Summary 2

PRINCIPLES OF WORKSHOP IMPLEMENTATIONWhat is the Purpose of a VM Workshop? To implement an analytical process to reveal tacit knowledge and socially construct consensus. To create thinking space for sense-making. To create a neutral ground which gives every stakeholder equal voice and status. To expose differences in stakeholder understanding, judgement and preferences to identify underlying values.   Identify commonalities in stakeholders' functional requirements.  To develop solutions which meet functional requirements and reflect collective underlying values.  The core techniques of each VM workshop are the same but the process will be customised each time. Before Each VM Workshop Activity before the workshop is concerned with information gathering. Facilitator will design a workshop to address the issues of the project at that time. Facilitator will ensure the stakeholders are appropriately and adequately informed prior (1 week) to attending the workshop.  After the VM WorkshopEach workshop concludes with: Intangible socially constructed understanding. Activities after the workshop are concerned with ensuring assigned actions are implemented. Tangible actions agreed amongst stakeholders that are assigned to individual stakeholders. Each action has: a stakeholder owner, a specific required outcome and a timescale for delivery. Actions and insights are noted in a workshop report. If this activity is not undertaken sufficiently, the workshop will have no impact on the progression of the project.  The report should be issued 1 week after the workshop to allow sufficient time for sense-making whilst being soon enough for actions and rationale to still be fresh in the stakeholders' mind. What is Included in the Workshop Report? Actions taken during the workshop. The analyses that were performed. The insights gained. Decisions and ideas for further development. Actions assigned to relevant stakeholders and the agreed timescale for completion. Phases of a VM Workshop Planning and gathering of information. The use of function analysis to understand what is to be done/challenge preconceptions. A creativity phase to identify possible ways of delivering the sought functions. An evaluation phase to identify the best ideas to take forward. After implementation, a follow-up to check effectiveness. Workshops should follow the general problem solving process: Analysis Phase - Where the problem is understood and broken down into its constituent parts which is necessary to reveal the complexity of a problem and its full content. Synthesis Phase - Where the problem is reformed, socially constructed solutions are negotiated and a way forward is planned. Brainstorming is a good example of analysis and synthesis as the analysis phase unpacks the problem whilst the synthesis phase using techniques such as affinity diagram organise and structure the information gathered to develop a shared understanding of the problem. Practical Considerations in VM Workshop DesignTo ensure stakeholder, equity, the following issues must be resolved by the VM facilitator: Location Effective facilitation to ensure equal stakeholder engagement and contribution. The use of an independent workshop team (common in US but rare in the UK) Location Neutral location away from any stakeholder's physical 'power base'. Avoids connotations of power and influence. Puts all stakeholders on equal footing. No interruptions (mobiles off) & excuses to leave.  ideally hire a conference room in a neutral hotel in a neutral location. Room should be large and well ventilated/lit. Seating should be arranged in a semi-circle or U-shape. At least 1 wall should be free of all obstructions and of a suitable surface for displaying flip chart sheets.  Stakeholder QualityWorkshop should comprise stakeholders with a balance of: experience, expertise, personality types and organisational roles. External Workshop Teams Independent design teams participant in VE workshops alongside the existing client body stakeholders. Commonly used in U.S. Claimed to offer greater value-adding potential by removing prior assumptions and sunk cost bias from the design. Rarely used in UK due to cost and ease with which stakeholders can reject workshop actions. Expert Facilitation Facilitator is 'A person who has the role of empowering participants to learn in an experiential group' and should be: Knowledgeable of VM process, tools & techniques. Responsible for leading stakeholders through analysis and synthesis activities to obtain accurate results. Able to nurture and maintain a conductive group dynamic to establish a satisficing outcome formed through social interaction.  Independent an unbiased with no association to stakeholders.  Have relevant technical knowledge (e.g. construction background) and knowledge of the problem at hand, although this is argued. Be able to draw out full contribution and point direction but not lead.  Should ensure all stakeholders are equally engaged in discussions. Must be able to react to the emerging interaction patterns in the workshop to establish a social protocol in which all stakeholders feel able to to safely contribute.  Workshop PhasesBeginning of the Workshop Encourage Stakeholders. Early workshop activities should give stakeholders confidence to engage in the workshop. Establish the focus of the workshop (i.e. issues analysis) Encourage trust (nurture collaborative environment) Help stakeholders interact with each other. Early activities establish the forum for deliberation. Middle of the Workshop Engage Stakeholders Mid-workshop activities should develop stakeholder understanding of the problem. Stakeholders are given activities to reveal their understanding to everyone. Experiential Learning usually works. Facilitator must limit their own interventions to ensure stakeholders are learning. End of the Workshop Activities at the end should ensure the workshop has consequence. Actions should be agreed and assigned. Actions are defined, assigned to stakeholders and given a timescale for the completion. Causes of Facilitation Failure Process Failure - due to design & management of the workshop. Content Failure - facilitator failed to interpret the stakeholders' emerging discussions and did not steer the worksop appropriately. Competence Failure - facilitator does not have the skills or appreciate the need to fulfil all their obligations.  External Failure - due to stakeholders bring allegiances/coalitions into the workshop which the facilitator failed to recognise & control Scope Facilitator - facilitator's failure to fully appreciate the nature of the problem, causing them to undertake a workshop that examines in too much or too little detail.  Selection Failure - due to the selection of facilitator whose expertise are inappropriate for the task.  Summary of Types of VM WorkshopsTo be considered a study of value, a workshop must examine the problem in functional terms using functional analysis to determine solutions which  reflects the client's value system. VM workshops are undertaken at specification points in a project so their insights inform critical construction activities. As the project progresses, the design becomes more fixed and the ability to address value reduces. The natural of stakeholders and scope of problems changes from whole-project issues/stakeholders to system specific engineering problems and stakeholders. VMO - Confirms whether the project is the most appropriate response to the procuring client's strategic needs. VM1 - Elicits the tactical project stakeholders' value system and functional requirements to inform feasibility study, briefing and conceptual design. VM2 - Verifies concept design against evolving requirements. VM3 - Final design verification before detail design commences. VM4 - Performed on an ad-hoc basis to address problems within individual technical systems where value can still be added.

Applied Value Engineering Workshops Are ad-hoc workshops to determine solutions to difficulties/problems being faced. Workshops often facilitated by project team member & most likely involve stakeholders with relevant technical expertise.  Continue to use the same VM analytical methods. A structured AVE workshop would create a forum for technical expertise associated with the problem to discuss in a socially safe space potential innovative solutions that would genuinely improve value rather than simply reducing cost, scope or specification. Applying a structured workshop approach to AVE would cause it to become Real Value Engineering.  The 40 Hour Workshop Is impractical Too long Too expensive Too difficult to sustain engagement. To difficult to coordinate diaries. A shorter form of workshop known as a 'Charette' is typically used in UK Value Management Practice.The UK Charette VM Practice Is a shorter, more adaptable approach. Typically 1-1.5 days. Still includes: per-workshop information, analysis & synthesis in the workshop & post-workshop idea implementation. The modern Charette adapts the 40 hour job plan to suit: Timing of application. Stakeholders involved. Nature of the problem. Time available. A Typical VM1 Charette ProcessDay 1 Information - introduce members, describe the project and introduce progress to date. Issue Analysis - explore, collate and rank issues surrounding the project. Day 2 Information - recap issues and add any if necessary. Client's Value System - undertake exercise to determine the project value system. Function Analysis - organise functions using function analysis technique diagram. Functional Analysis Review - weight the functional requirements in line with the value system. Creativity - generate ideas to satisfy the functional requirements. Action Planning - identify best ideas and discuss their incorporation and prepare the action plan. END Tactics for Responding to Problems Stakeholder not participating - Engage quiet stakeholders directly. Stakeholders not motivated to talk as not interested - Ask what matters to them and work it into the debate. Stakeholders arguing over trivial matters - Explain workshop process and ask what they're not revealing. Stakeholder repeating same points - Repeat view back to them and get another stakeholder to express the same view to acknowledge that it's been registered. Vocal stakeholder dominating group - Ask other stakeholders for their views. Some stakeholders not paying attention - Take a break and check process isn't too long/onerous. Low stakeholder participation - Stop open discussion and use writing or NGT method. Two stakeholders constantly at odds - Ask and elicit views from other, quieter stakeholders.  Facilitation Tactics Verbal - open questions, paraphrasing, using hmmmms (do not interrupt, give own views or talk too much) Non-Verbal - nodding, smiling, eye contact, lean forward, mirror body language (do not be aggressive, defensive, lean away or have minimal eye contact) FUNCTION ANALYSIS & FAST DIAGRAMMINGPrinciples of Function Analysis The analytical technique used to understand the functions that a design solution must perform.  Once the functions are understood, a solution can be developed without bias or presumptions.  The best design solutions are those which reflect the client's values to the greatest extent. Functions analysis during later VM workshops would be used to examine alternatives for providing a required function. Function analysis is constrained in it's ability to fully express the nature of value but remains an effective way of analysing what the client requires from the design solution.  Expressing Functions: Verb-Noun Function StatementsFunction analysis defines functions using: A single active verb and a single descriptive noun. Prevents preconceptions about what the solution should be & ensure  'all cost is for function' A design feature which does not enable all the sought functionality, is simply adding cost and is reducing value. Leeway is acceptable where complex functions require the use of more words. This practice should be minimised as deviance from single verb/noun format risks biasing the designers towards a particular solution. Examples - Transmit light, maximise insulation, minimise vibration... Function TypesNot all functions are considered equal in a function analysis. A functional hierarchy is formed to represent this.  Basic Function - Defines the purpose of the solution, often in the form of the project's mission statement. If the basic function isn't fulfilled, the design proposal is a failure. Primary Functions - The basic function is enabled by several primary functions. A primary function can exist in it's own right. Secondary Functions - Each primary function is often enabled by one or more secondary functions. Tertiary Functions - Some secondary functions may require tertiary functions to enable them, but suggests a lack of clarity or consensus among stakeholders in the function analysis. Performing Function AnalysisFunction analysis requires: A method of eliciting functions. A method of reviewing functions. A method of organising and understanding functions. Function analysis is a brainstorming activity involving a 2-step process: First elicit possible functions, generally via a brainstorming exercise.  Then review and organise functions to 'make-sense' in a clear structure using FAST diagramming.  Identifying Functions Each participant is given sticky notes. The facilitator explains the verb-noun elicitation format. The project problem is quickly reviewed to clarify its scope. Participants are asked to individually note down all the functions they think the building needs to provide (in 15 minutes) It is about quantity, not quality and are encouraged to not critique or filter their answers. The facilitator then gathers the post-it notes and shuffle them into a randomly-ordered pile before undertaking the next stage which is Affinity Diagramming.  Affinity Diagramming Process of stakeholders working together to group similar functions. The post-it note at the top of the random pile is placed in the centre of the work surface.  The facilitator takes the next post-it note and reads aloud the function to ask the stakeholders how similar/dissimilar it is to the function on the surface. Alternatively, stakeholders can hold on to their post-its and position it themselves; however, this approach limits the sense-making as some stakeholders will be unaware of discussions others have had.  If dissimilar, it is positioned further away; if similar, it is positioned close by; if exactly the same, it is placed on top.  Stakeholders should be encouraged to stand up as this stimulates engagement.  Once the functions have been placed and discussed, obvious clusters of related suggestions will emerge, with those closer sharing a stronger conceptual association.  Discussions build common understanding of the logic supporting the groups. 'Silence means yes' rule applies. Before finishing, the facilitator asks stakeholders to review the emerging clusters and agree they are happy they make sense and if not, to move post-it notes and explain their rationale for doing so.  Once all stakeholders are happy with the arrangement, the affinity diagramming exercise concludes by the stakeholders discussing, agreeing and assigning meaning to each cluster and a name using a verb-noun pairing if possible to ensure they all share a common understanding of the clusters.  The verb-noun format provides the functions in the required format for the next stage of the process, FAST Diagramming. 

Principles of F.A.S.T. Diagramming Many different types. This module focuses on the Customer F.A.S.T. diagram format. A F.A.S.T. diagram organises the functions identified by function analysis into the primary, secondary and tertiary functions. Essentially, FAST diagramming provides a simple representation of the client's functional expectations and stimulates social construction of common understanding between stakeholders.  A FAST Diagram is self-validating and can be read in either direction.  Lower-order functions are positioned progressively right along the horizontal 'How?' axis. Higher-order functions are positioned progressively left along the horizontal 'Why?' axis. The vertical positioning of primary functions along the vertical needs vs. wants axis determines their importance. The positioning of secondary functions to a primary function can tell designers whether the stakeholders consider those functions equally important in supporting the primary function.  Components of Customer F.A.S.T. Diagrams Why? vs. How? axis. Needs vs. Wants axis Scope lines. Resource constraint line Why? vs. How? Axis The horizontal axis. Explains the relationship between the functions the project must perform by establishing a hierarchical relationship of functions. Functions to the left are supported/facilitated/enabled by functions to the right.  If completed correctly, the diagram can be read in either direction along the axis - it is self-validating.  Needs vs. Wants This is the vertical axis. Designers need to know the stakeholders' priorities. Stakeholders must determine which functions are needed and which are wanted. Incorporating every function is unlikely as projects have finite resources (e.g. time and money) Primary functions are ordered vertically by their importance to the stakeholders. Functions positioned towards the top of the diagram are needed and those towards the bottom are wanted. Positioning the functions begins to expose stakeholders' priorities which are a consequence of their values. Scope Lines Always 2 scope lines. They define the content of the problem to be solved. Anything left of the left scope line is the definition of the problem. Anything to the right of the right scope line is the solution (or part of) to the problem. The Basic Function Describes the overall function that the project must provide. If the basic function is not performed, the project outcome will fail. Sometimes written as a short mission statement. Must be negotiated and agreed by the stakeholder when preparing the F.A.S.T. Diagram Often easiest to define the basic function after all other functions have been organised. Primary Functions Are the main functions that the project must perform. They collectively describe the functionality required from the whole project solution. Individually, each describes the functionality required from a key component of the project. Secondary Functions Required to support the primary functions. A primary function can be supported by several, single or no secondary functions. Tertiary functions might also be required. Resource Constraint Line Is a horizontal line added to the diagram last. Requires stakeholders to distinguish between the functions that are needed and those that are wanted.  Stakeholders must consider available resources and position the line accordingly. Difficult to position meaningfully and may just represent functions stakeholders' are willing to sacrifice.  A design which does not provide a needed function will be considered a failure by stakeholders.  A design which does not provide all wanted functions will likely still be supported by stakeholders if all needed functions are provided, although an element of disappointment  will exist.  Compiling the F.A.S.T. Diagram Process is led by the facilitator and begins with a blank surface on which the facilitator draws the necessary scope lines.  The functional groups from the affinity diagram are written on new post-it notes which are used to organise the FAST diagram. The facilitator picks a random function and places it in the centre of the diagram. Another function is positioned by the facilitator Firstly, it's horizontal position is determined by asking stakeholders if it supports the basic function or another function which determines whether it is a primary, secondary or tertiary function.  This process is carried out until the pile of functions are exhausted and each function is classified as either primary, secondary or tertiary. The vertical position is then determined by asking stakeholders what function between adjacent primary functions is most needed.  Once stakeholders are happy with the vertical arrangement of primary functions, the resource constraint line is positioned. The stakeholders are asked to consider which primary functions, if any, the solution could fail to provide without losing their support.  The functions positioned below the resource constraint line are those which designers could sacrifice if resources became constrained later in a project.  The facilitator then may ask the stakeholders to weight the secondary functions based upon a simple agreed judgement, which is usually expressed as a ratio (50:50) in their importance in supporting the related primary function. Tertiary functions are not weighted as the additional insight would be minimal.  Once positioned of all functions are agreed, the facilitator will draw the lines to connect the hierarchical structure to show the relationships that have emerged.  The FAST Diagram exercise concludes with stakeholders agreeing on the basic function which explains the purpose that all the other functions are required to fulfil. This is left until last as stakeholders need to understand the interrelationship between the other functions to define the overall purpose of the building.  The basic function could be in the verb-noun format; however, this is often difficult to agree so a short mission statement is often negotiated and agreed by stakeholders as the basic function.  Verifying the Diagram The logic of the diagram can be checked by reading it in both directions (left to right & right to left) Higher-order functions (left) must be supported by any subordinate lower-order functions (right). Lower-order functions (right) must support their superordinate higher-order functions (left). Process is led by the facilitator. Stakeholders are asked to read the diagram from left to right and then right to left. 

THE JOB PLANOrigin of the 40 Hour Workshop Developed by Lawrence D. Miles at same time as function analysis. Whilst function analysis focused on design, Job Plan defined the logical sequence of activities required to perform functional analysis in a workshop setting.  Job Plan provides a template for VM workshops.  Use of a 40-hour, week long workshop became common in N. American construction sectors.  Job plan stages loosely correspond with days of the week. Financial and practical constraints today make the 40-hour workshop unachievable.  External Vs. Internal Project TeamsExternal Project TeamsAdvantages Allow the facilitator to compile a team perfectly suited to the problem. Can approach the problem free from bias, latent understandings, assumptions and power distances between stakeholders. Can inject independent thought.  Disadvantages Unlikely to be able to assemble a suitable team with insufficient understanding. Unaware of project history/context. Stakeholders can easily discount the resulting actions by simply stating they failed to understand a 'key element'. Interrupts flow of design development and fragments social construction of understanding.  Internal Project TeamsAdvantages Familiar with project and stakeholder values. Can introduce additional information if required. Disadvantages Can introduce subconscious bias. Often overly-concerned with post-workshop practicality. Subject to politics and fear of repetitional damage The Dual Workshop RoleVM workshops serve 2 purposes: To structure stakeholder engagement in a systematic and documentable way. To help stakeholders build a common understanding necessary for a satisficing outcome.  Facilitators will use a FORMAL process to engage stakeholders to ensure: Systematic examination of all aspects of the problem. A rigorous approach to producing defendable outcomes. Documented outcomes to inform subsequent activity.  To address the INFORMAL workshop role, the facilitator will adopt appropriate modes of facilitation to ensure:A socially safe environment conducive to building common stakeholder understanding. Expert Facilitation Facilitator must observe and react to emerging stakeholder interactions to nurture a safe social environment. The environment should allow stakeholders to act & speak freely to fully reveal their underlying values. A socially cohesive and socially safe workshop environment is critical if stakeholders are going to make unfiltered contributions and reveal their underlying values.  Dual facilitation to increase the expertise available in a workshop where each facilitator focuses on those parts in which they are most skilled.  A scribe will usually be present to note the information shared, attitudes displayed through body language and interpretations of potential allegiances which can be helpful when writing the workshop report.  Miles' 5 Stage Job Plan Information Analysis Creativity Judgement Development Before organising a workshop, the following should be undertaken:Pre-Study Information (Before a Workshop is Organised) Obtain senior management support of the workshop. Desktop document review. Determine context and varying perspectives on the problem from stakeholders. Project specific issues to be addressed Understand stakeholder relationships and likely patterns of interaction.  This information will allow a suitable workshop and agenda to be designed 5 days before a workshop, the following information should be distributed to all stakeholders: The scope & intent of the study. The stakeholders to be involved. The business context of the study. The likely objectives of the stakeholders. Information/Analysis StageInformation Information describing the project and it's context is gathered. The goal is to identify the issues to be addressed, it's context and information that is missing,  The information is shared with the stakeholders to ensure all stakeholders participating in the workshop are on an equal footing. Analysis Conducted after all the available information is shared, analysis of the problem commences using function analysis. Implemented as a brainstorming exercise to unpack the problem. Stage 1 - Function Analysis to elicit the functions Stage 2 - Affinity Diagramming to identify common function themes which are then fed into a FAST Diagramming activity.  Creativity Stage Identifies how the functions previously identified could be realised in possible design solutions. FAST Diagramming allows the required functionality to be described in a structured & well understood way. Stakeholders then brainstorm possible ways the required functions could be provided. Evaluation Stage Ideas of how the required functionality could be provided are evaluated to identify those with potential to provide the sought functionality in a manner appropriate to the underlying values.  The ideas are systematically evaluated against the functional requirements identified by the FAST diagram using techniques such as weighted evaluation matrices OR can simply be evaluated using a consensus rating  Development Stage The viable solutions identified from the evaluation stage are developed into proposals to allow their viability to be determined. Workshops can split into group to develop separate ideas sufficiently to determine if it's viable. Once the ideas have been sufficiently developed, the groups reconvene to systematically evaluate each proposal. Although the ideas are systematically scored, the final selection is based upon an agreed judgement amongst all stakeholders.  Action Planning The goal is to ensure the ideas identified by the workshop are implemented. An implementation or action plan is formed. For each action, stakeholders collectively agree which stakeholder is best suited to resolve the action, this ensures stakeholder acceptance of responsibility for the action and convinces them they are best suited. Actions are compiled into a list defining: the action itself, the stakeholder responsible, the outcome required to signify completion and the deadline for completion.  Post-Workshop ActivitiesReport Workshop facilitator must provide a report quickly after (within 5 working days) the workshop which reports the insights and actions. The report ensures momentum of the workshop is sustained and translated into stakeholders completing their assigned actions. The report will document photographs of working surfaces, the various diagrams produced and notes on issues and attitudes exposed. The improved mutual understanding of stakeholders from the workshop, which cannot be captured in the report is the key outcome of the workshop.  ImplementationAfter a period of time, the procuring client should check actions from the workshop have been implemented.

APPLIED VALUE ENGINEERINGWhat is Applied Value Engineering (AVE)? Examines cost and functions of systems and components to ensure best value and effectives of the technical solution. AVE are all the spontaneous investigations of value performed by a contractor in the later stages of a project.  The ability to use AVE is significantly influenced by the procurement route, traditional routes where the contractor was not involved in the initial design make it hard for the contractor to convince the client that further improvements can be made... AVE provides rigorous and structured approach to the development of design revisions. Ideally, AVE incorporates function analysis and follows the Job Plan but sometimes may be impractical. Without rigorous examination of the problem, inappropriate design revisions may harm functionality or quality. There is particularly risk if there is unnecessary focus on construction costs. If undertaken correctly, cost-effective or value-adding solutions can be developed. Two ways of implementing AVE: Challenge based value engineering OR Applied Value Engineering VM3 - Applied Value Engineering Develop best value technical solution Examines cost and function of systems and components. Ensures effectiveness of the solution. 1. Challenge Based Value Engineering Workshop is structured around the Job Plan to examine problematic issues. Typically comprise the design of a whole technical system. A technical team with the appropriate skills is assembled to form the workshop with a design team leader to facilitate. Increasing design fixity makes opportunities for changes to quickly expire.  Can result in redesign to achieve cost savings. 2. Spontaneous Applied Value Engineering Individuals/small groups of designers spontaneously adopt the Job Plan to rigorously consider value when proposing design revisions. Enables the clients values to influence design changes within technical systems. Workshops are generally not held, work is done by individuals/groups. Design revisions are proposed with supporting analysis of how they will provide value.  Due to it's timing, less focus on the client, more focus on technical design. Barriers to AVE Time pressure in the industry may prevent designers spending time considering value. Risk averse nature of the industry can limit willingness to explore better ways of providing client value. The 'good enough is best' attitude is common among engineers and are unwilling to incorporate the better alternatives they know of. Stages of Implementing an AVE Workshop Clarify the Scope of the Problem - Using two methods: value trees or stakeholder personas. Compile the Workshop Team - Assemble necessary technical team & determine if client body stakeholders need to be involved. Appoint a Facilitator Select tools and assemble a problem solving process, ideally incorporating Function Analysis. Design the Workshop Process - Ideally following the whole Job Plan. Establish a Proposal Review Method - To ensure alignment with client values where necessary. Defining the ProblemValue Trees Value Trees are simpler alternatives to FAST Diagrams. Functions are elicited and agreed using simple short phrases and sentences.  Function interdependencies are merely debated and agreed by participants.  Value trees are simpler and faster than FAST diagrams but are ambiguous and introduce risk of fragmented understandings. They can be found to be illogical and cannot be verified like FAST diagrams. Value trees do not indicate the client's priorities and therefore do not imply their underlying values.  Value Trees are limited to smaller studies of simple complexity where detailed function analysis & FAST diagramming isn't required. Stakeholder Personas If technical solutions require repeated input from a client body stakeholder, engaging them in the AVE workshop is impractical. The expectations and requirements of such a stakeholder can be summarised in a persona. This persona can then be referred to during the workshop. A persona cannot be a stereotype of typical expectations but must accurately reflect the specific expectations of the stakeholder. Personas only offer imperfect representations as the stakeholder may have not known they had certain values.  Analysing the ProblemFunction Analysis Allows the purpose of the design solution to be clarified/determined. Even if a design solution exists, focusing on it's functional roles will provide a more detailing understanding. Verb-noun expressions should be used if possible unless it is felt it would be incapable in providing the accuracy required. It is more desirable to use verb-noun expressions as they carry with them agreed, social constructed understandings of their meanings. Function Cost Analysis Maps the distribution of cost across functions. Informs design revision decisions in determining if a component or element should be removed or re-designed due to the disproportionate amount of cost it consumes for the functions it provides.  The amount of cost/money allocated to a function should match the function importance. Function-Metric Matrix Provides a way to measure design performance in providing sought functionality.  Translates qualitative, intangible functions into quantitative, measurable metrics. As many functions are intangible, it is helpful to associate them with design performance. These metrics provide proxy measures for functionality. Allows design options to be easily compared on a functional basis to determine the best option for implementation.  Creates audit trails and is more rigorous than judgement alone. Activities to Determine Which Project Solution Should be Implemented Pair-Wise Comparisons Weighted Evaluation Matrices Pair-Wise Comparisons Is a quick and simple way of establishing a rank preference order between competing options or factors. Implemented in very similar way as it is used to elicit the client's values but often with fewer options.  The designers would consider which of the two options or factors represented by the cell's row & column is preferred with the winning option entered in the matrix cell.  Once complete, the number of times that an option has 'won' is counted to give a ranking. As the ranking is influenced by underlying value systems, the designer must clarify if the matrix should be compiled to represent their own preferences or that of the client's body using their personas.  Weighted Evaluation Matrices A systematic approach to evaluating the performance of options against a set of performance criteria. The criteria will most likely be the functions that the design must fulfil (determined by past function analysis). Ideal for making complex design decisions which are too complex to rely on judgement alone. By documenting each step in the review, they are ideal for providing audit trails. Despite the systematic approach, an element of judgement is still required to reduce the risk of just 'following the numbers'. Weighted Evaluation Matrices only inform a judgement, the scores cannot dictate what the option should be. 

Page 1

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5