Category Archives: Books

[Info] EM PARIS, LIVRARIA SUBSTITUI ESTOQUE POR MÁQUINA QUE IMPRIME OBRAS ESCOLHIDAS PELOS CLIENTES NA HORA

Os livros digitais se popularizaram bastante na última década. Hoje existem vários tipos de aplicativos e equipamentos para que os leitores possam apreciá-los da forma mais confortável possível. Porém, ainda há quem prefira a versão impressa, a qual pode ser folheada e colocada em algum lugar da estante.

Pensando nesse novo cenário atual, essa livraria parisiense chamada Les Puf resolveu unir tecnologia com o velho hábito de levar seu livro pra casa. Depois de fechar o estabelecimento por um tempo, já que as vendas das publicações não cobriam os gastos com aluguel, os donos voltaram a reabri-la com uma nova proposta, usando muita criatividade: ao invés de armazenar no local várias publicações, o cliente pode imprimir na hora o título que desejar.

1000-puf-espresso-710x533

A Les Puf oferece um catálogo de cerca de 5 mil títulos e mais 3 milhões de outras opções, fornecidos pela On Demand Books, empresa que criou a impressora portátil de livros. O processo é bem interessante: o cliente escolhe a publicação e a máquina Espresso Book Machine faz o resto.

Ela imprime direto do banco de dados (PDF original), cola e encapa o título. O nome da impressora faz menção ao café Espresso italiano, já que o tempo de impressão de um livro é o mesmo do preparo e consumo de um café. Incrível, não?

13bookshops1-master768

A novidade não está somente disponível na França. Muitas empresas ao redor do globo já estão aderindo a ideia, como a tradicional Barnes and Noble, nos EUA. Com esse método, a livraria parisiense consegue vender cerca de 40 livros diários e como não tem publicações físicas em sua loja (apenas o mostruário virtual), os proprietários conseguem tocar o negócio em um lugar menor, ao cobrar o mesmo valor de um exemplar tradicional.

Além disso, um dos grandes diferenciais é que o modelo permite que os leitores tenham acesso a livros que já estão esgotados. A Les Puf vai trazer em breve cerca de 2 mil títulos que já não são mais comercializados.

ftc-livraria-on-demand-les-puf-01

Viciados em livros, os que amam o cheirinho de uma publicação nova, vão adorar essa novidade, já que podem levar seu exemplar para casa logo após a impressão! 

ca6e98fc2c6238b7b546255cf6bd799f

Confira no vídeo abaixo como funciona a impressora:

Livros on-demand. Porque adaptar-se é preciso!

Maitê Mendonça é jornalista e gaúcha. Ama filmes e fotos do pôr do sol.
Maitê Mendonça – já escreveu posts no Follow the Colours.

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Business, Innovation

[Innovators Toolkit] Cognitive Style

Technique 11 – Cognitive Style

Leverage the diversity of your exploiters and explorers.

Cognitive style is an individual’s preferred approach for solving problems and can be measured along a continuum from adaptive to innovative. While adaptors are more prone to improve the current system, innovators are critical of the current system, choosing to create entirely new products, processes, models, and solutions.

To run an innovation project from end to end, you always need the right mix of both adaptors and innovators—not just one type of person or the other, and not some set ratio of adaptors to innovators for all projects.

When all team members understand their own cognitive style, as well as the styles of other team members, the process of working together becomes much smoother and more productive—and you avoid unnecessary conflicts and delays. For example, a more adaptive team member who would ordinarily be frustrated with a more innovative team leader can, instead, understand the differences and use them to the team’s advantage.

Background

Several factors affect a team’s chemistry and success with innovation. Motivation is one factor, and there are known approaches for managing this. Level is another success factor, and it refers to (a) a person’s current knowledge and/or skill and (b) a person’s potential capacity for problem solving. We also have sound and established instruments (tests and IQ measurements, for example) for assessing these dimensions. Then there are resources—such as materials, money, machines, and tools—and these are typically well-known.

What’s not typically known or understood is the critical aspect of team members’ respective cognitive styles. Cognitive style researchers have proven that people who are more adaptive prefer to accept and work within the given paradigm; those who are more innovative prefer to solve problems by looking at them from new angles and perspectives (see exhibits below).

Adaptors and innovators have different approaches to solving problems.


Thomas Edison borrowed new paradigms discovered by others and preferred to perfect them methodically, systematically and in a precise manner. Edison was more of an adaptor.

Albert Einstein questioned the existing Newtonian paradigm, which enabled him to discover the Theory of Relativity. Einstein was more of an innovator than an adaptor.

It’s also important to realize the relationship between preferred style and behavior. Actual behavior is a combination of preferred style and learned coping behavior. If you have a more adaptive style and you have to perform tasks that have few guidelines or established structures, you will need to resort to coping behavior, and this will create stress in the long-term. The converse is also true.

All innovation projects have steps that are adaptive and others that are innovative in nature. Therefore, you need a collaborative team with the appropriate motive, resources, cognitive level, and diversity of cognitive style. But research shows that people with differing cognitive styles struggle to get along—creating communication, trust and productivity issues. Therefore, make sure team members know and understand each other’s cognitive styles so they can leverage each other’s advantages and supplement each other’s disadvantages at all stages of the innovation project.

Steps

Scenario: Let’s assume you’re assigned to a new cross-functional team tasked with developing a car that consumes carbon monoxide instead of producing it. Given the magnitude of the breakthrough innovation required, it’s advisable to select team members with diverse backgrounds, a variety of different skills, and a range of different cognitive styles.

Step 1: Identify Potential Team Members

Choose team members with a variety of technical and nontechnical skills, experience, and motivation related to the specific job statement or JTBD (see Jobs To Be Done, Technique 1).

Step 2: Examine the Cognitive Style of Each Team Member

To determine the best fit for the task at hand, given the pool of potential candidates, be aware of the cognitive style that each team member brings to the task. You can do this in one of two ways:

1. Ask the following questions about the team members (in comparison to a reference person):

  • Does this person tend to question established rules, assumptions, and structures?
  • Does this person become frustrated or annoyed with details?
  • Does this person tend to have a steady stream of ideas without too much concern about how they’re implemented?

If the answers to the above questions are yes, then this person is more innovative than adaptive. If the answers are no, then the person is more adaptive.

2. If you want a more sophisticated way to determine cognitive style, use the Kirton Adaption-Innovation (KAI) Inventory, a highly validated and reliable psychometric instrument developed by psychologist Dr. Michael Kirton. Available at www.kaicentre.com, the KAI inventory works like this:

An individual responds to a series of 33 statements by marking responses on a range from very easy to very hard.

The KAI instrument is then scored by a certified facilitator to determine a primary KAI score and three KAI subscores. Primary KAI scores range on a normally distributed numerical scale from 32 (most adaptive) to 160 (most innovative), with a mean of 96. However, the observed range from worldwide data is 45 to 145 with a mean of 95. All scores are relative; there are no pure adaptors or pure innovators, so we often use the terms more adaptive and more innovative to describe the relationship between two people.

A KAI facilitator then provides feedback to the individuals about the KAI instrument and highlights key insights about the scoring.

The group is divided into smaller teams of participants with similar KAI scores; each team spends 15 minutes developing solutions to a specific problem that will be reported back to the group.

Each team delivers a brief report summarizing their approach and the solutions generated.

The facilitator highlights the differences between the different teams’ styles, showing how the more adaptive team’s approach differs from the more innovative team’s approach.

Cognitive Style Insights

1. General

  • All people are creative and solve problems.
  • Cognitive style (adaptive or innovative) is different and unrelated to cognitive level(knowledge and capacity).
  • There is no one best cognitive style.
  • One’s preferred cognitive style is genetically determined and stable over a lifetime.
  • A group needs both adaptors and innovators to be effective over time.
  • Forcing someone to work outside their preferred style (comfort zone) will cause stress; in the short-term this might be okay, but in the long-term it will lead to a breakdown in communication and reduction in productivity.

Don’t mistake poor performance to always be a symptom of low problem-solving level or motivation. Instead of jumping to replace these team members, examine how you might reassign tasks to achieve better alignment with their preferred cognitive styles.

2. Adaptors

  • The more adaptive tend to focus on improving the current system, even by leaps and bounds, within the problem definition or paradigm.
  • Adaptors seek solutions in tried and understood ways. Adaptors are seen as precise, reliable, and methodical. They look at the problem and want to solve it efficiently.
  • High adaptors tend to rarely challenge the rules and usually only do so when assured of support.
  • Adaptors produce fewer ideas that are more manageable, relevant, sound, and safe for immediate use. Expect a high success rate from these ideas.

3. Innovators

  • The more innovative tend to focus on doing things differently, often operating outside the parameters of the problem definition or current paradigm.
  • Innovators are expected to question the assumptions behind the problem at hand, and will often manipulate and redefine it. They are seen by adaptors as undisciplined and prone to tangential thinking.
  • Innovators tend to view rules and structures as limiting or hindering progress, and they want to solve problems in novel ways.
  • High innovators produce many blue-sky ideas that they consider exciting, and they tolerate high idea failure rates.

4. Teamwork and Collaboration

Adaptors execute details very well, according to plans; innovators often move forward with execution despite the details and in the absence of any substantive plans.

The larger the gap between people’s cognitive styles, the harder it will be to collaborate, communicate, and solve problems.

A bridger is a person who helps facilitate communication and teamwork between high adaptors and high innovators (see exhibit).

Staffing innovation teams is a fluid activity that depends on the extent and nature of change required for any given project. It’s also fluid in the sense that different stages of the innovation project require different people with different positions, skills, knowledge, and cognitive styles.

RESOURCES

Kirton, M. J. Adaption-Innovation: In the Context of Diversity and Change. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Innovation

[Innovators Toolkit] Outcome Expectations

Technique 3 – Outcome Expectations

Give customers more of what they desire.

Outcome expectations are a direct outgrowth of innovation jobs to be done (JTBDs), and they lead to eventual new solutions that create more value and customer satisfaction than existing products and services. For example, the job of cleaning your clothes has many associated outcome expectations, such as minimize the time it takes to clean clothes, increase the likelihood of stain removal, and increase the ease with which clothes are cleaned.

It’s important to define any outcome expectations associated with a JTBD when pursuing an innovation based on that JTBD. Understanding these expectations, and knowing how satisfied (or unsatisfied) customers are with current solutions, helps you identify unidentified market space and possibly fill that space with better solutions than what exists today. You may need light survey design and sampling help from a statistician to apply this technique, but for the most part it requires no expert assistance.

Background

There are four types of outcome expectations:

  1. Desired outcomes customers want to achieve.
  2. Undesired outcomes customers want to avoid.
  3. Desired outcomes providers want to achieve.
  4. Undesired outcomes providers want to avoid (see exhibit).

By segmenting outcome expectations in this manner, you can look at the JTBD through the lens of what the customer wants and doesn’t want, as well as what the provider wants and doesn’t want. Both parties must benefit from the innovation or it will never reach viable commercialization.

We can view outcome expectations as hiring criteria, a notion set forth by Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen, the originator of the Jobs to be Done concept. In his own words at the 2009 World Innovation Forum in New York: “What are the experiences in purchase and use which, if all provided, would sum up to nailing the job perfectly?”

Customers typically hire the solution that gives them more of the desired outcomes (benefits) and less of the undesired outcomes (cost and harm). As a provider, you want the solution that maximizes desired outcomes and minimizes undesired outcomes—for your customers and yourself. When you accomplish this, you position yourself to create high-value (innovative) solutions that address your customers’ JTBDs better than competitors.

People don’t buy quarter-inch drills; they buy quarter-inch holes. The drill just happens to be the best means available to get that job done.
—Ted Leavitt of Harvard Business School

We know of at least one company that was working on innovating a better detergent while another innovated a washing machine that doesn’t need detergent. Whose solution will capture more market share or be more profitable? It depends on which company can better fulfill the outcome expectations for itself and its customers.

Steps

Step 1. Identify the Job to be Done

In Jobs to be Done (Technique 1), we provide instructions for how to develop job statements and how to determine which JTBDs are priorities for innovation. Follow these steps to select the JTBD for which you’ll develop related outcome expectations.

Step 2. List the JTBD’s Related Outcome Expectations

You can use a simple table like the one above to brainstorm the four types of outcome expectations that relate to your selected JTBD. Keep asking, “What criteria would the customer use to decide which solution to hire or use?” Think in terms of time, cost, potential errors, quality, dependability, availability, ease of use, maintainability, and any number of other satisfaction and dissatisfaction dimensions.

Do not confuse this exercise with Functional Requirements (see Technique 33), which are solution-specific performance characteristics, such as candle burn time (target = 32 hours), or PC battery life (target = 6 hours). Outcome expectations are solution-neutral and reside at a higher level; they are JTBD-specific desires, such as increase the duration of illumination (using any solution), or increase operating time (in whatever way possible).

See the discussion on Job Mapping (Technique 2) for more help in creating your list of outcome expectations. Create a list of outcome expectations for each step in your job map.

Step 3. Create Outcome Statements

Since the job of innovation is to meet expectations to a greater extent than they are met today, they should be stated in imperative terms, using a standard structure. That structure is:

  • The direction of action (minimize, increase).
  • The unit of measurement (time, cost, probability, defects, errors, etc.).
  • The object of control (what it is you’re influencing).
  • The context (where or under what circumstances).

Consider this customer outcome statement: Increase the likelihood that clothes appear fresh after home cleaning. Increase denotes the direction, likelihood is the unit of measure, clothes appear fresh is the object of control, and at home is the context.

Other outcome statements related to the job of cleaning clothes at home might be:

  • Minimize the time it takes to clean clothes.
  • Minimize the cost of cleaning clothes.
  • Increase the likelihood of stain removal.
  • Minimize any damage to clothes.
  • Minimize the effort needed to clean clothes.
  • Increase the likelihood that clothes look fresh.
  • Increase the likelihood of an appealing smell from clothes.
  • Minimize the likelihood of any wrinkles in clothes.
  • Increase the likelihood of removing all foreign particles, germs and bacteria from clothes.
  • Increase the ease of cleaning clothes.
  • Minimize the use of resources (water, energy, detergent) in cleaning clothes.

Some example outcome statements from the provider’s perspective include:

  • Increase the revenue growth from innovations.
  • Increase the likelihood of maximum profit from innovations.
  • Increase customer loyalty from using solutions.
  • Increase the likelihood of deriving new products from current innovations.
  • Minimize the cost of developing and providing solutions.
  • Minimize the likelihood of product liability litigation.
  • Minimize the likelihood of imitation products or services.
  • Minimize damage to the environment.

Provider-related outcome statements tend to be similar with little variation due to the commonality of why companies exist. All corporations, public or private, exist to provide valuable products and services, to make a profit, and to do so safely and without harm.

The outcome statements improve the consistency and reliability of collecting useful information regarding the job to be done. It is very important to follow the outcome statement structure to enhance repeatability and avoid confusion.

Step 4. Determine Priority Outcome Expectations

You can use different assessment and rating schemes to determine which specific outcome statements to pursue right away. One way to measure the importance of an outcome statement is to use a Likert Scale along with sound sampling techniques.

Examine the list of customer and provider outcome statements in light of how important they are and how satisfied each constituent (customer or provider) is with the extent to which current solutions fulfill these statements. Using a Likert approach, both the extent of importance and satisfaction are derived by averaging all responses (say, on a scale from 0 to 10) into a single score for each outcome expectation. As shown by the exhibit below, these responses can then be plotted and categorized as over-served, served right, or under-served.

Your analysis should also include an examination of how likely it is that competitors will implement new solutions to fulfill priority outcome expectations better, and how likely it is that the provider (you) will fulfill them better with new solutions.

In general, under-served outcome expectations are high-priority and are best addressed with a core-growth strategy of making the solution better (see Technique 1, Jobs to be Done). Over-served outcome expectations lead you to make existing solutions simpler, cheaper, and more available to more people (or nonconsumers)—looking through the lens of a disruptive growth strategy (again, see Technique 1). If the outcome expectations are served right, don’t do anything; focus instead on the other outcome expectations.

You can plot outcome expectations (or JTBDs) on an XY graph, with importance on the y-axis and satisfaction on the x-axis. Based on the location in the graph, you can then determine opportunities for the various categories of organic growth: disruption, core growth, new job growth, and related jobs growth.

RESOURCES

Christensen, C. M., and M. E. Raynor. The Innovator’s Solution: Using Good Theory to Solve the Dilemmas of Growth. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.

Ulwick, A. “Turn Customer Input into Innovation.” Harvard Business Review, January 2002.

Ulwick, A. What Customers Want: Using Outcome-Driven Innovation to Create Breakthrough Products and Services. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.

Ulwick, A., and L. A. Bettencourt. “Giving Customers a Fair Hearing.” Sloan Management Review 49, no. 3 (2008): 62–68

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Innovation

[Innovators Toolkit] Jobs to be done

Technique 1 – Jobs to be Done

Highlight the human need you’re trying to fulfill.

A job to be done (JTBD) is a revolutionary concept that guides you toward innovation and helps you move beyond the norm of only improving current solutions. A JTBD is not a product, service, or a specific solution; it’s the higher purpose for which customers buy products, services, and solutions.

For instance, most people would say they buy a lawnmower to “cut the grass,” and this is true. But if a lawnmower company examines the higher purpose of cutting the grass, say, “keep the grass low and beautiful at all times,” then it might forgo some efforts to make better lawnmowers in lieu of developing a genetically engineered grass seed that never needs to be cut.

This is the power of the JTBD concept and technique: It helps the innovator understand that customers don’t buy products and services; they hire various solutions at various times to get a wide array of jobs done. You may need light survey design and sampling help from a statistician to apply this technique, but for the most part it requires no expert assistance.

Background

Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen and coauthors articulated the JTBD concept in a Sloan Management Review article (Spring 2007) as follows: “Most companies segment their markets by customer demographics or product characteristics and differentiate their offerings by adding features and functions. But the consumer has a different view of the marketplace. He simply has a job to be done and is seeking to ‘hire’ the best product or service to do it.”

Therefore, if you understand the jobs your customers want done, you gain new market insights and create viable growth strategies. Sometimes a good solution for a JTBD, or a family of JTBDs, does not exist; when this is the case, you have a great opportunity to innovate.

Jobs to be Done Breakdown

There are two different types of JTBDs:

  1. Main jobs to be done, which describe the task that customers want to achieve.
  2. Related jobs to be done, which customers want to accomplish in conjunction with the main jobs to be done.

Then, within each of these two types of JTBDs, there are:

  • Functional job aspects—the practical and objective customer requirements.
  • Emotional job aspects—the subjective customer requirements related to feelings and perception.

Finally, emotional job aspects are further broken down into:

  • Personal dimension—how the customer feels about the solution.
  • Social dimension—how the customer believes he or she is perceived by others while using the solution.

Jobs to be done BreakdownSee the exhibit for a visual representation of the different types of jobs to be done and breakdown into aspects and dimensions.

Let’s develop an example. Say the main JTBD is to clean one’s teeth and gums. Then related jobs might be to create lasting fresh breath, whiten one’s teeth and even achieve such other grooming objectives as a clean face and/or neat eyebrows.

We can break the main and related JTBDs into their functional and emotional aspects. One wants to remove foreign particles from one’s teeth, along with any bacteria and associated odor. These are some functional aspects of the JTBD. A customer also wants his or her teeth and gum cleaning experience to be pleasant. It should feel good, not painful. It should make the customer feel good about him- or herself (personal dimension), as well as help him or her be perceived as a person who has clean teeth, healthy gums, and fresh breath.

The better a solution can fulfill all of these job levels and layers, the better chance it has in the marketplace. Also, the better the solution either achieves or nicely dovetails with related JTBDs, the better chance of success it has. In short, the JTBD concept is a guide for thinking beyond to make your current solutions, and your competitors’ solutions, obsolete.

You can tell when a company thinks in term s of JTBDs because the result not only fulfills a need, but is often quite innovative. Consider the recent developments in self-cleaning glass for cars and high-rise buildings, or in car paint that heals itself and, thereby, removes the need to paint over scratches. While you could think of painting scratches as a JTBD, it really isn’t. Painting scratches is actually a solution for accomplishing the JTBD called maintain a blemish-free vehicle.

Consider the examples of new solutions for old JTBDs in the exhibit below. Then, ask not how you can make your current products and services better but, instead, ask how you can fulfill your customers’ JTBDs in unexpected and more effective ways.

List of JTBDs

The Triune Brain

Metaphorically speaking, our brains have three parts as per the triune brain model: the reptilian, emotional, and intellectual. The reptilian part is related to our basic survival and biological needs; we eat when we’re hungry, and we either fight or flee when we are threatened. The emotional (or paleomammalian) part of our brain, directed by the limbic system, guides many or most decisions we make in life. The intellectual (or neomammalian) part, guided by the neocortex, is the logical, methodical, and analytical part of the brain.

Psychologists have discovered that when these three parts are in conflict, the reptilian takes precedent over the other two. When there is a conflict between the emotional and intellectual parts, the emotional part wins over. This is why people often make poor, emotionally based decisions, then find an intellectual alibi to justify themselves.

So what is the implication for companies that want to innovate? One, make solutions that appeal to all three parts of the brain—especially the emotional and intellectual since only a small set of solutions are truly a matter of life or death (reptilian). Apple does a good job of this. Its products are functionally sound (intellectual)—plus they’re cool and stylish (emotional). Although we know one iPod user that returned the product six times due to functional challenges, the customer was willing to tolerate this because the product was so emotionally appealing.

But there’s another interesting implication. If your industry is mainly focused on the functional aspects of the JTBD, then differentiate yourself with the emotional aspect. Make the surgical instrument look really cool with an appealing design and shape that fits the hand better. Or, start to emphasize the functional aspects of your products in industries that are typically driven by image and emotion. Many Body Shop products, for example, are organic (noncarcinogenic), and they improve the quality of one’s skin (anti-aging properties)—blending function with emotion.

This is the story of innovation in a nutshell: While some companies went about making better pills, or becoming better law firms, or making their flares better and brighter, others went about breaking the mold. No new solution automatically or instantly makes an old solution obsolete, but change does happen as a result of finding new ways to fulfill the jobs customers need to get done.

If you remember anything about jobs to be done, remember this: they are completely neutral of the solutions you create (your products and services). While a customer JTBD remains fairly stable over time, your products and services should change at strategic intervals as you strive to provide everincreasing value.

Steps

Step 1: Identify a Focus Market

Markets can be identified by considering any one of the following organic growth strategies: core growth, disruptive growth, related job growth, and new job growth.

Core growth is the act of meeting unmet outcome expectations associated with a job that customers want to achieve. For example, customers want to pour juice into a cup with greater ease (desired outcome expectation) and without the risk of spilling (undesired outcome expectation). So the juice bottle is redesigned to have an indentation for easy gripping. This is the easiest way to innovate for most companies because it entails perfecting the current paradigm. (See Technique 3, Outcome Expectations, for more on this).

Related job growth is the next easiest way to innovate and entails bundling solutions that achieve the outcome expectations of more than one main or related JTBD. Starbucks is an example of a solution that addresses many jobs, such as drink caffeinated beverages, drink healthy alternative beverages, carry on business conversations, surf the Internet, study and read books in a relaxing environment.

The key is to focus on adjacency: I want coffee, but I also want to read a book and get on the Internet, or socialize with my friends. I want a car to rent so I can get from here to there, but I also want easy directions so I also get a GPS in the car.

New jobs growth is the product of evolving technology and change, and it’s more difficult to achieve than core or related job growth. It entails expanding the solution space to accomplish different JTBDs. Candle companies that existed for decades, for instance, had to look for new applications after the advent of the lightbulb. So they made products that were appealing to those that wanted to decorate their homes, or to create a romantic environment for dinner. The JTBD was no longer to illuminate.

Some medical companies are migrating their technologies from use by humans to new jobs for animals, especially after patents expire. Another example might be an organization well-versed in emergency response processes expanding itself to get into the ambulance business.

Disruptive growth focuses on what the literature and innovation experts call nonconsumption. Certain solutions are available to certain classes of people, but not all or more people. Remember when going to a dentist’s office was the only way to get your teeth whitened? But now the job of whitening teeth can be sufficiently accomplished by anyone nearly anywhere due to such disruptive, over-the-counter products as Crest Whitestrips (which became a $300 million product within two years for Procter & Gamble).

There are four drivers of nonconsumption: price, time, skill, and access to the technology or solution. The Whitestrips example fits all four criteria. Prior to Whitestrips, it was too expensive to whiten one’s teeth. It took too much time. Individuals didn’t have access to the needed technology, and they didn’t have the skills to apply that technology at home.

This is the most difficult growth strategy to enact because it entails cannibalizing what you and others in your industry do. Other examples of disruptive growth are home pregnancy tests, online stock trading, and self-administered medical monitoring and treatment devices.

Core and disruptive growth strategies are focused on existing JTBDs, while related and new job growth strategies are focused on new JTBDs. Also, core and related growth strategies are about serving existing customers, while new and disruptive growth strategies are about adding and serving new customers.

Step 2: Identify Jobs Customers Are Trying to Get Done

You want to study customers and find out what they are trying to accomplish—especially under circumstances that leave them with insufficient solutions relative to available processes and technologies. What jobs have ad hoc solutions or no good solutions? When you see customers piecing together solutions themselves, these are great clues for innovation.

Several methods exist to help an innovator study customers and the way they use solutions to get their jobs done. Ethnography (Technique 5) and cultural archetype research are especially useful in this regard. Other techniques include observation, interviews, customer complaints, and focus groups.

Sometimes jobs to be done are not as straightforward as one might think. For instance, a fast-food provider found that its customers were buying flavored milkshakes when faced with a long, boring commute in traffic; they were not only looking for convenient, non-messy nourishment in the morning, but they also wanted to make their commute more interesting by entertaining themselves with a breakfast that took a while to consume.

Step 3: Categorize the Jobs to be Done

Jobs can be main jobs or related jobs. Some jobs are parents of other jobs. If a person wants to self-actualize, for instance, this job could be the parent to any number of lower-order jobs having to do with a person’s physical, mental, social, emotional, financial, and spiritual well-being.

There is no one way, or standardized, commonly used scheme for categorizing JTBDs—so our best advice is to use a scheme that makes sense for you and your industry. In the retail sales industry, for instance, many main JTBDs are related to how you make people feel (emotional aspects) rather than what a product or service actually does (functional aspects). Many non-customer-facing jobs in the engineering industry are functional rather than emotional in nature. But recall earlier that we discussed the potential value of focusing on either functional or emotional aspects in contrast with industry norms.

We also mentioned earlier that jobs have functional and emotional aspects (and personal and social dimensions). One JTBD is to organize and manage music for personal use. An important functional aspect of this job is to listen to the music. A related emotional/personal job is to organize and manage music in a way that feels good; a related emotional/social job is to share songs with friends. Related jobs might be to download songs from the Internet, make playlists, discard unwanted songs, and pass the time.

Step 4: Create Job Statements

The job statement is used to describe a JTBD. Key components of a job statement are an action verb, the object of the action, and clarification of the context in which the job is performed. Manage personal finances at home is a job statement. So is clean clothes at home, as shown in the exhibit. Listen to music while jogging is also an example of a job statement.

Step 5: Prioritize the JTBD Opportunities

There are hundreds of jobs that customers are trying to get done in every market. Which one of these offers the best opportunities for you? Which ones provide opportunities to create uncontested market space? In most situations, the jobs that customers want to get done for which no good solutions exist are the ones that provide the greatest opportunity for innovation.

Prioritizing JTBDs is a function of how important they are, how satisfied customers are with existing solutions, the general potential for developing new (or more ideal) solutions, and the specific potential of the provider for creating new solutions that better meet Outcome Expectations (see Technique 3).As shown by the exhibit, the importance-satisfaction dimensions establish priority from the customers’ perspective. But we also consider new solution potential from the provider’s perspective.

You can use different assessment and rating schemes to determine which JTBDs should be a priority for innovation. One way to measure the importance of a job is by asking customers based on a Likert Scale (degree of importance to them), using sound samplingtechniques. A Likert Scale can also work for assessing the level of satisfaction customers have with current solutions.

In any case, under-served JTBDs are generally ripe for a core growth innovation strategy (make the existing solution better); over-served items are ripe for a disruptive innovation strategy (remake the solution so it becomes available to those who can’t afford the existing solution). When your assessment shows opportunities in the middle that are served right, you should focus on related jobs to be done.

Sometimes innovation is as simple as finding a new JTBD that your existing solution meets. Post-it Notes, for example, were developed by a 3M scientist looking for a new and better adhesive compound. The scientist didn’t quite reach his goal because his adhesive was weak. Ten years later, another 3M scientist led the way in applying the adhesive for jobs that fit the solution perfectly.

RESOURCES

For more on the Jobs to be Done concept and technique, see:

Christensen, C. M., S. D. Anthony, G. Berstell, and D. Nitterhouse. “Finding the Right Job for Your Product,” MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2007 2–11.

Christensen, C. M., and M. E. Raynor. The Innovator’s Solution: Using Good Theory to Solve the Dilemmas of Growth. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.

Ulwick, A. What Customers Want: Using Outcome-Driven Innovation to Create Breakthrough Products and Services. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.

Ulwick, A., and L. A. Bettencourt. “Giving Customers a Fair Hearing.” Sloan Management Review, 49, no. 3 (2008): 62–68.

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, Innovation

[Book] Axiomas de Zurique

ImageLi o livro Axiomas de Zurique a algum tempo atrás e o achei super interessante. Ele vai contra quase todas as “regras” básicas de investimentos que aprendemos desde crianças como “não invista todo o seu dinheiro em um único ativo” e tals…

Apesar de aparentar ser loucura, o livro tem o seu ponto. Os conselhos que recebemos são baseados na relação Risco x Retorno e não apenas no Retorno. O livro porém enfoca primeiramente no Retorno e a partir daí as coisas começam a fazer todo sentido!

Seguem os Axiomas para tirarem suas próprias conclusões:

1. Risco – Se você não está preocupado é porque não está arriscando o bastante
     – Resista às diversificações;
     – Não tenha medo de arriscar, pois quanto maior o risco maior o retorno

2. Ganância – Realize o lucro sempre cedo demais
     – Entre no negócio sempre sabendo o quanto quer ganhar;
     – Não teste sua sorte, mas estabeleça metas e realize seus lucros

3. Esperança – Quando o barco afundar, não reze, saia!
     – Aceite pequenas perdas com sorriso no rosto;
     – Saber perder é uma das maiores virtudes do especulador

4. Previsões – Comportamento não é previsível. Ninguém sabe o futuro!
     – Não especule em cima de previsões e sim do que você vê!

5. Padrões – Até começar a parecer Ordem, o caos não é perigoso
     – Cuidado com a armadilha do historiador, ilusão do grafista e falácia do jogador;
     – Não se deixe iludir pela ordem, não existe fórmula exata

6. Mobilidade – Evite lançar raízes, pois elas tolhem seus movimentos
     – Não se deixe apanhar pelo sentimento;
     – Jamais hesite se algo melhor aparecer

7. Intuição – Jamais confunda palpite com esperança
     – Só confie em palpites se puder explicá-lo

8. Religião e Ocultismo – Se astrologia funcionasse, os astrólogos estariam ricos!
     – Mantenha o sobrenatural longe das especulações

9. Otimismo e Pessimismo – Jamais faça uma jogada com eles apenas
     – Um bom especulador possui confiança, não otimismo

10. Consenso – Fuja da opinião da maioria, pois provavelmente está errada!
     – Jamais embarque na especulação da moda;
     – A melhor hora de comprar é quando ninguém mais quer

11. Teimosia – Se não deu certo a primeira vez, esqueça!
     – Jamais tente salvar um investimento com preço médio;
     – Se não está dando certo, desista!

12. Planejamento – Não leve o planejamento de longo prazo tão a sério!
     – Fuja de investimento de longo prazo;
     – Seu único plano de longo prazo deve ser de ficar rico!

O livro é pequeno e possui uma leitura fácil e rápido! Concordando ou não com os axiomas, vale a pena a leitura!!!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Books