The Jobs To Be Done Playbook. Jim Kalbach

to get energy in the morning. Then you might drive to a park-and-ride to take the train while you commute to work. At the office, you collaborate with colleagues to complete a project or deliver a pitch to a new client. Back home, you might eat a piece of chocolate to reward yourself after work and then prepare a meal to enjoy with your family.

      These are all jobs to be done (JTBD).

      The JTBD approach offers a unique lens for viewing the people you serve. Instead of looking at the demographic and psychographic factors of consumption, JTBD focuses on what people seek to achieve in a given circumstance. People don’t “hire” products and services because of the demographic they belong to (e.g., 25–31-year-olds, have a college degree, earn a certain salary); instead, they employ solutions to get a job done.

      JTBD is not about your product, service, or brand. Instead of focusing on your own solution, you must first understand what people want and why that’s important to them. Accordingly, JTBD deliberately avoids mention of particular solutions in order to first comprehend the process that people go through to solve a problem. Only then can a company align its offerings to meet people’s goals and needs.

      Early origins of JTBD thinking point to Theodore Levitt. The famous business professor was known for telling students, “People don’t want a quarter-inch drill, they want a quarter-inch hole.”¹ This quote captures the essence of JTBD: focus on the outcome, not the technology. The drill is a means to an end, not the result.

      Peter Drucker, a contemporary of Levitt and father of modern management, first used the phrase “jobs to be done” in relation to customer needs. In his 1985 book Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Drucker wrote:²

      Some innovations based on process need exploit incongruities, others demographics. Indeed, process need, unlike the other sources of innovation, does not start out with an event in the environment, whether internal or external. It starts out with the job to be done.

      But neither Drucker nor Levitt used the label “job to be done” in any consequential way to refer to their ideas or approaches to solving business problems. It wasn’t until Clayton Christensen popularized the term in The Innovator’s Solution, the follow-up to his landmark work, The Innovator’s Dilemma, that the concept became widespread.

      Although modern references of JTBD point back to Christensen, definitions of JTBD vary in practice. Table 1.1 at the end of this chapter presents how a “job” is defined by thought leaders in the field. Comparing them side-by-side shows variation in approach, but also reveals commonalities.

      Overall, JTBD is about understanding the goals that people want to accomplish, and achieving those goals amounts to progress in their lives. Jobs are also the motivators and drivers of behavior: they predict why people behave the way they do. This moves beyond mere correlation and strives to find causality.

      My definition of a job is simple and broad:

       The process of reaching objectives under given circumstances

      My use of the word “objectives” is deliberate. It better reflects the functional nature of JTBD. I don’t use the word “goals” in my definition in order to avoid associations with broader aspirations, e.g., “life goals.” This isn’t to say that aspirations and emotions aren’t important in JTBD. Instead, my interpretation of JTBD sequences the steps for creating offerings that people desire: first, meet the functional objectives and then layer the aspirational and emotional aspects onto the solution.

      My definition of JTBD also includes an explicit mention of a process, highlighting the dynamic nature of getting a job done. In other words, an “objective” isn’t just about an end point, rather an objective itself is a process that unfolds over time. The goal across the above definitions is the same: leverage a deeper understanding of how people make choices to create products they truly demand.

       Perspectives of JTBD

      Despite some common terminology and desired end results, the field of JTBD has unfortunately split into different schools of thought. Newcomers to JTBD may find an array of approaches and opinions on the topic, leading to confusion and discouragement. Contentious debates exacerbate the divide.

      JTBD falls broadly into two camps. On the one side, there is the so-called “Switch” school of thought, pioneered by Bob Moesta. Through qualitative interviews, the Switch technique seeks to reverse engineer the underlying motivation for changing from one solution to another. The researcher can then deduce why people “hire” a solution 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