FUNCTION RELATIONSHIPS AN OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION:
After completing the Random Function Definition and Classification tasks1, the next step is to establish
function relationships. For small scope projects (15 or less functions), the numerical evaluation is a
practical and useful methodology. However, when the Random Function Definition process creates
more than 15 functions to be evaluated, numerical evaluation becomes awkward. Two major techniques
have been developed in the value methodology to create an understanding of the function relationships
on larger scope projects. The first, a Function Hierarchy Logic model, is based on the breakout of
functions similar to the tasks on a work breakdown structure; i.e.; a tree style model. The second,
Function Analysis System Technique (FAST), is based on intuitive logic. Both models can
accommodate a large number of functions and typically require an analysis of the greatest opportunity
for function improvement within the total project. These two models are the subject of separate
monographs. They are described in this monograph on an overview basis and illustrated using the same
project.
THE PROCESS:
Functional balance is that which makes a product work and sell most effectively at the lowest total
cost To start toward the attainment of this balance, we must first have an understanding of the
relationships between all functions.2 The comparison and evaluation process requires a complete
understanding of the data gathered in the information phase including user/customer attitudes and both
primary and secondary source information.
The simplest method of assigning relative importance is to assume all functions are equal. But that is
rarely the case. One approach to establishing the relative importance is for the value study team to
mutually agree upon adjustments to the all equal assumption. For example, in developing a two way
radio the functions and their weighting might be agreed upon as:
Assure Reliability 25%
Resist Shock - 20%

Ease Maintenance - 25%

Assure Range - 20%

Improve Appearance - 10%

But what is the real basis for a valid decision? It must be made with equal participation from each team
member. In practice, it is impossible to assemble five to seven persons for such an evaluation and have
them all feel equal. Certain individuals will be more articulate, more dominantand their weighting
suggestions consequently will be more influential. It has been said that the making of business decisions
is based primarily upon eliminating personal loss or risk. The potential loss or risks to these people will
dominate the scene. For example, if the maintainability expert is a dominant individual, then that person
would tend to have the maintainability function rated higher. But that would be at the expense of one or
more of the other functions since the total must be 100%. In actual usage, the most common practice is
for the team to weight the functions individually and then calculate a single average of each team
members figures. To eliminate the personal factor, a second approach called paired comparisons
may be used. It is based on the assumption that the simplest and least emotional decision is a basic yes
or no. This can be done by comparing each function with each other, which involves making a large
number of single point decisions, each based on a yes or no answer, rather than to juggle several factors
in one decision.

Going back to the two-way radio, in each comparison the team member asks (assuming the design will
meet at least the minimum requirements for all functions), which is more important?not how much
more important? Table 1 demonstrates a set of decisions by asking in each case only which is more
important, not the degree of importance. Table 2 gives the decision totals.
TABLE 1
PAIRED COMPARISON - TWO WAY RADIO
Decision #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Which is more important?

Assure Reliability or Ease Maintenance
Assure Reliability or Increase Range
Assure Reliability or Resist Shock
Assure Reliability or Improve Appearance
Increase Range or Resist Shock
Increase Range or Improve Appearance
Increase Range or Ease Maintenance
Resist Shock or Improve Appearance
Resist Shock or Ease Maintenance
Ease Maintenance or Improve Appearance

Decision
Ease Maintenance
Assure Reliability
Assure Reliability
Assure Reliability
Resist Shock
Increase Range
Ease Maintenance
Resist Shock
Ease Maintenance
Ease Maintenance

TABLE 2
TOTAL VOTES AND PERCENTAGES
Votes
3
1
2
4
0

Assure Reliability
Increase Range
Resist Shock
Ease Maintenance
Improve Appearance

%
30
10
20
40
0

Because of the procedure, one Function will always have a zero rating. That does not mean the function
is unimportantthe design must meet at least its minimum performance requirements. The significance
is that the value study team would spend its activity on improving the other functions first.
However, this stark yes or no procedure has caused concern among many value practitioners. They
believe there are many circumstances where a choice between two functions is very close, or conversely
quite large, so that the paired comparison procedure may not truly reflect that situation. With the
rationale that the voters are all well qualified and project knowledgeable, they suggest that a limited
amount of
judgment is proper and will more truly reflect the actual conditions. The most common approach is a
three choice process:
1 point = minimum difference

2 points = medium difference

3 points = major difference

To complete this procedure it is easiest to use a matrix. For example:

Assign Letters to each function:

Assure Reliability = A
Ease Maintenance = B
Improve Appearance = C
Resist Shock = D
Increase Range = E
TABLE 3

WEIGHTED PAIRED COMPARISON - TWO WAY RADIO

Decision #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Which is more important?

Assure Reliability or Ease Maintenance
Assure Reliability or Increase Range
Assure Reliability or Resist Shock
Assure Reliability or Improve Appearance
Increase Range or Resist Shock
Increase Range or Improve Appearance
Increase Range or Ease Maintenance
Resist Shock or Improve Appearance
Resist Shock or Ease Maintenance
Ease Maintenance or Improve Appearance

Decision
Ease Maintenance
Assure Reliability
Assure Reliability
Assure Reliability
Resist Shock
Increase Range
Ease Maintenance
Resist Shock
Ease Maintenance
Ease Maintenance

Degree
1
3
2
3
2
3
3
1
1
3

Numerical Evaluation Matrix

B
A-1
B

C
A-3
B-2
C

D
A-2
B-3
D-1
D

E
A-3
B-3
C-1
D-3

Points
9
8
1
4

Summary A = 9 /23
B = 8/23
C = 1/23
D = 4/23
E = 0/23

= 41%
= 36%
= 5%
= 18%
= 0%

This comparison shows that the team believed both Reliability and Maintainability functions had more
importance than the simple compared comparison showed and that the Reliability function was
somewhat more important than maintainability.
In either process, the simple paired comparisons or the Numerical Evaluation Matrix, to reduce the too
strong influence of a vocal team member, a common practice is for each team member to individually
complete the process and then accumulate the averages to represent team consensus. Mudge also
suggests that in order to keep the process most meaningful, that only the basic functions of each part
or step of a process be used.3

FUNCTION MODELS
As may easily be seen from the above process, the analysis of projects containing a large number of
functions would become very cumbersome. This is particularly true as value study projects have
commonly grown to incorporate entire products, buildings, environmental control systems, company
organizations and the like. The development of function models depicting relationships of functions
within the entire project became essential and evolved into two types Hierarchy and Function Analysis
Systems Technique (FAST) models.
Each is described briefly below and comparison shown through the use of a common project. Detailed
descriptions of each are the subject of separate monographs in this series.
The Common Project
For purposes of illustrating the two major techniques, the value study of a 24-inch counter top electric
grill is used. The grill is used in small scale restaurants along with other compatible products such as
broilers, fryers and griddles. Thus another requirement was it must fit in with the entire product line.
The two major objectives of the value study were to reduce cost by 20% and to improve (modernize) its
appearance (attractiveness to users) to increase sales. A sales percentage increase of 15% was
committed by marketing so that a financial evaluation could be assigned to that objective. This example
has been used at SAVE International approved Module II seminars at its international conferences. The
models were prepared and donated by:
Hierarchy Logic Model: John W. Bryant, CVS, FSAVE
Function Logic Model: Howard Ellegant, CVS-Life, AIA
FAST - Classical: Jimmy Carter, CVS
FAST - Technical: Terry Hays, CVS-Life, FSAVE
Function Hierarchy Logic Model
A Function Hierarchy Logic Model develops the relationships of functions within a product or service.
In its simplest form when used before design has been initiated, functions are defined and costs targets
are assigned to each function. As the design progresses, parts are developed to perform the functions.
For more comprehensive studies, the model can have performance characteristics assigned to each
function such as weight, reliability, and space usage. This model most often depicts where costs are
occurring to achieve required functions and often highlights excessive costs to achieve them, thus
affording the analyst an opportunity to select high potential VM study areas within the total project. VM
study projects may also be selected based on achieving improved performance objectives with functions.
In this case a separate VM study was conducted on the Enhance Appearance function.
In the illustrated model, both current estimated costs and cost objectives were assigned to each function,
as well as performance parameters. Being a relatively small organization, the responsible designer was
not formally recorded on the diagram.

In the past few years, with the emphasis on the user determining product value, not the designer,
function hierarchy logic models typically include value-added, user-oriented functions at the higher
levels such as safety, user friendliness, and customer appeal functions. Previously such concerns were
incorporated as part of the evaluation of other performance functions. For example, the function
Caution User might have been included within Indicate Status on earlier models. On other models,
Improve Reliability may have been spread over several functions rather than acknowledged as a
separate function. The user-oriented functions have become such an integral part of establishing
function relationships that another version of the hierarchy model has been developedthe Function
Logic Model. This model formally labels the user-oriented functions as Support Functions and
requires four major subdivisions, Assure Dependability, Assure Convenience, Satisfy User, and
Attract User. These four top-level, user oriented functions are shown at the same level as the basic
performance function(s).
For a detailed description of the development, requirement and uses of this model, see the monograph
Function Relationships Hierarchy Logic Models published by SAVE International.
Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) Models
The FAST model is based on intuitive logic to test function relationships and to graphically display them
in
diagram or model form. This system displays functions in a logical sequence and tests their
dependency. Like the Hierarchy Model, FAST does not indicate how a function should be performed.
Also the early formats did not illustrate when, by whom or cost. Now FAST diagrams often have the
added feature of dimensioning to accommodate such factors as time, cost, and quality.
FAST itself does not solve problems, but setting the problem up in a function logic form will stimulate
value team speculation on how to satisfy the function needs. As with the Hierarchy Logic Model, there
is no such thing as a correct FAST modelbut there is a valid FAST model. The degree of validity
is directly dependent on the talents of the participating team members. The single most important
output of the multi-disciplined team engaged in the FAST exercise is consensus. There can be no
minority report.5
FAST was originated in 1964, by Mr. Charles W. Bytheway. In the 1970s, Wayne Doc Ruggles felt
that all functions really did not fit into the flow logic, and therefore separated out functions that are
always active, whether the product/system is operational or not. For example, the product brand name
advertising producer is active to the observer even if the computer itself is not operational. He also
separated out a second type of function those that only occur one time regardless of the repetitiveness
of the system. For example, in studying the manufacture of a product, the batch may only be shipped
once regardless of the quantity involved in the study. For education and training communication, the
value methodology community has agreed to label Mr. Bytheways diagram format Classical FAST
(Figure 3) and Doc Ruggles version Technical FAST (Figure 4).

The four representative models for the electric grill are illustrated as:
Figure 1 Hierarchy Logic ModelElectric Grill
Figure 2 Function Logic ModelStandard Format
Figure 3 Function Logic ModelElectric Grill
Figure 4 Classical FAST ModelStandard Format
Figure 5 Classical FASTElectric Grill, Summary Level
Figure 6 Classical FASTElectric Grill - Detailed Level
Figure 7 Technical FASTStandard Format
Figure 8 Technical FASTElectric Grill
Which model is best is a function of the product or service under investigation and your management
style. Experimentation with alternative models is usually an activity included in the pre-study phase of a
value methodology study.
SUMMARY
In order to develop significant value improvement, the function relationships within the scope of the
project must be fully understood. Both the numerical evaluation process and all forms of function
models require team consensus. There is no such thing as a perfect model only that which the multidisciplined team agrees upon. The numerical evaluation and models do not provide answers. They do
provide an opportunity to identify the best opportunities for value improvement in the following phases
of the value methodology job plan. The objective of the information phase and the function analysis
phase of the value methodology job plan is to stimulate alternative ways to satisfy functions in the next
phase- the creative phase.
1

See monograph: Function Definition and Analysis, SAVE International, 1999.

Mudge, Arthur E. (1996) Value Engineering, A Systematic Approach. J. Pohl Associates, Pittsburgh,
PA, p. 66.
3

ibid, page 67

See monograph, Function Logic Hierarchy Models, SAVE International 1999

Kaufman, J. Jerry, (1990) Value Engineering For The Practitioner. 3rd ed. NCSU, Raleigh, NC, p. 32.

Highest Order
Function (Output)

WHEN

Basic Function

HOW

Higher Order Functions

(Concept)

Dependent
Function

(Concept)

Objectives
Or
Sprcifications

Major
Critical
Path

Independent
Function
Supporting

Figure 4

Scope of the Project Under Study

Minor
Critical
Path

Dependent
Function

The Classical FAST Model

Activity

Lower Order Functions

Activity

Independent
Function

WHY

Lowest Order

Identify
Producer

Allow
Banking

Identify
Elements

Attract
User

Conduct
Electricity

Caution
User

Enhance
Appearance

Contain
Assembly

Generate
Heat

Contain
Grease

Hold
Grease

Contain
Grease

Protect
Circuits

Ease
Removal

Transfer
Heat

Level
Assembly

Transfer
Heat

Guide
Flow

Heat
Surface

Figure: 1 FUNCTION HIERARCHY MODEL

ELECTRIC GRID

Contain
Materials

Indicate
Status

Heat
Surface

Test
Product

Control
Temperature

Package
Product

Higher
Order
Function

Scope
Line

Whe
n

Objectives
Or
Sprcifications

Basic
Function

How
?

Functions that Happen

All The Time

Functions that
happen At the
Same Time and/
or Are caused
by some other
function

Required
Secondary
Function

Scope Of Project Under Study

Required
Secondary
Function

One
Time
Function

Figure 7: THE TECHNICAL FAST MODEL

Required
Secondary
Function

Why
?

Scope
Line

Assumed
Function

Bacteria
Kill

Supply

Connect

Enhance
Taste

Cook
Food

How

Heat
Food

Basic Function

Conduct
Heat

10

Scope of Study

Surface
Heat

Transfer
Heat

Generate
Heat

Figure: 5 FAST MODEL (Classical, Summary)

ELECTRIC GRIDDLE

Activate
System

Install
Equipment

WHY

WHEN

Power

Kill
Bacteria

Enhance
Tast

Grease
Containment

Remove
Grease

Cook
Food

Prevent
Sticking

Create
Enviorn.

Control
Temperature

Control
Time

Collect
Grease

Heat
Food

Apply
Media

Vent
Hood

HOW

11

Indicate
Status

Activate
System

Protect
User

Thermostate

Circuit Breaker
& Warnings

Caution
User

Manufacturing

Heating Element

Select
Element
Materials

Direct
Flow

Generate
Heat

Establish
Operating
Limits

Create
Resist.

Protect
Circuts

Heat
Surface

Transfer
Heat

Conduct
Heat

Manage
Current

Sensitize
Switch

Control
Grease

Contain
Grease

Conduct
Heat

Cooking
Surface

Electrics

Regulate
Temperature

Limit
Current

Figure 6: FAST MODEL ELECTRIC GRIDDLE

Ground
Unit

Attract
Buyers

Identify
Producer

Assembly
Comps

Install
Equipment

Stabilize
Assembly

Test
Product

Marketing

Enhance
Appear.

Build
Sub-assy

Fabricate
Details

Leveling Legs

WHY

Bank
Product

Position
Comps

Secure
Comps

Locate
Comps

Connect
Energy
Supply

Cook
Food

How

Generate
Heat

Distribute
Heat

Transfer
Heat

Protect
Circuts

Contain
Grease

Guide
Grease

Remove
Grease

Package
Product

Heat
Surface

Specifications

Test
Product

One Time Function

All The
Time
Functions

12

Convert
Energy

Level
Assy

Support
Weight

Contain
Assem.

Figure 8: FAST DIAGRAM (Technical)

Enhance
Appeal

Caution
User

Control
Temp.

Transmit
Current

Control
Current

Receive
Current

Identify
Producer

Contain
Materials

Facility
Clean

Allow
Banking

Indicate
Status

Allow
Attach

Why

Initiate
Current

Figure 2: Function Logic Diagram

How?

Why?
Basic Function

Secondary
Basic
Secondary

Scope
Line

Basic

Basic

Task

Supporting functions
Assure
Convenience

Assure
Dependability

Satisfy
User

Attract
User

13

Figure 3 Function Logic Model Electric Grill

How

Why
Add Power
Generate Heat

Conduct Power

Heat Surface

Basic
Functions

Convert Power
Transfer Heat
Contain Grease

Remove Grease

Guide Flow
Collect Grease

Contain Assembly

Protect Circuit
Protect
User

Caution User
Insure Collection
Ventilate Product

Assure Dependability

Protect Product
Prevent
Deterioration
Test
Product

Support
Functions

Ease Operation

Protect Shipments
Inhibit Corrosion
Insure Strength

Control Temperature
Allow Leveling
Ease Removal

Assure Convenience
Indicate Status
Improve Efficiency

Insulate Product
Equalize Heating

Promote Sanitation

Ease Cleaning
Contain Splashes

Communicate Sanitation

Insulate Product
Equalize Heating

Satisfy User

Allow Banking

Style Product
Enhance Apperance
Attract User

Color Product
Finish Details

Identify Product

14