*Tore Kristensen, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
David Hands, Lancaster University, UK
Jesper Clement, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Thomas Dickson, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Gorm Gabrielsen, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Jaewoo Joo, Kookmin University, Korea
Mia Münster, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
To design is to create value for somebody. However, the value depends on who judges it and their and their personal values.
According to John Heskett (2005):
“Design, stripped to its essence, can be defined as the human capacity to shape and make our environment in ways without precedent in nature that serves our needs and gives meaning to our lives”.
This suggests that artefacts, objects, systems and services, which are available to us, may influence and serve us in different ways depending on our position within a particular environment. Any artefact may affect our physical well-being. This reflects preferences and other values may essentially be emotions and feelings.
Articulations may be good reflections or just attempts to rationalize and intellectualize. So what can we do? One issue is that we as design theorists ask the user to act the ways that enable us to study their reactions to certain stimuli.
We use the term embodiment, which is a philosophical approach that reflects individuals are not just present with their mind, but their full body in physical and material space. To perceive is to enact an active operation in a particular environment. For instance, a view of nature depends on the weather forecasts, a shopping space depending on what the user may be looking for, a service like a travel whether just effective or pleasant. An experience in an airplane may be reflected as good or bad depending their personal expectations for a vacation or work.
An alternative to asking is to get insights by asking respondents to consider an object or experience while comparing items on a scale (VAS-Visual Analogue Scale) moving the hand on e.g. a cursor on an iPad to indicate which of a pair in a combination of experiences or items which were preferred. Doing so may enable analysts to determine how well each of the subsequent designs were preferable or exceeding their latent expectations. Such information enables the designers and producers to determine which values to pursue on behalf of the user.
These values may not be the only ones to take into consideration. Environmental values, commercial and in the mission of basic values of the organization may be clearly articulated. The session concerns issues related to the values of a design and how such inherent values can be made manifest when dealing with multiple stakeholders and competing values systems. Tensions between opposing and often contradictory values are also pertinent issues that demands greater intellectual interrogation, especially taking increased consumer power as well as environmental challenges into consideration.
Clark, Andy (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3)
Heskett, John (2005) Design a brief introduction Cambridge university Press
Hegarty, Mary (2011) The Cognitive Science of Visual-Spatial Displays: Implications for Design Topics in Cognitive Science 3 446–474,
Flach, John M. (2017) Beyond Affordances: Closing the Generalization Gap Between Design and Cognitive Science Design Issues. History, Theory, Criticism, 1, 76-89
Diallo, M.F. et al. (2013). Factors influencing consumer behaviour towards store brands: evidence from the French market. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 41(6), pp.422–441.
Faultrier, B. De & Towers, N., (2011). An exploratory packaging study of the composite fashion footwear buying framework. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(5), pp.463–470.
Puccinelli, N.M. et al., (2009). Customer Experience Management in Retailing: Understanding the Buying Process. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), pp.15–30.