Goods and services have various actions. The aim of function analysis is to reveal each of these actions and thus identify the nature of the products and services to which they belong. All products and services are endowed by their creators with certain purposes.

Function analysis reveals the intentions or purposes behind the creation of a product or service and thereby identifies the nature of that product or service. Although products and services exist as physical objects or systems, they are not created out of nothing.

They are preceded by an idea - a concept - which is the basis of their creation. Function analysis identifies the nature of products and services by revealing these concepts.

Having determined the nature of an object, one can then conceptualize many physical realizations which serve the purpose and choose the realization with the best value. In this manner breakthroughs are designed.

Functional decomposition is the process of asking "how" for each higher level function to derive lower level functions.

Functional composition is the process of asking "why" for each lower level function to derive higher level functions.

The result is a tree or systematic diagram of functions, which fall under some ultimate top level function.

For management, the top level function of the heirarchy of organization functions is the mission (purpose) of the organization.

The next lower level functions are things the organization must do (means) to accomplish the mission.

For systems engineering and software engineering, the top level function of the heirarchy of product functions is the purpose of the system. The lower level functions are the means to accomplish the purpose.

For a multidisciplinary group, the language of what the system must do is independent of the languages of the disciplines, but is common to all. Thus, functional language should be a language of choice for multidisciplinary communication.

Function analysis is also a primary tool for quality function deployment, requirements engineering, and value engineering. Function analysis is the basis for the genopersistation recursion.

Creasy (1973) provides examples of function analysis in the form of Functional Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagrams which are applied both to products and processes.

Akiyama, K. (1991). Function Analysis: Systematic Improvement of Quality and Performance, Productivity Press Inc., Cambridge MA.

Creasy, R. (1973). Functional Analysis System Technique Manual, Society of American Value Engineers, Northbrook, IL.

Function cost analysis is used by value engineers to determine the cost of each product function. In the USA this is typically determined by a bottom up analysis of the cost of all items, components, labor, etc., necessary for the product to perform each function. In Japan, cost tables are often used (Yoshikawa, Innes, and Mitchell, 1990).

If a function is not essential, then it may be removed from the product and the associated cost may also be removed. If a function is essential, then alternate methods of performing the function are determined. Cost may be saved by choosing the

lowest cost method of performing the function. In this manner, value engineering attains it's goal of providing a product with minimum essential function at lowest cost.

analysis, as typically used within value engineering, does not address the even greater opportunities for cost reduction through engineering process improvement. Activity based costing deals with those costs. Activities are implementations of the functions

of the system to bring forth, sustain, and retire a product. Yoshikawa, T., J. Innes, and F. Mitchell (1989) integrate the concepts of activity based cost and function analysis.

I prefer to view function cost analysis as the general case which contains both value engineering costing and activity based costing as the respective processes which deal with the cost of the functions of the product and the cost of the functions of the

system to genopersist the product. Even more generally, function cost analysis can be defined as the determination and prediction of the cost and importance of the functions of the genopersistation recursion.

Yoshikawa, T., J. Innes, and F. Mitchell (1989). "Cost Management Through Functional Analysis," Journal of Cost Management, Spring, pp. 14-19.

Yoshikawa, T., J. Innes, and F. Mitchell (1990). "Cost Tables: A Foundation of Japanese Cost Management," Journal of Cost Management, Fall, pp. 30-36.

This concept was introduced by Dean (1993a) to the facilitate the analysis and synthesis of systems. It is a powerful recursive concept, based upon a structure introduced by Dean and Unal (1992), which extends techniques used by this author for many years for designing and estimating the cost of large systems. The verb "genopersist" was derived by combining the words "genesis" and "persist."

to conceptualize,

to evaluate,

to market,

to prototype,

to test,

to produce,

to deploy,

to operate,

to support,

to evolve,

to retire, and

to manage the product.

Emphasize the "and." Genopersistation is the function equivalent of the life cycle. A new name has been provided to remove the temporal and various other perceptual aspects of the life cycle of a product. Genopersistation is an operation, not a temporal phase. To genopersist is to act upon.

The functional nature of genopersistation brings to light a virtually unperceived natural recursion. A product is genopersistated. The genopersistation of the product is genopersistated. The genopersistation of the genopersistation of the product is genopersistated, and so on to infinity. After just a few levels, this recursion loses practical meaning. However, the first few levels are meaningful and are important for competitive advantage. Dean (1993g) uses these levels to analyze cost.

In systems for NASA and the Department of Defense, the genopersistation of the product is totally within those organizations. This situation will be used for simplicity of explanation.

Let the product be level 0 of the recursion.

Let the genopersistation of the product be level 1 of the recursion.

Let the genopersistation of the genopersistation of the product be level 2 of the recursion.

Let the genopersistation of the genopersistation of the genopersistation of the product be level 3 of the recursion.

Level 1 is the project acting upon the product.

This is what Deming often refered to as "the system."

The project conceptualizes the product, evaluates the product, markets the product, designs the product, ... , retires the project, and manages the product.

The enterprise conceptualizes the project to genopersistate the product, evaluates the project to genopersistate the product, markets the project to genopersistate the product, designs the project to genopersistate the product, ... , retires the project to genopersistate the product, and manages the project to genopersistate the product.

The entreprenuer or the competitive science researcher conceptualizes the effort to genopersistate the genopersistation of the product, evaluates the effort to genopersistate the genopersistation of the product, markets the effort to genopersistate the genopersistation of the product, designs the effort to genopersistate the genopersistation of the product, ... , retires the effort to genopersistate the genopersistation of the product, and manages the effort to genopersistate the genopersistation of the product.

Since cost is generated by constraints, and since constraints are generated by the creation of structure from the level above, cost is largely determined by the structure of the entreprenual thought, the structure imposed by the management of the enterprise, and the the structure imposed by the management of the project. Thus, the actions of management largely determine the cost. The same arguments may be applied for quality.

Hence the actions of management largely determine the value, and hence the competitiveness, of the product. Since design defines the structure of the level below,

design for competitive advantage is critical. Hence the existence of the design for competitive advantage complex which you are now visiting.

References

Dean, E. B. and R. Unal (1992). "Elements of Designing for Cost," presented at the AIAA 1992 Aerospace Design Conference, Irvine CA, 3-6 February, AIAA-92-1057.

Dean, E. B. (1993a). " Genopersistating the System," presented at the AIAA 1993 Aerospace Design Conference, Irvine CA, 16-19 February, AIAA-93-1031.

Dean, E. B. (1993g). "Why Does It Cost How Much," presented at the AIAA 1993 Aircraft Design, Systems, and Operations Conference, Monterey CA, 11-13 August, AIAA-93-3966.

Bibliographies Genopersistation Bibliography

Table of Contents | System Technologies | Use Originated on 941204 | Improved on 960705 Author Ed Dean | Curator Al Motley

We frequently use the word 'design', but what is design? Akiyama (1991) notes that

Design is an activity that recognizes the goals or purposes of products or systems.

Design is an activity that shapes its objects - creates their forms - in accordance with the goals or purposes of those objects.

Design is an activity that evaluates and determines the forms of its objects and makes their contents universally comprehensible.

The product design process transforms abstract customer demands into specific product

drawings. The product design process is a process of function allocation that identifies product purposes - such as functions - and allocates them to a structural product. The product design process manipulates information creatively. The product design process is a decision-making process.

Dean and Unal (1992) maintain that designing is defining and that function analysis and quality function deployment are premiere tools for defining. Jacobson, Christerson, Jonsson, and Overgaard (1992) portray design as an evolution from a low dimensional abstract model to higher dimensional concrete models.

There seem to be two extremes to the design process. Stauffer and Slaughterbeck-Hyde (1989) portray the the use of constraints to narrow the design space to the final solution. This seems to be the design satisficing process typically used in the U.S.A. Taguchi (1986) portrays the target based design optimization process developed in Japan to design quality into the product.

Most design processes seem to use both the contraint and target concepts to some degree, although, they may be biased heavily to one extreme or the other. What is the best mix for the future? Time will tell. Multidisciplinary optimization is a test bed for that determination.

When we design, we design a system to satisfy a set of purposes. The typical system contains hardware, software, people, processes, purpose, organization, and behavior.

When life is involved in the system to be designed, there are specific subsystems which must be considered (Miller, 1978). The associated considerations, such as safety, become a part of the set of purposes. The set of the purposes of the system is often called the requirements. The net effect is that we must design the system holistically and we must design the system for many purposes.

Given the above thoughts and almost 40 years of designing, I submit that, in the general sense, design is the definition of form to satisfy desire. That is why I also suggest that comprehensive QFD, implemented under total quality control, is the current process which most exemplifies the basic function of design.

All students of and teachers of engineering design should have read Jones (1981), Hollins and Pugh (1990), Pugh (1991) and Pugh (1996). Bralla (1996) addresses a number of things we now understand we must design for. Norman (1988) provides a refreshing perspective on user centered design.

Akiyama, K. (1991). Function Analysis: Systematic Improvement of Quality and Performance, Productivity Press Inc., Cambridge MA.

Bralla, J. G. (1996). Design for eXcellence, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, USA.

Dean, E. B. and R. Unal (1992). "Elements of Designing for Cost," presented at the

AIAA 1992 Aerospace Design Conference, Irvine CA, 3-6 February, AIAA-92-1057.

Hollins, B. and S. Pugh (1990).

Successful Product Design: What to Do and When, Butterworths, London, England.

Jacobson, I. , M. Christerson, P. Jonsson, and G. Overgaard (1992).

Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Wokingham, England. Jones, J. C. (1981).

Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures, John Wiley & Sons, New York NY. Miller, J. G. (1978). Living Systems, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York NY. Norman, D. A. (1988).

The Design of Everyday Things, Currency Doubleday, New York, NY, USA. Pugh, S. (1991).

Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Wokingham, England. Pugh, S. (1996).

Creating Innovative Products Using Total Design: The Living Legacy of Stuart Pugh Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, USA. Stauffer, L. A. and R. A. Slaughterbeck-Hyde (1989).

"The Nature of Constraints and their Effect on Quality and Satisficing," in Elmaraghy, W. H., W. P. Seering, and D. G. Ullman, ed., Design Theory and Methodology - DTM '89,

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York NY. Taguchi, G. (1986).

Introduction to Quality Engineering: Designing Quality into Products and Processes, Asian Productivity Organization, American Supplier Institute, Dearborn MI.

Design Bibliography

Living Systems Theory and Design Bibliography

• Centre for Design Research at Stanford University
• Center for Lifelong Learning and Design (L3D)
• Centre for Design at RMIT
• CMU Engineering Design Research Center
• CMU n-dim Project
• Customer Oriented Design Methods
• Clemson University Design Methodology Group
• Decision-Based Design Open Workshop
• Design Theories and Studies
• Engineering Design at The University of Virginia
• Functional Design
• Newcastle EPSRC Engineering Design Center
• Systems Realization Laboratory
• Virtual Library: Design

Originated on 941130 | Improved on 970724 Author Ed Dean | Curator Al Motley