While Clay Christensen's Jobs-To-Be-Done is brilliant, I think it's far from a methodology. Infact, I think JTBD is just another way of creating a Customer Hypothesis.

"People who use a product to do X job" is a Customer Hypothesis, and from there the Lean methods apply.

The key question is then, "What problem does the customer have in accomplishing that job?"

While Eric doesn't subscribe to the Customer-Problem setup (because of his background in gaming, which games don't really solve a problem per se). Problem can also be represented as a gap in the market or unmet need.

youtube.com

Nice. One difference I see is JTBD has a "from-the-customer" orientation. Individuals know the things they are trying to get done. They are looking to hire a product to do so. Fulfillment of the job can occur via, potentially, multiple product/service options available in the market.

Customer hypothesis comes at it the other way. I believe you have this need/desire, am I right? And I have an idea for how to fulfill that JTBD. Success comes when your sense of the customer's JTBD matches what they actually do want to do, and your idea addresses it significantly better than current alternatives.

To me, JTBD and Customer Hypothesis are two sides of the same coin. Just from different perspectives.

I'd say Jobs To Be Done isn't a product development methodology, but an innovation methodology. It helps you understand where there's opportunity wrapped around true demand/need.

I think it can overlap nicely with Lean in that it gives you a broader set of tools to tackle the Learn part of the loop. And based on what you learn with a Jobs analysis, you can improve your product marketing as well as improving the product itself.

@Ross- I'm using Product Development method to mean the same thing as Innovation method. You touch on something interesting: JTBD seems to only apply to products that already exist in the market. Do you agree?

Trevor,

I agree with one minor caveat: If you're building a new product, you'd have to do the Jobs analysis on whatever product the customer is using today to do that same job. That can be tricky to pin down, though.

Jobs interviews work best when there's been enough consumption of your product by the customer that they're past any honeymoon period and can truly look back and evaluate their satisfaction. When they're at that point, the Jobs interviews can tease out not only what they thought was valuable going into the purchase, but also what turned out to be important in daily use.

Overall, I still think Lean and Jobs go great together. The Jobs framework helps you deeply understand demand, and Lean is a smart way to build out supply.

This does raise a good point about JTBD. I wouldn't characterize it as applying only to products that already exist in the market per se. That places in the area of feature improvements when I consider that positioning.

It is true that JTBD reflects what is available in the market. You have something you want to get done, you do with what's available or you can hack together yourself. In that sense, there is a connection to products that already exist in the market.

But the fulfillment of that job may be woefully low. You're (i) spending too much time or money, (ii) accepting lower quality outcomes, (iii) not doing something you enjoy as frequently you'd like, etc.

These are the manifestations of a JTBD not sufficiently fulfilled.

Hutch,

You're totally right…the job exists for the customer whether or not there's a solution in the market. In fact, it's good news for the entrepreneur if there's no clear solution already.

Now that I think about it, this is the dilemma I see: You don't want competition, but it's tough to have a productive conversation with a customer unless it's centered around a particular concrete solution. That's a limitation of human beings, though, rather than an issue with Jobs or Lean.

If I put my design hat on, this problem is very familiar. I need a prototype of some kind to get useful feedback…I can't just talk about my solution. Point being, no methodology gets around the fact that feedback needs to be gathered on top of something concrete.

@Hutch @Ross- That's a great point that the job already exists for the customer. But what about when someone like Paul Graham says that the best designed products allow users to do things they didn't know they wanted?

youtu.be

@Trevor Great point. Ad as much as I love JTBD, I don't think it will solve everything. There is still room for inventing & experimenting. I often think of Twitter this way. You'd have been hard-pressed to elicit a job-to-be-done that fits Twitter. Sure, with 20/20 hindsight you might look at blogging, text messaging, email and think..."Twitter".

But really, that'd be silly.

JTBD is an incredibly powerful tool, but it is only one of several that can be applied. I will also post what Paul Graham tweeted about start-ups:

"Startups in 137 chars: Make something someone specific needs, launch fast, let users show you what to change, change it, repeat last two."

twitter.com

Startups like Stripe are very much in that JTBD realm.

Trevor,

By all means blow people's minds with awesome stuff they never could have dreamed of. Just make sure there's actual demand there, or a job to be done. I promise your mind blowing new product will be better if you dig into the job and deeply understand demand.

Hey guys, this was a great conversation. Thanks for participating, I hope you will join the Lean Startup group on Branch.