and technological capabilities and their competitive advantage contributions can be evaluated. Based on this evaluation, supplier selection as well as potential future partners can be decided. Information retrieved in support of such decisions includes current suppler capabilities, short falls, and investments needed to make those suppliers better partners. Collecting New Suggestions for Improvement A company's technical staff normally performs VA Tear-Down analysis. However, this dramatic visual aid is used as a stimulus for other interested people. Those outside the product development loop, having different paradigms, offer fresh, good ideas that have been conceived from a different perspective. What would a plastics expert, or other material and process specialists, think when looking at a machined part? Entirely new ideas, not only about material but also manufacturing procedures, may emerge. Encouraging such spontaneous comments is accomplished by creating an open access display room in the procurement lobby to be viewed by suppliers and others waiting to meet with buyers. Supplier ideas are encouraged and collected by the technical staff and evaluated at a later date. End product producers, who are at the front end of competition, place their name and reputation at risk for liability related problems arising from the use of their products. Those who are most directly involved with mitigating liability risk represent the most enthusiastic users of the VA Tear-Down process. In Japan, consumer goods manufacturers such as automobiles and home electronic appliances have embraced and integrated VA Tear-Down as part of their operating culture. But the use of VA Tear-Down in parts manufacturing still lacks total acceptance and endorsement. Most product producers outsource their components manufacture to focus on assembly and test. They are turning more of the parts manufacture to more cost effective supplier experts. This has encouraged the global growth of component manufacturers, which has increased the competitive pressures among those producers. That competition may even be sharper than that among end product producers. The VA Tear-Down method offers the same advantages to parts manufactures as it does to end product producers. Conclusion The VA Tear-Down process offers the same advantages in cost reduction and function improvements to parts manufacturers as to end product producers. In addition, the process can be used by part manufactures as a marketing and sales tool, by displaying how their parts can be integrated into the assembled product to improve cost and functionality. There are few opportunities for component manufacturers to demonstrate their parts development capabilities. The VA Tear- Down display can be used to allow their end product customers to use all the senses to visualize and physically examine existing parts and those under development. Such a sales aid not only strengthens ties with current customers, but also is an excellent marketing tool for attracting new customers. A number of business cases collected over the last 15 years attest to the success of such practices using VA Tear-Down. Yoshihiko Sato, CVS, FSAVE, is president of the Value & Profit Management Technical Institute, Inc., Sagamihara, Japan, and Associate Director of the Society of Japanese Value Engineering (SJVE). J. Jerry Kaufman, CVS, FSAVE, is president of J. J. Kaufman Associates, Inc., a Value Management services company. 26 Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 WE11TIMW 0RLD

28 SAVE International Individual Membership Application Join SAVE International Complete the application form below and mail it, with payment by check or credit card, to SAVE International, 136 South Keowee Street, Dayton, OH 45402, USA; or FAX to You can also apply on line at where you will also Membership Application Name Title Company or Organization Address City State Postal Code Country Phone Fax Preferred Chapter Affiliation (If no preference is indicated, each applicant will be assigned to a chapter.) Sponsor's Name (if applicable) Type of Organization O Government 0 Private Industry O Consultant O Other: Paid By O Check/Money Order O VISA American Express O MasterCard Card Number Exp. Date SignatUre I am applying for membership in SAVE International as: a Individual Member in Canada, Mexico, or the United States ($125) IJ International Member outside North America ($175) Student Member (Free for qualified individuals. Contact SAVE for details.) SAVE International dues for members outside North America include postage for airmail and special handling of SAVE materials. Dues, contributions, or gifts to SAVE International are not deductible as charitable contributions under U.S. TFIRTF4V1/ 0RLD Volume 28, Number 2, Fall

29 Journal Announcement Value World aims to become a premier journal for discussion of value theory and practice in the manufacturing and service sectors. It is published by SAVE International ( ). Aim Value World aims to provide an international forum for the interchange of insights into the generation, development, testing, and implementation of ideas that lead to the recognition of value by all. Ideas are ways in which organisations, projects, products and services can be improved. The exploration of relationships between value, types of value, theoretical knowledge, practical knowledge, management theories around innovation and technology management, functionality, the relationships between society, organisations, projects, products and services and all the cumulative effects that contribute to human progress lie at the heart of this journal. Scope An indicative scope of the types of papers welcomed is: Philosophy and theor} of value, function, technolog} and innovation. Discussion and exploration of new theory and knowledge regarding the management and delivery of increased value through functionality, technology and innovation Value Methodology which includes, amongst other elements, the following: value methodology, value engineering, v alue analysis, value assurance, value tracking, value research. Industrial and service organisation, product and process design and performance improvement. 'Empiricist' advances in the understanding of value derived from analysis of experimental data. 'Rational' development of insights from first principles to reasoned outcomes which are logically reliable. `Non-Rational' development of theories drawn out of post modernist paradigms. 'Phenomenological' investigations of function and technological innovation. 'Realist' perspectives drawn from coherent and reliable explanation building. Historical review and commentary on works addressing the issue of value, function, technology and innovation. Case studies drawn from practice reporting insights and lessons regarding the merits of various techniques in relation to the underlying principles of the Value Methodology and the group decision making issues practitioners face in consulting episodes. Journal Values Value World has been created to stimulate the emergence of a community of knowledge regarding value. Accordingly, its values are: 1. Nurturing: Nurturing the next generation of value researchers and practitioners 2. Encouraging: Dialogue rather than dogma. 3. Advancing: Laying the ground for future value communication. 4. Supporting: Helping individual authors to play a positive role. 5. Being Honest: Being open and fair to all points of view. 6. Being Objective: Seeking irrefutable positions rather than the promotion of preferred opinions. 7. Sharing: Involving, broadening and including readers in the subject of Value derived from the consideration ot functionality. Enquiries For more information on submission requirements and guidelines, please check out the Value World website at ww w.value-eng.org/catalog_valueworld.php. Or call the SAVE International business office at (937) Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2005 krraw 0R LD

30 Edi tori a l Poli cy Value World is published by SAVE International and is distributed internationally. Value World welcomes original articles on value engineering and related disciplines. Reprints or abstracts from other journals or periodicals are acceptable, provided that prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder(s). Value World's policy is to provide a medium for contributors to express themselves professionally on advances in the state of the art. The views expressed in Value World are neither approved nor disapproved by SAVE International. Edi tori a l Staf f Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Derek S. Thomson Editorial Board: Dr. Jose Albors; Dr. Muhammad A. Al-Ghamdi; Dr. Tatiana Bachkirova; Henry A. Ball, CVS; Dr. Hervé Christofol; Vaughan W. Coffey; Howard Ellegant, AIA, CVS-Life; Prof. Antonio Femandes; Theodore C. Fowler, CVS-Life; Jean-Pierre Grandhaye; Wilhelm Hahn, CVS; Kirsty Hunter; J. Jerry Kaufman, CVS; Prof. John R. Kelly; Dr. Stephen Kirk, CVS-Life; Dr. Mei-yung Leung, AVS; Mary Ann Lewis; Prof. Steven Male; Prof. Jean Michel; Gary Myers, PE, CVS; Dr. Ferenc Nadasdi, CVS; Dr. Masao Okuhara; Joseph F. Otero, Jr., CVS; Lucie Parrot, PE, CVS; Prof. Dan Seni; Dr. Jong won Seo; Dr. Eugene Sweeny; Prof. Vincent Thomson; Prof. Qui Wanhua; Tony Wilson; Dr. Roy M. Woodhead, CVS. Board of Di rectors President: R. Terry Hays, CVS-Life, FSAVE Executive Vice President: David C. Wilson, P.Eng., CVS Vice President Communications: Rodney Curtis, PE, CVS Vice President Construction: Earl C. Wilson, PE, CVS Vice President Conferences: Renee L. Hoekstra, CVS Vice President Education: Roy M. Woodhead, PhD, HONS, CVS Vice President Finance& Administration: Howard B. Greenfield, PE, CVS-Life, FSAVE Vice President Government: Katherine E Bethany, CVS Vice President Manufacturing: Bijay Nayak, PhD, PEng, CPEng, CMfgE, CME, FIEAust, AVS Vice President Global Affairs:: Donald Hannan, CVS-Life, FSAVE, FNMA, FA1M, MHKIVM (VMF), MBE Vice President Marketing: Jeff McDaniel, AVS Vice President Membership: Mark E. Watson, CVS Vice President Services & Systems: Jeff Rude, AVS V. S AVE INTERNATIONAL "Th,v4i.,soaay- SAVE International "The Value Society" 136 S. Keowee Street Dayton, OH U.S.A. Address Service Requested Value World SAVE International 136 S. Keowee Street Dayton, OH 45402, USA (FAX) info@value-eng.org Subscriptions: A yearly subscription for SAVE Inteinational included in their annual dues. The yearly rate Thr nonmember, States is $75; international is $100 including airmail postage. Change of Address: Send address changes to Value World, SAVE Intei 136 S. Keowee Street, Dayton, OH 45402, U.S.A SAVE International, All rights reserved e b Ihe United PRsiyASNQDI1TREDD U.S.PttOiSiTi p ;GE ationa 1/AYTON, OH l'erniit NO ******AUTO**SCH 3-DIGIT 773 J. Kaufman CVS-Life, FSAVE J. J. Kaufman Associates, Inc Sunset Bend Ln Spring TX Tii510.4