REACHING MORE CUSTOMERS, DELVING INTO THE
UNKNOWN
Leandro
Adolfo Viltard
Pontificia
Universidad Católica Argentina;
Facultad
de Ciencias Econômicas, Universidad de Palermo;
Universidad
Nacional de Luján;
Universidad
Nacional del Comahue, Argentina
Universidad
del Pacífico, Ecuador
E-mail: lviltard@yahoo.com.ar
Submission: 3/28/2020
Revision: 5/13/2020
Accept: 6/3/2020
ABSTRACT
Organizations have ineffective information
management practices, and improper analytical methods and tools for
innovations. As a consequence, customers are not appropriately reached,
decision-making is compromised and –unfortunately- most innovations don’t
achieve the desired results. In this sense and through the study of Disruptive
Innovation Theory (DIT) and Job To Be Done Theory (JTBDT) –developed by Harvard
Professor Clayton Christensen- it is pointed out that a novel universe of value
is created for small firms and incumbents in their innovation environments. In
other words, “unrevealed” areas of opportunities (or Disrupted Innovation
Theory, DIT) and “undisclosed” products (Job-To-Be-Done Theory, JTBDT) take
place, allowing a wide range of new organizational and social development, not
only a different/better/worse known market or product. This result in an
additional distinction between two antagonistic fields that coexist in the
current business context: the known field (referred to sustaining innovations)
and the unknown one (connected with DI and JTBD). Managers are urged to
understand their differences, and theories/tools must be reconsidered to manage
those opposite worlds. Therefore, the hypothesis of this investigation –which
was corroborated- states that a deep understanding of DIT and JTBDT can help to
reach more customers with adapted products, and to wider develop organizations
and markets. It was utilized a
qualitative methodology, with an exploratory descriptive study. The design was
non-experimental and -within them- transversal, since the information was
collected at a given moment of time.
Keywords: customer; unknown; disruptive innovation; job to be done; Clayton Christensen
1.
INTRODUCTION
Effective information management and
good decision-making are not easy in the current organizational context.
Robertson (2020) understands that improving information management practices
represent a key factor for many organizations, no matter if they are public or
private. But to carry out this job, there must be considered elements like
business processes and practices, compliance regulations, new services launch,
and –in some cases- new technology solutions deployment. Nevertheless, the
author observes a poor track record of success in these projects and a
struggling situation to deliver an integrated management environment because
there are different systems to integrate, business needs to reply, and complex
organizational/cultural issues to address.
But the current organizational context is hardly
influenced by innovation. In fact and in established enterprises, managers use
analytical methods that make innovation investments hardly to justify. Christensen
et al (2010) say that in well-run firms it is impossible to innovate because
their executives:
1. Are focused on their most profitable
customers, having less-demanding customers at risk.
2. Create new products that don’t respond
to the job that customers want to do with them.
3. Misguide the application of three
financial tools when analyzing future investments: a) discounted cash flow, b)
fixed/sunk costs miss consideration, and c) earnings per share excessive
emphasis. Generally, these tools distort the value, decisions and possibilities
of success in innovation investments.
In addition, they admit that stage-gate innovation with
key-decision criteria at each gate, projections that need to look in specific
ways to win funding, and a known strategy in incremental innovations are
important processes that misguide management to the right direction with
innovation investments.
As a result, they assert that managers don’t have good
tools to develop strategy, understand markets, build brands and find customers,
among others.
Going deeper and in the majority of the organizations,
information abounds; in most of big firms are used big data, analytics,
artificial intelligence and machine learning, but current tools are ineffective
to understand why customers are not adequately reached. As a consequence,
decision-making is compromised and most innovations don’t achieve the desired
results. Supporting this argument, Christensen et al (2016) suggest that:
· The majority of innovations don’t
respond to ambitions as certain elements are observed which are giving a false
perspective on what organizations are doing on the matter, basically: a) the
big data revolution and the sophisticated analysis that derive from it, which
are giving an enormous amount of customers’ information, at a tremendous speed,
and b) structured and discipline innovations processes with talented people
running them.
· The problem is that managers are
comfortable taking decisions on correlations on what customers prefer or look
like. As an example, a person may have a lot of characteristics -like being
married, having children, and driving a specific car- but none of them has
caused him/her to buy a specific newspaper (for instance, that this customer
bought it because he/she will have a flight and wants something to read, or
that simply he/she would like to read about sports). All these specific reasons
are not going to be captured by any marketer. As a result, focusing on knowing
more about customers has taken firms to the wrong direction.
In addition and to complicate this matter even
more, a prior work[1] asserts that -in globalization-
social and identity factors influence buyers’ decisions that apparently pertain
to the same target market. For instance, it is difficult to say that two
customers -that belong to the same market segment- will take the same buying
decision as –for instance- they may be influenced by different prior lives’
experiences.
· Firms must concentrate on customers’
JTBD. In other words, on what they want to accomplish or on what they are
trying to make in a given circumstance. Some are little, other big; some are
regularly and other unpredictable; but buying a product is hiring a JTBD.
Moesta, a Detroit building firm that targeted
downsizers-retirees looking to move, is a given example. After not selling
their houses as fast as they wanted, they understood the characteristics that
were being bought by some customers: a big living room, a large second bedroom
for visitors, and a breakfast bar to make entertainment easy and casual. These
characteristics meant for different things for their customers: holidays,
birthdays and other parties that should be around the dining table. At this point,
Moesta owner realized that they weren’t in the new-home construction business
but in moving lives. As a result, the architect reduced the size of the second
bedroom in order to expand the dining room area for a bigger table, and then
provided: a) moving services, to reduce the anxiety of moving to the new house,
b) two-years worth of storage and c) a sorting room in the condo to give the
right time to decide what to discard to the new owners. In this way, they
differentiated the offering in order to have a diverse perspective on the
customers’ JTBD.
As a conclusion, it is possible to observe that it is
required: a) an integrated management environment to improve current
ineffective management practices, b) to readapt existing tools to develop
strategy, understand markets, build brands and find customers, among others,
solving improper analytical methods and invalid processes for innovation, and
c) to look at customer’s JTBD in order to reach more customers, refine
decision-making and achieve higher levels of results. This problematic,
needs/focus and requirements are studied in this work and summarized in the
following Table:
Table 1: Problematic, needs/focus
and requirements
Source: Own
Consequently, this research will make
a review of these two theories, deepening on the JTBDT to better understand
customers’ decisions on products and help organizations to reach more
customers.
The following questions allowed
guiding the present investigation:
· What are the main precepts of DIT
and JTBDT? What they explain and identify?
· What are the main steps in JTBD
discovering?
· Are actual theories and tools
applicable to every type of firm, market and product?
1.1.
Hypothesis
A
thorough understanding of Disruption Innovation (DIT) and Job To Be Done
Theories (JTBDT) can help to reach more customers with adapted products, and to
wider develop organizations and markets.
1.2.
General Objective
To
study Disruption
Innovation (DIT) and Job To Be Done Theories (JTBDT) in order to provide a
deeper understanding on customers’ decisions on products, and help
organizations in their development.
1.3.
Methodology
It
was utilized a qualitative methodology, with an exploratory descriptive study.
The design was non-experimental and -within them- transversal, since the
information was collected at a given moment of time.
The
analysis unit refers to two important theories (DIT and JTBDT) developed by
Harvard Professor Clayton Christensen, deepening on JTBDT.
It
was performed a bibliographical work, studying relevant authors, in order to
analyze the topic under analysis. It is stated that it was not made a field
work.
This research took place in the
period November 2019-April 2020, in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
1.4.
Research limitations/clarifications
Within the scope of this
investigation, were found some limitations /clarifications that are detailed
below:
· Although it is difficult to
ascertain that all relevant information has been included, the investigation
referrers to studies obtained from significant secondary sources.
· The present study is complex and
multidimensional due to its highly social content. As a result, what is
proposed is shown with an open mind and in a professional discussion tone.
· The general conclusions are based on
the elements that have been analyzed and that are part of the present study.
· Based on the understanding that this
work was qualitative, it is not possible to generalize the findings although it
is intended to contribute to the decision-making process regarding the studied
topic.
The
limitations/clarifications detailed above have not been an obstacle to reaching
reasonable conclusions regarding the objective and hypothesis of the present
study.
Finally,
it is indicated that the hypothesis was corroborated and the objective
verified.
2.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This
section reviews two important theories –DIT and JTBDT- that were coined by
Harvard Profesor Clayton Christensen and enhanced by other important
specialists.
2.1.
Disruption Innovation Theory (DIT)
or why disruption is possible?
Wunker
& Farber (2017) asset that DIT is often misunderstood and misused. It is
more than something shaking up an industry; it is about capitalizing
potentially game-changing areas of opportunity. Basically, it says that
incumbent companies are challenged by new entrants by targeting overlooked
customers or usage occasions, with lower prices, other types of performance
(generally, lesser product functionalities), and greater convenience. They say
that disruption is possible because:
a) Incumbents are focused on upper-end consumers, which are more demanding and
profitable. Initially, DI don’t satisfy the customers that incumbents serve,
and product margins are lower than actual offerings to upper-end customers;
these are the basis of what Christensen calls “the innovator’s dilemma”.
b) Less demanding consumers or non-consumers open up opportunities as incumbents target most demanding
customers, over-shooting what a lot of their customers demand. As a
consequence, customers vary from the ones that have to pay a lot for a product
to the ones that cannot buy at all.
c) Inferior new offerings compete asymmetrically. In fact, lower performances are
traded for lower prices and greater accessibility. This is the case of digital cameras
that –at the beginning- traded lower quality photos with no wait or additional
costs. These products that compete asymmetrically are often ignored, making it
difficult for incumbents to respond.
As an example, General Motors’s
investment in Lift made the giant automaker enter in the ride-sharing business.
There are benefits like not worrying about parking and avoiding fixed expenses
of owing a car, but some inconveniences are seen, too: not having the
possibility of jumping into the car, no satisfaction of the driving experience,
and no expression of a personal style through transportation.
To understand the DIT it is required to see where there
is room for innovation, predicting how incumbents will respond and behave in
front of new comers’ threats.
As a result, a summary of this section is shown in the
following Table:
Table 2: Disruption Innovation
Theory (DIT)
Source: Own
2.2.
Job-To-Be-Done Theory (JTBDT) or why
a product is bought over another?
Chasing the objective to take advantage of market
openings, Wunker & Farber (2017) admit that firms must design solutions
that respond to real customer needs, being important the JTBDT, a second
important theory popularized by Professor Christensen. It explains why a
product is preferred and bought over another. In fact, Christensen et al (2016)
suggest that the JTBDT was developed as a complement of the DIT, and it
predicts the behavior of firms in danger of being disrupted and helps to
understand which entrants may pose the biggest challenges to incumbents.
Complementing the prior ideas, Dillon (2016) suggests
that DIT explains why incumbents are disrupted, but it doesn’t tell a startup
firm what product/service will disrupt a giant. In this sense, Wunker and
Farber (2017) admit that these theories –DIT and JTBDT- constitute a powerful
force; the former helps to identify areas of innovation and the latter tells
how to do so.
In the following Table, it is found a complementary view
of both theories:
Table 3: DIT and JTBD
Source: Own
Moreover and in accordance with Christensen et al (2016),
Wunker & Farber (2017), Dillon (2016) and Wunker (2005), they point out the
following key elements that must be analyzed in dept:
2.3.
JTBDT understanding
A
customer “hires” a product to satisfy a “job” that must be done, which may
satisfy different natures: functional (ex.: a nutritional meal for your
children), emotional (ex.: having your partner appreciate the effort you put to
make a meal) or social. Emotional and social experiences are more powerful than
functional ones.
A
job refers to three characteristics: 1) gives a reply to a specific problem, 2)
is needed by a particular set of people or businesses, and 3) it applies under
certain conditions.
As
an example, MinuteClinic -a disruptive retail concept for cold-nasal congestion
related problems- makes a diagnostic and properly medicates it in 15 minutes.
They narrowed the set of diseases that may be causing the sinus pain or
congestion, and -without an appointment- a nurse practitioner (rather than a doctor),
with simple equipment, is accessible to anyone.
Innovators
must look at the job that consumers want to get done, rather than what a
consumer is or the category in which the product fights into. This is a similar
argument as the one used by T. Levitt: a customer is not buying a drill, but a
tool to make a hole. In this way, they are amplifying the limits of market´s
needs. So, a drill company should not ignore opportunities of other hole-making
technologies. In this sense, a job-based view translates customer behavior into
specifications for product development.
The
JTBDT helps to create products that customers want to buy, transforming
customer understandings and choices. For instance, an Airbnb lodge may be
wanted for many reasons, such as somebody doesn’t want to feel like a stranger
in a city, or may want to revisit places he/she was before. In these cases,
Airbnb is competing with friend’s rooms, not with hotels. The room is cheaper
than a hotel and “good enough” in comparison with friends spare rooms, so
knowing what job a customer is hiring is enough to understand what
product/service will fit his/hers desires.
To
launch Airbnb, their founders identified 45 different emotional moments for
hosts and guests. Those storyboards indicated the different JTBD that customers
are hiring at Airbnb, and their specific characteristics (sex, age, where do
they live, why are they hosting, quantity of bags, and if they are nervous or
have other feelings). That is why the experience they live must match with what
customers are seeking when they hire Airbnb.
Another
case is Uber: its secret success is –as Airbnb- on an experience, which is
better than existing alternatives. It is built from customers that are allowed
to pay without cash on hand to knowing when their specific driver will turn up.
Successful
innovations help customers to solve problems, in B2C and B2B contexts. That is
why a JTBD may be understood as follows:
· Is what a person may want to accomplish in a given circumstance. It is not the same to buy a house
for the first time than buying it as a downsizer-retiree.
· The circumstances are more important than customer/product
characteristics, trends or new technologies. Seeing the product from the lens of customers’
circumstances gives a different understanding:
competitors are not other condos, but the idea of no move at all.
· Good innovations solve poorly-addressed solutions or no solutions. Most elder shoppers didn’t become
buyers because they struggle on things like moving, and finding place enough
for their furniture.
· Jobs are not simple about function, and they have social and emotional
powerful dimensions. Having
two years to decide what to do with old furniture, buyers could work
emotionally on what to keep and what to discard. Stress reduction was important
for the buying decision.
In the following Table, it is shown a summary of JTBD understanding:
Table 4: JTBD understanding
Source: Own
2.4.
JTBD discovering
Jobs
are important to be understood, but also how they are discovered. In this regard,
it is necessary to go in depth into two important factors: 1) actual customer’s
job, for which it is critical to define the scope of analysis (are we finding
the origin of cold like symptoms or sinus pain?), and 2) who is trying to
accomplish the job and what are the hassles that are faced.
Simply
put, offerings must be design around jobs. So, the first step is to define the
JTBD, for which it is necessary to ask the following five questions: 1) do you
have a job that needs to be done?, 2) where do you see non-consumption?, 3)
what works-around have people invented?, 4) what tasks do people want to
avoid?, and 5) what surprising uses have customers invented for existing
products?.
Then,
uncovering the job generally derives in ethnographic research to look at
everyday users’ activities to understand the jobs that they are trying to
accomplish. After selecting different jobs, it is necessary to begin
focus-groups conversations that will help product development.
To
guide the research it is necessary to ask the following questions: 1) what are
users doing instead of getting a difficult job done? , 2) can a new product
simplify a process?, and 3) what is driving products’ non-consumption?
Those
looking to new product development should consider the vast gap between the
best way of doing the job and the current way people are using. A DI may begin
on poor performance, inconvenience, unreliability and other situations. Thus,
the main criteria that it must accomplish is to get a particular job or various
jobs done at a “good enough” level, having room to evolve with team’s learning
of the market.
At
this stage, there are other questions that may be asked: 1) are competitors
motivated to ignore jobs?, 2) are there partnerships that may help customer to get
the job done?, and 3) can this opportunity exploit trends in the industry?
Also,
it is fundamental to understand competition, which means looking at products
that may give a reply to customers’ jobs. In fact, the competition of a museum
may not be another museum, but another entertainment alternative as Candy Crush
or Netflix. Accordingly, it is important to understand the value of
accomplishing those jobs for customers.
As
a summary, jobs-based approach is different from other market segmentation methods,
which are very useful, but jobs define what an actual product should be.
The
second step refers to creating the right customer experiences. As an example,
it is referred American Girl dolls’ case, which -directed to preteen girls and
coming in a variety of styles and ethnicities- customers pay one hundred
dollars for a doll and hundreds more for clothing, books, and accessories. When a competitive advantage lasts for
more than 30 years like American Girls, rarely it comes from the product
itself. They are not selling dolls, they sell experiences. Each doll has a
relation with a moment in US history and it is backed up with a book, giving
the opportunity to engage with girl’s imagination, connect with friends and
create unforgettable memories with other doll’s owners. For parents –the
buyers- the dolls help to connect with prior generations, their values and
traditions. The experiences they are boosting are connected with articulating
girls’ feelings and validating who they are. Different dolls speak about
leadership, compassion, courage, loyalty, immigration, challenges, success, and
other strong feelings from ancestors.
These
dolls are available only through mail order or in American Girl stores located
in specific metropolitan areas, which have dolls’ hospitals for repair and some
have thematic restaurants for parents, children and their dolls in which can
enjoy a pleasant kids meal or can host birthday parties.
The
secret of their success and why this model is difficult to be copied by
competitors like Disney, Wal-Mart and Toys R Us is that American Girl is
focused on experiences, connections and stories; they are not in the doll
business.
Finally,
the third step is to integrate the experiences into company’s processes to
support the JTBD. As MIT’s Edgar Schein has discussed, processes “are a
critical part of organization’s unspoken culture”; they tell what most matters.
As an example, it is mentioned Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU) whose
authorities decided to target online students, realizing that they were
competing with nothing: non-consumption. So, the market suddenly became massive
and untapped.
Their
target, 30 years old online-higher education students, need convenience,
customer service, credentials and speedy completion times, not social
activities or campus scenes. But to accomplish this job, policies, structures
and policies should be changed, and online learning should not be treated as a
second-class citizen. Some questions that SNHU team worked were: 1) what
experiences will help customers to progress in a given circumstance? (Replies
at night with a chat or in minutes after a phone call are the essence in this
case), 2) what obstacles must be removed? (Aid packages and prior college
courses recognition counts to be resolved in days, nor weeks or months), 3)
what are the social, emotional, and functional dimensions of the job? (Ads must
be oriented to the target market specifically, calling for emotions and
personal objectives).
Enrolling
students was only a first step, and then it was very important to have a
personal adviser for the whole career to surmount student’s everyday obstacles.
Basically, SNHU is focused on students and on their path to the final
completion of their studies; processes are tailored in the interest of the job
they hired.
Summarizing,
successful innovators identify poorly performed jobs in customers’ lives, and
then design processes, products and experiences around those jobs.
As
a result and in order to create a disruptive strategy and launch a new product
successfully, it is of most value to understand the JTBD that the customer is
hiring and what competitors are offering.
In the following Table, it is shown a summary of this
section:
Table 4: JTBD discovering
Source: Own
2.5.
Why these two theories are needed?
DIT and JTBDT offer a wide explanation about
opportunities/new solutions and threads/vulnerabilities, which abound in the
current business environment. In this respect, authors like Wunker & Farber
(2017) agree that:
· These two theories are natural
complements, being useful when firms are seeking for opportunities or are
looking to avoid threads. Also, they show where incumbents are vulnerable and
how customers are in search of new solutions.
· Jobs that are over-served are
candidates for disruption. Thereby, ride-sharing services can disrupt
automakers on jobs like short commutes.
· These low-end alternatives are
possible because: a) the access to the solution is quick, b) they don’t need
any special skill to use it, c) they are used in a temporary situation, and d)
they save money.
· The key to find DI products is to
look at the jobs that people are trying to get done which are cumbersome or
frustrating, even if people take those limitations for granted.
· Planning for the future means to
break industry movements and customer behaviors down into identifiable parts,
with a view to rebuild value chains for disruption.
3.
DISCUSION AND CONSEQUENCES
The studied theories open new avenues of thought and
action in organizations.
An important matter that can be highlighted is that they
connect with the unknown field: “unrevealed” areas of opportunities (DIT) and
“undisclosed” products (JTBDT), not only to a different/better/worse known
product or market.
In fact authors, like Kotler and Amstrong (2016), speak
about customer needs, desires and demands, implying already known
products/markets and referred to human needs that come from a perceived lack.
This lack can be physical (food, heat, and security), social (affection,
belonging, and acceptance) and/or individual (knowledge and self-expression).
For them, these human needs can be molded culturally or according to the
personality of each individual, and build up demand when these desires are
accompanied by a purchasing power that allows obtaining the greatest
satisfaction in exchange for the least possible money. On the contrary, JTBDT
work out problems in B2B and B2C contexts, and solve poorly-addressed solutions
or no solutions, opening alternatives for unknown markets and products at that
precise moment.
Additionally, these needs, desires and demands derive in
sustaining innovations, understood as incremental innovations that improve or
sustains existing products in actual markets; they sustain current needs and
are based on sustaining technologies. In confront, DI creates disruptive
products that open opportunities to new markets and value networks, and are
supported by disruptive technologies, which evolve to meet customers’ future
needs better. These two types of innovations are at the core of the innovator’s
dilemma, expressed in Christensen (2015).
Moreover, the tools that are applied to the known and
unknown fields must be different, and most of them should be reconsidered
because they are ineffective in the unknown. For example, Christensen et al
(2010) say that there is a misguided application of three financial tools when
considering innovation possibilities: 1) Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), 2)
Sunk/Fixed Costs (SFC), and 3) Earnings
Per Share (EPS). It is admitted that are good tools for sustaining innovations
but they create a systematic bias when evaluating innovation investments.
For instance, the DCF don’t consider the “doing nothing
scenario” and errors in estimations on new markets and products. These errors
may come from: a) disruptive investments are difficult to predict, and b) it is
not known if the present health of the firm will persist in the future if
innovation is not implemented.
In terms of SFC, they admit that are referred to capabilities
that are required for yesterday’s success but not necessarily for the future,
and managers privilege assets and capabilities that may become obsolete in the
near term. For incumbents, an investment in a new low-cost production facility
makes no sense when compared to marginal costs of a current facility. That is
why, fixed and sunk costs make it difficult for firms that actually invest in
new capabilities; in fact, the authors recommend not considering those costs to
evaluate investments in new ventures. Put another way, the problem for the incumbent is to rely on the capabilities that had
been built to success in the past; in confront, the attackers have no fixed or sunk costs. As a consequence, managers
should not ignore competences that are required for the future and/or destroy a
firm by leveraging those of the past.
Addressing the issue of
EPS, they say that is utilized as a primary driver of shareholder’s value creation, and that interests of shareholders and managers are
not aligned, because executives pursue other agendas. They are rewarded per EPS
and EPS growth short term, but important traditional shareholders look after a
long-term company posture, and indicators like market position, intellectual
capital and long term capabilities are not being considered. Also, the
investment flow in disruptive products and business models may be narrowed in
confront of sustaining innovation environments.
As a summary, they
recognize that managers in established firms don’t have good market tools; so, the analytical methods that are utilized make
innovation investments extremely difficult to validate. Also and as it was said
in the Introduction of this study, key-decision criteria when analyzing
projects, projections and strategies in incremental innovations are important
processes but misguide management in innovation investments.
Additionally and in a prior work[2], it is suggested that when managing existing
markets and products it is possible to consider business plans, but in new
markets and products learning plans are needed. In this case, the importance of
experience and learning in the market becomes fundamental not to incur in extra
costs and expenses.
Finally, DIT and JTBDT create an uncontested area of
opportunity and a new universe of value for every kind of firms, as follows:
· For small firms: not having all the required resources may not be seen as a weakness,
but as a wide avenue to develop future alternatives, based on the idea that new
comers don’t have assets and capabilities dedicated to the past. In this sense,
traditional financial tools -like marginal contribution- destroy the
incumbents’ capacity to do new things. In Christensen et al (2010) words: “When
new capabilities are required, managers are bias toward leveraging assets and capabilities
that are likely to become obsolete”.
· For incumbents:
they must work on DI/JTBD, but in a separate business unit, with different
processes, procedures and indicators (Christensen, 2015).
In the following Table, it is shown a summary of this section:
Table 5: The known and the
unknown fields
Source: Own
4.
CONCLUSION
In
this work, it is noted that organizations have ineffective information
management practices, and improper analytical methods and tools for innovations.
That is the reason why customers are not appropriately reached, decision-making
is compromised and –unfortunately- most innovations don’t achieve the desired
results.
In
order to solve these inconveniences, it is required an integrated management
environment and to reconsider market tools to help in reaching more customers
and provide the solutions that they need.
In
this sense, there were studied two theories that help on this matter:
1. DIT: explains how new comers shake
up an industry and capitalize potentially game-changing areas of opportunity.
From incumbents’ perspective, predicts
how they will respond and behave in front of new comers’ threats. In other
words, it describes why incumbents are disrupted, identifying areas of
innovation.
2. JTBDT: helps to create products that
customers want to buy. The product is observed as a JTBD which is hired by a
customer and/or what a person wants to accomplish in a given circumstance,
working out problems in B2B and B2C contexts and solving poorly-addressed
solutions or no solutions. In this environment, competition is seen from a
different perspective.
To
discover a JTBD it is necessary to design it, create customer experiences and
integrate those experiences into firms’ processes. Poorly performed jobs in
peoples’ lives are fundamental to identify jobs; then, processes, products and
experiences must be designed around those jobs.
Finally,
it is made a distinction between the fields of the known (referred to
sustaining innovations) and the unknown (connected with DI/JTBD). In the
unknown, unrevealed and undisclosed alternatives will appear as disruptive
environments disclose new ways to solve actual problems, and evolve to meet
customer needs better. Therefore, theories and tools must be reconsidered to
work on innovation solutions.
Besides,
small firms can challenge incumbents, accessing to more resources and
benefiting from not having assets/capabilities dedicated to the past;
incumbents must separate innovation projects into independent business units,
reconsidering the processes, procedures and key indicators that may apply.
The field of the unknown has nothing
to do with the known; they are antagonistic. The unknown is uncertain and risky
but drives to immense sets of undisclosed value added opportunities, to a wide
unserved or poorly served population of the world[3]. Managers are urged to understand
their differences, and theories/tools must be reconsidered to manage those
opposite worlds. In small firms, this approach should be seen as a huge
development opportunity; on the incumbents’ side, as an environment to rethink
and to be included in their daily decision processes and strategies.
REFERENCES
Christensen, C. M., Hall, T. Dillon,
K., & Duncan, D. S. (2016) Know your customer’s job to be done, Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Christensen, C. M. (2015) The Innovator’s dilemma, when new
technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business Review
Press.
Christensen, C. M., Kaufman, S. P.
& Shih, W. (2010) Innovation Killers; how financial tools destroy your
capacity to do new things, Boston: Harvard
Business Review,
Dillon, K. (2016) What Airbnb
understands about customers´ “jobs to be done”, Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Kotler, P. & Amstrong, G. (2016)
Marketing. México: Pearson.
Robertson, J. (2020) 10 principles
of effective information management. Available: https://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_effectiveim/. Access: 21/03//2020.
Wunker, S. & Farber, D. (2017) A
winning formula: disruptive innovation + “job to be done”, Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Wunker, S. (2005) Get the job done,
Boston: Harvard Business Review.