jobs-to-be-done
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
ChineseJobs to Be Done Framework
Jobs to Be Done 框架
Framework for discovering innovation based on a fundamental truth: customers don't buy products - they "hire" them to do a specific job in their lives.
这是一个基于核心真相的创新挖掘框架：客户购买的不是产品——他们是“雇佣”产品来完成生活中的某项特定任务。
Core Principle
核心原则
Job to Be Done = the progress a customer wants to make in specific circumstances.
Key elements of the definition:
- Progress (not goal, not solution) - customer wants to move from current state to a better one
- Circumstances - context determines the job, not customer attributes (demographics are useless)
- Hiring/Firing - customer actively chooses a product for the "job"
Job to Be Done = 客户在特定场景下想要实现的进展。
该定义的关键要素：
- 进展（而非目标，也非解决方案）——客户希望从当前状态迈向更好的状态
- 场景——决定任务的是场景，而非客户属性（人口统计数据毫无用处）
- 雇佣/解雇——客户会主动选择产品来完成“任务”
Scoring
评分标准
Goal: 10/10. When reviewing or creating product strategy or positioning, rate it 0-10 based on adherence to the principles below. A 10/10 means full alignment with all guidelines; lower scores indicate gaps to address. Always provide the current score and specific improvements needed to reach 10/10.
目标：10/10。在评审或制定产品策略或定位时，根据以下原则的契合度进行0-10分的评分。10/10表示完全符合所有准则；分数越低说明存在需要解决的差距。请始终提供当前分数以及达到10/10所需的具体改进措施。
Three Dimensions of Every Job
任务的三个维度
Every job has three inseparable dimensions - omitting any means failure:
| Dimension | Question | Example (milkshake) |
|---|---|---|
| Functional | What does the customer need to do? | Occupy myself during boring commute |
| Emotional | How do they want to feel? | Have a small treat for myself |
| Social | How do they want to be perceived? | As a sensible parent (not buying donuts) |
每项任务都包含三个不可分割的维度——遗漏任何一个都会导致失败：
| 维度 | 问题 | 示例（奶昔） |
|---|---|---|
| 功能型 | 客户需要完成什么？ | 在无聊的通勤途中打发时间 |
| 情感型 | 客户想要获得怎样的感受？ | 给自己一点小犒劳 |
| 社交型 | 客户希望自己在他人眼中是什么形象？ | 作为明智的家长（不买甜甜圈） |
Framework
框架内容
1. The Job Statement
1. 任务陈述
Core concept: A job statement captures the progress a customer seeks in a specific circumstance, expressed in a structured format that separates context, desired progress, and expected outcome.
Why it works: By forcing teams to articulate the job in the customer's language and circumstances, it prevents solution-first thinking and keeps innovation grounded in real human progress.
Key insights:
- The format is: "When [circumstances], I want to [progress], so I can [outcome]"
- Circumstances matter more than customer demographics - the same person has different jobs in different situations
- A well-written job statement never mentions your product or any specific solution
- Jobs are stable over time; solutions change but the underlying job persists
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| New product ideation | Define the job before brainstorming features | "When I'm commuting alone, I want something to occupy me and satisfy hunger, so I'm not hungry until lunch" |
| Feature prioritization | Evaluate whether a feature serves the core job | Prioritize features that help accomplish the stated job over nice-to-have additions |
| Positioning & messaging | Use the job statement language in marketing copy | Lead with the circumstance and desired progress, not product specs |
Copy patterns:
- "When you're [circumstance], you need [progress] -- that's exactly what [product] does"
- Lead with the situation the customer recognizes, not the product category
- Mirror the emotional and social dimensions alongside the functional one
Ethical boundary: Never fabricate or exaggerate circumstances to manufacture urgency. The job must reflect genuine customer progress, not artificially created anxiety.
See: references/innovation-process.md
核心概念：任务陈述以结构化格式捕捉客户在特定场景下寻求的进展，将场景、期望进展和预期成果分开表述。
为何有效：通过迫使团队用客户的语言和场景来阐述任务，避免了以解决方案为先的思维，让创新扎根于真实的人类需求进展。
关键见解：
- 格式为：“当[场景]时，我想要[实现进展]，这样我就能[达成成果]”
- 场景比客户人口统计数据更重要——同一个人在不同场景下有不同的任务
- 一份优质的任务陈述绝不会提及你的产品或任何特定解决方案
- 任务会长期稳定存在；解决方案会变化，但背后的任务始终不变
产品应用场景：
| 场景 | 应用方式 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 新产品构思 | 在头脑风暴功能前先定义任务 | “当我独自通勤时，我需要能打发时间又能充饥的东西，这样午餐前就不会饿” |
| 功能优先级排序 | 评估功能是否服务于核心任务 | 优先考虑有助于完成既定任务的功能，而非锦上添花的附加项 |
| 定位与推广 | 在营销文案中使用任务陈述的语言 | 以场景和期望进展为切入点，而非产品规格 |
文案模板：
- “当你处于[场景]时，你需要[实现进展]——这正是[产品]能做到的”
- 从客户熟悉的场景入手，而非产品类别
- 同时兼顾功能、情感和社交维度
伦理边界：绝不要捏造或夸大场景来制造紧迫感。任务必须反映客户的真实进展需求，而非人为制造的焦虑。
参考：references/innovation-process.md
2. Forces of Progress (Push, Pull, Anxiety, Habit)
2. 进展驱动力（推力、拉力、焦虑、习惯）
Core concept: The decision to "hire" a new product results from the interplay of four forces: Push (frustration with current situation), Pull (attraction of new solution), Anxiety (fear of the new), and Habit (comfort with current behavior). Change only happens when Push + Pull > Habit + Anxiety.
Why it works: Most innovation efforts focus only on making the product better (increasing Pull), but ignore the equally powerful anti-change forces. Understanding all four forces reveals why great products still fail to gain adoption.
Key insights:
- Push is frustration with the current situation ("this annoys me")
- Pull is the attraction of a new solution ("I want this")
- Habit is attachment to current behavior ("I've always done it this way")
- Anxiety is fear of the new ("what if it doesn't work?")
- Often it's more effective to reduce anxiety and habit than to increase push and pull
- Passive seekers (vaguely aware of a problem) are easier to influence than active seekers who already have criteria
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Onboarding design | Reduce anxiety with free trials, guarantees, and social proof | Money-back guarantee addresses "what if it doesn't work?" anxiety |
| Switching campaigns | Address habit directly by making migration effortless | One-click data import from competitor reduces habit friction |
| Content marketing | Awaken push in passive seekers by naming their frustration | Blog post: "5 signs your current tool is costing you hours every week" |
Copy patterns:
- Address anxiety directly: "No lock-in, cancel anytime, your data is always yours"
- Name the push: "Tired of [frustration]? There's a better way"
- Reduce habit friction: "Switch in 5 minutes -- we import everything automatically"
Ethical boundary: Never manufacture artificial push by exaggerating pain or creating fear. Reducing real anxiety is ethical; creating new anxiety to drive sales is manipulation.
See: references/competitive-strategy.md
核心概念：“雇佣”新产品的决定是四种力量相互作用的结果：推力（对当前状况的不满）、拉力（对新解决方案的吸引力）、焦虑（对新事物的恐惧）和习惯（对现有行为的依赖）。只有当推力+拉力>习惯+焦虑时，才会发生改变。
为何有效：大多数创新努力只关注优化产品（增强拉力），却忽略了同样强大的反改变力量。理解这四种力量能解释为何优秀产品仍无法获得用户采用。
关键见解：
- 推力是对当前状况的不满（“这让我很烦”）
- 拉力是对新解决方案的吸引力（“我想要这个”）
- 习惯是对现有行为的依赖（“我一直都是这么做的”）
- 焦虑是对新事物的恐惧（“如果没用怎么办？”）
- 通常，减少焦虑和习惯比增加推力和拉力更有效
- 被动需求者（隐约意识到问题）比已有明确标准的主动需求者更容易被影响
产品应用场景：
| 场景 | 应用方式 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 新手引导设计 | 通过免费试用、担保和社交证明减少焦虑 | 退款担保能缓解“如果没用怎么办？”的焦虑 |
| 用户转化活动 | 直接解决习惯问题，让迁移变得轻松 | 一键导入竞品数据，降低习惯带来的阻碍 |
| 内容营销 | 点明痛点，唤醒被动需求者的推力 | 博客文章：“你的当前工具每周浪费你数小时的5个信号” |
文案模板：
- 直接解决焦虑：“无锁定，随时取消，你的数据永远属于你”
- 点明痛点：“受够了[不满]？有更好的办法”
- 降低习惯阻碍：“5分钟完成切换——我们会自动导入所有数据”
伦理边界：绝不要通过夸大痛苦或制造恐惧来人为制造推力。减少真实焦虑是符合伦理的；为了驱动销售而制造新焦虑则是操纵行为。
参考：references/competitive-strategy.md
3. The Big Hire & Little Hire
3. 重大雇佣与日常雇佣
Core concept: There are two distinct decision moments: the Big Hire (purchase/signup decision, happens once) and the Little Hire (decision to use in the moment, happens repeatedly). Winning the Big Hire does not guarantee the Little Hire.
Why it works: Many products win the sale but lose the customer because they optimize only for the purchase decision and neglect the repeated usage decision. Understanding both moments reveals where retention problems truly originate.
Key insights:
- Big Hire is driven by marketing, onboarding, and first impressions
- Little Hire is driven by product quality, UX, and ongoing value delivery
- Many products lose at the Little Hire stage -- purchased but never used
- The forces of progress operate differently at each stage: Big Hire anxiety is about the purchase risk; Little Hire anxiety is about effort and learning curves
- Retention problems are almost always Little Hire failures, not Big Hire failures
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Retention analysis | Distinguish Big Hire metrics from Little Hire metrics | Track "first use after signup" and "weekly active usage" separately from signup conversion |
| Product design | Optimize the repeated usage experience, not just first impression | Reduce friction in daily workflows even if onboarding is already smooth |
| Customer success | Monitor Little Hire signals to predict churn | Declining usage frequency is a Little Hire failure signaling upcoming churn |
Copy patterns:
- Big Hire copy focuses on the promise: "Transform how you [job]"
- Little Hire copy focuses on ease: "One click and you're done"
- Re-engagement copy addresses Little Hire failure: "We've made [specific friction] easier"
Ethical boundary: Never design dark patterns that win the Big Hire (e.g., hidden fees, misleading trials) while failing the Little Hire. Both decisions must deliver genuine progress.
See: references/case-studies.md
核心概念：存在两个截然不同的决策时刻：重大雇佣（购买/注册决策，仅发生一次）和日常雇佣（当下是否使用的决策，反复发生）。赢得重大雇佣并不保证能赢得日常雇佣。
为何有效：许多产品能赢得销售却失去客户，因为它们只优化了购买决策，却忽略了反复使用的决策。理解这两个时刻能揭示留存问题的真正根源。
关键见解：
- 重大雇佣由营销、新手引导和第一印象驱动
- 日常雇佣由产品质量、用户体验和持续价值交付驱动
- 许多产品在日常雇佣阶段失败——被购买后却从未被使用
- 进展驱动力在两个阶段的作用不同：重大雇佣的焦虑来自购买风险；日常雇佣的焦虑来自使用难度和学习曲线
- 留存问题几乎都是日常雇佣失败导致的，而非重大雇佣失败
产品应用场景：
| 场景 | 应用方式 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 留存分析 | 区分重大雇佣指标和日常雇佣指标 | 将“注册后首次使用”和“周活跃使用”与注册转化率分开追踪 |
| 产品设计 | 优化反复使用的体验，而非仅关注第一印象 | 即使新手引导已经很顺畅，也要减少日常工作流程中的摩擦 |
| 客户成功 | 监控日常雇佣信号以预测流失 | 使用频率下降是日常雇佣失败的信号，预示着即将到来的客户流失 |
文案模板：
- 重大雇佣文案聚焦承诺：“彻底改变你完成[任务]的方式”
- 日常雇佣文案聚焦易用性：“一键即可完成”
- 再激活文案针对日常雇佣失败：“我们已简化[特定摩擦点]”
伦理边界：绝不要设计黑模式来赢得重大雇佣（如隐藏费用、误导性试用）却在日常雇佣阶段失败。两个决策都必须交付真实的进展价值。
参考：references/case-studies.md
4. Competitive Landscape (Non-Obvious Competition)
4. 竞争格局（非直接竞品）
Core concept: True competition is everything a customer can "hire" for the same job, often from completely different product categories. Competitors are defined by the job, not by industry classification.
Why it works: Analyzing competition through product categories creates blind spots. A milkshake competes with bananas, bagels, boredom, and podcasts. Netflix competes with TikTok, sleep, family conversation, and games. By mapping the full competitive landscape around the job, teams spot threats and opportunities invisible to traditional analysis.
Key insights:
- Non-consumption (doing nothing) is often the biggest competitor
- Workarounds and compensating behaviors reveal unserved jobs: people hack, combine, and improvise solutions
- Online courses compete with books, YouTube, mentoring, and doing nothing
- Integration is needed when performance is "not good enough" for the job; modularization when it's "good enough"
- The best competitive positioning answers "what job are we the best hire for?" not "how do we compare to similar products?"
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Competitive analysis | Map all hires for the same job across categories | A project management tool competes with spreadsheets, sticky notes, email threads, and memory |
| Positioning strategy | Position against the real alternative, not the obvious one | Position against "doing it manually" rather than against a named competitor |
| Pricing strategy | Price relative to the job's value, not competitor pricing | If the job saves 10 hours per week, price against the value of that time, not against similar SaaS products |
Copy patterns:
- "Stop using [workaround] for [job] -- there's a purpose-built solution"
- "You wouldn't hire a [bad fit] to [job] -- so why are you using [current hack]?"
- Position around the job outcome, not feature comparison charts
Ethical boundary: Never misrepresent competitors or create false equivalences. Honest competitive framing based on the job is powerful; distorting alternatives is deceptive.
See: references/competitive-strategy.md
核心概念：真正的竞争对手是客户可以“雇佣”来完成同一任务的所有选项，通常来自完全不同的产品类别。竞争对手由任务定义，而非行业分类。
为何有效：按产品类别分析竞品会产生盲区。奶昔的竞争对手包括香蕉、百吉饼、无聊感和播客。Netflix的竞争对手包括TikTok、睡眠、家庭对话和游戏。通过围绕任务绘制完整的竞争格局，团队能发现传统分析无法察觉的威胁和机遇。
关键见解：
- 不消费（什么都不做）往往是最大的竞争对手
- 变通方法和补偿行为揭示了未被满足的任务：人们会拼凑、组合和即兴创造解决方案
- 在线课程的竞争对手包括书籍、YouTube、导师指导和什么都不做
- 当现有方案的表现“不足以”完成任务时，需要整合；当表现“足够好”时，需要模块化
- 最佳的竞争定位要回答“我们是完成哪项任务的最佳选择？”而非“我们与同类产品相比如何？”
产品应用场景：
| 场景 | 应用方式 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 竞品分析 | 跨类别绘制完成同一任务的所有选项 | 项目管理工具的竞争对手包括电子表格、便利贴、邮件线程和记忆力 |
| 定位策略 | 针对真实替代方案定位，而非明显的竞品 | 针对“手动完成”定位，而非针对某一特定竞品 |
| 定价策略 | 根据任务的价值定价，而非竞品定价 | 如果任务每周能节省10小时，就按这些时间的价值定价，而非参照同类SaaS产品 |
文案模板：
- “别再用[变通方法]完成[任务]——有专门为该任务打造的解决方案”
- “你不会雇佣[不合适的选项]来完成[任务]——那为什么还要用[当前的权宜之计]？”
- 围绕任务成果定位，而非功能对比图表
伦理边界：绝不要歪曲竞品或制造虚假等价关系。基于任务的诚实竞争框架是有力的；扭曲替代方案则是欺骗行为。
参考：references/competitive-strategy.md
5. Customer Discovery Interviews
5. 客户探索访谈
Core concept: Don't ask customers directly "what do you need" -- they don't know. Instead, investigate the purchase timeline by reconstructing the moments of first thought, search, purchase, and usage to uncover the real job.
Why it works: Customers rationalize decisions after the fact and can't articulate latent needs. By walking backward through the concrete events of their decision journey, you uncover the true circumstances, forces, and tradeoffs that drove their behavior.
Key insights:
- First thought questions: "When did you first think about looking for a solution?", "What was happening in your life then?", "What was frustrating you?"
- Search questions: "What alternatives did you look for?", "What eliminated options?", "Who did you talk to about this decision?"
- Purchase moment questions: "Where were you?", "What ultimately convinced you?", "What were you afraid of?"
- Usage questions: "Is the product doing what you expected?", "What surprised you?", "What's still missing?"
- Signals of undiscovered jobs: workarounds, non-consumption, compensating behaviors, negative emotions with current solutions
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| New market entry | Interview people who recently switched to or from a competitor | Reconstruct the timeline to find what pushed them away and pulled them toward the new solution |
| Churn reduction | Interview churned customers about their decision timeline | Discover whether the failure was Big Hire (wrong expectations) or Little Hire (poor daily experience) |
| Feature discovery | Interview customers using workarounds | A customer using spreadsheets alongside your product reveals an unmet job dimension |
Copy patterns:
- Use exact customer language from interviews in marketing copy
- "We heard you say [verbatim quote] -- so we built [feature]"
- Frame benefits using the circumstances and emotions customers actually described
Ethical boundary: Never lead interview subjects toward predetermined conclusions. The goal is genuine discovery, not confirmation of existing assumptions.
See: references/innovation-process.md
核心概念：不要直接问客户“你需要什么”——他们自己也不知道。相反，通过重构首次产生想法、搜索、购买和使用的时间线，来挖掘真实任务。
为何有效：客户会在事后合理化决策，无法清晰表达潜在需求。通过回溯他们决策旅程中的具体事件，你能发现驱动其行为的真实场景、力量和权衡。
关键见解：
- 初始想法相关问题：“你第一次考虑寻找解决方案是什么时候？”“当时你的生活中发生了什么？”“什么让你感到不满？”
- 搜索相关问题：“你考虑过哪些替代方案？”“哪些选项被你排除了？”“你和谁讨论过这个决策？”
- 购买时刻相关问题：“你当时在哪里？”“最终是什么让你下定决心？”“你当时担心什么？”
- 使用相关问题：“产品达到你的预期了吗？”“什么让你感到意外？”“还有什么缺失的？”
- 未被发现任务的信号：变通方法、不消费、补偿行为、对现有解决方案的负面情绪
产品应用场景：
| 场景 | 应用方式 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 新市场进入 | 采访最近切换到竞品或放弃竞品的用户 | 重构时间线，找出推动他们离开的因素和吸引他们选择新方案的因素 |
| 流失减少 | 采访流失客户，了解他们的决策时间线 | 发现失败是来自重大雇佣（错误预期）还是日常雇佣（糟糕的日常体验） |
| 功能挖掘 | 采访使用变通方法的客户 | 客户在使用你的产品同时还使用电子表格，这揭示了未被满足的任务维度 |
文案模板：
- 在营销文案中使用访谈中获取的客户原话
- “我们听到你说[原话引用]——所以我们打造了[功能]”
- 用客户实际描述的场景和情绪来阐述产品价值
伦理边界：绝不要引导访谈对象得出预设结论。目标是真实挖掘需求，而非验证现有假设。
参考：references/innovation-process.md
6. Designing for the Job
6. 为任务而设计
Core concept: Build the entire product experience -- features, metrics, and organization -- around helping the customer accomplish their job, not around internal capabilities or competitive feature parity.
Why it works: When every product decision answers "will this help the customer better accomplish their job?", teams avoid feature bloat, build coherent experiences, and create products that customers genuinely value. If the team cannot answer the question, the job is not yet understood.
Key insights:
- Replace customer satisfaction metrics with "did the job get done?" metrics
- Replace NPS with "reasons for hiring and firing"
- Replace feature usage metrics with "progress on the job"
- When the job is poorly understood, integrate (control entire experience); when well understood, modularize (specialize components)
- Integrate where performance is "not good enough" for the job; modularize where it's "good enough"
- Every product decision should answer: "Will this help the customer better accomplish their job?"
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Metrics design | Define success metrics around job completion | Track "time from problem to resolution" instead of "features used per session" |
| Product roadmap | Prioritize based on job dimensions (functional, emotional, social) | A functional improvement that ignores the emotional dimension may not move the needle |
| Organizational alignment | Structure teams around jobs, not product components | A "morning commute job" team owns everything from content to packaging to distribution |
Copy patterns:
- "Built for [the job], not for [the category]"
- Emphasize outcome and progress, not features and specifications
- "Everything you need to [job] -- nothing you don't"
Ethical boundary: Never design addictive patterns that serve engagement metrics rather than genuine customer progress. The job framework demands that the customer's progress is the true north, not your retention numbers.
See: references/organizational-change.md
核心概念：围绕帮助客户完成任务来构建整个产品体验——包括功能、指标和组织架构——而非围绕内部能力或竞品功能对标。
为何有效：当每个产品决策都能回答“这是否能帮助客户更好地完成任务？”时，团队就能避免功能膨胀，打造连贯的体验，创造客户真正重视的产品。如果团队无法回答这个问题，说明任务尚未被理解。
关键见解：
- 用“任务是否完成”指标替代客户满意度指标
- 用“雇佣和解雇的原因”替代NPS
- 用“任务进展”指标替代功能使用指标
- 当任务完成度“不足”时，需要整合（控制整个体验）；当完成度“足够”时，需要模块化（专注于组件）
- 每个产品决策都应回答：“这是否能帮助客户更好地完成任务？”
产品应用场景：
| 场景 | 应用方式 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 指标设计 | 围绕任务完成情况定义成功指标 | 追踪“从发现问题到解决问题的时间”而非“每会话使用功能数” |
| 产品路线图 | 根据任务维度（功能、情感、社交）确定优先级 | 只优化功能维度却忽略情感维度的改进可能毫无效果 |
| 组织对齐 | 围绕任务而非产品组件构建团队 | “晨间通勤任务”团队负责从内容、包装到分销的所有环节 |
文案模板：
- “为[任务]打造，而非为[类别]打造”
- 强调成果和进展，而非功能和规格
- “完成[任务]所需的一切——无多余内容”
伦理边界：绝不要设计成瘾性模式来服务于参与度指标，而非真实的客户进展。任务框架要求客户的进展是真正的核心，而非你的留存数据。
参考：references/organizational-change.md
Common Mistakes
常见错误
| Mistake | Why It Fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Defining jobs too narrowly around your product | You miss the real competitive landscape and build features no one needs | Define the job from the customer's perspective, never mentioning your product |
| Ignoring the emotional and social dimensions | Functional-only jobs miss why customers actually choose (and stay with) products | Always complete all three dimensions: functional, emotional, and social |
| Confusing jobs with goals or tasks | Goals are too abstract ("be healthy") and tasks are too specific ("click button") to drive strategy | Jobs describe progress in specific circumstances -- more concrete than goals, more strategic than tasks |
| Only increasing Pull while ignoring Anxiety and Habit | A great product still fails if switching costs and fear are too high | Map all four forces and design interventions for each, especially reducing anti-change forces |
| Winning the Big Hire but ignoring the Little Hire | High acquisition with high churn -- purchased but never used | Track and optimize the repeated usage decision separately from the purchase decision |
| Asking customers "what do you want?" | Customers rationalize and can't articulate latent needs; you get incremental feature requests | Use timeline-based discovery interviews that reconstruct actual behavior and decisions |
| Defining competition by product category | You miss the real threats and opportunities from adjacent categories and non-consumption | Map every alternative the customer could "hire" for the same job, including doing nothing |
| 错误 | 失败原因 | �修复方法 |
|---|---|---|
| 围绕产品过于狭隘地定义任务 | 会错过真实的竞争格局，打造无人需要的功能 | 从客户视角定义任务，绝不要提及你的产品 |
| 忽略情感和社交维度 | 只关注功能的任务无法解释客户选择（并留存）产品的真正原因 | 始终覆盖三个维度：功能、情感和社交 |
| 将任务与目标或具体操作混淆 | 目标过于抽象（“保持健康”），具体操作过于细碎（“点击按钮”），无法驱动策略 | 任务描述的是特定场景下的进展——比目标更具体，比操作更具战略性 |
| 只增强拉力却忽略焦虑和习惯 | 如果切换成本和恐惧过高，优秀产品仍会失败 | 绘制所有四种力量，并针对每种力量设计干预措施，尤其是减少反改变力量 |
| 赢得重大雇佣却忽略日常雇佣 | 高获客高流失——产品被购买却从未使用 | 单独追踪和优化反复使用决策，而非仅关注购买决策 |
| 问客户“你想要什么？” | 客户会合理化决策，无法表达潜在需求；你得到的只是增量功能请求 | 使用基于时间线的探索访谈，重构客户的实际行为和决策 |
| 按产品类别定义竞争对手 | 会错过来自相邻类别和不消费的真实威胁和机遇 | 绘制客户可以“雇佣”来完成同一任务的所有选项，包括什么都不做 |
Quick Diagnostic
快速诊断
| Question | If No | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Can you state the job in one sentence without mentioning your product? | You're product-focused, not job-focused | Write a job statement: "When [circumstances], I want to [progress], so I can [outcome]" |
| Have you mapped all four forces (Push, Pull, Anxiety, Habit)? | You're likely over-investing in Pull and ignoring barriers | Map each force and design specific interventions for Anxiety and Habit |
| Do you know the emotional and social dimensions of the job? | Your product may win functionally but lose on experience | Conduct discovery interviews focused on feelings and social context around the decision |
| Have you identified non-obvious competitors from other categories? | You have blind spots in your competitive landscape | List everything a customer could "hire" for the same job, including non-consumption |
| Are you tracking Little Hire separately from Big Hire? | Acquisition problems become indistinguishable from retention problems | Create separate metrics for purchase conversion and repeated usage engagement |
| Can your team explain how a feature helps accomplish the job? | You're building features without strategic grounding | Require every feature proposal to reference the specific job dimension it serves |
| Have you interviewed customers about their purchase timeline? | Your understanding of the job is based on assumptions, not evidence | Conduct 10+ discovery interviews reconstructing the first-thought-to-usage journey |
See: references/diagnostics.md for the full diagnostic checklist.
| 问题 | 如果答案是否 | 行动 |
|---|---|---|
| 你能否用一句话表述任务且不提及你的产品？ | 你过于聚焦产品，而非任务 | 撰写任务陈述：“当[场景]时，我想要[实现进展]，这样我就能[达成成果]” |
| 你是否绘制了所有四种进展驱动力（推力、拉力、焦虑、习惯）？ | 你可能过度投入于增强拉力，却忽略了障碍 | 绘制每种力量，并针对焦虑和习惯设计具体的干预措施 |
| 你是否了解任务的情感和社交维度？ | 你的产品可能在功能上达标，但在体验上落败 | 开展聚焦决策相关感受和社交背景的探索访谈 |
| 你是否识别了来自其他类别的非直接竞品？ | 你的竞争格局分析存在盲区 | 列出客户可以“雇佣”来完成同一任务的所有替代选项，包括什么都不做 |
| 你是否单独追踪日常雇佣和重大雇佣指标？ | 获客问题和留存问题无法区分 | 为购买转化和反复使用参与度创建单独的指标 |
| 你的团队能否解释功能如何帮助完成任务？ | 你在无战略依据地打造功能 | 要求每个功能提案都关联其服务的特定任务维度 |
| 你是否采访过客户关于他们的购买时间线？ | 你对任务的理解基于假设，而非证据 | 开展10次以上的探索访谈，重构从首次想法到使用的完整旅程 |
参考：references/diagnostics.md 获取完整诊断清单。
Examples and Case Studies
示例与案例研究
See: references/case-studies.md for detailed analyses (SNHU, American Girl, Intuit).
参考：references/case-studies.md 获取详细分析（SNHU、American Girl、Intuit）。
Reference Files
参考文件
- innovation-process.md: Job hunting methodology, job atlas, prototype testing, job statements
- competitive-strategy.md: Non-obvious competition, jobs-based positioning, pricing strategy
- organizational-change.md: Overcoming objections, feature-factory trap, executive buy-in, change management
- diagnostics.md: Diagnostic checklist for evaluating products through the jobs lens
- case-studies.md: Detailed analyses of SNHU, American Girl, Intuit, and more
- innovation-process.md：任务挖掘方法、任务图谱、原型测试、任务陈述
- competitive-strategy.md：非直接竞品、基于任务的定位、定价策略
- organizational-change.md：克服异议、功能工厂陷阱、高管支持、变革管理
- diagnostics.md：通过任务视角评估产品的诊断清单
- case-studies.md：SNHU、American Girl、Intuit等的详细分析
About the Author
关于作者
Clayton M. Christensen (1952-2020) was the Kim B. Clark Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School and one of the most influential management thinkers of the modern era. He is best known for introducing the theory of disruptive innovation in his landmark book The Innovator's Dilemma (1997), which fundamentally changed how business leaders think about competition and market evolution. Christensen developed the Jobs to Be Done framework as a practical methodology for understanding customer motivation and driving successful innovation, detailed in Competing Against Luck (2016). He co-founded the innovation consulting firm Innosight and the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation. Christensen was ranked the #1 management thinker in the world by Thinkers50 and received the award multiple times. His body of work, spanning nine books including The Innovator's Solution and How Will You Measure Your Life?, continues to shape product strategy, corporate innovation, and entrepreneurial thinking worldwide.
克莱顿·M·克里斯坦森（Clayton M. Christensen，1952-2020）是哈佛商学院的Kim B. Clark工商管理教授，也是现代最具影响力的管理思想家之一。他最著名的成就是在里程碑式著作《创新者的窘境》（1997）中提出了颠覆性创新理论，从根本上改变了企业领导者对竞争和市场演变的思考方式。克里斯坦森开发了Jobs to Be Done框架，作为理解客户动机和推动成功创新的实用方法，详细内容见《Competing Against Luck》（2016）。他共同创立了创新咨询公司Innosight和克莱顿·克里斯坦森颠覆性创新研究所。克里斯坦森被Thinkers50评为全球排名第一的管理思想家，并多次获得该奖项。他的著作包括《创新者的解答》和《你要如何衡量你的人生？》等九本书，其研究成果持续影响着全球的产品策略、企业创新和创业思维。
Further Reading
延伸阅读
This skill is based on the Jobs to Be Done framework developed by Clayton M. Christensen. For the complete methodology, case studies, and deeper insights, read the original book:
- "Competing Against Luck: The Story of Innovation and Customer Choice" by Clayton M. Christensen, Taddy Hall, Karen Dillon, and David S. Duncan
本技能基于克莱顿·M·克里斯坦森开发的Jobs to Be Done框架。如需完整方法、案例研究和更深入的见解，请阅读原版书籍：
- 《Competing Against Luck: The Story of Innovation and Customer Choice》 作者：Clayton M. Christensen、Taddy Hall、Karen Dillon和David S. Duncan
Overview
概述
Discover what customers truly need by analyzing the "job" they hire your product to do.
通过分析客户“雇佣”你的产品来完成的“任务”，发现客户的真实需求。
Prerequisites
前置条件
- Access to the API environment or API
- Required CLI tools installed and authenticated
- Familiarity with API concepts and terminology
- 可访问API环境或API
- 已安装并验证所需的CLI工具
- 熟悉API概念和术语
Instructions
操作步骤
- Assess the current state of the API configuration
- Identify the specific requirements and constraints
- Apply the recommended patterns from this skill
- Validate the changes against expected behavior
- Document the configuration for team reference
- 评估API配置的当前状态
- 识别具体需求和约束条件
- 应用本技能中推荐的模式
- 根据预期行为验证变更
- 记录配置供团队参考
Output
输出
- Configuration files or code changes applied to the project
- Validation report confirming correct implementation
- Summary of changes made and their rationale
See API implementation details for output format specifications.
- 应用于项目的配置文件或代码变更
- 确认正确实现的验证报告
- 变更总结及其理由
查看API实现细节 获取输出格式规范。
Error Handling
错误处理
| Error | Cause | Resolution |
|---|---|---|
| Authentication failure | Invalid or expired credentials | Refresh tokens or re-authenticate with API |
| Configuration conflict | Incompatible settings detected | Review and resolve conflicting parameters |
| Resource not found | Referenced resource missing | Verify resource exists and permissions are correct |
| 错误 | 原因 | 解决方法 |
|---|---|---|
| 认证失败 | 凭据无效或过期 | 刷新令牌或重新通过API认证 |
| 配置冲突 | 检测到不兼容的设置 | 检查并解决冲突参数 |
| 资源未找到 | 引用的资源不存在 | 验证资源存在且权限正确 |
Examples
示例
Basic usage: Apply jobs to be done to a standard project setup with default configuration options.
Advanced scenario: Customize jobs to be done for production environments with multiple constraints and team-specific requirements.
基础用法：将Jobs to Be Done应用于具有默认配置选项的标准项目设置。
高级场景：为具有多重约束和团队特定需求的生产环境自定义Jobs to Be Done。
Resources
资源
- Official API documentation
- Community best practices and patterns
- Related skills in this plugin pack
- 官方API文档
- 社区最佳实践和模式
- 此插件包中的相关技能