What #JobsToBeDone is, and is not

We are clearly at a crossroads in Job Theory-land. Those that have been developing this (even before it was called Jobs Theory) for decades, testing it, proving it’s successful application to product and service innovation have their view of things. Those that are fast-following and trying to re-purpose the term Jobs-to-be-Done to mean something else, have their view.

The Traditional View of Jobs

As early as 1962, the concept that people don’t need a product, they need to accomplish something was offered for consideration. While this simplistic example does not investigate the problem deeply, it does highlight the fact that product-centric thinking is highly limiting for both product developers and marketers.

If we look at the world through the lens of an offering — product or service — we miss opportunities to understand the bigger picture of adjacent opportunities to serve customers. This is one place where growth comes from — not just adding features to existing products.

Since there are a few fast-followers who have decided to redefine terms in order to throw shade on the traditional and highly evolved thinking around jobs-to-be-done, I’d like to do a quick glossary so we don’t get confused by the folks who try to hijack terms for their own ends.

1. Job — a goal or objective; or a problem that must be solved in order to create a desired future-state. Yes, it’s progress as we are moving from a current-state to a future-state (in getting the job done). Executing a process or Job is progress. Solving problems is progress. Achieving goals and objectives is progress. Introducing new solutions is progress as well. Improving people, not so much — we’re focused on jobs, not people. Progress can be measured quantitatively using very discrete measures at both the Job level and the solution level.
2. Steps — in a Job Map (not a process map), a step is not an activity like it is in a workflow or process. It is something that must be accomplished in order to achieve the larger goal — or Job. It doesn’t describe how. Don’t let anyone redefine this for you. A job can be depicted as a process of accomplishments which result in a discrete output; e.g. develop marketing plan -> marketing plan is developed (a discrete accomplishment).
3. Outcome — this is not an output. Perhaps a better term for this is a “customer need” — functional, social, emotional needs. In the traditional world of Jobs-to-be-done (operationalized for decades with the outcome-driven innovation framework), these are constructed as a metric; which allows us to measure success of a step toward accomplishing something. Each step will have numerous metrics; just as you would in a workflow or process — each measuring different dimensions of success. Collectively, all of these metrics define perfect execution of the job. Different segments of people trying to get the same job done in different contexts will have different unmet needs (a “state” of a need). The unmet needs of today will be satisfied by the successful offerings of tomorrow. Understanding them now is critical for innovators to innovate.

This concept has been used to take disruption theory to the next level. It has also been applied not only to product innovation, but service innovation, marketing & sales (company jobs), customer support (company jobs), the buyer journey (consumer jobs), obtaining support (consumer jobs), learning to use a solution(consumer jobs), teaching consumers (company jobs)…and the list goes on. It is also an emerging proxy for understanding the complete customer experience.

It simply explains just about everything better than any theory and/or activation framework out there. It is a forward-looking and predictive model that puts numbers to future growth opportunities before the first dollar is invested. But, apparently it isn’t good enough, for some…

Evolved Jobs-to-be-Done, supposedly

First, this highly evolved — and new — theory of Jobs-to-be-done follows the fail-fast approach to product development. In this world, solutions are offered to unsuspecting customers; who then decide whether they value them. If they do, a job-to-be-done has been created — voila! If they don’t, the company pivots, often using other people’s money to wander blindly down the path toward oblivion — they don’t say that, but that’s what happens most often.

In this world, investors must spread their bets broadly hoping that one of them will pay off so well that the bad bets are obscured (sound familiar?). We can’t know until after-the-fact if the ideas generated by a founder will have any chance of success in the current market.

Using this approach, you must give up your belief that market opportunities can be targeted with a higher-level of precision.

This is “evolved #JTBD” by newcomer Alan Klement — where “Jobs” are consumed, not products and services.

Now to be fair, allow me to define what a Job is using this evolved approach. Keep in mind, there are no metrics because it has evolved beyond the need for such precision.

1. Job — A job is progress toward a “new me.” Things like “keep me from lying to myself and others” are jobs; e.g I am no longer a liar. If this confuses you, understand that this has evolved from a couple of years of interviewing people who purchased a product or service — because we know all prospects LIE. Any product designer should rejoice because now they have the ability to design solutions that solve real emotional problems. Please offer this to me so I can make progress!
2. Job Stories — once you have interviewed a customer who has just purchased a CD — for example — you can write a job story (a simple sentence covered elsewhere) that will provide all of the critical data points and dimensions required to understand and design a successful new music platform; such as an iPod. Isn’t evolution wonderful? No data needed.

Side Note: Asking customers what they switched to means there is already a successful alternative solution in the market. If your goal is to innovate, doesn’t this mean you’re too late? Yes, that’s exactly what it means.

After a long day of getting high and writing job stories, we have designed a machine to harvest fiber Hemp. YES, it’s that simple! If someone buys this, a Job-to-be-Done was created…or did we just find a better way to get an existing job done? Hmm…

Brief and incomplete summary

What’s interesting is that I recently saw a tweet from an evolved jobs-to-be-done practitioner about how to synthesize unstructured JTBD interviews (within the buyer journey) into a quantitative matrix. Clearly, the realization has hit him that data is important.

Unfortunately, taking unstructured inputs from an ad hoc interviewing process, about a historical product purchase, is an unreliable means for generating inputs that will predict a future break-through innovation.

The concept of synthesis, as used in such a process, demonstrates the struggle that most product developers experience when trying to make progress to the “new them.” It should be noted that most of them fail in some form or fashion. And nothing about this new and twisted version of Jobs-to-be-Done has changed that.

This is the problem that Tony Ulwick addressed early-on in his career. Innovation requires a complete and common understanding of customer needs. If we are all defining them differently, there is a great deal of risk in the process of synthesizing responses — because we all think differently. Outcome-driven innovation has eliminated that risk by introducing a common language for innovation. If the common language is the only part of this approach you embrace, you will be miles ahead of the (self-proclaimed, no results) more evolved thinkers.

I know this doesn’t sit well with most of the design world. I do know some designers who get it, and this is not an attack on designers — they simply haven’t taken the time to study this. But many feel that all this number crunching is for scientists, not product managers and designers. They feel they need to be creative. They want to feel as though they are the best suited for locating market opportunity; when their training has really only been around solving product or service design problems.

Innovation happens at the market level. It needs to be its own, separate role — since it has its own unique capabilities. It’s foolish to say that “everyone” in an enterprise should be an innovator; but everyone has a role in the process from end to end.

Yea yea, argue all you want. I’m saying we need to split the what from the how…and there are also better ways to approach the how, too.

There is place for creativity in the innovation process…it’s just not in the fuzzy front end — where traditional jobs-to-be-done has done a great job of de-”mist”-ifiying the fuzz over the past 25 years. If you’re still using cartoons, drawings, and BCG matrices to validate your assumptions for innovation, maybe you’re not that evolved after all.