The Notion of Value and Design
Suzan BOZTEPE*
*Institute of Design, Illinois Institute of Technology, 350 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60610 USA,
[email protected]
Abstract: Globalization of businesses brings opportunities as well as failure. In today’s volatile economy, creating
superior value for users is shown as a way of achieving competitive advantage. However, there is a little agreement of
what exactly constitutes user value and how design can contribute to its creation. This paper examines the notion of
value from sociological, anthropological, and business perspectives, reflecting on what each has to offer to design. A
conception of value as a practical or symbolic benefit of a product which arises from the interaction with user and
facilitates superior user experience is advocated. Finally, the role of design in creation of value is questioned and a
framework for research into value is suggested.
Key words: User Value, Globalization
1. Introduction
There is an old marketing saying that if it flies in Peoria it will fly everywhere else. Levitt’s [1] words explain
the mindset behind it: “Everyone in the increasingly homogenized world market wants products and features that
everybody else wants. If the price is low enough, they will take highly standardized world products, even if these
aren’t exactly what mother said was suitable.” Today, this one size fits all rationale is loosing its relevance as there
is an increasing realization that we are far from a global cultural homogenization. Moreover, low cost and quality
are becoming a common equity for all enterprises, not only global but also local. In this context, creating superior
value for customers is pointed as the next source of sustainable competitive advantage [2-8]. According to Kim
and Maugborne [4-5] providing value for users/customers is creating ‘quantum leaps’ in their experiences with
product. That, they argue, results in opening up of a new market space and making competition irrelevant. The
issue does not seem to be whether companies should compete on user value delivery, but rather how to do it and
how design can contribute to user value creation. However, there is no established and accepted body of theory of
value that can be guiding for design. What further complicates the matter is that there is even a little agreement on
the use of the term value. It oscillates between concepts like economic returns and moral stands. For example,
there is a general belief among designers that design can ‘add value’ by devising products with ‘increased value’
which ‘embody social values’ [9].
If creating value for users becomes a key domain when designing for global markets then we need a better
understanding of (1) what constitutes value, (2) the role of design in creation of value for users and (3) the methods and
tools that facilitate value creation. The objective of this paper is twofold: first, to summarize and discuss theories and
concepts developed in other disciplines which can offer a useful point of departure for understanding of the notion of
value in relation to design field; and second, to suggest initial view and potential framework for applied design research
into value.
2. Defining Value
The confusion on the use of the term value is not unique to design. It spans number of disciplines including
economics, sociology, anthropology, psychology and marketing.
Within this spectrum Graeber [10] identifies main approaches to the definition of value as: (1) the notion of
‘values’ as “conception of what is ultimately good, proper or desirable in human life”, (2) in economic and
business sense a person’s willingness to pay the price of a good in terms of cash in return for certain product
benefits, and (3) value as a meaning and meaningful difference, and (4) value as experience. The purpose here is
neither to present an exhaustive list of uses of the term, nor to present a comprehensive review of approaches, but
to explore how they come together in the domain of design.
2.1 Value as Enduring Belief System
An important distinction is made in the use of the term value in a singular and a plural form [9-10]. The sense
of values in plural refers to personal beliefs. This notion of value is described by Rokeach [11] as “… an enduring
belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite
or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence” Values are socially and culturally defined and justified
standards that determine actions, preferences and attitudes including the ones towards objects. However, values
are different from norms and attitudes in that “…they transcend specific situations and have to do with
generalized modes of conduct (instrumental) and end states of existence (terminal). Attitudes are different, merely
the surface, or more specific, manifestations of these underlying values”. Here the emphasis on the unchanging
quality of values requires special attention as it seems conflicting with design. Herbert Simon [12] defined design
as the process by which we devise “courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones”.
Such change often includes not only tangible products but also human behaviors and beliefs. That is especially
evident in global markets where new products are introduced together with new messages, lifestyles and beliefs.
So, if values have a durable nature how can technology and design introduce change without causing social
friction? Is it possible, to establish a direct relationship between products and personal/social values?
2.2 Value as Exchange
Terms such as ‘consumer value’ or ‘customer value’ seem to examine the value concept within the
human-artifact relation, providing more relevant ground for discussion in design. However, reviewing some of
these definitions reveals that they are firmly placed within economic paradigm. Value is defined in terms of the
monetary sacrifice people are willing to make for a product [3, 13-14]. The emphasis is on the point of exchange
and cash is seen as a fundamental index of value. Such view is problematic for design as it overlooks the situation
of product use. In the study on the assignment of value to fruit beverages, Zeithaml [14] points out that use related,
non-monetary costs such as time and effort are important for users and should be acknowledged as well. In the
evaluation of value participants brought up issues such as sales and coupons, but also the ease of preparation of
juice, the amount wasted, and children’s willingness to drink the beverage.
Marxist [15] theory provides a useful distinction here. It conceives a dual nature of the object value – use value
and exchange value. Marx does not elaborate on the use value but sees object value primarily in terms of the labor
necessary for its manufacture. Independent of the labor, use-value relates to the utility of the physical properties of
the product, which is realized only upon its use.
Clearly design is primarily concerned with use value. As such it has to deal with issues such as efficiency,
performance and fit of the product to specific activities, tasks. It has to make sure that objects function as
extensions of human body and mind [16] and that they fulfill actual needs. In establishing the relation between
value and needs, however, it shouldn’t be forgotten that “we experience all needs (including physical ones) within
cultures” [17]. For example, each culture has its own way of cleaning the body which in turn reflects to the
assessment of what is useful in the design of bathroom. For example, while in western culture a bathtub designed
for lying is valued, in Japanese culture a smaller one accommodating sitting posture is more beneficial, and in
Turkish culture bathtub is not functional at all because cleaning oneself should involve running water.
On the other hand, design is also concerned with exchange value by making products chosen, distinguishing
them from competitive ones and reducing prices. However, taken to extremes this may result in churning out
products with superfluous differences in forms and materials aiming only to simulate desires [18]. The relation
between value and desire is developed by Simmel [19]. He suggests looking at how much one desires or fears of
loosing a product as an indicator of its value. Accordingly, high value is attributed to something that is desired by
many by subject to scarcity. Simmel [19] talks of value and price almost interchangeably here. Yet, there are range
of objects such as gifts which are neither scarce nor high priced or utilitarian, nevertheless are highly valued. The
theory of value as exchange seems to overlook this group of objects. Here we need to turn to approaches to value
that take into account the symbolic meanings that can be attributed to goods.
2.3 Value as a Meaning and Difference
According to the notion of value as a meaningful difference something takes on meaning and value only
by contrasting with other elements in the same system [9]. Notice that meaning and value are used almost
interchangeably.“Meaning is a cognitively constructed relationship. It selectively connects features of an object
and features of its (real environment or imagined) context into a coherent unity.” [20]. Since value relates to
meaning it is similarly understood in a context of other things, situations, and users. The so called global products,
for example, can gain value only in the local context. A point well illustrated by Whirlpool’s attempt to introduce
its global washer to Indian market. The product faced failure because of its lack of consideration of different types
of Indian clothing, and the unstable infrastructure. Saris and other clothes which are nothing but long pieces of
fabric would catch and tear in their washing machine [21, 22].
The notion of value as meaning and meaningful difference calls for consideration not only of the physical
contexts in which products are used but also of how they are made sense of. Csikszentmihalyi’s [23] study
illustrates the huge capacity of people to invest objects with meanings that sometimes have nothing to do with
their utility and meanings prescribed by the producers [23]. People often value objects not for what they do, or
what they are made of but for what they signify. In Veblen’s [24] conception of ‘conspicuous consumption’ for
example, goods serve as an index of social status. Bourdieu [25] sees that interaction with goods can serve as a
means of ‘capital’ accumulation, namely economic (e.g. cash and assets), cultural (e.g. knowledge, skills, formal
education), social (e.g. networks of interpersonal relations) and symbolic (the honor and prestige accumulated
through one’s practices). In some societies the latter can be even more useful. Baudrillard [26] claims that such
sign value displaces use value and exchange value. Indeed, it is quite common that people in developing countries
buy western goods not only for their utility but because of their association with modernity and lifestyles of their
purveyors. An example of such consumption may be found among the Muria Gonds where “the richer fisherman
were spending their excess earnings to purchase unusable television sets [having no access to electricity], to build
‘garages’ onto houses to which no automobiles had access, and to install rooftop cisterns into which water never
flows” [27].
Global and multinational companies have been relaying and fostering aspiration toward western goods as a
mean for boosting sales. However, more and more local businesses, such as the Malaysian Joleebee or Indian
Arvind Mills, successfully compete against global giants with products which better resonate with local ways of
life [28-29].
2.4 Value as an Experience
It is clear that in relating value to design it is difficult to assume one of the definitions reviewed so far as
encompassing. As Graeber [10] rightfully points, each one has fallen into problems for lack of sufficient
consideration of the others. A potential for reconciling the different approaches is offered by the perspective of
value as action or experience. Drawing on Munn’s [30] work, Graeber [10] suggests that the value of goods arises
from the consequences they provide or have potential to provide. OXO Good Grips potato peeler, for instance, is
valued not for its material properties but because these properties lead to easy and comfortable peeling experience.
As, Cagan and Vogel point the better the experience, the greater the value of the product to the user [31].
Moreover, people are willing to pay much more for products providing better experience [32].
Table 1. Different definitional approaches to value
Value arises
from
Values as
Belief System
Deep social
structures
Value as
Exchange
Price and desire for a
product
Value as
Use
Products properties
and their fitness to
task
Value as
Meaning and Sign
Social and Cultural
Context
Value as
Experience
Interaction between
user and product
Value is
Durable
Objectively
determinable in terms
of price
Objectively
determinable in terms
of product’s material
properties
Subjective, almost
arbitrary
Both objective and
subjective
Unit of
analysis
Deep social
structures
Exchange situation
Use situation
Communication
situation
Any point of
experience with
product
Product is
Mean to higher ends
Sacrifice made by
user measured in
terms of cash
Utility
Sign
Enabling an
experience
Implication
for design
In global
markets
Need to resonate
with different local
belief systems
Need for
distinguishing
product from
competitive ones,
make them desirable
Need to meet specific
needs and ways of
doing things
Need for
understanding of
local context and
social- cultural
meanings
Need for
understanding
activities contexts,
meanings, and
beliefs which make
experience
Experiences are defined as “events that engage individuals in a personal way” [8]. In fact any time people
interact with product they engage in experience. Experiences are context and situation specific - changing from
one set of immediate circumstances, time and location to another. So is the value [33]. Consider the example of
owning an automobile. Having a car in a small US town provides a convenience, increase accessibility to different
places, such as stores, sites of interest etc. However, the same car in a metropolitan city like New York, where
parking spaces are virtually unavailable and traffic is dense, is a burden and restricts one’s capability to move
around. Then, compatibility with the context, which includes a range of tangible and intangible systems is
necessary. Experiences with product also relate to the meaning they add to people’s lives, in terms of symbolism.
Looking to a rare piece of art can be the experience of a lifetime. Yet, only for a person who comes from socially
and culturally defined system that assigns significance to art. Value as experience does not provide an exclusive
alternative to other definitions, but rather encompasses many aspects of them. Table 1 compares the different
approaches to value.
3. Value Typology
One of the major problems the different approaches to value reviewed so far is that they treat value as one
dimensional phenomenon; it is related either to utility, exchange price or significance. Heskett [34] notes that it is
often difficult to talk about utility/use or significance/meaning of object separately because in practice they are
closely interwoven. In fact he sees them both as a part of the definition of product function. Holbrook’s [33]
typology of value, derived from axiology, allows us to think of different perspectives of value as coexisting. He
classifies user value, as shown in Table 2, along three continuous dimensions (1) intrinsic-extrinsic, (2) self
oriented-other oriented, (3) active-reactive.
Intrinsic-extrinsic distinction relates to whether a product is valued as an end itself or for means or functions
that help users to accomplish certain ends. For example, Stark’s Juicy Salif is usually assigned intrinsic value,
because it is appreciated for an end itself rather than as a mean for squeezing lemons.
Self oriented-other oriented distinction corresponds to whether a product is valued because of its benefit to the
user or because of the reactions of others. A car, for example, has a self-oriented value because of its functional
qualities, but it also has other oriented value because it signifies a social status. The other oriented dimension of
value cannot be confronted without encountering social and cultural factors.
Active-reactive is a distinction about whether there is a manipulation to a product by the user or to the user by
the product. Art objects, for instance have reactive value, because their benefit results from a passive admiration.
Table 2. User Value Types, Adapted from Holbrook (1999)
Extrinsic
Intrinsic
Utilitarian
Emotional
Efficiency (e.g. Convenience)
Play (e.g. Fun)
Excellence(e.g. Quality)
Aesthetics (e.g. Beauty)
Social
Altruistic
Status (e.g. Impression Management)
Ethics (e.g. Justice)
Esteem(e.g. Possession)
Spirituality (e.g. Sacredness)
Active
Self oriented
Reactive
Active
Other
oriented
Reactive
Simplifying Holbrook’s [33] typology of customer value, we can identify four broad value types: (1)
Utilitarian Value refers the way a product helps achieving practical ends; (2) Social Value is product’s
instrumentality in achieving certain social objective, such as affirmation of a social status; (3) Emotional Value is
defined as the benefit of a product in terms of the emotions it provokes; and finally (4) Altruistic Value is the sense
of a being right or good, as is the case with the ‘green’ products. For designers thinking in terms of different value
types as coexisting brings multiple levels of user considerations. But is the value something defined by designers?
4. The Role of Design in Value Creation
Tackling the question of whether design creates value is impossible without entering to another debatable issue,
namely the location of value. Does the value reside in a product or in users’ subjective experiences and
perceptions? Here once again different theoretical streams have different say.
For Marx use value is “conditioned by the physical properties of the commodity, and so has no existence apart
from the latter” [15]. This view is resonated in Levitt’s [35] definition of a product as “a promise, a cluster of
value expectations.” Here value is very much viewed as an inherent part of the product. According to Porter’s
‘value chain’ value is added through the different stages of product conception, production and distribution [36].
Giving no account for users’ capability of imbuing objects with meaning and value, such extreme objectivist
approach is nothing but easily refutable [33].
The sociological and anthropological approaches, on the other hand, posit that value is determined through
social and cultural constructs and objects cannot 'contain' value. In Veblen [24] and Baudrillard’s [26] theories
value does not necessarily reside in objects tangible materiality, but as means of expression.
If we view value as arising entirely out of social context, that leaves no room for design to contribute to the
formation of value. Ultimately it is the people who come in contact with the objects that ascribe their meaning and
value, but design has the ‘persuasiveness’, as Buchanan puts it [37]. Design starts with intention to generate a
sense of value and uses all available means including:
•
Form, color, texture and materials - the primary means to enable making sense of objects, provoke
emotional responses and communicate utility.
•
Symbolic elements and metaphors - to tap into the communicative aspects of object value.
•
Archetypes and historical forms - rooted deeply in the collective unconscious also serve as means to
embed objects into the fabric of society.
•
Affordances - to denote what objects can do.
•
Stories and myths created around objects - to create connections with beliefs, and desires.
Therefore, as Heskett [34] urges, perhaps we should consider value in the interplay between designer’s
intentions and users needs, perceptions and goals. It is at the interface of the two that the value is created [33-34].
The means-end model attempts to explain how the value is formatted in that interface, the connection between
product properties and user [11, 38-40]. It suggests that users think of value in means ends way. Product attributes,
which take place on the bottom of means-ends chain, lead to practical outcomes, and to the psychological or social
payoffs such as happiness, comfort, accomplishment and ultimately to the social and personal values [38].
Porter [40] refers to the product attributes as signals, in a sense that they signal more abstract level
consequences. Zeithaml [14] these distinguishes between intrinsic or extrinsic cues or signals. Intrinsic cues are
related to physical configuration of the product. Extrinsic cues, on the other hand, are product related but not part
of the product, such as brand name, price, and level of advertising. Contrary to the colloquial belief that brand and
price are the key factors in assignment of value, Zeithaml [14] suggests that users rely more on the inartistic cues,
except when intrinsic ones are not available, or their evaluation requires too much effort and time.
It is possible for designers to define product characteristics, in terms of look and feel, performance, dimensions
and costs, but what characteristics will be more dominant, how they will be perceived by users and how they will
be related to more abstract consequences is less easy to specify. It requires a better understanding of higher level
user goals, and beliefs and working backwards to the specific product characteristics. In this process designers’
intuitive knowledge about society they live in can be helpful to some extend. However, when it comes to global
markets, where designer are detached from users’ physical, social and cultural context, there is a need for more
methodological approach for understanding the means of value assignment. As Woodruff [7] suggests if the focus
is on value delivery, there is a need for a corresponding set of "tools of customer value.”
5. Methodological Approaches for Understanding Value
In the early 80s several inventories, such as Values and Lifestyles (VALS), have been developed to measure
‘consumer value’ [40]. The claim of such methods is to segment people according to their enduring beliefs. VALS,
for instance, consists of categories such as innovators, achievers, thinkers etc. While these categories have basis in
reality they are highly stereotypical and concerned only with generalities. Such groupings can help designers to
establish the general positioning of a product but they fall short in helping designers identify details that make the
difference in people’s experience with a product.
Individual Product Properties
Consequences
Personal Values
Figure 1. Elements of the means-ends model [38].
Other tools, which have also been developed in marketing field, build on the means-ends model, such as
Gutman’s laddering method [38]. These methods too are based on the assumption that values, in sense of deeply
held beliefs, supply the ultimate ends towards which the action is directed [11]. Such perception is challenged by
scholars like Swidler [42] who suggest to shift focus from values as the ultimate determinants of the ends, to the
‘tool kit’ of habits, skills, styles, and beliefs from which people construct “strategies of action”. People in different
cultures may share common values (in sense of believes and aspirations) while continue to have different
behaviors and experiences with products. Understanding user’s goal is essential but the same goals can be
achieved in many different ways. For example, keeping in touch with friends can be done by e-mails, letters, chats,
phone calls etc. So, if we build on the notion of value as experience we better look at these actions and activities.
As Abbott suggests,“[e]xperiences are attained through activities” [43]. By examining activities surrounding the
use of product it is possible to learn much more about specific ways through which products lead to desirable
consequences. Insights derived from analysis of activities, it is claimed, would enable designers to make
fundamental improvements which lead to substantial new value for users [44].
Second shortcoming of means-ends based models is that it treats value assignment as a cognitive process and
does not account for contextual factors. It has been already discussed that value can change from one set of
immediate circumstances, time and location to another [33]. Therefore, a research into value can not afford to
ignore the situational and cultural context. Taking into account context requires analysis of its elements, such as
the tangible systems of objects and environments that surround a product and activity. It also requires paying
attention to intangible systems of beliefs, traditions and habits which also form people’s experience with product.
Figure 2 show a revisited version of the means ends model which includes situational and cultural factors. It also
positions social and personal values as influencers in the user’s experience with product and their value
assignment rather than ultimate determinants.
Cultural
Context
Situational
Context
Product
Intrinsic
Extrinsic
Cues
User Goals
activities
System of
objects, users
environments
System of values
meanings, beliefs
behaviors, habits
Figure 2. A revisited means-ends model
A future direction of my study will test this framework and the effectiveness of focusing on user activities and
context in which take place through an ethnographic research. It is hoped that understanding the relation between
user value cultural and situational factors will have practical implications for design in global setting.
6. Conclusion
Reviewing different conceptions of value it becomes apparent that they can offer a useful starting point for the
formation of the notion of value in design. This paper is only an initial attempt to bring the concept of user value
to the attention of design. There is a great need for empirical research for better understanding both the
mechanisms of value assignment and designer’s potential role in the creation of user value.
References
1.
Levitt T. The globalization of markets. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 92-102 (1983).
2.
Day GS. Capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 37-52(1994).
3.
Gale BT. Managing Customer Value, Free Press, New York, (1994).
4.
Kim WC, Mauborgne RA. Strategy, value innovation, and the knowledge economy. Sloan Management
Review, 40(Spring), 41-54(1999).
5.
Kim WC, Mauborgne RA. Creating New Market Space. Harvard Business Review, 77(1), 83-93(1999).
6.
Porter ME. Changing patterns of international competition. California Management Review, XXVIII(2),
9-40(1986).
7.
Woodruff RB. Customer value: The next source of competitive advantage. Journal of Academy of Marketing
Science, 25(2), 139-153(1997).
8.
Pine BJ, Gilmore JH. The experience economy: Work is theater and every business a stage, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, (1999).
9.
Heskett J. Values and Value in Design, Photocopied, Illinois Institute of Technology, (2002).
10. Graeber D. Toward an anthropological theory of value: The false coin of our own dreams. Palgrave, New
York, (2001).
11. Rokeach M.The Nature of Human Values, The Free Press, New York, 5(1973).
12. Simon HA. The sciences of the artificial, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 111(1996).
13. Butz HEJ, Goodstein LD. Measuring customer value: Gaining the strategic advantage. Organizational
Dynamics, 24(Winter), 63-77(1996).
14. Zeithaml VA. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A ,means-end model and synthesis of
evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(July), 2-22(1988).
15. Mandel E. Introduction to capital: A critique of political economy, Vol.1, Penguin, New York, 126(1990).
16. Norman D. The Psychology of Everyday Things, Basic Books, New York, (1988).
17. Slater D. Consumer culture and modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge, MA, 134(1997).
18. Heskett J. Waiting for a new design. Form,185(September-October), 92-98(2002).
19. Simmel G. The philosophy of money. Routledge, New York, (1990).
20. Krippendorff, K. On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that "Design is making sense (of
things)". Design Issues, 5(2), 9-39(1989).
21. Inkpen A. Whirlpool Corporation's global strategy. Thunderbird Graduate School of International
Management Case Study. 2000.
22. Lasserre P, Probert J. The first venture into India. INSEAD Case Study, 1997.
23. Csikszentmihalyi M, Rochberg-Halton E. The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge UK, (1981).
24. Veblen T. The theory of the leisure class, The Modern Library, New York, (2001).
25. Bourdieu, P., Distinction: A social critique of judgment of taste, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,
(1984).
26. Baudrillard J. Selected writings, Polity Press, Cambridge, MA. 45(1988).
27. Gell A. Newcommers to the world of goods:Consumption among Muria Gonds in The Ssocial life of things,
Appadurai, A(ed.), Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK, 114(1986).
28. Bartlett C, Ghoshal S. Going global: Lessons from late movers. Harvard Business Review, 78(2),
133-142(2000).
29. Dawar N , Frost T. Competing with giants: Survival strategies for local companies in emerging markets.
Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 119-129(1999).
30. Munn N. The fame of Gawa: A symbolic study of value transformation in Massim (Papua New Guinea),
Duke University Press, Durham, (1992).
31. Cagan J, Vogel CM. Creating breakthrough products: Innovation from product planning to program approval,
Prentice Hall, Saddle River, NJ, (2002).
32. LaSalle D, Britton TE. Priceless: Turning ordinary products into extraordinary experiences. Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, (2003).
33. Holbrook M. (ed.) Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research, Routledge, New York, (1999).
34. Heskett J. Toothpicks and logos: Design in Everyday Life, Oxford University Press, New York, (2002).
35. Levitt T. Marketing intangible products and product intangibles. Harvard Business Review, 59(3),
94-103(1981).
36. Porter ME. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. The Free Press, New York,
(1985).
37. Buchanan R. Declaration by design. Design Issues. 2(1), 4-22(1985).
38. Gutman J. A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing,
46(2), 60-72(1982).
39. Young S, Feigin B. Using the benefit chain for improved strategy formulation. Journal of Marketing, 39(July),
72-75(1975).
40. Woodruff RB, Gardial SF. Know your customer: New approaches to customer value and satisfaction
Blackwell, Cambridge, (1996).
41. Mitchell A. The nine American lifestyles: Who we are where we're going? McMillan, New York, (1983).
42. Swidler A. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273-286(1986).
43. Abbott L. Quality and competition, Columbia University Press, New York, 40(1955).
44. Whitney P, Kumar V. Faster, cheaper, deeper user research. Design Management Journal, 14 (2) 50-57(2003).