Elements of Value Pyramid: Interesting Theory, Limited Practice

This is one of RoadmapOne ’s articles on Objective Prioritisation frameworks .

Bain & Company’s “Elements of Value” pyramid is an intellectually satisfying framework. It identifies 30 elements of value that products can deliver, organised into four levels: functional (saves time, reduces cost), emotional (reduces anxiety, provides hope), life-changing (motivation, self-actualisation), and social impact (self-transcendence). It’s essentially Maslow’s hierarchy applied to products.

It makes for an interesting academic discussion. It’s a reasonable training aid for product teams learning to think about value. But I’ve never seen it used effectively in actual roadmap prioritisation—and I don’t expect to.

Sign up now (free) to prioritise with frameworks that work in practice

The Thirty Elements

Functional Value (Foundation)

The base of the pyramid—practical, tangible value that products deliver:

• Saves time
• Simplifies
• Reduces effort
• Avoids hassle
• Reduces cost
• Quality
• Variety
• Sensory appeal
• Informs
• Connects
• Integrates
• Reduces risk
• Organises

These are the table stakes. Most B2B products compete primarily on functional value. “Our product saves you 4 hours per week” is a functional value proposition.

Emotional Value (Middle)

Value that affects how users feel:

• Reduces anxiety
• Rewards me
• Nostalgia
• Design/aesthetics
• Badge value
• Wellness
• Therapeutic value
• Fun/entertainment
• Attractiveness
• Provides access

Emotional value often differentiates products with similar functional capabilities. Two project management tools might save the same amount of time, but one makes users feel competent and in control while the other makes them feel overwhelmed.

Life-Changing Value (Upper)

Value that fundamentally improves users’ lives:

• Provides hope
• Self-actualisation
• Motivation
• Heirloom
• Affiliation/belonging

Products that deliver life-changing value create intense loyalty. Fitness apps that help users achieve health goals they’d struggled with for years. Learning platforms that enable career transitions. These aren’t just useful—they’re transformational.

Social Impact (Peak)

The apex—value that transcends the individual:

• Self-transcendence

Products that help users contribute to something larger than themselves. Sustainability platforms. Charitable giving tools. Community-building products that create genuine social value.

Why It’s Academically Interesting

The pyramid provides useful vocabulary for discussing value:

It distinguishes functional from emotional. Many product teams focus exclusively on functional value (features, efficiency, cost reduction) while ignoring emotional value (how the product makes users feel). The framework names this blind spot.

It suggests value hierarchies. Like Maslow, it proposes that higher-level value builds on lower-level foundations. You can’t deliver emotional value if functional basics are broken. You can’t achieve life-changing impact without emotional resonance.

It’s comprehensive. Thirty elements cover a wide range of value types. For brainstorming or workshop exercises, the completeness is useful—you can check your product against each element.

Use simpler frameworks for actual prioritisation in RoadmapOne

Why It Doesn’t Work in Practice

Thirty Dimensions Is Overkill

Teams already struggle with simpler frameworks. RICE has four dimensions. Kano has three categories. Most organisations can barely maintain consistent tagging with five dimensions.

Thirty elements of value? Nobody will use it. The cognitive overhead is too high. Teams will either ignore most elements or apply them inconsistently, producing noise rather than signal.

Functional Value Dominates Most Decisions

For B2B SaaS, enterprise products, and operational tools, functional value is what matters. “Does this save time? Does this reduce cost? Does this reduce risk?” These questions drive 90% of prioritisation decisions.

The emotional and life-changing layers are relevant for consumer products competing on brand—luxury, wellness, lifestyle. For most product teams, they’re academic curiosities, not prioritisation criteria.

It Doesn’t Prioritise

Even if you tagged every objective by which Elements of Value it targets, you’d still need a prioritisation framework. Knowing that Objective A targets “reduces anxiety” while Objective B targets “saves time” doesn’t tell you which to do first.

You’d need to layer another framework on top: “Which elements of value matter most for our strategy?” That’s just weighted scoring with extra steps—and Weighted Scoring has its own problems.

No Clear Measurement

How do you measure “provides hope”? “Self-actualisation”? “Affiliation/belonging”?

Practical frameworks connect to measurable outcomes. RICE uses reach (measurable), impact (estimable), confidence (calibratable), effort (estimable). Elements of Value uses abstract concepts that resist quantification.

When It Has Value

Training and Education

For product teams learning to think about value, the pyramid is useful. It expands the definition of “value” beyond functional features. Junior PMs who’ve only thought about “what does the product do?” start thinking about “how does it make users feel?”

Workshop Brainstorming

In ideation sessions, the 30 elements can prompt creative thinking. “What would it look like if our product reduced anxiety, not just saved time?” “How could we add elements of self-actualisation?” The comprehensiveness sparks questions.

Consumer Brand Strategy

Luxury brands, wellness products, and lifestyle companies do compete on emotional and life-changing value. If you’re building premium consumer experiences, the framework provides vocabulary for brand positioning. But even then, it’s strategy discussion, not roadmap prioritisation.

What to Use Instead

For Prioritisation

Use frameworks with clear dimensions and measurement:

• RICE — Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort
• BRICE — Business Importance added to RICE
• ICE — Impact, Confidence, Ease
• Kano — Must-Have, Performance, Delighter

For Value Analysis

Use simpler value categorisations:

• Kano — Three categories (Must-Have, Performance, Delighter) that map to satisfaction curves
• Jobs to be Done — Functional, emotional, and social jobs (three dimensions, not thirty)
• Customer value vs business value — Simple two-axis analysis

For Portfolio Tagging

Use tagging frameworks designed for roadmap analysis:

• Run-Grow-Transform — Investment type
• Pirate Metrics — Funnel stage
• HEART — UX dimensions

The Bottom Line

The Elements of Value pyramid is an interesting academic framework. It’s a reasonable training aid for expanding how product teams think about value. It makes for good workshop discussion.

It’s not useful for actual roadmap prioritisation. Thirty dimensions is overkill. Most decisions hinge on functional value anyway. The elements resist measurement. And you’d still need another framework to actually prioritise.

Reference it for product thinking discussions. Skip it for practical prioritisation work. Use RICE , BRICE , or Kano when you need to sequence your roadmap.

Get started with RoadmapOne (free) and prioritise with practical frameworks

References

• Eric Almquist, John Senior, Nicolas Bloch, The Elements of Value — Harvard Business Review, original framework
• RICE Prioritisation — Practical scoring framework
• Kano Prioritisation — Three-category satisfaction model
• Objective Prioritisation Frameworks — Complete guide to all frameworks