Advertisements

Collecting and analyzing jobs-to-be-done

via the Daily Mail

I’ve previously written about collecting jobs-to-be-done from customers. Because I was analyzing a broad topic across the entire innovation lifecycle, it was a good way to get a breadth of insight. However, it doesn’t work as well in the more common situation for product managers and innovators: analyzing a specific flow. In that case, there are three requirements for collecting jobs-to-be-done:

  • Comprehensive capture of job elements
  • Map collection as closely as possible to the actual job flow
  • Understand importance and satisfaction of individual tasks

Comprehensive is important, because you can’t address what you don’t know. A limitation of my previous effort was that it was not comprehensive. Actual job flow is a powerful framework. Needs captured in context are more valuable, and it’s critical to follow the steps in the job. Importance and satisfaction become the basis for prioritizing effort.

To address these requirements, I’ve put together a process to understand customers’ jobs-to-be-done. The major elements are:

1 Job flow 2 Job task 3 Collect job tasks per activity
4 Job canvas 5 Task importance & dissatisfaction 6 Number of customer interviews
7 Create affinity groups 8 Label the groups 9 Calculate group importance and dissatisfaction

For purposes of this write-up, assume you’re an automotive product manager. You’re tasked with understanding people’s needs to get work done on the commute to the office. Note this is a job that becomes more readily enabled by self-driving cars.

Start with the job flow

A job-to-be-done has a flow. For example, take this job:

When I commute to the office, I want to get work done.

A job flow consists of the job’s major activities, in sequence. The job flow looks something like this:

Job flow

The purpose of the flow is to provide a framework for capturing specific tasks. Putting this together is primarily the responsibility of the product manager (or innovation team). By stating the major activities that define the job, expect a much more comprehensive capture of all the job elements.

Job task

Each activity consists of a series of tasks. Task are what the customer actually does. They are independent of specific features, although may often be intertwined. Here’s an example task:

Job task

Previously, I’d focused on including context in job statements. But when these tasks are organized according to the job flow, the context is readily known. So task statements don’t include a context element.

But they do include an expectation statement. For every task we do, we have an expectation for it. It defines whether we consider the current experience wonderful or painful. This expectation is formalized for each task, captured in the customer’s own words. It’s valuable to know what the customer expects, as that becomes the basis of design.

Collect jobs tasks for each activity

Next step is to conduct the actual customer interviews. Whether done in the customer’s environment (best) or via a web conference call (acceptable), the job flow provides a familiar framework to the customer.

Job activity + tasks

When I worked at eFinance, I conducted brown paper sessions with clients to understand their commercial credit processes. A staple of the Capgemini consulting model, the brown paper is a step-by-step process flow of what the customer does today. Collecting the job tasks is similar here. Similarities and differences:

  • Brown papers are conducted with groups of people together. Job-to-be-done capture will more often be solo interviews.
  • Brown papers are done in a strict step-by-step flow, captured visually on a wall. If doing this for job-to-be-done interviews works for you, go for it. But a simpler post-it note capture style works as well.
  • After capturing the steps in a brown paper, the group is invited to post stickies describing points where improvement is needed. In the job-to-be-done interviews, each task includes a statement of what the customer expects for it.

A key element of the interview process is to probe the responses of the customer. In a perfect world, they will lay out the individual tasks and easily express their expectations. But likely, customers will talk a lot about features. Which is valuable in its own right. But the objective here is to capture what they are trying to get done. So apply the simple question why. Not in a robotic way. But make sure to probe past the expression of features. These are the tasks – versus features – to place on the job canvas.

Here’s an example of the approach:

Customer: I want a 4G internet card.
Interviewer: Why do you need that?
Customer: So I can connect to email and the web.
Interviewer: What is your expectation for connecting to email and the web?
Customer: Always-on internet.

One tip: Use different color sticky notes for each major activity’s group of tasks. This color coding will help later in identifying where the tasks occur in the job flow.

Job canvas

For each major activity, job tasks are collected onto that customer’s job canvas. An example (with fewer tasks than would actually be there):

Job flow + tasks

In reality, there will be  a large number of tasks per customer interviewed. Strategyn’s Tony Ulwick states there will be between 50-150 outcomes collected from multiple customer interviews. Gerry Katz of Applied Marketing Science sees 100 or more needs collected as well. Sheila Mello of Product Development Consulting says it’s not unusual to extra several hundred images from the customer interviews.

Top tasks by importance and dissatisfaction

Once the job tasks have been captured, the customer selects the tasks:

  • That are most important
  • That are least satisfied

The customer will select the 3-5 tasks that are most important for each major activity in the flow (e.g. there are 3 major activities shown in the job canvas above). These tasks will be assigned points. For example, assume three tasks are identified as important. The most important task would receive 3 points, the next most important 2 points, and so on.

The customer will also select the 3-5 tasks that are least satisfied for each major activity in the flow. Assuming three selected tasks, the task that is least satisfied receives 3 points, the next least satisfied task receives 2 points, and so on.

Job tasks - importance and satisfaction

Keep this insight handy, but separate from the collected stickies (or however you’ve collected the job tasks). We’ll come back to how to use this information.

Note: it will help to apply unique numbers to the individual job tasks. You’re going to want to know the most important and least satisfied tasks across multiple customers later in the process.

Number of customer interviews

A general rule of thumb is that 15-20 customer interviews will provides solid coverage of customers’ needs. You can take it further, as George Castellion advocates 40 interviews. Each interview starts with a blank canvas containing only major activities.

Create affinity groups

After conducting multiple interviews, you will have a large number of job tasks, with information on which ones are most important and least satisfied. Working with a large number of statements by people is a challenge that others have faced. They key is to reduce the large number to a manageable set of insights. There’s a proven approach called the KJ-Method to systematically abstract hundreds of statements into a few key groups.

UX expert Jared Spool provides a detailed series of steps to run the K-J Method. I’ll use his description here.

Bring together group of people do the affinity grouping

The first step is to determine who will do the affinity grouping with you. Try to keep this group at 5 people or fewer. Draw on people from different disciplines.

Put all the job tasks on a wall

In a single space, all the job tasks should be visible and accessible. They need not be laid out in the job flow, which might introduce a bias to the grouping. The color of the stickies will be the basis for knowing where the tasks fall in the flow.

Group similar items

The next step is for the team members to group like  job tasks together. The process is one of looking at pairs of tasks, and determining if they share characteristics. This how Jared instructs clients to do this:

“Take two items that seem like they belong together and place them in an empty portion of the wall, at least 2 feet away from any other sticky notes. Then keep moving other like items into that group.”

“Feel free to move items into groups other people create. If, when reviewing someone else’s group, it doesn’t quite make sense to you, please feel free to rearrange the items until the grouping makes sense.”

“You’re to complete this step without any discussion of the sticky notes or the groups. Every item has to be in a group, though there are likely to be a few groups with only one item.”

Label the groups

Each participant then gets to label each group. This entails looking at the grouped job tasks and determining the common theme. Again, here’s how Jared instructs teams on this process:

“I want you to now give each group a name. Read through each group and write down a name that best represents each group on the new set of sticky notes I just gave you.”

“A name is a noun cluster, such as ‘Printer Support Problems’. Please refrain from writing entire sentences.”

“As you read through each group, you may realize that the group really has two themes. Feel free to split those groups up, as appropriate.”

“You may also notice that two groups really share the same theme. In that case, you can feel free to combine the two groups into one.”

“Please give every group a name. A group can have more than one name. The only time you’re excused from giving a group a name is if someone has already used the exact words you had intended to use.”

Note that part of the exercise in this step is to give one more consideration to the groupings. If, upon trying to determine a label one finds that the groups doesn’t actually make sense, the groups can be split up as needed.

I’ll add this caveat to Jared’s instructions. For purposes of this affinity group work, lots of different labels for each group of tasks are not important. It’s OK to go with one person’s good label for a group, a point to emphasize more strongly.

Here’s an example of labeling a group of job tasks:

Job tasks grouped

Once done, you’ve organized a solid group of job tasks into major themes for what customers are trying to do.

Calculate the importance and dissatisfaction score for each group

Remember asking the customers to rate the three most important and three least satisfied job tasks? Now it’s time to use those ratings. In each group, calculate the following for both importance and dissatisfaction:

  • Total points
  • Average points per task

For each group, you’ll have something like this:

Job task groups with scores

The Total score gives a sense for where the customer energy is. Large scores on either metric will demand attention. The Average score is good for cases where a group has only a few, highly scored job tasks. It ensures they don’t get overlooked.

Prioritize roadmap

You now have major groups scored with customers’ view of importance and dissatisfaction. Within each group are the tasks and expectations that customers have. This is the good stuff, the insight that fuels design efforts. It’s also the data-driven, factually based input that helps clear the fog when tackling a new area for development.

The expressed customer insight – what they want to do, what is important, what is not satisfied – becomes the foundation for constructing a roadmap. The team can layer on other considerations: business strategy, adjacent initiatives that impact the effort, internal priorities. Balance these with what customers actually value. Anything that ignores this hard-won customer insight needs a compelling reason, and an understanding of the higher risk it entails.

I’m @bhc3 on Twitter.

Advertisements

The Product Manager is the Chief Customer Development Officer

If pressed, what would you say is the secret to product success? Certainly there are a number of things that go into making and selling products. Prioritization, design, manufacturing frameworks, marketing, service, cost of production, etc. Each of these elements needs to be optimized, and there are people, practices and tools that do just that.

Despite rigor in much of the product process, there’s still too high a failure rate for products. I’ll bet you’ve seen this in your own company: proposed products that received a lot of internal resources only to be killed off, or that launched and didn’t hit the mark with customers. As you can see, there’s a story to it:

Product development success and failure

Consider that first panel for a moment. A third of launched products fail. That doesn’t include the projects that were killed before launch. 32% of development resources are spent on products that get scrapped or fail in the market. To put that in perspective, imagine similar levels of failure in other venues:

  • We  miscalculated 32% of the accounting entries
  • 32% of our inventory purchases were wasted
  • Our marketing initiatives fail to sell anything or raise brand awareness 32% of the time
  • 32% of our manufacturing capacity is chronically unavailable

Those levels of performance would be unacceptable in companies. Yet they’re considered part of the ‘art’ of innovation when it comes to product. The cost of doing business. Which is pretty sweet if you’re a product person…

OK, forget that. Let’s assume rational, ambitious people want to do better.

What works? Survey says…

In a survey of B2B firms, people were asked to identify the causes of failed products. The top answer was ‘lack of market analysis’. As in, did the market have the need, did the feature address it if so, and did it do so better than competing products? The next answer was that the ‘product didn’t satisfy customer needs’. There’s a pattern here.

Flip the analysis…what are the top success factors? All three  are specifically rooted in understanding customer needs:

  1. Product directed at customer needs
  2. Staying close to the customer
  3. Product adds value to the customer

Notice that pattern again? Products that succeed are designed and developed with customer insight.

Factors that make customer involvement successful

Researchers in Sweden conducted an analysis of firms’ product development efforts, classifying the products as successful or not successful. They tracked these product outcomes against the types of interactions the firms have with customers. Note they tracked product development efforts as incremental innovation. They separately tracked radical innovations as well.

For incremental innovation – i.e. the daily work of product managers – they were able to identify three factors that separated successful products from the rest. Factors that affected the “absorptive capacity” of the company to assimilate customer needs.

Engagement frequencyEngagement frequency: The more often a company communicates with customers, the more successful were it product releases. Communication can be oriented toward understanding needs, or for feedback on design iterations.

Two-way directionTwo-way communication: The nature of the communication dictates its value. If the company does all the talking, it’s not going to learn much. The more the communication is a dialogue, the better the outcome for the product.

Needs in contextNeeds in context: The more the insight is captured as part of a broader view of the activity, the better that insight is. Top insight is gathered as the customer experiences using the product. It’s also valuable to understand the why for insight. If the suggestion or need is in isolation, it can be hard to understand the core need.

Now, who is in charge of getting this insight?

Chief Customer Development Officer

Think about this. For marketing, it’s clear who owns that activity, and you can see processes, systems, people and priorities for it. Same goes for manufacturing / development. And design. And supply chain management. And distribution. And financial analysis. And human resources. And so on…

But where are the comparable processes and people dedicated to understanding the customers’ needs? Who plumbs the jobs-to-be-done and analyzes the key outcomes customers are seeking? The work of understanding customer needs, in one sense, is everybody’s responsibility. It’s what makes the company grow. But if something is everybody’s responsibility, it’s really nobody’s responsibility.

It’s an important question, because the degree to which one stays close to the customer is a primary basis of success or failure in product development. As a function, what would you call this work? Customer Needs Whisperer? Voice of the Customer-ologist? Actually, Steve Blank has it covered with customer development:

Before any of the traditional functions of selling and marketing can happen, the company has to prove a market could exist, verify someone would pay real dollars for the solutions the company envisions, and then go out and create the market. These testing, learning and discovery activities are at the heart of what makes a startup unique, and they are what make Customer Development so different from the Product Development process

Steve Blank, The Four Steps to the Epiphany

While Steve Blank’s excellent book is targeted at entrepreneurs who need to do the hard work of validating an idea, the mindset underlying customer development is well-suited for the need to stay close to customers. Hence, the notion of the Chief Customer Development Officer. And the product management team sits at ground zero in the customer development activity.

What distinguishes customer development from the current mentality in most companies? Cribbing from a Jack London quote:

You can’t wait for customer insight to come to you. You have to go after it with a club.

This is a change in mindset for many. Be proactive in understanding customers. Make communicating with customers a meaningful percentage of the weekly schedule. Don’t settle for inbound inquiries. Or only focus groups on an already-designed product. Or quarterly customer council meetings. Really own the customer development activity.

It’s worth it, as here are five concrete benefits of employing the customer development mindset:

  1. Develop understanding of what success looks like for the customer
  2. Customer becomes invested in the success of the product
  3. Elevate customers’ awareness of what’s coming
  4. Discover opportunities for growth due to underserved JTBD
  5. Reduce uncertainty due to lack of information

You only get these by being a proactive customer development officer.  In a future post, I’ll examine the different ways engage customers in the product development process. Because there are many.

I’m @bhc3 on Twitter.

10 examples of fabulously flawed product-first thinking

In talking about jobs-to-be-done here, I sometimes think that all I’m doing is stating the obvious. I mean, isn’t it obvious that you’d create something that helped fulfill a need or desire? What else would you do?

But I’ve seen in my own work experience, and across a multitude of initiatives in other industries, cases where that’s not necessarily the case. Invention was the thing. I mean that in this sense:

Invention creates. Innovation changes.

Exercising creative chops was the focus, with a thought that customers would have to take up this amazing thing invented. But unfortunately, that’s not generally the case. The invention is not adopted, and thus nothing changes for the target market. Innovation does not occur. The invention either does not address a job-to-be-done or the proposed solution was nowhere near satisfying the specific outcomes of an applicable job-to-be-done.

To illuminate how this “product-first” dynamic is a pervasive dynamic, I’ve collected ten examples of it. While the plural of anecdote is not data, see if you recognize similar examples in your own experience.

1. Because Apple, Microsoft, Google did it!

Context

Kareem Mayan wrote a great post Why only fools write code first. In it, he stated, “I have a confession to make: I’m 35, and until last year, I started building companies by creating a product.” The post describes on his evolution in thinking, focusing first on customer needs before building anything.

Product-first thinking

In the comments, someone wrote:

“Almost all of the successful startups I know of built a product first, simply because the founder wanted. Apple, Microsoft, Google, Dropbox — some of these are famous even today for never doing user surveys.”

This argument expressed skepticism about Kareem’s point.

Analysis

A good example of the ongoing pervasiveness of product-first thinking. It really is everywhere. Here, the commenter displays a classic example of the survivor bias. A focus on only those companies that made it, and what they do. Ignoring that perhaps dozens of competitors also charged ahead with their own product-first approaches. And were nowhere near as successful.

It’s like looking at the ways lottery winners live, and saying that’s the way you should live too. They’re not connected.

Of course, it’s also possible the commenter actually has no idea what those companies do in terms of understanding customer needs…

2. The “what you can do for us” attitude

Yahoo home page 2002, via All Things D

Context

Way before Marissa Mayer joined Yahoo, the company was a case study in mediocrity. From its glory days in the 90s, it had managed to become a bloated collection of media properties, without a coherent strategy due to a succession of changing executives and business models.

Product-first thinking

As reported by Kara Swisher on All Things D, Yahoo’s home page became increasingly overrun with links. To cram more stuff above-the-fold, font sizes shrunk. It became a nasty hodge podge of links that no longer related to what users wanted.

As Yahoo’s Tapan Bhat, SVP of Integrated Consumer Experiences noted,  “It had nothing to do with the user, but what Yahoo wanted the user to do.”

Analysis

What Yahoo wanted the user to. What a wonderful expression of the approach. It’s such a pernicious mode, where the needs of the company eclipse those of the customers. Call it inside-out thinking. When the company’s, not the customers’, needs drive product and service decisions, it’s a good bet customers will turn elsewhere. It’s a great opportunity for competitors.

3. Dazzled by the invention

Source: NBC Bay Area

Context

Anyone remember the hype over Dean Kamen’s project code named Ginger back in 2001? Turned out to be the Segway, that amazing triumph of technology that allowed people to travel on a motorized two-wheel scooter. It really is amazing, with its self-balancing mechanism, easy navigation and smooth ride.

Product-first thinking

It was hailed as the next coming of great technology. No really, it was. Here are quotes by both Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos prior to its launch:

Jobs: “If enough people see this machine, you won’t have to convince them to architect cities around it; it’ll just happen.” (#)

Bezos: “You have a product so revolutionary, you’ll have no problem selling it.” (#)

Wow! So what happened? Well, have you taken your Segway out for a spin today? It  missed the mark in terms of how frequent the job-to-be-done was. For me, Segways are what tourists rent to travel around Golden Gate Park in San Francisco.

Analysis

My own perspective is that Segway is an optimum mode of transport for journeys where walking would take more than 10 minutes and less than 30. And where you don’t need to carry anything heavy or bulky. And where weather would be OK for the journey. Steve Jobs, who did heap praise on it, was prescient about what needs it didn’t fill.

“Jobs said he lived seven minutes from a grocery and wasn’t sure he would use Ginger to get there. Bezos agreed.” (#)

So Jobs and Bezos were full of praise, but in a hard analysis couldn’t quite say what mass job-to-be-done the Segway fulfilled. And it turns out most of the market couldn’t either. Sometimes the invention is so dazzling, we’re blinded to understanding what need it actually fulfills. Invention first thinking.

4. Same template, different market

Via Bloomberg Business Week

Context

Ron Johnson did a fantastic job of creating the Apple stores. They’re enjoyable to visit, full of all the latest in cool technology Apple has to offer. The clean vibe, the on-the-spot purchasing, the Genius Bar. Clearly he brought some of the experience from his Target (aka “Tar-jay“) days to the job.

Based on this, the Board of JC Penney installed him as CEO to restore a retailer that had lost its luster.

Product-first thinking

Johnson put in place a number of changes to reinvigorate the retailer. He stopped the discounting, going for a low price everyday approach (like Target). He developed brands that would be exclusive to JC Penney (like Target). Trained employees to help people shopping (like Apple).

Ultimately, however, his changes didn’t take. Perhaps the most telling insight came from another executive:

Ron’s response at the time was, just like at Apple, customers don’t always know what they want,” said an executive who advocated testing. “We’re not going to test it — we’re going to roll it out.”

There it is, product-first — or maybe vision-first — thinking.

Analysis

It’s tempting to look at this as the hubris of being smarter than customers. But I don’t think that’s the lesson to draw. Rather, this is a case of previous success with a format in other markets (Target, Apple), and applying it to a new market. Without understanding the customers in the new market. The fact that Johnson didn’t feel the need to run the new strategies by JC Penney’s customer base was due to his success with the template previously. Why test? You know what customers want.

But in this case, it led to overlooking existing customers and what they outcomes were being fulfilled by JC Penney. This alienates the core customer base, while potential new customers ponder why they’d switch from Target to JC Penney. Unsurprisingly, the stock dropped 55% during his tenure, with a horrendous 32% drop in same-store sales in the critical holiday 4th quarter of 2012.

5. Blaze a new trail

Context

Tired of people saying you should listen to the marketplace, Dan Waldschmidt advocates something different. He argues that most of the time, people don’t know what they want. In making his argument, he references both American slavery and Martin Luther’s religious reformation.

Product-first thinking

Here is how Dan puts it:

One of the things business experts tell you when you are considering changes to your sales strategy is the idea that you need to “listen to your marketplace”. That you need to take your idea and run it by the people around you to get some feedback. Instead, blaze a new trail. Think about where you want to lead your market.

Analysis

Perhaps the key phrase is lead your market. That, in and of itself, is fine. Lead your market in sales. In profits. In innovations that resonate. But in the context of (i) ignoring the marketplace; and (ii) blazing a new trail, it comes across as advice to tell the market where it needs to go. Which actually is nice if you can accomplish it. Alas, the business landscape is littered with folks who tried to tell the market where to go. The market can be fickle that way.

To be fair, it is important to separate the jobs-to-be-done from the potential solutions. That’s a better way to think about Dan’s advice.

6. What Steve Jobs said

Via Inc. Magazine, 1989

Context

Perhaps you have seen this quote by Steve Jobs:

“You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them.”

Run a search on that exact phrase, and 687,000 results are returned. It’s a sentiment from one of the all-time greats that clearly has caught on.

Product-first thinking

Interpretation is important here. When you read a number of articles that reference the quote, the context is one of divining products that no one in the market would come up with. Use your inner genius to do this. As written about Jobs  in Fast Company:

He is a focus group of one, the ideal Apple customer, two years out.

And he was quite good.

Analysis

But for most of us, we’re not an ideal focus group of one. That’d be the dangerous lesson to draw from his quote. If every corporate product person, or innovator, or strategist decided to channel his inner focus group of one, there’d be a lot of  wasted resources. Actually, there are a lot of wasted resources

The other thing to note is the quote in its fuller context. Here’s more from Jobs in the 1989 interview with Steve Jobs where he first said that quote:

“You can get into just as much trouble by going into the technology lab and asking your engineers, “OK, what can you do for me today?” That rarely leads to a product that customers want or to one that you’re very proud of building when you get done. You have to merge these points of view, and you have to do it in an interactive way over a period of time—which doesn’t mean a week. It takes a long time to pull out of customers what they really want, and it takes a long time to pull out of technology what it can really give.”

Sound like he’s advocating to ignore your customers?

7. My business model demands your attention

Facebook Home user ratings

Facebook Home user ratings

Context

A few months ago, Facebook introduced Facebook Home. This app for Android became the user interface of the phone. In so doing, it dominates the experience on the device:

Designed to be a drop-in replacement for the existing home screen (“launcher”) on an Android device, the software provides a replacement home screen that allows users to easily view and post content on Facebook along with launching apps, a replacement lock screen that displays notifications from Facebook and other apps, and an overlay which allows users to chat via Facebook messages or SMS from any app.

Note that the existing Facebook app was still available, allowing you to get your Facebook updates via the phone.

Product-first thinking

What Facebook Home does is elevate Facebook above all others on the phone. It was a play to get Facebook front and center in your daily experience. There would be access to all your other apps, but the path to them would go through Facebook each and every time.

Globally, the average smartphone user has 26 apps on their phone. For Facebook Home to be popular, the typical user would rank Facebook above all other apps. The games. Email. Twitter. Instagram. And on…

Analysis

Ultimately, Facebook Home withered in the market. I can understand why. In 2012, mobile time spent on Facebook surpassed time on the Facebook website. From a user experience perspective, Facebook wanted to make mobile even easier. From an advertising perspective, Facebook needed to establish a way to present more mobile ads. Imagine serving up an ad every time someone turned on their Android phone.

But the problem is that Facebook was solving a job that most users were already satisfied with. The Facebook App works well for its purpose. It also imposed new friction on using one’s mobile device. The burden of navigating through Facebook to get to your other 25 apps. As Joseph Farrell, EVP Operations at BiTE interactive, said:

“Facebook Home solves Facebook’s needs for more user data, but what does it solve for its users?”

8. Solution in search of a problem

Context

In a post, entrepreneur Ramli John talked about lessons he’s learned from failed startup efforts. Specifically, the experience gained with Lesson Sensei. Lesson Sensei didn’t make it.

Product-first thinking

Ramli states plainly the trap he fell into:

“Don’t lose focus of the problem. That was one of the biggest mistake I made in my previous failed startup, Lesson Sensei. About a few weeks in, we realized that we really don’t have a problem to solve. But, we had this awesome solution. So we started pivoting on possible problems we can solve with our solution. Each week, we tried a new problem to solve. Each time, we found a flaw with our assumption. Then, we started losing steam. Always start with validating a problem before you validate the solution. The other way around just takes up too much time and energy.”

Analysis

This is a classic issue. There’s a hazy sense of what an idea could address. It’s not nailed down yet, but there’s the rush of starting on the solution anyway. To be fair, there is some merit in this. You could be 50% there in terms of product-market fit, and the initial product can help elicit the right iterations. But as Ramli notes, that can be an expensive approach. It burns time, energy and money. And depending on how hazy that view is of the actual job-to-be-done and its attendant outcomes, you may be entirely off track.

9. We’ll get to those customers at some point

Context

Robin Chase is the founder and former CEO of Zipcar (acquired by Avis in 2013). After Zipcar, she founded GoLoco, a carpooling app. Unlike Zipcar, GoLoco didn’t make it. She is now leading Buzzcar, a peer-to-peer car sharing service.

Product-first thinking

Robin is open about the failure of GoLoco:

“With my second company, GoLoco – social online ridesharing – we spent too much money on the website and software before engaging with our first customers.”

Analysis

In some ways, this is a similar situation to Ron Johnson at JC Penney. Having been successful in getting Zipcar going, Robin had a confident attitude about her new endeavor. That confidence led her to develop first, worry about customers later. As she notes, this was backwards. The spade work of understanding customers’ needs is a critical first step.

10. Dazzled by the innovator and the hot trends

Color website is deadContext

Remember Color? This app would let you take pictures. These pictures were then visible to anyone with the Color app within 100 feet of you. It was a way for friends or strangers to participate together in some close proximity.

Color is no more. It didn’t fare well.

Product-first thinking

It was a can’t-miss app. It was started by an energetic, persuasive entrepreneur whose previous company was bought by Apple. It was SOcial. It was LOcation-based. It was MObile. It was SoLoMo!

With that combination, Sequoia Capital and Bain Capital felt confident investing $41 million. Product-first thinking.

Analysis

Presumably, the entrepreneur’s previous success was a good-enough proxy for understanding the target market’s jobs-to-be-done and attendant outcomes. However, as seen with GoLoco above, previous success doesn’t automatically grant the ability to divine customer needs. There’s still the work of understanding the market you intend to tackle.

GigaOm’s Darrell Etherington gets props for identifying the flaws of Color right at its launch:

“But I think it’s more likely this is a prime example of how, when it comes to apps, 1+1+1 does not always equal 3. An app can’t just hope to profit by being at the intersection of a number of promising mobile trends. Developers still have to think intelligently about how those trends integrate, and remember that user experience, especially the one following first launch, is still the key to wide app adoption.”

Remember this next time you see another startup in an overhyped space, say Big Data. What job-to-be-done does it fulfill?

Wrap-up

Perhaps not surprisingly given my work experience and interests, these examples have a heavy technology orientation.  One can imagine similar cases in financial services, apparel, consumer product goods, etc. Hopefully the examples here will be useful as you look at your own world. And in your own work. I’ll admit to being guilty of product-first thinking. The creative muse is a strong human characteristic. But recognize when that muse is taking you down a path you shouldn’t go.

I’m @bhc3 on Twitter.

Uncover latent needs with a simple question

After publishing Latent needs are overplayed as an innovation dynamic, I got a lot of feedback. Plenty of agreement, but also some good counterpoints. And in reading through some of them, I realized that there is something to this. A lot of people are convinced that whole markets are waiting to be built based on people not really understanding their own needs.

Or if not whole markets, at least new products that can find success based on unrealized needs.

I submit that there is an antidote to this problem. That the issue is not that customers either do not know or cannot articulate their needs, or jobs-to-be-done. It’s that follow-up is required.

Are you asking ‘why’ enough?

The antidote to the scourge of latent needs is simple: ask ‘WHY?”

As you interview a customer, you’re seeking their jobs-to-be-done, along with the associated outcomes that are needed to be successful in that job. Here’s the thing: you’re going to get superficial responses initially. Not because people don’t realize their own needs. Rather, they’re fixated on current processes and product features (this is the ‘faster horses’ issue). We go with what we can recall the easiest. It’s a natural phenomenon, documented well by Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. But it can result in limited insight into what they really value and seek to accomplish.

When interviewing a customer, listen for your internal voice that says, “this need is not the real one”. You’ll know it, because it will be deeply entwined in the current product features. That’s when delivering a well-timed ‘WHY?’ will make a difference.

Faster horses - WHY comic

This is not a novel concept. Indeed, it’s part of the lean six sigma methodology, used to get at the root cause of issues (here’s a Jeff Bezos example). But it’s perhaps not so obvious to use WHY in the pursuit of latent needs.

I have found asking ‘WHY’ to be a great method for penetrating the “what I easily know” bias. Two examples below – one from a former HPer, one from me – relate the value of understanding ‘WHY’.

HP large format graphic plotter

Spigit innovation management platform

Related by Marvin Patterson, President Dileab Group, and formerly with Hewlett-Packard From my own experience as VP Product – Spigit
We were asked to figure out how to get HP into the large format graphic plotter business. In one customer visit after another we were told that accuracy was the critical requirement. The current product to beat utilized a magnetic x-y motor moving over a precisely grooved steel surface that was mounted on a super-flat granite slab weighing the better part of a ton. This $50,000 product had accuracy that was hard to beat.

During a visit to a semiconductor design company, I asked them to show us how they used these highly accurate drawings. We were ushered into a room where engineers were verifying the design of multiple chip layers. They did this by taping the drawings, each roughly 3×4 meters, to a large light table, with each drawing carefully aligned with the one below. They would then crawl around on top of the light table, literally on their hands and knees, sighting down through the layers of transparent Mylar, and checking the alignment and design of each layer.

“See,” said our host, “that’s why we need the accuracy.” But, in fact, this application did not use the accuracy at all. It depended, instead, only on repeatability between one drawing and the next. Repeatability is fairly cheap and easy to accomplish. Accuracy is really, really expensive. After a thorough survey of the market, we decided that repeatability was the crucial specification in most applications, so we traded off accuracy for lower cost. The resulting product employed a radical new plotting mechanism that delivered extremely good repeatability, fairly poor accuracy, and sold for under $15,000. Within three years its sales exceeded 50% market share.

I performed a jobs-to-be-done exercise with multiple customers. One job that several talked about was the need to get more people ‘down-voting’ ideas. What they were seeing was that people tended to be positive only, or they didn’t rate an idea at all.

More down votes JTBD

Hence the desire for more down-votes. But I asked for more than that. “Why?” Because they wanted better distinguishing of the good ideas from the bad, and getting only up-votes made that hard.The real need was better ways to distinguish ideas. The request for ways to increase down votes was the way they expressed that.Customers were providing feedback on the current process/features when they talked about more down-votes. But pressing them to understand why unveiled the real need. And there are a lot of other ways to stratify ideas besides increasing down-votes.

Marvin got to the real need here by pursuing customers’ responses through ‘why’. Note that repeatability wasn’t an unrealized need. Customers were doing this with every design! They indeed realized they needed to do it. It’s just that they were caught up in the current process they used when expressing This insight was used later in the product roadmap to address the real need. Rather than push to get users to do something they were uncomfortable with – down voting – there are ways to leverage what they actually do.

In both cases, customers were providing feedback about current process and product features. But with some digging, the root job-to-be-done was secured. Nothing latent or unrealized. Just some work penetrating the natural way people think: starting with what they can easily recall. Dig deeper with WHY.

I’m @bhc3 on Twitter.

Latent needs are overplayed as an innovation dynamic

Reading this thought piece from the Silicon Valley Product Group, The End of Requirements, I saw this point about latent needs:

Unrealized needs (also called “latent needs”) are those solutions where customers may not even be aware they even have the need until after they see and experience the solution. Examples include digital video recorders, tablets, always-on-voice, self-driving cars, etc.

In other words, customers often don’t know what they want. This is essentially another version of the Henry Ford quote, “If I asked people what they wanted, they’d have said faster horses.”

I want to differ with the Silicon Valley Product Group here. People do know their needs, it’s incumbent on companies to understand them. Then it’s appropriate to try out ideas that can better satisfy those jobs. This diagram illustrates the two separate dynamics:

Decoupling customer JTBD from solutions

In their post, they use self-driving cars as an example of “latent needs”. Two issues with that. First, self-driving cars are not yet in the market, so it’s not possible to say that was a latent need, as described by the Silicon Valley Product Group. The second issue is that self-driving cars will actually address known jobs-to-be-done. I wrote a whole post on that, Exactly what jobs will self-driving cars satisfy? In that post, I outline several jobs-to-be-done and some key outcomes desired:

Job-to-be-done Outcomes
I want to get from point A to point B Minimize commute time | Minimize accident risk | Minimize commute risk | Increase driving enjoyment
I want to get work done Increase digital work completed | Increase availability for conference calls | Minimize distractions
I want to improve the environment Minimize emissions | Minimize fossil fuel consumption
I want to enjoy my personal interests Increase spent on activity | Minimize distractions

The point here is that these are not latent needs. Some are needs that people do not think about now in the context of commuting in a vehicle. But they are not latent needs.

I do agree there are some needs that can be hard to discover, or which become more important as societal norms and expectations change. Sure, there are some needs that are not obvious and may indeed become more visible in the face of a potential solution. But these are exceptions, not the norm.

Making product and innovation decisions based on the thought that, “Well, people don’t really know what they want” is a recipe for a lot of wasted effort. It’s not a sustainable basis for growth.

Agree? Or think I’m oversimplifying things?

I’m @bhc3 on Twitter.

Generate opportunity maps with customer jobs-to-be-done

JTBD Opportunity MapIn seeking to better understand customer jobs-to-be-done, I found myself a bit underarmed. Meaning, I didn’t really have a way to do this. The value of jobs-to-be-done (JTBD) thinking has only emerged recently. It’s still nascent, and there aren’t ready guideposts to follow. However, Tony Ulwick has been at it over two decades. Indeed, his outcome-driven innovation remains a powerful methodology with the structure needed to effectively identify opportunities. It is the JTBD standard.

But in my work, I wasn’t ready to engage external consultants. My project was more low level, relating to a significant enhancement to an enterprise software platform. My needs – and budget – didn’t rise to the level of a full-fledged consulting engagement. Also, I wanted to be the one talking with customers.

So I did what anyone interested in innovation would do. I hacked my own approach.  I wanted a way to elicit jobs-to-be-done that had the following aspects:

  • Accessible anytime I wanted it
  • Low cost (free!)
  • Allowed me to rank  different jobs-to-be-done
  • Created a way of seeing where the opportunities are
  • Deepened my understanding of, and connection with, customers

The presentation below outlines a method to generate opportunity maps with customer jobs-to-be-done:

——-

As you’ll see in the presentation, I consider this an initial blueprint. One that can, and should, be hacked to optimize it. But as the approach exists now, it will provide significant value. And for those who haven’t engaged customers at this level of dialogue, you’ll be amazed at what you learn.

Give it a try and let me know what value you get in talking JTBD with your customers.

I’m @bhc3 on Twitter.

Exactly what jobs will self-driving cars satisfy?

On Twitter, I made this observation about the future of self-driving cars:

A moment later, Megan Panatier made this skeptical counterpoint:

This is a great example where it pays to consider the jobs-to-be-done. Self-driving is in the realm of experimentation right now. There’s no hindsight of how obviously this was going to be a success. Self-driving vehicles could end up being the next Segway. An interesting technology that never catches on.

Image via Engadget

How can we begin to know self-driving cars’ fate? Do some outside-in market analysis. Understand what jobs-to-be-done relate to the act of commuting. Know those, and you can determine what opportunities exist for self-driving cars.

To that end, here are four relevant jobs-to-be-done that I see:

  1. I want to get from point A to point B
  2. I want to get work done
  3. I want to improve the environment
  4. I want to enjoy my personal interests

Where can self-driving help? Know that, and you can see how it will fare in the future. In the analysis that follows, self-driving is compared to two common alternatives: regular, manually driven cars; and public transit like buses and trains. Concepts from the Strategyn jobs-to-be-done innovation approach are used to assess the alternatives: outcomes and satisfaction with those outcomes. While a typical job has 50 – 150 outcomes, we’ll focus on a few summary level outcomes here.

Job #1: Point A to Point B

This is the core job of driving. Getting from one place to another. What’s key here is understanding the important outcomes that are desired for this job. The table below shows outcomes for this job, and how well satisfied they are for different transit alternatives.

Outcomes Regular car Bus & train Self-driving
Minimize commute time Satisfaction - medium  Satisfaction - low Satisfaction - medium
Minimize accident risk  Satisfaction - medium  Satisfaction - high  Satisfaction - high
Minimize commute stress  Satisfaction - low  Satisfaction - high Satisfaction - high
Increase driving enjoyment  Satisfaction - high  Satisfaction - low  Satisfaction - low

Reviewing the desired outcomes, where might self-driving vehicles provide an advantage? It’s dependent on how the different alternatives are considered. For instance, self-driving vehicles will not provide better commute times than manually-driven cars. But they are better than what buses and trains provide. Buses and trains are bound by set routes and schedules. These inject delays in commute times. Cars generally have an advantage here because of their direct door-to-door operation.

But self-driving vehicles do provide improvements over regular cars on two other outcomes: accident risk and commute stress. A great opportunity in ‘accident reduction’ applies to driving under the influence of alcohol. Self-driving cars will get you home safely. In this sense, they are more akin to what Megan Panatier tweeted. They’re like trains.

Taking those three outcomes together, it becomes clearer that self-driving vehicles will provide greater satisfaction on the Point A to Point B job-to-be-done.

There is one outcome where self-driving cars are a step backwards: driving enjoyment. Think about those commercials with high performance vehicles speedily taking curves on beautiful rural roads. The high performance manually driven car market will still be intact even in a world of self-driving vehicles. People will want that visceral pleasure.

Job #2: Get work done

A recent survey sponsored by Jive Software highlighted that people are working outside office hours more and more. While the causes of this vary, the result is that this has become an important job-to-be-done for many. Let’s look at the key outcomes for this job.

Outcomes Regular car Bus & train Self-driving
Increase digital work completed  Satisfaction - low  Satisfaction - medium Satisfaction - high
Increase availability for conference calls  Satisfaction - medium  Satisfaction - low  Satisfaction - high
Minimize distractions  Satisfaction - medium Satisfaction - low  Satisfaction - high

Self-driving vehicles really shine in this job-to-be-done. They essentially become traveling offices. Fewer distractions and the ability to focus on the work tasks at hand.

The other advantage is better availability for conference calls. Ever tried to be on a work call while driving? Your focus is diverted by driving issues. And you really don’t want to be one of those people who loudly talks on the phone while commuting on a bus or train. When a conference call includes a shared screen, you can participate on that via the self-driving vehicle vs. driving a car.

Getting work done is one of those jobs that you might not associate with commuting. But self-driving opens up the ability to better satisfy this longstanding job.

Job #3: Improve the environment

Improving the environment continues to be an important job-to-be-done for a majority of Americans, and the world. And driving is a critical aspect of environmental impact. Two outcomes are assessed for this job below.

Outcomes Regular car Bus & train Self-driving
Reduce emissions  Satisfaction - low  Satisfaction - high Satisfaction - low
Reduce fossil fuel consumption  Satisfaction - low  Satisfaction - high  Satisfaction - low

When self-driving vehicles are considered as replacements for trains and buses, it’s possible that environmental benefits may be conflated between the two alternatives. Public transit is often touted for its environmental benefits.

But self-driving cars are not public transit. They will still have the same environmental impact of regular cars. Now, as automakers continue to improve the environmental impact of vehicles (electric vehicles, hybrids), then self-driving cars will follow the same improvement curve as regular cars.

However, self-driving vehicles provide no improvement on satisfaction for the key outcomes of the environmental improvement job. Indeed, to the extent they replace public transit (bus, train), they could contribute to increased environmental issues.

Job #4: Enjoy personal interests

Enjoying personal interests is a job that we do everywhere. Read in bed. Crochet during a television program. Engage in physical activity. Video gaming. There are numerous individual jobs-to-be-done here, but we’ll lump them into a summary job for this analysis. Below are two outcomes for this job-to-be-done.

Outcomes Regular car Bus & train Self-driving
Increase time spent on activity  Satisfaction - low  Satisfaction - high  Satisfaction - high
Minimize distractions  Satisfaction - low  Satisfaction - low  Satisfaction - high

Similar to the ‘get work done’ job, this job is well served by self-driving cars. Regular cars really prevent the ability to enjoy a range of personal interests, due to the majority of time spent on…actually driving.

The individually controlled environment of a self-driving car also facilitates more engagement in personal interests. No competing phone calls, loud conversations, crowded space.

Self-driving vehicles will be fantastic for this job-to-be-done.

Conclusions

Based on analyzing the jobs-to-be-done, two conclusions can be drawn about self-driving vehicles.

Target market: urban areas. The jobs and outcomes outlined herein point to a better fit of self-driving vehicles to urban areas and the surrounding suburbs. People have longer, more stressful commutes than in rural and lower population areas. They also tend to have professional employment where digital work and conference calls are more the norm.

Urban areas do not lend themselves to driving enjoyment. Hard to take those curves when there are red lights, sharp corners and lots of traffic around you. So the ‘increase driving enjoyment’ outcome – a weakness of self-driving – is less relevant in these geographies.

Future design. The current look of a self-driving vehicle is essentially that of a regular car. And why not? The technology is being tested and iterated. No need to adjust a car while the technology is on that stage.

Eventually, self-driving technology will be perfected and be ready for broader adoption. Then the jobs and outcomes outlined herein become more relevant. What we currently know for car interiors and shapes will most certainly change. The basis of design changes from optimizing the driving experience (the outcomes) to optimizing for other jobs-to-be-done. One can imagine basic manual override driving capability for vehicles as a back-up in case the self-driving technology fails.

But the focus of design changes. Vehicles will be optimized for existing jobs-to-be-done that can now be newly satisfied via the self-driving technology. And new internal accessories will be developed to take advantage of this expansion of the market through increased jobs-to-be-done. Like a little exercise during the commute? How about a modified stationary bike inside your car?

Self-driving vehicles will be a source of significant new market opportunities.

I’m @bhc3 on Twitter.