Jobs To Be Done

Jobs to Be Done Framework

Framework for discovering innovation based on a fundamental truth: customers don't buy products -- they "hire" them to do a specific job in their lives.

Core Principle

Job to Be Done = the progress a customer wants to make in specific circumstances.

Key elements of the definition:

• Progress (not goal, not solution) -- the customer wants to move from the current state to a better one
• Circumstances -- context determines the job, not customer attributes (demographics are useless)
• Hiring/Firing -- the customer actively chooses a product for the "job"

Scoring

Goal: 10/10. Score 1 point per satisfied row in the Quick Diagnostic (7 rows) plus up to 3 points for depth: +1 if all three job dimensions are evidenced, +1 if the job statement avoids any product/solution name, +1 if competition includes non-consumption. Bands: 9-10 = job stated without the product, all four forces mapped, three dimensions evidenced, non-obvious competition and Little Hire tracked; 5-6 = job named but one or two diagnostic rows fail (usually missing forces or emotional/social dimensions); <=3 = product-first framing, demographic segmentation, or Pull-only thinking. Always state the current score and the specific diagnostic rows to fix.

Three Dimensions of Every Job

Every job has three inseparable dimensions -- omitting any means failure:

Framework

1. The Job Statement

Core concept: A job statement captures the progress a customer seeks in a specific circumstance, in a structured format separating context, desired progress, and expected outcome.

Why it works: Because jobs are stable while solutions churn, anchoring on the job protects a roadmap from chasing features that the next technology shift makes irrelevant.

Key insights:

• Format: "When [circumstances], I want to [progress], so I can [outcome]"
• Circumstances matter more than demographics -- the same person has different jobs in different situations
• A well-written job statement never mentions your product or any specific solution
• Jobs are stable over time; solutions change but the underlying job persists

Product applications:

Copy patterns:

• "When you're [circumstance], you need [progress] -- that's exactly what [product] does"
• Lead with the situation the customer recognizes, not the product category
• Mirror the emotional and social dimensions alongside the functional one

See references/innovation-process.md when running an innovation project end-to-end -- the job-hunting methodology, the job atlas, and fill-in statement templates.

2. Forces of Progress (Push, Pull, Anxiety, Habit)

Core concept: The decision to "hire" a new product results from four forces: Push (frustration with the current situation), Pull (attraction of the new solution), Anxiety (fear of the new), and Habit (comfort with the current behavior). Change happens only when Push + Pull > Habit + Anxiety.

Why it works: Most innovation efforts only increase Pull while ignoring the anti-change forces -- which is why great products still fail to gain adoption.

Key insights:

• Push: "this annoys me"; Pull: "I want this"; Habit: "I've always done it this way"; Anxiety: "what if it doesn't work?"
• Reducing anxiety and habit is often more effective than increasing push and pull
• Passive seekers (vaguely aware of a problem) are easier to influence than active seekers who already have criteria

Product applications:

Copy patterns:

• Address anxiety directly: "No lock-in, cancel anytime, your data is always yours"
• Name the push: "Tired of [frustration]? There's a better way"
• Reduce habit friction: "Switch in 5 minutes -- we import everything automatically"

See references/competitive-strategy.md when mapping competitors or writing positioning -- forces analysis, the non-obvious-competition tables, and the jobs-based positioning formula with worked examples.

3. The Big Hire & Little Hire

Core concept: Two distinct decision moments: the Big Hire (purchase/signup, happens once) and the Little Hire (decision to use in the moment, happens repeatedly). Winning the Big Hire does not guarantee the Little Hire.

Why it works: Many products win the sale but lose the customer because they optimize only the purchase decision -- understanding both moments reveals where retention problems truly originate.

Key insights:

• Big Hire is driven by marketing, onboarding, and first impressions; Little Hire by product quality, UX, and ongoing value
• Big Hire anxiety is purchase risk; Little Hire anxiety is effort and learning curves
• Retention problems are almost always Little Hire failures -- purchased but never used

Product applications:

Copy patterns:

• Big Hire copy sells the promise: "Transform how you [job]"
• Little Hire copy sells ease: "One click and you're done"
• Re-engagement copy addresses the failure: "We've made [specific friction] easier"

See references/case-studies.md when you need a worked precedent to reason from -- full Big Hire / Little Hire breakdowns of SNHU, American Girl, and Intuit.

4. Competitive Landscape (Non-Obvious Competition)

Core concept: True competition is everything a customer can "hire" for the same job, often from completely different categories. Competitors are defined by the job, not by industry classification.

Why it works: Category-based analysis creates blind spots: a milkshake competes with bananas, bagels, and podcasts; Netflix competes with TikTok, sleep, and family conversation. Mapping the full landscape around the job reveals threats and opportunities traditional analysis misses.

Key insights:

• Non-consumption (doing nothing) is often the biggest competitor
• Workarounds and compensating behaviors reveal unserved jobs -- people hack, combine, and improvise
• Integrate where performance is "not good enough" for the job; modularize where it's "good enough"
• The best positioning answers "what job are we the best hire for?", not "how do we compare to similar products?"

Product applications:

Copy patterns:

• "Stop using [workaround] for [job] -- there's a purpose-built solution"
• "You wouldn't hire a [bad fit] to [job] -- so why are you using [current hack]?"
• Position around the job outcome, not feature comparison charts