Here’s what I wish someone had told me before I ran a JTBD interview process for the first time.
Let’s back up: you’ve probably heard of the Jobs to be Done Framework.
Typically: “customers buy for a ‘JTBD’.”
But the framework excels at learning HOW your customers buy.
This is a HUGE win.
If you can find out how, exactly, your customers buy you:
- You can design your product for that journey.
- You can meet your customers where they are.
- You know what progress they’re trying to make!
Alas: the way to get there is tricky.
I think most folks don’t realise the JTBD framework comes with its own interview process. (I certainly didn’t!)
But a) it’s really powerful.
b) the bad news is that it takes a lot of skill to execute.
(You’d think they would advertise that disclaimer, but, alas).
So how does this interview work?
The central conceit of the Jobs to be Done framework* is that everyone buys in the exact same way.
(*There are two JTBDs — I’m talking about the one by the Re-Wired group, not the one by Ulwick).
The JTBD Timeline looks like this:
Buyers move along the timeline once they hit a ‘buying trigger’ for each stage.
The goal of the JTBD interview is to figure out what the specific timeline for YOUR product is + what these buying triggers are, so you may INFLUENCE THEM. 😈🤑
Why is this hard?
Well, for starters you’re asking folks to tell you HOW THEY BOUGHT A THING.
What can go wrong?
A LOT OF THINGS. LIKE, THEY WILL LIE TO YOU.
(Not in an evil way. In a “we don’t really know why we do things way.”)
So, one of the first things the JTBD folks tell you is: do not interview folks who bought too long ago, where ‘long ago’ is more than a year.
This is very good advice that you would do well to follow. (Guess how I know?)
Rule of thumb:
What they DON’T tell you, however:
Stagger your interviews so you interview those who bought recently FIRST, when you are the most unskilled at interviewing, and then slowly shift to those who bought longer and longer ago, as you get better.
Obvious!
Here’s another thing they DID say, that I wish I paid attention to:
Conduct the JTBD interview as a pair!
Gaaaah. The interview format itself is very cognitively demanding, so it really helps if there are two brains catching and helping each other.
(Guess how I know?)
The reason it’s hard to do qualitative customer interviews is that it takes a fair bit of skill and effort to deeply grok what they’re telling you.
I think, writing this piece was the first time I managed to articulate why it’s so hard, which I got by accident elsewhere:
If you'd like more on this, I've got a few more notes available in the full piece:
Including a walkthrough of one of the findings we found when running the JTBD project on Commoncog's paying members.commoncog.com/putting-jtbd-i…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. DP is a sleight of hand research paradigm, and only claims to be the best way to get to expertise in fields with a good history of pedagogical development. (See: The Cambridge Handbook, where they point out that pop stars and jazz musicians become world class but not through DP)
2. Most of us are not in such domains.
3. Therefore we cannot use DP, and tacit knowledge elicitation methods are more appropriate.
The counter argument @justinskycak needs to make is simple: math is a domain with a long history of pedagogical development, therefore DP dominates.
Justin says that “talent is overrated” is not part of the DP argument.
I’m not sure what he’s read from Ericsson that makes him think that.
Hambrick et al document the MANY instances where Ericsson makes the claim “DP is the gold standard and therefore anyone can use DP to get good, practice dominates talent.”
Ericsson spends the entire introduction of Peak arguing this. When Ericsson passed, David Epstein wrote a beautiful eulogy but referenced his being a lifelong proponent of the ‘talent is overrated’ camp, which frustrated him and other expertise researchers to no end.
Now you may say that DP has nothing to say on talent, but then you have to grapple with the man making the argument in DECADES of publications — both academic and popular! If the man who INVENTED the theory sees the theory as a WAY TO ADVANCE his views on talent, then … I don’t know, maybe one should take the man at his word?
“Oh, but his views have NOTHING to do with the actual theory of DP” My man, if you’re talking to anyone who has ACTUALLY read DP work, you need to address this, because they’re going to stumble into it. Like, I don’t know, in the INTRODUCTION CHAPTER OF THE POPSCI BOOK ON DP.
Anyway, strike two for reading comprehension problems. But it gets worse …
Here's a secret I learnt after spelunking in the expertise + learning research literatures for ~3 years: the quoted tweet is correct, but not if your goal is to have kids do well in school.
The quoted tweet is only correct if you want them to be good at DOING, not exams.
My mind has space to think, and I know how and what to consume.
The secret is not a new tool. It's not a new workflow.
It's an internal stance that's simple yet dangerously effective. I call it 'Outcome Orientation'.
How it feels is amazing: I live in a completely different information environment. I feel like folks around me are losing their minds over the latest fiasco, or hot topic du jour.
I pay attention to it, extract what I need, and then move on.
One thing I’ve been thinking about, related to yesterday’s Commoncog essay, is that effective people tend to be perfectly ok doing things that work, without immediate care for theory.
Theory can catch up later.
Contrast that to folk who want models for everything they do, and will eagerly tell you their latest pet model / framework / theory for sales or whatever, and it all sounds very sophisticated, and you check their track records and indeed they’re not very … good?
It’s the same sort of affliction that produces this sort of thinking: