Greg McKeown:
Welcome everybody. I’m your host, Greg McKeown, and I am here with you on this journey to learn and to understand. Have you ever wondered why there are so many massive flops in business? How many products and services are launched and then almost immediately forgotten? How can companies spend millions and sometimes billions of dollars to produce something that customers ultimately say is not for them? Today I’ve invited Tony Ulwick, one of the fathers of the Jobs To Be Done Theory. This is part one of a two-part interview, so let’s get to it.
Remember that if you want to get more from this episode, teach these ideas to someone else within the next 24 to 48 hours.
Tony Ulwick, welcome to the podcast
Tony Ulwick:
Greg. Thanks for having me here. I appreciate it.
Greg McKeown:
Now you are one of the fathers of this whole way of thinking in business. Is this a fair thing to say?
Tony Ulwick:
I’d say that’s fair.
Greg McKeown:
Can you just begin by explaining at a high level what it is that you do?
Tony Ulwick:
Sure. And I’ll go back into my background a little bit to explain what problem I’m trying to solve as well. I started my career at IBM working as an engineer, and I was working on a product called the PC Junior that was supposed to change the world. And instead, the day after that product was introduced, the headlines in the Wall Street Journal read the PC Junior is a flop. And it was. Of course, we didn’t believe it. And it took a year to kind of come to grips with that fact, and they pulled it from the market. It was a billion-dollar failure.
And what occurred to me is, well, first off, we failed. And I didn’t know companies like IBM, with all those resources, could fail at something like that. But second, I wondered how did those people know that the product was a flop the day it was introduced and what criteria were they using, and why don’t we know what that was, right?
And why didn’t we know that a year ago so we could just build the product around that set of criteria?
And so that got me thinking about why innovation is so difficult. And I spent a lot of time, this was back in the eighties going through different techniques that were becoming available at the time. But I realized that there was really no comprehensive approach to innovation. It was just a hodgepodge of a lot of ideas. And in fact, it still is today in many cases as well. But it occurred to me that, you know, the Levi quote that I’m sure everyone’s heard, you know, people don’t want the quarter-inch drill; they want the quarter-inch hole. It occurred to me one day that we don’t have to study the market through the lens of the drill maker. Why don’t we study the market through the lens of the homemaker? And if we do that, we would say these people are executing a process, and let’s think about it like that, people by products to execute a process. And I love that because the engineer in me says, wow, if it’s a process, we can break it down, and we can measure it, right? And it turns out that’s true, right?
If people are buying products to get a job done, let’s think about that job as a process, break it down into steps that they can go through, and understand how they measure success along each step of the way. And if we could measure our new concepts and our new product’s ability to get the job done better, and we can prove that it gets the job done significantly better than existing solutions, then we would know that we would have a winning product before we even started developing it. So that was the key.
Greg McKeown:
The genesis.
Tony Ulwick:
Turning point. Yes.
Greg McKeown:
I want to come back to a question you just asked rhetorically, which is, how did they know it was a flop the day after?
Tony Ulwick:
Well, they were using their set of criteria, which was all around what jobs people are trying to get done with a home computer? And it turned out the IBM PC Jr. was more of a dummy down business computer as opposed to a computer that would help people get their tasks done around their house. There really weren’t many new applications at the time. So even though the platform was good technically, there weren’t a lot of applications that helped people get personal jobs done. It was too early in its development, and that was the main reason it failed.
Greg McKeown:
And so it was obvious to the writers in the New York Times and obvious to the intended users because as soon as they interacted with it, they said, this isn’t helping me with the problems I’m facing in my life outside of the office. Am I hearing it right?
Tony Ulwick:
That’s exactly right. That’s exactly what they said. And they said, well, we already have computers at work that are much more powerful than this, that get our work jobs done quite well. So why would we want this at home? And it was; they even tried to put some games in it too, but the gaming function was pretty weak. And there were other gaming platforms that were getting the gaming job done better. So it didn’t win on that front, either.
Greg McKeown:
So it seems like there’s two steps to this. The first is to get out of your own head and into the head of the person you are trying to influence. The customer, in this case. And then the second is this idea that there’s a process that people are going through, and that seems to be two different ideas. Am I hearing that right?
Tony Ulwick:
Yeah, you are. So yeah, the first is to get out of your head, right? And the way I like thinking about it is, instead of being in solution space thinking you’re in the drill market and all your competitors are drill makers, put yourself in problem space. What problem is the customer trying to solve? Right? What process are they trying to execute? And like you said, if you can think about what customers are trying to do as a process now, you can apply statistical process control techniques, Six Sigma kind of thinking to helping people get that job done better. And it occurred to me along the way that what better means is faster, more predictably, which is why there is a statistical process control and with a great result, which is why there’s Six Sigma, right? So you’re trying to get the job done quickly, predictably, and with a great result. And if you can figure out where people are struggling along the way and where it’s taking them significant time where it becomes unpredictable and goes off track where we get bad results and low yields, then for any one of those processes, you can apply these techniques to help get the job done better.
Greg McKeown:
Can you give us an example of a problem somebody is dealing with and how you would then translate that into a process?
Tony Ulwick:
Sure. Well, I can start with one of my first projects, which I really enjoyed working with interventional cardiologists who use angioplasty balloons. So why did they use those angioplasty balloons? Well, they were trying to restore blood flow in an artery. So we think about the market as the group of people, the interventional cardiologists, and the job they’re trying to get done, which is to restore blood flow and the artery. So far, so good.
Greg McKeown:
Yes.
Tony Ulwick:
All right. Now since it’s a process, we can sit down with those interventional cardiologists and ask them to take us through that process. And the way I like thinking about this, it’s almost in super slow motion, right? We’re just saying, what’s the first thing you’re trying to accomplish? And then what are you trying to accomplish and so on until you get step by step from the beginning to the end of the process.
This kind of thinking led us to create what we call the universal job map, where generally speaking, and this was published in HBR back in 2008, but generally speaking, people go through a certain set of steps. There’s typically a planning step up front, there’s a gather all the input step, there’s a organize all the inputs so that you can get the job done step, there’s a confirmation step, then you actually execute the job. You generally monitor the output, make modifications to make sure you’re getting the right result, and then conclude the job.
So with that insight, you can start thinking through any process, if you will. And in the case of the interventional cardiologist, we broke it down into a dozen or so steps, and then we went one level deeper, right? For each step, then we say, what are you trying to achieve in this step? And what are you trying to avoid? Right? In other words, you trying to get the job done faster, more predictably, with higher output throughput. So tell us all these things that you’re trying to achieve that prevent you from getting the job done quickly, predictably, in a high success rate. So we’re leading people down a path quite literally, to have them tell us where are they struggling to get this job done? Which, of course, is the essence of the input that you’re looking for when you’re trying to innovate.
Greg McKeown:
Yes. Because instead of trying to solve something in a general sense or to quote-unquote improve it, do it better by guessing or by looking at what your product already is and just trying to sell that to somebody else. In this case, you are looking at a very methodical, clear process, identifying what is making somebody’s job harder than it needs to be.
Tony Ulwick:
That’s right. There was a book written by Scott Burleson, Statue in the Stone, that I believe is the name of it, where he describes this phenomenon and he equates it to Michelangelo sculpting a beautiful sculpture. And the analogy is you’re removing all the stone that are the imperfections and the piece of art that you’re trying to create. And when it comes to Jobs to be Done, the way he equates this is, you know, people are trying to get the job done perfectly. So let’s remove all the imperfections and what makes it imperfect parts of the job that it’s time-consuming, that make it unpredictable and offer surprises and take it down the wrong path and give you a bad result. So if we can remove all that, then you can get the job done perfectly. So staying focused on those components is key. And that’s really the basis for outcome-driven innovation.
Greg McKeown:
Okay. Are you game to apply your process to a real situation where I’m trying to innovate a product?
Tony Ulwick:
Sure, let’s try it.
Greg McKeown:
So I am currently doing research at the University of Cambridge and, as part of that, writing a new book. And I want it to be as relevant as possible to people, of course, just like everybody who creates products and services. The industry as a whole, the publishing industry, is based, I think it’s fair to say, on a model that assumes 9 out of 10 books will be a flop. And one, they don’t know which one will do better than expected, and so that’s their whole model. But it’s not very useful for me that that’s their model, you know because they don’t care whether it’s mine or the next, as long as one out of the number suddenly hits and works. And yet, for me, of course, I don’t want to write 10 books and one of them randomly as successful. So I can give you more specifics about what I’m researching. But you know, I thought I’d start with that. Your reactions.
Tony Ulwick:
Yeah. The first question I have is, well, who’s the job executor you’re trying to go after, right? There’s someone out there that you have in mind that you’re targeting that’s trying to get a job done, and I’m guessing that you’re trying to help them get a job done. So the first thing I’d like to figure out is who is that job executor that you’re targeting.
Greg McKeown:
I’m just gonna try and answer that the way I’ve been thinking about it, and then you can guide me from there. I mean, I write to people who are driven, they’re successful, they care about professional contribution and personal success. They want to make a higher contribution. They often have too many things going on. Specifically for this book, it’s for people who are great at coming up with solutions. They’ve got lots of knowledge and information, but as a result, they can often fail to understand properly the people that they would like to influence.
Tony Ulwick:
Okay. So the way I’d approach this is to say, well, it sounds like it includes product people. You said people that have ideas. Are these individuals and in companies that have ideas, are they entrepreneurs who have ideas? Are they, would you consider them to be both?
Greg McKeown:
I think it’s both, but it’s, I mean, it’s an interpersonal problem-solving-themed book. It’s about the challenges that people have in understanding each other. And there’s a, one of my previous episodes, you know, I don’t know, at least a year ago, it was a solo episode. I called it The Absolute Hell of Being Misunderstood. And I think that that’s a very felt pain in people’s lives. And I could extrapolate a lot, but I want to come back to you.
Tony Ulwick:
Is it that they struggle to articulate their ideas effectively and they’re misunderstood, and what would benefit them is to be able to communicate better with their peers? Is that the direction you’re taking it?
Greg McKeown:
That’s a good question. And it kind of comes to part of the tension I feel, which is the felt pain people have typically is that I think people, in general, feel the problem I’m trying to address within themselves as they were not understood in a situation. And, like, nothing’s worse than that. But really, the solution to that problem is that we have to be better at understanding other people. So it’s paradoxical, but nevertheless, that’s the beginning place. And so what somebody wants to do is have a more connected relationship with someone and have better results as a result of being in that relationship with them. I think that’s what is driving people. What’s getting in the way, though, is that they’re too much in their own heads, and they aren’t good at getting out of their head into the head of the other person, understanding what’s really going on, and then being able to then share whatever information is most relevant.
So I see this as being true in corporations and executives, but also in family relationships, in spousal relationships where these problems can exacerbate.
Tony Ulwick:
So your target market, then, is people in relationships, right?
Greg McKeown:
Yep that’s true.
Tony Ulwick:
Okay. So it’s any person in any kind of relationship, as you’re describing. And I always like defining the market as broadly as possible. So you’re including everybody. So that would include innovators, it’s business people, it’s professionals, it’s like you said, family members, it’s friends. And what it sounds like is you’re trying to help them avoid feeling or being misunderstood. So if I were to interview you as a sample of one and say, what is this job that people are trying to get done? The way you’re articulating it is you’re saying they’re trying to avoid something. They’re trying to avoid feeling or avoid being misunderstood. Because no one wants to be misunderstood. There’s too many ramifications to it.
Greg McKeown:
Yeah. Can I add something there? I’m loving the process when I think about it. Just one addition, it’s feeling disconnected, to as well. They may or may not know it’s because they feel misunderstood or whatever, but they have a relationship they wish they could influence. They can’t, despite multiple efforts. Think here about a father trying to reach their child; they’re completely disconnected. Now there, there’s no influence despite their efforts to push or to use all sorts of forms of human influence. They’re closed. The relationship is closed. And what I hypothesize is that’s because, in this case, the child feels completely misunderstood.
Tony Ulwick:
Yeah. And would you say that’s the case in most situations where one of the parties feels misunderstood? And the reason I ask is we would go to your, and what I suggest you could do too, is just go to your target customers and ask them how do they think about this problem? Is it that they’re trying to avoid being misunderstood? Is that a good way to say it? Or would they describe it in some other fashion? And what we generally do is talk to half a dozen job executors and gain some consensus on how they think about it and which one really resonates best with them.
Greg McKeown:
Okay, tell me a bit more about that because it’s more than just this question. How do you think about this problem? What is sort of the intent around this? And what are some sample questions?
Tony Ulwick:
Yeah, the intent is you’re trying to uncover the process they’re trying to go through, right? So keep my people’s byproducts and get a job done, right? You’re writing a book to help people get a job done. The book is a solution to help people reestablish a connection in a relationship. That’s one way to say it. It could be to avoid being misunderstood in a relationship. Like there’s many ways to say the same type of thing, but there are different types of jobs that would be studying in a different, different manner.
Greg McKeown:
But it sounds like you are saying that the language they choose is important because it’s how they think about that. It’s how they think about and express this problem, not the way I’m thinking about it and expressing it.
Tony Ulwick:
Yes. That’s exactly right. Because you could say it’s, you know, you could assume it’s avoid being misunderstood, but they may say, well, that’s part of it. But you know, what I’m really trying to do is establish a healthy connection, right? Or establish an emotional connection. They may say it in a number of different ways. And what you’re trying to do is gain consensus amongst your market job executors. As to how they would define the job that they’re trying to get done. And then you want to write your book to help them get that job done. It’s a lot of the same content, right? Like you already know your solution. You’re trying to help people overcome being misunderstood as an element of this job, but is the real job to avoid being misunderstood? Or is there a more abstract job?
Greg McKeown:
And how do we know when we are done with that step?
Tony Ulwick:
Well, we do numbers of interviews. So the first thing to do is we get like a half dozen people generally together at the same time. And we take…
Greg McKeown:
Oh, so this is a group conversation.
Tony Ulwick:
Yeah. It’s a group conversation that’s trying to lead to consensus, right? And it’s a conversation just like we’re having, they’re going to give their opinions. We type them in on a screen, and we do this virtually usually. So everyone’s looking at the screen to see the five or six or ten different ways people are describing the job. And we sit there and debate it. What is the highest, and what is the high-level job? Are there pieces of the job? And some of those statements are some subsets, or some super sets are some unnecessary, right? And what we’re trying to do is to gain consensus amongst the group as to the, as to what they’re trying to do. So that’s the first step.
Greg McKeown:
The language of what is the job to be done? Is it the same as, you know, what are we trying to accomplish? Why is one better than the other?
Tony Ulwick:
I’d say they’re one and the same. You know, what you trying to accomplish, what you’re trying to achieve, what you’re trying to avoid, they are all the same ways of saying get a job done, right? The Job to be Done is the theory, right? It’s a nice convenient way, but a job can be anything that a group of people are trying to accomplish, what they’re trying to achieve, what they’re trying to avoid. That’s why we often ask, you know, what are you trying to achieve? Another thing you may want to do, Greg, is, you know, talk to folks about the kinds of books they’re already reading to get the job done and ask them, well, you know, so what job did that book get done for you? And get a sense from them, right? You see what I’m saying?
So that can head you down a pretty helpful path too. And just like in any market, most products, just like most books, don’t get an entire job done; they get pieces of a job done. So people have to buy multiple books to try to get the whole job done, right? If you can discover a job that people are trying to get done, that you can write about and offer a comprehensive solution around, that’s what’s going to make it more valuable. So people could buy your one book as a product that gets their entire job done. So whether it’s a book, a software tool, or a piece of hardware, if it can get the entire job done, then people don’t have to go cobble together multiple solutions.
Greg McKeown:
Thank you. Really, thank you for listening. I hope that you’ve enjoyed some insight from Tony and this conversation. What is one idea that stands out to you, and what is one thing that you can do about it in the next few minutes to put it into practice? And who is somebody that you can share this episode with so that you can continue the conversation? The first five people who write a review of this episode on Apple Podcasts will get free access to the Essentialism Academy for one year. Just go to essentialism.com/podcastpromo for details, and I’ll see you next time.
