to get a job done and analyze the forces of change. The aim is to increase demand for a given product or service.
On the other side is Tony Ulwick’s Outcome-Driven Innovation (ODI), a strategy and innovation approach focused on pinpointing customer-centered opportunities. In qualitative interviews, ODI uncovers all of the desired outcomes that people want from getting a job done in a given domain. In a separate step, these desired outcomes are prioritized with a quantitative survey. ODI increases the adoption of innovation by creating products that address unmet needs.
MILKSHAKE MARKETING REVISITED
Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen often frames JTBD with a story involving milkshakes. He and his team were reportedly working with McDonald’s to understand how to improve milkshake sales. Previously, the fast-food chain had tried changes to their milkshakes—making them thicker, chunkier, fruitier, etc. They also segmented consumers by demographics (e.g., age group) and tried to match those categories to different product variations. Milkshake sales did not improve.
Christensen’s team took a different approach. Instead of focusing on product attributes, they went looking for the job to be done. Why do people “hire” milkshakes?
To start, they stood in a restaurant’s parking lot and observed people getting milkshakes. Surprisingly, they learned that many people buy milkshakes in the morning on their way to work. The team dug deeper and asked people why.
It turned out that some people wanted to avoid getting hungry later in the morning. Having a snack on the drive to work helped fill them up, and milkshakes got that job done better than other options. Bananas were messy, bagels too hard to eat, a Snickers bar was unhealthy, and so on.
As a result of this story, the term “milkshake marketing” has come to refer to this type of reframing. It’s a shift in traditional marketing approaches typically centered on demographic segmentation. Instead, Christensen advises, focus on why people “hire” products and services to get a job done.
Though widely cited, the milkshake example comes with several issues. First, the starting point is an existing solution—a milkshake—and thus frames the market a priori. Focusing instead on the job, the problem might be better cast as get breakfast on the go.
Second, milkshake sales, in fact, did not improve as a result of this study. Of course, there were many potential variables and reasons why the fast food chain didn’t follow the advice of Christensen’s team. But it was not a success story per se. (Personally, I don’t know why McDonald’s doesn’t offer a low-sugar protein breakfast shake based on this insight).
You’ll likely come across the milkshake story in your exploration of JTBD. Just be aware that, while popular and widespread, the example has limitations in applying JTBD. The focus of the story is on demand generation of an existing product (buying a milkshake) not on understanding the underlying objective (getting breakfast on the go).
I believe these two sides are not mutually exclusive, and there is a place for both. Sometimes, it makes sense to understand people’s objectives and needs from the bottom-up (i.e., ODI), for instance, when developing a new product or when redefining your market. Other times, it’s appropriate to start with a particular product in mind and understand why people “hired” that product to get a job done (i.e., Switch).
In the end, techniques from both interpretations can help your organization shift its mindset from inside-out to outside-in. There is a common focus on the underlying objectives that people have, independent of a solution. Ultimately, your goal is to make products people want, as well as make people want your products.
To be transparent, my approach is a loose interpretation of ODI, but it is not presented here as practiced by Ulwick’s firm Strategyn. I’ve also practiced Switch techniques, and I follow the work of Bob Moesta closely. In working with both approaches, I have found a growing group of practitioners who benefit from a wide variety of JTBD techniques. This book strives to bring both perspectives together under one broad practice of JTBD.
Overall, JTBD is not a single method: it’s a lens, a way of seeing. JTBD lets you step back from your business and understand the objectives of the people you serve. To innovate, don’t ask customers about their preferences, but instead understand their underlying intent. Ultimately, JTBD seeks to reduce the inherent risk in innovation and ensure product-market fit from the outset.
There are many techniques that fall under the JTBD umbrella, and we’ll look at many of the more popular ones that have surfaced over the past three decades throughout this book.
Principles of JTBD
At its core, JTBD is a way for organizations to look at needs and objectives rather than demographic and psychographic characteristics. JTBD theory predicts human behavior: individuals are motivated to make progress toward an objective. If an organization knows in advance what drives customer behavior, it has a better chance at creating successful solutions. Regardless of technique or interpretation of JTBD, there are five common principles many people in the field agree upon.
1. People employ products and services to get their job done, not to interact with your organization.
JTBD doesn’t look at the relationship that people have to a given solution or brand, but rather how a solution fits into their world. The aim is to understand their problems before coming up with solutions.
To be clear, JTBD is not about customer journeys or experiences with product, which assume a relationship to a given provider. Customer journey investigations seek to answer questions such as: When do people first hear about a given solution? How did they decide to select the organization’s offerings? What keeps them using it? These are all important questions to answer, but they also don’t get to the underlying job.
JTBD, on the other hand, focuses on the relationships that people have with reaching their own objectives. A given solution may or may not be employed in the process, but the job exists nonetheless, independent of any one provider. From this perspective, companies should also consider whether or not customers even want what they provide. Innovation often comes when a current means to an end is avoided altogether or absorbed into another process, thus eliminating the rationale for having the product or service to begin with.
2. Jobs are stable over time, even as technology changes.
The jobs people are trying to get done are not only solution agnostic, but they also don’t change with technology advancements. References to solutions (products, services, methods, etc.) are carefully avoided in JTBD vernacular. Consequently, JTBD research typically has a long shelf life. It is foundational insight that can be applied across projects and departments over time.
For instance, 75 years ago when people prepared their taxes, they used pen and paper for all calculations and submissions. Later, they used pocket calculators to help with the numbers and sums. These days, completing taxes is done with sophisticated software and online filing solutions that didn’t exist 50 years ago. Though technology changed, the job remains the same: file taxes.
3. People seek services that enable them to get more of their job done quicker and easier.
New opportunities come from investigating the process of what people are trying to achieve. Mapping the job, not the buying journey, provides unique insight. Customers value getting a job done better.
The
