Thread by @alanklement

THREAD

The more data you collect, the more problems you’ll see w/ the idea of functional Jobs, or Jobs having a functional dimension

This thread will:

1. Review a mistake Christensen makes in his book
2. Show how deductive reasoning doesn't work for innovation
3. How to fix it

https://twitter.com/wimrampen/status/1024778575151591424

This is from Christensen’s Competing Against Luck.

See any problems?

I highlighted the areas of concern…

The error:

Ppl don’t start smoking to satisfy a nicotine craving. They have nicotine cravings *because they started smoking*.

Ppl only “want” the functional "put nicotine in body" b/c they use a particular product (cigarettes)

Clay is using an effect, to describe a cause

Christensen - and all who think jobs are functional - make this mistake b/c they:

1. Start w/ the product
2. Observe *how* people use it
3. Use that to explain *why* they use it

This is deductive (analytical) reasoning. You start w/ the whole, take it apart, and study the parts

Deductive (analytical) reasoning will lead you to conclude that ppl buy/use:

iPod → listen to music
Car → get from point A to point B

It seems right…until you apply it to more products:

Book → read
Mortgage → make monthly moments
Lawn care service → Nothing

Deduction’s purpose is to describe what things are.

It does *not* describe:

1. Why things are, the way they are
2. What to do about it (if anything)

So, for example, if you go out and study what people do and don’t like about owning and watching a TV - you are applying deductive reasoning.

What you will *not learn* is:

1. Why they chose to buy & use a TV
2. What should be done about this (if anything)

This relates to innovation, b/c if you want to do more than just “make a better TV”, you need different thinking.

To answer “why they chose to buy & use a TV”, you need abductive reasoning.

To answer “What should be done about it (if anything)”, you need strategy and design.

One way to think about it, is to image the difference between a police detective and a forensic psychologist.

A police detective studies a crime that has already happened, with the intent of capturing the person who did it.

A forensic psychologist is different. They study why the crime happened. Their intent isn’t to solve a crime, it’s to figure out how to prevent future crimes.

In closing, recognize that studying only how customers use products, and what they do/don’t like about them, can only result in an incremental innovation. i.e. an improvement of “quality” or making a "faster horse".

If you want to be disruptive, however, you will need to apply design and abductive thinking.

Innovation isn’t about improving what is, it’s about creating what should be.