如何找到你热爱的工作 | Bob Moesta(Jobs-to-be-Done 联合创立者,《Job Moves》作者)
How to find work you love | Bob Moesta (Jobs-to-be-Done co-creator, author of Job Moves”)
Common JTBD Misconceptions
Bob Moesta: I think one of the biggest misconceptions around Jobs to Be Done is this notion that it’s pain and gain as opposed to context and outcome. When you hear somebody’s story and it seems irrational, like we’ll have people go, “Oh my God, that’s an anomaly. That doesn’t happen.” But what you realize is that the context makes the irrational rational. So the moment you hear a story, you go, “I can’t believe that,” nine times out of 10, it’s because you don’t have the rest of the story. And so part of it’s being able to understand the rest of that context that would drive somebody to say, “Why would somebody cut their arm off?” Well, if they’re in this situation and this and this and this, there’s nobody who would say they want to cut their arm off, but in certain situations you’ll do it. And so that’s what we’re trying to do is find, where will people change behavior?
Introduction to the Podcast
Lenny: Welcome to Lenny’s Podcast where I interview world-class product leaders and growth experts to learn from their hard-won experiences building and growing today’s most successful products. Today my guest is Bob Moesta. Bob is the co-creator of the Jobs to Be Done Framework alongside Clay Christensen. And as you’ll hear at the top of our conversation, is maybe the most anticipated guest I’ve had based on the LinkedIn response. Bob has started eight companies and is currently the co-founder and CEO of the Rewired Group, and currently spends his time helping companies of all sizes unlock hidden insights and create successful products and services.
In our conversation, we get deep into all aspects of the Jobs to Be Done framework. What is it, how to apply it to your product, when it’s not a good fit, how to interview customers to get accurate insights into their struggles, plus examples of how Jobs to Be Done works for zero to one products and a ton more. Thank you to everyone who suggested questions and topics for our conversation. Enjoy my chat with Bob Moesta after a short word from our sponsors.
If you’re a listener of this podcast, you’re likely already driven and committed to growth. A Sidebar personal board of directors is the missing piece to catalyze that journey. Why spend a decade finding your people when you can meet them at Sidebar today? Jump the growing wait list of thousands of leaders from top tech companies by visiting didebar.com/lenny to learn more. That’s sidebar.com/lenny.
Bob, thank you so much for being here. Welcome to the podcast.
Bob Moesta: Thanks, Lenny. Excited to be here. Big fan.
The Main Interview
Lenny: Ah, I’m a big fan of yours. I wasn’t even super familiar with you before we started organizing this podcast chat.And then as you saw, I posted on LinkedIn what questions people had for you and around Jobs to Be Done in general. And I’ve never seen so many comments and questions and so much passion for guests I had on, I think there was over-
Bob Moesta: Really?
Core Concepts of JTBD
Lenny: Absolutely. There’s, I don’t don’t know, 130 questions and comments and folks like Jason Fried, founder of 37signals and Des from Intercom came out and just like, I’m excited for this episode, so we got some here.
The Milky Way Competitive Landscape
Bob Moesta: I’ve worked with all of them, they’re great people and fun to work with.
Pain Points vs. Needs
Lenny: I just had no idea there’s so much passion for Jobs to Be Done. I have a million questions for you, a lot of them coming from the audience, some from me. So I’m excited to dig into a lot of this stuff.
Bob Moesta: All right, let’s dive in.
Struggling Moments Drive Product Roadmaps
Lenny: Okay, so I thought it’d be useful just to start with the very basics briefly, just what is the simplest way to understand the Jobs to Be Done framework?
Bob Moesta: I think the easiest way to think about it is that I’m an engineer, electrical, basically have been building product for almost 30 years and one of the lies I was told growing up was build it and they will come. And so we always think about it from a technological, how do I build this thing? And all right, who wants this product? And what I realized very early in my career is that really it didn’t work, I couldn’t make it work.
And so Jobs to Be Done is this whole premise that people hire products, they don’t buy them, they hire them to make progress in their life. And if we can take a step back and look at it, we see it in a very different light to realize at some point they’re in some context and there’s some outcome they want. And if we can understand that, we start to realize that different things compete, right?
A simple example is think of Snickers and Milky Way, right? They’re both candy bars, they’re both bought in the checkout aisle, they’re both made almost with the same ingredients, one has peanuts, one doesn’t. And if you start to compare the products and do a competitive benchmark, you start to get to one’s a little softer, one’s a little harder, one’s got a few more calories, one’s got less calories. But when you talk to people about when’s the last time they ate a Snickers, when time’s the last time they ate a Milky Way, you start to realize that Snickers typically is a case where they missed the last meal, they’ve got a lot of work to do, they’re running out of energy and they want to basically get back to the tasks as fast as possible. And so you start to realize that Snickers is about almost like a meal replacement and it’s about the stomach is growling and things like that. And you start to realize that if they didn’t have a Snickers, it competes with a protein drink, it competes with a Red Bull, a coffee.
But a Milky Way typically is eaten after an emotional experience, could be positive, could be negative. It’s usually eaten alone, and it’s taking time to regroup after this emotional thing. And you start to realize that it competes with things like a glass of wine, a brownie, and to be honest, a run. And so when you start to realize that, jobs helps you see the true competitive set from what we call the demand side of the world as opposed to the competitive set from the supply side of the world, which is the technology or the underlying business model by how which we’re making it. And so it allows you to actually see what customers really want as opposed to trying to figure out, how do we sell things to people?
The Four Forces Model
Lenny: To maybe follow up on this example a bit, how often do you find these jobs emerge after they’ve developed a product, in this case I guess Snickers or Milky Way, how often is it just like they see this problem and actually apply this approach even accidentally?
Reducing Friction Over Adding Features
Bob Moesta: What’s interesting is that at least for me, the thing is what I learned was that supply and demand are not as connected as everybody thinks. Most people think they create a product and that creates demand. But the real thing that if you start to study causality is that a struggling moment causes demand. And you start to realize that in some cases that struggling moment exists and can exist for a long time and nobody solved it. So one of the companies I helped was Southern New Hampshire University and Paul Le Blanc. And one of the things in 2010, we found basically these anomalies, these people who were going to school but not actually coming to class and watching everything online. And it was like 50 or 60 of them and the anomalies basically, and they’re paying full price, they didn’t want to come. For Paul, it was kind of like why are they doing this?
And when we went to study them, we realized that they actually had a very different job than a typical 18 to 24 year old because one, they were a little bit older, typically they had either already had a degree or they basically had tried to go to college and it didn’t work. And it was about basically time now that they had responsibility to do something new. And so they didn’t actually build the product at all. And as they started to look and say how many people want to go back to school but can’t? They started to realize it’s not a thousand people, it’s not 10,000 people, they have over 200,000 students. They’re one of the largest universities in the world. And so all of this starts with a struggling moment, not with a product.
And so that’s what we mean when we’re customer-centric is that we’re studying the struggling moments they have and people like Intercom and Basecamp, they look at struggling moments and that becomes their roadmap. Because again, think about a roadmap. I’m literally trying to tell you what I’m going to build in the next 24 months, for example, but none of us saw ChatGPT coming. And so all of a sudden I have to go undo the roadmap. But if I talk about the struggling moments that I’m trying to go after, all of a sudden I realize that the roadmap is now when I get to that struggling moment, there’s multiple ways I can solve it. So instead of just talking about features, it’s typically talking about features for the first 90 to 120 days, but after that we just talk about struggling moments because that’s the seed for real innovation and basically where new products come from.
Demand-Side Sales Book
Lenny: To unpack the framework a little bit more, if you were to come to a founder and tell them, “Hey, you should be paying attention to struggling moments,” I feel like all of them will say, “Yeah, we know that. We do that. We look for pain and we try to solve it,” so what I’m curious there maybe is just what is maybe the right way to do it?
Autobooks Case: Redesigning Sales
Bob Moesta: But it’s not just the pain. See, what we’re taught in business school was pain and gain, but the reality is it’s the context. It’s the fact that I didn’t eat lunch before, the fact that I still have a lot of work to do, the fact that I have this podcast going on. It’s not that I’m in pain, but it’s the context that makes me value this in the moment that much more than something else. And so part of this is it’s not just about pain and gain, it’s about context and outcomes.
And so when you frame it that way, it becomes a vector, a vector of progress or a vector of intention of what they’re trying to do. And once we frame that, then we can actually wrap technology around it. And the crazy part is that I was always told or taught if I build the best product, it will sell better. And what I’ve learned is that actually a kick-ass half is better than a half-ass hole, and that’s what Jason talks about. But the reality is like if you look at QuickBooks, QuickBooks has half the features and double the price. And you start to realize that at some point in time it’s about meeting customers where they are, not trying to wow them and not trying to convince them. They convince themselves to make the progress.
Lenny: I’d like to understand this vector piece more because that feels really important. So you were saying that it’s not just there’s a pain point, solve that, what you’re saying is what’s even more important is this context around that pain point and things that precede it?
The Six Stages of Buying
Bob Moesta: Yeah, so the first thing is we don’t talk to people who just want to.
How to Conduct Customer Interviews
Lenny: For people listening on the podcast, Bob pulled up a drawing, so you should try to check out the YouTube video of this to see what he’s doing.
Extracting Patterns from Stories
Bob Moesta: So there’s some Product A is the old product and there’s some Product B, which is the new product. And ultimately people don’t randomly do anything. And so the real heart of the method of Jobs to Be Done is understanding the causation of what pushes people to say, “Today’s the day I got to do something different.” And the push or the context they’re in has nothing to do with the new product, it’s the only reason why they would leave the old product. And if there’s no push, they can’t even see your product because we’re creatures of habit, right? And so as soon as I have a push, I call that F1, force one, and I have some idea of what’s possible, then I create something called F2, which is basically the pull to a new outcome, a new state, a new thing, right? And so at some point in time it’s like I have to be in this situation and I have to want this outcome, right?
But here’s the other part is that there’s this waterline that there’s these other forces and there’s two other forces. Every time I show somebody something new, it actually creates anxiety, right? Anxiety of the new, and I call this F3, right? And then the other thing is I have to get them to leave old thing. So I call this habit of the present. And what you start to realize, and I call that F4, is if F1 and F2 are not greater than F3 and F4, they’re not going to move, they’re not going to do anything. And so ultimately what we’re doing is we’re framing the market as a system of behavior. And most people say, “If I just add more features, create more pull, people will buy.” It’s not true. More features create actually anxiety, can it do all those things?
And what you start to realize is if I reduce friction, which is the bottom part, I actually don’t have to do anything with a product, I just have to make easier. So for example, one of the things I did is I built houses and one of the frictional points that people had in moving was the fact of moving house was basically packing all their stuff up and going somewhere. And so I would literally sell them a condo, they’d go from a 3000 square foot home to a 1500 square foot condo and they’d cancel six weeks later because they didn’t know how to get rid of all their stuff, which is a frictional point. So what did I do? I actually raised the price of the condo, included moving in two years of storage as part of the deal with the condo because it’s the frictional coefficient and I increased sales over 30%.
Lenny: I love that.
Legacy and Giving Back
Bob Moesta: So what this is it’s really about focusing on the customer. It’s about understanding the causation behind it and then using design thinking to actually start to realize, how do we actually enable people to make progress? We don’t need to sell them, we need to enable them to buy.
And so I wrote a book called Demand Side Sales that basically took the premise of stop trying to sell people and just help them make progress, help them buy. And so the whole book is instead of trying to base the sales process on how we want to sell, we need to actually design the sales process on how they want to buy. And it seems like it’s the same thing, but they’re actually really, really different things.
Lenny: Is there an example that can make this even more real of a company or a product?
Why People Change Jobs
Bob Moesta: So one of the companies I work with a lot lately is a company called Autobooks, they’re based here in Detroit. And basically they help banks basically do invoicing through let’s say Apple Pay. And so instead of having to use Square or PayPal, you literally can use your bank now to do these things. And so there’s two things, they have to sell small business on it, but they also have to sell banks on it. And when we started talking about it, they talked about why do banks want it? And the first thing we did is we found out there’s three really different reasons why banks want them.
But the thing is that where the process looked at is they would talk about the struggling moment, they talk about what was going on and then everything was about getting them to a demo. And once we got them to a demo, we had to close them. Well, it turns out that the buying process literally has different phases in it. There’s the first thought, there’s something called passive looking where they’re problem aware and solution unaware and they have to learn a bunch of things, and then there’s active looking where they’re both problem and solution aware and they’re trying to figure it out and frame a solution, and then there’s deciding which is about making trade-offs.
And so what we end up doing is when I started to talk to the team about it, what they started to realize is I said, “Where is the customer in their timeline of buying?” And they looked at me like, “Huh?” I said, “No, no, you have a timeline of how you want to sell to them and after the demo you try to close, but what if they’re actually in passive looking and want a demo to learn more? It’s very different than if I’m trying to close.” And so what we ended up doing is breaking the demo apart, asking people where they were in their buying process. And by doing that we actually then found out a way in which to give them three different demos, one about telling stories and giving them the background about the problem, another one about showing them all the alternatives, and then the last one is about basically giving them choices between ways to move forward, right?
And you’d think that it would make the sales process longer, it actually made the sales process almost half and at 4x basically conversion because now we meet them where they are as opposed to where we want them to be.
How to Conduct JTBD Interviews
Lenny: And is that something you find generally in the sales process, there’s these three phases that everyone goes through and you got to think about them individually?
Bob Moesta: Yeah, there’s actually, I call them six phases. First thought, passive looking, active looking, deciding, first use, and then ongoing use. How do we build the new habit? And so if we don’t actually study that part of how do people transform themselves through a struggling moment, we don’t know what they want. If I talk to people who want to buy a house, they tell me they want granite and hardwood and they’ll make everything these things they want.
But when you actually talk to people who bought a house, they actually made a lot of trade-offs. Although for example, everybody I would survey before buying a house, I had 93% say they wanted an Energy Star compliant house. It cost 30 grand to make an Energy Star compliant at the time. And the reality is nobody bought it, they all bought the finished basement. And so there’s the difference between what they say they want and what they want.
And so the method itself is not based on traditional research or market research, asking people what it is. It’s actually based on criminal and intelligence interrogation about telling me the story about how you decided today’s the day I bought a house or today’s the day I went back to school. It’s not random. And if it’s not random, then we need to actually find it. And that to me is one of the bigger differences, most people build their sales process on probability, “If I get so many leads in, I’ll convert so many to here to so many…” But the ultimate thing is, how many people are really ready for your product? They have to actually be ready for it. And that’s what Jobs to Be Done is really about, is understanding where they are, what’s causing it, and how do they make the trade-offs?
Formal vs. Simplified JTBD Application
Lenny: So let’s follow that thread of interviewing and talking to your potential customers and customers to understand the jobs to be done. What is the actual process you recommend?
Three Energies from Customer Stories
Bob Moesta: The first thing we do is we frame a question. And the way I think about it is most people, so the one thing to know about me is I’ve been building things for over 30 years, I’ve worked on 3,500 different products and services across many, many industries, but I’ve had three close head brain injuries before I was seven years old and I can’t read and I can’t write. And so one of the things for me is that I could not understand the research that I would get from marketing around basically they’d say, “Hey, I need something that’s easy, fast and fun and cheap.” And I’d be like, “Okay, what does any of that mean? What is fast? How fast is fast and what’s not fast?” And you start to undo all those things.
And so the first thing we do is we start to frame, let’s just talk about what causes people to say today’s the day they want to go on vacation or today’s the day they wanted a new set of windows. And you start to frame around that, and then you go find people who recently purchased and say, “What in the world happened that says today’s the day I need new windows?” And you start to realize that there’s pushes and there’s pulls and there’s anxieties and there’s habits. And so the first thing we do is we try to extract the story from the customer. And it doesn’t have to be my product, it could be somebody else’s product if I haven’t built it yet. It’s like, what are people going to fire when they hire me?
And so when we get the stories though, then the stories are going to get us the pushes, the pulls, the anxieties and the habits, the trade-offs and what we call the hire and fire criteria. And then what we do is instead of trying to look for themes across all of them, we actually do something, instead of segmenting them, we cluster them, we find the pathways because what you start to realize is it’s not one reason why people do it, it’s sets of reasons. And those sets actually work together. So the pushes work with the pulls. So when they have these pushes, they want these pulls. And when they don’t have these pushes, they don’t want those pulls.
And so when you start to see the patterns and you start to pull it out, you start to realize that most companies or most products are hired to do 3, 4, 5 different jobs and they’re in conflict with each other. One person wants to go faster and one person wants to be more thorough. And so all of a sudden being more thorough means it’s slower. If I say we’re thorough, the people who want it fast say, “I don’t want this because it’s too slow.” So how do you frame those things out and understand where the conflicts are behind it and think about different products from it?
That’s what Intercom did, right? Intercom realized that people hired it for four very, very different reasons and then instead of building four different products, they literally took their product and turned off the features that were not relevant to the pathway that people wanted to take. So for acquire, they didn’t need a whole bunch of these other features and so they actually framed it around basically, how do we help people convert? And that job actually competed with HubSpot.
There’s another one where it was about helping with support, and that one competed with Zendesk. And so they changed the pricing model to basically match who the competition was and to match the progress that people were trying to make because Zendesk was too much and too hard, and HubSpot felt like it was an overkill for where people were. We basically figured out how to actually position ourselves as a good next step between HubSpot adds nothing or between nothing and HubSpot. And that’s how they’ve grown to be valued over 2 billion.
Lenny: I have a follow-up question, but did you say that you can’t read and write?
Learning from Churned Users
Bob Moesta: Yeah, can’t read and write. So the thing is I cannot read the words that I write and I cannot read… So if somebody reads it to me, I can actually play it back. So I’ll listen to audio. But the fact is the way I was taught to read is so that when I look at a paragraph, I see the spaces between the words first, and then I usually see the left-hand edge of the words, so the last three letters. And so my mom taught me to look at the five largest words on the page by circling the longest words on the page. And then I would study those and translate those and then figure out what those five words would have in common. Because for me, the part that’s broken in my brain is that I can’t look up things fast enough. So by the time I try to look at a word, figure out what it is, get the definition, I’ve literally forgotten every word before it.
Complaints Do Not Equal Switching
Lenny: Damn. How are you writing books?
Bob Moesta: It’s a gift. I’m telling you, it’s a gift. It’s a gift I’d never wish upon my children. But to be honest, it’s given me abilities to see patterns in so many different ways because I can remember the first five words in the first paragraph and the last five words in the last paragraph so I turned through a book three or four times, and I have as good a comprehension as everybody else.
Language Layers and Buying Truths
Lenny: This is insane. How are you writing books?
Bob Moesta: It’s really simple, I have a company called Scribe Media, and what we do is first thing we do is we look for what struggling moments do people have? We then look at what are the competitive books wrapped around it? I then basically outline what progress looks like. We then take each chapter and define it as a system and what we have to do in each chapter to help them make the progress along the way. And then we just talk and we talk, we have ten two hour sessions, they get recorded, and then somebody basically takes… So if you listen or read any of my books, it sounds like me talking because it is.
The Start and End of Value
Lenny: Wow.
Bob Moesta: And so I can get a book out in three and a half, four months.
Popular Questions from LinkedIn
Lenny: That’s incredible.
Different Schools of JTBD Thought
Bob Moesta: And so now I’m a teacher, I’m adjunct lecturer at the Kellogg School at Northwestern, and then I guest lecture on the East Coast in kind of different business schools, and then I help Techstars and Y Combinator. So I’m really moving myself into being into, I feel it’s time to pass on. I’ve had some amazing mentors who helped me, and again, I was told to be a baggage handler or a construction worker when I graduated high school, and my mom thought I could do more. And so I met these people who poured their knowledge into me to enable me to do all this stuff so now I’m trying to pay it forward as much as I can. So that’s one of the reasons why I do as many podcasts as I can. So again, I appreciate you having me.
Lenny: Yeah, this is a great opportunity to pass it on and so I’m very happy we’re doing that. I had no idea about any of this about you, so thank you for sharing that.
The True Competition for Candy
Bob Moesta: It’s been fun. I pinched myself. The other part is I don’t know how I got here. One of the things that I’ve been doing is I’ve been studying people for the last 10 years around why they switched from one company to another to literally understand the jobs of jobs because employees actually hire companies more than companies hire employees. And so you start to realize the struggling moment is why don’t we have enough people? And otherwise I want to leave, but I don’t know how to leave. And so I’m in the midst of writing a book around that right now with Michael Horn and Ethan Bernstein.
Lenny: Is there an insight from that work that you can share about why people leave jobs or join jobs?
Different Schools of JTBD Thought
Bob Moesta: So the number one thing that I would say is almost everybody when you ask them about how they got the job they’re in, the number one phrase you get is, “It was so lucky. I was so lucky, just happened to fall in my lap.” And then when you actually unpack the story, luck had nothing to do with it. They were prepped, they were ready, there was pushes, there were pulls, there was anxieties, they were able to do it. And you start to realize, and the funny part is that if I talked to somebody who’s been through three or four kind of switches, they all can say, “Yep, I’ve had that job. Yep, I’ve had that job. Yep, I’ve had that.” And so there’s frames around basically understanding what progress are you really trying to make now? Is it, do I need balance? Am I not challenged enough?
And you start to frame it, and when you frame it, you start to realize, I’m willing to actually take less money to be around smarter people because I want to be a founder later. And so you start to realize that all of these things where we think we have to pay more money, over 50% of the people who got new jobs didn’t get more money. It’s a lie. It’s about progress. It’s about what do they want to learn? What skills do they want to get? At some point it’s about money, but it’s not always about money.
And the other interesting part is when you talk about money, we talk about this notion of unpacking. We’ll say, “Well, why do you need more money?” It’s like, “Well, I have larger obligations,” or, “I want more money because I want more respect.” And so what you realize is in the hiring and firing criteria, they talk about money, but money actually has a bigger effect than just money. It’s about respect or it’s about responsibility or it’s about their metric of progress. There’s a whole bunch of things, but it’s not just money. That’s the interesting part.
Recommended Introductory Books
Lenny: Yeah, I’ve definitely done that myself, there’s a status component to your job.
Limitations of the JTBD Framework
Bob Moesta: Yeah, I want the title, right? Happens all the time.
Frequent Misunderstandings About JTBD
Lenny: I want to come back to the discussion we were just having around interviewing people to understand the jobs to be done. And a bunch of people on LinkedIn were trying to understand just tactically what they need to get right in order to get accurate jobs. So I guess, are there just a couple tactics you’d recommend for how to interview people?
Misconceptions About JTBD
Bob Moesta: Let me give you three tips. The first tip I’d tell you is go read Never Split The Difference by Chris Voss. I started to write a book around basically techniques that I learned back in the eighties and nineties around this, and his book is amazing around it, the whole notion of getting to know. I play things back incorrectly because they’re going to say no, and I’m going to say, “All right, fix it,” and then they’ll talk more. The moment somebody says yes, there’s nothing more to say. And so there’s a bunch of techniques you have to learn to basically get them talking.
The second is I only talk to people who have already tried to make the progress, right? So for example, people talk about like, “Well, you can’t apply this to something that’s new. It doesn’t exist.” So I worked with a company that was, let’s say a fairly large social media company, and at some point in time they found people kind of transacting on their platform, but they didn’t know anything about it and they hadn’t built anything. And what they ended up doing is we ended up going and studying eBay and Etsy and what caused somebody to say, “Today’s the day I’m going to set up an eBay store or sell something on Craigslist.” And out of that, we found all the jobs of what people, both sellers were doing and buyers were doing, and now I think it’s I think almost a $3 billion marketplace that didn’t exist and they learned about it all from the competitors.
Why Choose the JTBD Framework
Lenny: Sounds like Facebook Marketplace, maybe? No comment?
Bob Moesta: I didn’t say that.
Three Core Takeaways
Lenny: How many interviews do you recommend people do to get to a confident?
Bob Moesta: That’s a great controversial question. The interesting part is from a causal mechanism perspective and from a set theory perspective, meaning the sets of pushes, pulls anxieties and habits, it starts to repeat around seven or eight. And I usually do 10, no more than 12. And I would rather do two rounds of 12 interviews than do 24 interviews. I had some really interesting mentors, one of them was Dr. Deming, who’s the father of lean and quality systems and like that. And so he would always push me to basically how to do things faster and smaller. And so that’s where a lot of it came. And you just realize that people will say, “Oh, we have to do something statistically significant.” Well, you do if you’re doing it randomly, but if you actually understand the range of your market and you know that 50% of it is above 30 years old and 50% is below 30 years old, I could actually sample in a way that makes me get a good representation without having to actually do 50 interviews. And so we use something called design experiments to help with that.
Lightning Q&A Session
Lenny: I love the concrete numbers. And so along those lines, when you’re actually asking questions of people, do you have any best practices and ways of phrasing a question to get a response you can trust?
Intercom Success and Enterprise Implementation
Bob Moesta: In a lot of cases, you have to look at it from multiple perspectives. And so the other tip I have is to not have a discussion guide. It drives people crazy because everybody wants to ask the same set of questions, but the problem happens is when you ask the same set of questions, you actually don’t follow the ones that actually have the most meaningful information in it, right? And so what happens is, what I say is I use the framework of pushes, pulls, anxieties and habits and say, “What caused them to do this?” And everything else is just a conversation of trying to understand their story.
And so part of this is being able to ask the questions around why, but you can’t ask “Why, why, why, why why?” It’s like, “Tell me more about that. Give me an example.” And in a lot of cases, I usually get them to what I call the edge of language where they have no more language, and what I do is I literally then bracket it, “So was it more about this or more about that?” And I know it’s neither one of those, and it forces them to talk more, right? It’s always trying to get them to know, because the moment I get to… So when I play it back, “So you did this and this and this and this,” and say, “No, that wasn’t it.” And the people who I’m working with are like, “You know that’s not the right answer,” I’m like, “I know, but they’re going to elaborate on why it’s not that.” And so it’s literally being able to reveal kind of the causal mechanisms of why people do what they do.
The Dinner Table Story
Lenny:
When I think about Jobs to Be Done, I’ve never fully implemented any sort of structured framework, but I find that it’s been really useful in my newsletter work and my podcast work, just thinking about what is the job my newsletter is doing for people? For me, it’s helping people get better at the craft of building and growing products. And I just think of it, there’s these buckets of jobs to be done and then there’s this formal, “Let’s just do it for real.” I guess, one, do you find that to be true? There’s the very simple and there’s the more official?
Bob Moesta: So what I would say is I find a lot of founders, especially really successful founders, like I would say Jason Fried is one of those where he intuitively understood this. He actually thinks this way but didn’t have language wrapped around it, right? So I think that it’s a very useful framework. I think that the danger you run into is that when you look at the customer through the product, so if I look at the customers through the Snickers bar, then I think of Milky Way as a competitor. But if I look at the customer and say, “Why did they pick that thing?” Then I realize that a protein shake and an apple and a sandwich are the competitors not Milky Way.
Mentors on the Wall
Lenny: Got it. So say someone wanted to start going in this direction of Jobs to Be Done, what is the simplest, I don’t know, first version, lightweight approach to starting to think this way?
Bob Moesta: So there’s two things. If I have a product, go find 10 people who recently bought your product, but what I want you do is go talk to them, not about the product, but about why they bought the product, what was going on, what were they hoping for, what were they worried about? What did they have to give up? How did they convince somebody else? Just listen to the story. Start with just getting the story.
Because there’s three levels of information we have to get or three sources of energy that I talk about. So think about it as there’s got to be energy in the system for us to do something. And there’s what I call functional energy, which is usually time, space, effort, knowledge, right? There’s emotional energy, which is how I feel. I want to feel better, I feel frustrated, I feel overlooked. There’s emotional aspects to it. And then there’s social aspects, how I want others to perceive me or how others perceive me, “Oh, my boss is going to fire me because he doesn’t think I’m doing this fast enough and I feel inadequate.” So part of his understanding kind of the emotional, social and functional components that are part of that energy source.
Wrapping Up the Podcast
Lenny: Got it.
Bob Moesta: The second part is if it’s an established product and it’s been there a while, I’d actually go and talk to people who churned. Because in churn, what’s interesting is when somebody leaves your product, they’re still making progress. We think it’s bad for us, which it probably is, but in their mind it’s like, “Yeah, this was too hard and complicated,” or, “You know what? It didn’t do enough for us.” It allows you to actually understand the struggling moment they had because, again, they were using your product and something happened and some context changed and now they struggle with it, and now they got to go find something else.
Nobody wants to change. So that makes this actually the easiest thing to look at is tell me why people change. We just seem to literally not want to go deep enough and we use the lazy word of random and probability as pseudo for knowledge, and it’s not knowledge. It’s literally just if context is the same, if outcomes is the same, then I can do it. But if I listen to football stats, third down in preseason is very different than third down in playoffs, right? And so giving me a stat about how their third down conversion is across the whole season makes no sense to me because the context is different.
Lenny: You brought up this point that people often say they really hate something and it comes across that they’re ready to switch and will use something that you’ve built that’s better, but they don’t because of that friction you mentioned. What do you look for that might tell you that they’re really actually going to use it for real and it’s that serious?
Bob Moesta: The very first thing I would say is I never trust anybody telling me things they’re going to do because they can’t assure it, and it usually never happens. It’s my experience that says that. And so the thing is, I need to talk to people who did something and tried and though they might’ve failed, what made them try? So the phrase I have ‘Bitchin’ ain’t switchin’.” Just because people bitch about something doesn’t mean they’re going to do anything about it. This is where at Basecamp, we learned the fact that everybody said, “Oh, if you had Gantt charts, I’m going to leave you if you don’t put Gantt charts in or resource allocation,” and as much as they all say they want it, they’re not leaving because of it.
And this is the other part, if you follow your best users, they’ll take you up to this world that then actually destroys the lower end of the world of why people are there. And so if Basecamp would’ve added all those things, one of the reasons why people join Basecamp is because it’s so dang simple. And if I start to add all these things that make it more complicated, it doesn’t work.
Lenny: And so in those conversations, is there something you find that just this is a sign they’re actually really serious, or do you just like, “I’m not going to listen to anything they’re saying in this case until we actually build it and they’re using it”?
Bob Moesta: So for example, in the first five minutes of an interview, they’re going to tell you, “I bought a new car because I got a deal on it and it was a car I’ve been dreaming about forever,” and it’s like they have all these things and then when you start to get to, it’s like, no, the old car had 280,000 miles on it. You had three large bills in the last four months. The fact is it’s making a sound and you’ve got a long trip coming up, that’s why you’re getting a car. You’re not getting the car because of the deal. And so there’s these, I call it the layers of language. And the very first layer is called the pablum layer, where people just, “How was your day?” “Oh, it was good,” but nobody knows what that means. And if you ask one further question, “Well, what was good about it?” They’re like, “Ugh.”
And then you get to the next layer, the next layer is usually the fantasy nightmare layer, “Oh, it was so good because of this,” or, “Oh my God, it was so bad because…” They exaggerate to one degree or the next. And then what you want to do is actually then pull it back to what actually happened. This is where you’ve got to be more of an investigator and an interrogator. And the way I would describe it is it’s criminal and intelligence interrogation that feels like therapy because most people don’t actually know why they bought because they only think about the time they wrote the check, swiped the card. But the reality is like I did an interview with somebody who bought a coat rack, $137 coat rack. It took them 18 months to buy it. And in their mind, they say they bought it in a week, but the reality is the debate about getting it and why they couldn’t get it was happening for over 18 months. So this is where you can’t believe what they say, you have to do your investigation to get there.
Lenny: And what does that phrase use again for that vector of progress?
Bob Moesta: The intention, it’s the context that they’re in and the outcome. So here’s the thing is that most people talk about you want to get to this outcome and people value this outcome, but value is not just the outcome. Value also has where you start. So if I start here and I end here, I’m going to value it this much. But if I start down here… Wait, I’ve got to get there, start down here, and I go up here, I value it that much more. And so part of it is value is actually part of where they’re starting from and where they want to go. And most people say, “If I just get them up here, they’re really going to love it,” but some people say, “I just want to get here.” And so you’re overshooting it and they actually want a price discount because you’re giving them more than they want.
Lenny: So I’m going to go in a different direction. The most liked comment on LinkedIn asking people what question to ask you was by Sharam Krishnan, who’s actually on this podcast in the past.
Bob Moesta: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I remember seeing it, I remember hearing it. By the way, I think it’s one of the reasons why I reached out because I’m like, “Okay, we need to clarify this a little.”
Lenny: Okay, great. So you saw the brand, he’s not what you’d say a fan of Jobs to Be Done.
Bob Moesta: No, no.
Lenny: And so here’s the question he wanted to ask, “Is there a case of a startup or a modern technology company or any company that was using Jobs to Be Done to launch a product from zero to one that has had broad adoption?” That’s his challenge.
Bob Moesta: Inside the company or broad adoption that the product that we’ve developed had broad adoption?
Lenny: The latter, yeah, the product has done really well.
Bob Moesta: I already told you an example. I can’t say it, but you can. The thing is, for example, Autobooks is another one that did this, right? They start to realize that the fact is you need to study the struggling moments and it helps you determine what not to build, right? Too many times we just keep adding more and more things to the product. And so in larger organizations it’s very difficult because at some point the dominant market research is about hypothesis testing, “I’m going to go build a hypothesis and go basically then go build a research project to prove or disprove that hypothesis.”
But the reality is, Jobs to Be Done research is hypothesis building research. I don’t know, that’s part of the point is we really don’t know. We think we know, but Dr. Taguchi would always tell me there’s way more unknown than there is known and never forget it. And so again, what causes people to buy windows is not what we think it is. And so you start to realize that. I think Drucker said it best, he goes, “What businesses think they’re selling is not what customers are buying.” And to be honest, he said that in 1953, and it’s still true today. I just did interviews today where they’re like, “Oh, people are buying for this reason,” and we did 12 interviews and you started to realize, nope, that’s not why they’re buying. And they’re shocked.
Lenny: Awesome. Okay, so you didn’t say it, but maybe Facebook Marketplace?
Bob Moesta: So Autobooks would be one, you’re trying from zero to one from nothing, right?
Lenny: Yeah, brand new product is kind of the question there.
Bob Moesta: Yeah, so at Techstars we basically make sure that everybody, they come in, they usually don’t have a product to start with, at least in the Chicago and San Francisco offices. We basically have do jobs in the very, very beginning of that. And we have companies like Nutrisense and Havoc Shield, and there’s a whole bunch of them that are out there that are growing and going down that pathway. And so to me, it’s very, very useful, especially in the zero to one space.
But the notion is the way that I frame it is, what will people stop using when your product comes out? And that’s who you want to go interview. So for the Marketplace thing, it was like, “Hey, I want them to stop using Craigslist. I want them to stop using eBay. I want them to stop using Etsy.” If that’s the case, what are they doing and how do I do it better than that so I can understand? There are really no new jobs, it’s just the fact is we get better at them. And so the hire and fire criteria get better, but the context and outcome, most jobs, I can look back 10 years in the job existed and I can look ahead 20 years and the job’s going to exist. It’s just the nature of how the technology delivers on it is what gets better.
Lenny: Awesome. And it sounds like Intercom and Basecamp also are very early Jobs to Be Done adopters?
Bob Moesta: Very early, yeah.
Lenny: So I think with Sherom, something that I read between the lines is he worked at Twitter for many years and I think Twitter attempted at Jobs to Be Done framework, and I don’t know if it went well and I think it just caused a lot of people to think this is a terrible framework.
Bob Moesta: This is where I think there’s different flavors of it. And what I would say is that one flavor is really what I call very supply side driven, where it takes the underlying technology and then looks at it and says, “All right, what else can we do? Where can we be better? Where are things that are important but we’re not satisfying on them?” And being able to prioritize. And so there’s a very systematic approach that’s hundreds of steps and very, very prescriptive in nature.
The method that I have and that I’ve been using mostly because I’ve been in the startup world and doing new to the world type stuff is it’s very, very qualitative, organic, and it’s a combination of a process, practice and skills. So every company actually has its own innovation process based on who they have, who they’re serving, the underlying technology. And so, in my opinion, to have a very predictive one process that fits across everybody, I think there are principles, but I don’t think there’s one process. And so I think that’s what they used at Twitter.
The other thing is that I think Jack was actually a big fan and he worked with Clay on a couple of things, but I don’t think they worked on the method part of it, they worked on the thinking part of it. And so it was more about, so one of the most dangerous things you can do is sit in a room and hypothesize what the jobs are because I will guarantee you you’re 100% wrong. And so this is what happens, by the way, this is the gift of dyslexia is I’m not an A student and so most A students don’t start until they know the answer, most D students start because they don’t know the answer. And so you start to realize we’re wired very differently to do that. And so I always say that the A students have a disadvantage against the D students and entrepreneurship because we just go start and we learn right that in there. We don’t have to hypothesize everything first because we actually don’t know how to do that.
Lenny: So your advice there is essentially people often get Jobs to Be Done wrong because they just sit around and think about the Jobs to Be Done and aren’t actually doing the work to interview and understand?
Bob Moesta: Yeah. They think more about the outcomes and they think about what’s the best outcomes we can get for people. And what you start to realize is that there are trade-offs people make. And ultimately there’s some irrational piece, some irrational component that makes everything twist around. The irrational component is like, why in the world do people eat Snickers when they’re hungry? It’s a candy bar. Well, it turns out when you bite it, it masticates into a ball and it sits in your stomach and it absorbs the acid that’s causing you to say, “Hey, I got to eat something.” And so part of it is the roll of the peanuts and the roll of the nougat is actually to masticate it together. The caramel should be sticking it together versus in a Milky Way, the melting temperature of the caramel is so light that you take a bite, it’s liquid, you drink it down, you swallow it like it’s a drink, it has nothing to do with food.
And so you start to realize that it’s connecting the experiences to the context and outcome. It’s connecting the supply side with the demand side, but it starts with the demand side first. Struggling moments and opportunities all exist before there’s a product.
Lenny: You’re making me hungry.
Bob Moesta: I bought a couple, but I didn’t use them, but I bought a couple. And I mean, you go deep into it, you start to realize that this is the crazy part, everybody thinks they compete, but if you literally go back to a moment when you picked up a Snickers bar, you were not thinking about a Milky Way. You weren’t thinking of half the candy aisle, you were thinking of like, “Do I want a sandwich, or do I want a Snickers?” Half the reason why they picked Snickers is it’s 300 calories, I can eat it in three bites, it’s done, it’s not messy, and I can keep working. It’s mainlining food.
Lenny: I don’t know if I’ve ever had a Milky Way to be honest.
Bob Moesta: That’s right.
Lenny: So I don’t need that comfort.
Bob Moesta: That’s the funny part is you go to all the big tech hubs in San Francisco and the Snickers are all empty and the Milky Ways are all full.
Lenny: Yeah, I get that. You mentioned that there’s two different approaches or many different approaches to the Jobs to Be Done framework, and this is a question someone actually asked that there’s maybe a framework by someone named Tony Ulwick, and then there’s your approach, and then maybe Clay Christensen maybe has an approach. So can you just help clarify?
Bob Moesta: So Clay and I collaborated on it. So I was lucky enough to have Clay as a mentor for 27 years, I met with him once a quarter for 27 years, and at some point I shared with him the hack of how I was thinking about this and what I was doing, and at some point he said, “We need to turn it into a theory.” To me, it was more like my work around because I couldn’t read and write, “Let me go talk to some people, I’ll figure it out.” And ultimately we turned it into a method. So if you look at Competing Against Luck, it was written with Tady Hall and Karen Dillon, Dave Duncan, but I helped on that book for 16 months. Some of the clients in there are my clients. I think Intercom is in that one. So Clay and I are aligned in that. Clay was more about turning it to a theory and I would say I’m more about having it be a method. So his is like a thinking framework and a philosophy and a strategic kind of frame where mine is very tactical about how do we get it and then what do we do with it.
Ulwick’s comes from a very different perspective, and again, I think it’s very valuable, but it comes from the notion of functions and it’s more like, what can our product do? What jobs can our product do? As opposed to the way I look at it is basically only people have jobs, products don’t have jobs, people have jobs, organizations don’t have jobs, people in organizations have jobs because that’s the irrational part. And so fundamentally there’s that two different views of how do we look at it, but ultimately I would say Clay’s approach and my approach are derived from the same dataset where Ulwick’s is derived from a different dataset and a different set of experiences.
Lenny: That’s super interesting, I had no idea about this. And your sense is in the case of Twitter, for example, maybe it’s closer to Clay’s just think about it approach.
Bob Moesta: Yep, I think that’s right, I think that’s right. And again, I think Ulwick’s is very valuable, especially in some companies where there’s lots of risk, there’s regulation, there’s lots of moving parts, very complicated systems, but at the same time it’s so many steps. You have to have a very disciplined organization to follow it.
Lenny: If someone wanted to start actually following through on this, which book would you recommend they start with to help them understand how to apply your approach?
Bob Moesta: I would have them read Demand Side Sales, and it basically is starting from the theory of why do people buy and how do we actually understand how to flip the lens from trying to sell people things to help them buy? And ultimately it has the entire method around it kind of frame for product and for founders.
Lenny: Awesome. Is Jobs to Be Done ever not the right framework for people to figure out what to build?
Bob Moesta: Oh yeah. So couple places, one is when there’s no choice or there’s no real choice. So what’s interesting is think about is why do you know more about your car insurance than your health insurance, right? And most of it is because your health insurance is given to you by your employer and you only utilize it when you’re sick. But the car insurance, you have to pay for it so you have to sit down and decide what are the different trade-offs you’re going to make where when you do it for the employer, it’s good, better, best. And it literally is like, where am I my life? Have I been sick? There’s some basic things, but there’s no real choice there.
And so you start to realize where there’s no real choice or where people want to make the choice obvious, it doesn’t work. You have to be able to accept how people see you as opposed to how you want to be seen. So when companies will come to us and say, “All right, I want you to find these jobs for us,” like, “Nope, I can’t do it because it doesn’t work. I can tell you what the demand side is asking for and then we can see how your product fits to it and what you have to modify to it, but if I try to help you build the case to make the jobs what you think they are, it doesn’t work.”
Lenny: In those cases, is there a different framework you recommend or is it just like you don’t really have a lot of options?
Bob Moesta: In a lot of cases to me, I’d do some ethnography, I’d literally figure out kind of where there’s frictional points in the system. I might do some prototyping around kind of different alternatives, but typically it’s more about what I would call the little hire or how do they use, for example, the health insurance as opposed to why do they buy the health insurance.
The other example I could use is chewing gum. If I talk to people about buying a pack of chewing gum, most people can’t remember at all when they bought a pack of chewing gum, even if it was in the last week like, “Uh, I think so.” But if I asked them when they chewed gum, they can tell me about when they chewed gum. And ultimately that will then imply when they buy gum. If you go to something that it doesn’t register, it’s so deep of a habit that they don’t really know what they’re doing, you’ll never going to be able to get that information out of them. Again, the habitual stuff is very hard to see the job. It’s only when people change do you see, it’s like you can reveal the entire iceberg but if I’ve been using Tide for 20 years and I ask you why do you hire Tide, you just make it up. You have no idea why you Tide. But if you switch from Tide to Gain or Gain to Tide, you can tell me that story very detailed.
Lenny: There’s a reader who has the really interesting question, Maria Delano is her name. She’s wondering, with a framework this well known, you’re bound to get people misinterpreting it and repeating inaccurate information about the framework, and she’s curious what misconceptions most frustrate you that you just hear again and again about Jobs to Be Done?
Bob Moesta: The first thing I want to say is actually, in doing it, I’ve explicitly made it very accessible because the moment you make it too copywritten, too patented, too whatever, people just move by it. So part of it was being able to make it in the public domain so people could have conversation and try it and do different things with it.
What I would say is there’s enough people that have used it and have worked with it and have had great success with it that at some point in time, most of the people who are trying it and not using it well, it’s obvious. And so it’d be lik, how do you double down into it? I think one of the biggest misconceptions around Jobs to Be Done is this notion that it’s pain and gain as opposed to context and outcome. And that I think one of the other ones is it’s purely about the outcome and not just about the context and outcome together.
And again, I think the biggest mistakes I’ve seen made is because they do it in a conference room and they don’t go talk to people. They don’t actually find the contradictions, they don’t find the irrational parts. What’s really interesting is when you hear somebody’s story and it seems irrational, like we’ll have people go, “Oh my God, that’s an anomaly. That doesn’t happen.” But what you realize is that the context makes the irrational rational. So the moment you hear a story and you go, “I can’t believe that,” nine times out of 10 it’s because you don’t have the rest of the story. And so part of it’s being able to understand the rest of that context that would drive somebody say, “Why would somebody cut their arm off?” Well, if they’re in this situation and this and this and this, there’s nobody who would say they want to cut their arm off, but in certain situations you’ll do it.
And so that’s what we’re trying to do is find where will people change behavior? Most people are studying the momentum of where people are and what’s the momentum of their direction, but the reality is what we’re trying to do is study what causes people to change their direction. And that’s where innovation happens. Innovation happens when people change.
Lenny: What convinced you to spend your time and life working on Jobs to Be Done and helping people implement this framework and what keeps pulling you back?
Bob Moesta: That’s a great question. So I think I started out as I just love to build things. My mom would take me, basically we have something around here called Big Trash Day is where they throw out the dishwasher and they throw out the old mini bike and all these different things. And my mom would basically say anything that we could fit in the trunk, we could bring home. And so I’ve been building things my whole life because I’ve been just always fascinated with how things work. So that’s the first thing.
The second part is I love to help people. One of the things I realized is I can’t build products for myself, and I’ve done seven startups, but I realized that I have to build for others. And so to me, building for others was where I started product. And then I realized that I’m a method builder and that I really help people innovate. And so I exist to help make the abstract concrete. So that phrase has helped lead me to becoming now a teacher and a professor and writing books is something I never wanted to do because I hated books. Clay convinced me that I had to learn how to speak and I had to write books.
So here’s a really good one is that this is in 1990, so one of the things that happened was when my youngest kid moved out and basically moved out of the house, I had my notebooks from almost 30 years of every project on everything I worked on any company, and this is from one of my mentors, Dr. Taguchi, he said this in 1990 when I was living in Cologne, Germany. He said, “Write a book.” So I opened this 30 years later, I’m like, “Oh, dang it. I got to write a book because he told me to.” So it’s just one of those things where I realized I really like helping people, I like creating methods. I’m very curious, sometimes annoyingly curious, but that’s kind of the triad of things that I love to do.
Lenny: Amazing. Bob, is there anything else you wanted to share or touch on or make sure we cover before we get to our very exciting lightning round?
Bob Moesta: There’s three big things to take away. One is struggling moments is the key and it’s struggling moments that people take action on. And what I would say is they’re everywhere. They are freaking everywhere in our lives and there’s only certain contexts when all of a sudden we realize we have to do something about it. So study struggling moments because at some point that’s where we need the innovation the most. The second thing is think about the progress people are trying to make. What is their standard, not your standard? What is that context? What is that outcome? And the last thing, the way I phrase it is choose what to suck at and figure out the trade-offs that you need to make and make sure that your trade-offs map the trade-offs of the customer. Because nine times out of 10, most products that fail is because they made a trade-off that the customer didn’t agree with.
Lenny: Awesome. Well, with that, we’ve reached our very exciting lightning round. I’ve got six questions for you. Are you ready?
Bob Moesta: Yeah, I’m ready. Always ready for these.
Lenny: Perfect. What are two or three books that you’ve recommended most to other people?
Bob Moesta: Shape Up by Ryan Singer, it’s phenomenal. The other book I would say is End of Average by Todd Rose. I listen to it every single year. I get something on it every single year. I’ve been listening to it for probably eight or 10 years. I literally called Todd, I’ve become friends with Todd. We interact on a regular basis. It’s an amazing book.
Lenny: What is a favorite recent movie or TV show?
Bob Moesta: I love Big Bang. I watch it every… People would say that I’m Sheldon, I think I’m more Leonard, but I can see there’s days that I come across as Sheldon, I don’t mean to be Sheldon. But I like Oppenheimer. I think any of the science type, I’m not really a science fiction person, but it’s more about, I’ll say historic documentaries, I love them all because they help me understand the science.
Lenny: What is a favorite interview question you like to ask when you’re interviewing people?
Bob Moesta: What are the top three things you struggle with in your business today that if you could solve would fundamentally change the business?
Lenny: Love it. What is a favorite product you recently discovered that you just really like?
Bob Moesta: I recently purchased a massage chair, and it’s one of those things where I’ve been getting massages for a while, and as I get older and I’m working out more, I’ve lost almost 100 pounds. And so I’m to the point where I’m working out more and God, nobody told me I’m going to be cold all the time, I’m sore all the time and I’m hungry all the time. And so it’s like, “Okay, I need a way in which this…” So I would get a massage every two weeks or so, and now I can get a massage in 20 minutes on demand. And it’s pretty freaking amazing.
Lenny: Man, my wife has wanted one of these and this might be good for her.
Bob Moesta: Oh, I will tell you, it’s a life changer. It is one of those things where we’ll do interviews and I can go do an interview and a debrief, pop in and do it. And I’m brush as I can be. It’s better than an app.
Lenny: Is there a brand you want to throw out that you found to be your favorite?
Bob Moesta: Kyoto is the one that I have.
Lenny: Kyoto.
Bob Moesta: I got it from Costco. It’s fabulous.
Lenny: Okay, we’ll be looking into that. What is something relatively minor you’ve changed in how a company has implemented Jobs to Be Done that has had a big impact on their ability to do it well?
Bob Moesta: There’s two. One is Intercom. So the way that Intercom really took off and why it did so well is actually, it was Des Traynor and Eoghan McCabe who were the two founders, they actually studied, they came to one of my workshops in the beginning, but they studied it and they tried to do it, and then we talked about it. But then they brought Matt Hodges and Paul Adams and Sean Townson and the executive team, and they did the interviews. And when they did the interviews, they understood what to do and it literally all went downhill from there. And they knew how to ask the questions.
Lenny: Downhill in a good way?
Bob Moesta: They knew how to do the interviews way. It was kind of amazing. And Paul Adams and Matt Hodge’s first day at Intercom was in my office in Detroit. So that to me is one of the key.
The other is to find a place in a very large organization where a group is struggling, they can’t deliver product, they can’t move fast enough, they keep getting the wrong insights, they say it’s going to be this big, and literally focusing on a very small area and giving them a little space to demonstrate the use of it, and then it will spread with a case study or two. And so most companies, if they start small case studies and sharing it with people both when it works and not works, or starting with the top.
Lenny: Two more questions, one is, someone asked me to ask you the dining room table story. Does that ring any sort of bell?
Bob Moesta: Yeah. So one of the things I did is I built houses. So before I built houses, I was running a venture capital, private equity firm. We had about 100 million. I was doing 25 transactions and just traveling too much, I had four children. And so my wife and I kind of had the conversation that I wound it down and I said, “What am I going to do?” I wanted to try and find a business I could work in and be part of and own part of so I joined a building company here in Detroit, and we ended up building a thousand homes here in Detroit and had 14 sites. And one of the things we did is we built for downsizers like your parents. And one of the things they constantly told us was, “Look, we’re downsizing. We’re not having the holidays. We’re done with that. I don’t want a dining room table, so we can’t even have people over. If we’re going to do it, we’re going to go somewhere else. I don’t want the dining room table.”
And so we made, it’s a two bedroom, two and a half bath, first floor laundry, gourmet kitchen, kind of amazing condo. But what we realized is people, if they didn’t know where the dining room table was going to go, they weren’t going to move. And so it turns out that the dining table was the emotional bank account for their entire life. And so if you weren’t going to take it or your sister wasn’t going to take it or your brother wasn’t going to take it, the reality is they weren’t going to give it the Goodwill, it was not going to go in the basement. It might go into the storage unit, but for the most part, people would literally stay where they are until they knew where the dining table’s going to go.
So I did the opposite of what they told me to do, which is I built a place to put the dining room table. You could never eat at it, it was never big enough to actually pull the chairs out of it, but it was still a symbolic of what it was and they would use it for puzzles and that kind of stuff. But I sacrificed the second bedroom suite to basically add that, and it increased sales 22%. So this is a case where you learn, again, that irrational contradiction that says, “They’ve said this, but you did that. That doesn’t make any sense.” That’s what jobs helps you with, those kinds of really important, small but subtle and important insights.
Lenny: Last question, you showed me this very cool camera setup you have in one of the views was your heroes on the wall?
Bob Moesta: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Lenny: Can you show that and share who those folks are?
Bob Moesta: Yeah, so at the end of the night, I have this philosophy that I have the energy in your body and your brain literally you need to use every ounce of it every day because you wake up the next day with a full bank account and you can’t really save it. So every night I paint. And so these are paintings of my mentors and they’re above me, but Dr. Deming, Clay, Dr. Taguchi, and Dr. Willie Moore, I wrote about him in a book called Learning to Build, and the five skills that they taught me to enable me to kind of work on so many different things in different areas.
And so Deming I met when I was 18, he took me to Japan. I worked for Ford and I was responsible on the front lines to help reduce product development cycle time at Ford from 72 months to 36 months. So that’s where I learned a lot of tools and methods and things like that from Toyota. And then I learned Dr. Taguchi’s method, which is amazing around designed experiments. Dr. Willie Moore was my first boss at Ford, and she was a PhD in particle physics and she taught me empathetic perspective of how to see things and frame things and really amazing, amazing individual.
And then the last one was Clay Christensen, which is I just walked in his office and he had a sign outside his office basically saying anomalies wanted, and I walked in and I said, “Look, I’m an anomaly. I don’t really know if you want anomalies, but I am.” And we sat down and started talking, and ultimately I asked him, “What’s your research and how can I help?” He had been there maybe about a year, and it was one of those things where he got kind of somber and it was almost like he had a tear, and I was like, “What’s going on?” He goes, “I’ve been here a year and everybody’s asked me for things, but nobody’s ever asked to help me, and you’re the first person.” And so that was the beginning of the relationship, and I had four hours a quarter for 27 years with Clay with no agenda, which is kind of amazing.
Lenny: That’s incredible. What a beautiful way to wrap up our chat, Bob. My job to be done for this interview was to help people understand Jobs to Be Done. I think we accomplished our goal as much as we can in one hour. Two final questions, where can folks find you online if they want to reach out and maybe ask you a question?
Bob Moesta: Yeah, LinkedIn is probably the best place, and I post most of the stuff there. And then I have several different companies, but one is called The Rewired Group, and I’ve had that for about 14 years, and that’s a design consultancy agency around helping people build and launch products. And we do everything from Fortune 100 to not-for-profits, to startups and different ways. And then I have something called Laser Ventures where we actually work for equity and we also put money into investments as well. And that’s called Laser Ventures with Andrew Glazer. And we have a podcast called The Circuit Breaker, which it’s more or less all these different concepts in 20 minute format of me and my partner just riffing around what is the empathetic perspective or what are the forces of progress? Or just small little things that basically help people learn along the way, and it’s just long enough for a commute or a walk or something like that.
Lenny: Last question, how can listeners be useful to you?
Bob Moesta: To be honest, I was so excited for this podcast. I was excited, one, because I’m a fan, but two is to see your post and then get all those responses. I think I said, “Boy, I think we need more than an hour. This is amazing.” And so to be honest, posting questions, asking questions, letting the community kind of interact. And what was so interesting is it was people who had questions, but then there were people like Des and Jason who reached out and said, “Oh, this will be awesome. You’ll love this.” All those kind things.
So to me, just keep being a community. And what I would say is, as this is posted, just put more questions up there. The hard part for me is actually answering questions in a written form. My request would be is that if we can figure out a format so I can answer them more in a conversation where we almost like a list of things where there might be a follow-up of some sort, but if your listeners could literally help me by being more articulate, that would be great.
Lenny: Okay. Let’s figure out if we can do some way of doing that, that would be amazing.
Bob Moesta: That would be great.
Lenny: Bob, again, thank you so much for being here.
Bob Moesta: Thanks. Thanks for having me.
Lenny: Bye everyone.
Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast.com. See you in the next episode.
Glossary
| English | 中文 |
|---|---|
| active looking | 主动寻找(购买六阶段之一,指问题和解决方案均已知的阶段) |
| Andrew Glazer | 保留原文(Laser Ventures 合伙人) |
| Autobooks | 保留原文(底特律的一家金融科技公司) |
| Big Bang | 《生活大爆炸》(美国情景喜剧) |
| Big Trash Day | 大件垃圾日(社区定期处理大型废弃物的活动) |
| Bitchin’ ain’t switchin’ | 光抱怨不切换(Bob Moesta 的口头禅,指抱怨不等于会采取行动) |
| Chris Voss | 保留原文(前 FBI 谈判专家,作者) |
| Clay Christensen | 克莱顿·克里斯坦森(哈佛商学院教授,“颠覆性创新”理论创始人) |
| Competing Against Luck | 保留原文(克莱顿·克里斯坦森著书名) |
| Dave Duncan | 保留原文 |
| deciding | 决策(购买六阶段之一,指进行取舍做决定的阶段) |
| Demand Side Sales | 《需求侧销售》(书名,原文保留) |
| Des | Intercom 联合创始人 Des Traynor,保留原文 |
| design experiments | 设计实验(一种有针对性的采样方法) |
| Dr. Deming | 保留原文(W. Edwards Deming,质量管理大师) |
| Dr. Taguchi | 保留原文(田口玄一,质量管理专家,Taguchi 方法创始人) |
| Dr. Willie Moore | 保留原文(Bob Moesta 在福特的第一位上司) |
| Drucker | 保留原文(Peter Drucker,现代管理学之父) |
| edge of language | 语言的边缘(访谈中受访者无法再用语言表达的状态) |
| emotional energy | 情感性能量(推动行动的能量来源之一,涉及个人感受) |
| empathetic perspective | 同理心视角 |
| End of Average | 保留原文(Todd Rose 著书名) |
| Energy Star | 能源之星(美国环保署的能效认证标准) |
| Eoghan McCabe | 保留原文(Intercom 联合创始人) |
| ethnography | 民族志研究 |
| F1/F2/F3/F4 | 保留原文(四力模型中的四种力:推力、拉力、焦虑、习惯) |
| fantasy nightmare layer | 幻想噩梦层(语言的第二个层次,指人们夸大好的一面或坏的一面) |
| first thought | 第一念头(购买六阶段之一,指最初萌生购买想法的阶段) |
| first use | 首次使用(购买六阶段之一) |
| forces of progress | 进步之力(四力模型的另一种表述,指推动用户采取行动的力量) |
| functional energy | 功能性能量(推动行动的能量来源之一,涉及时间、空间、精力、知识) |
| Gain | 保留原文(宝洁旗下洗衣液品牌) |
| Goodwill | 保留原文(美国知名慈善二手连锁店) |
| Havoc Shield | 保留原文(Techstars 孵化的公司) |
| hire/fire | 雇佣/解雇(待完成理论中的隐喻,指用户”雇佣”新产品替代——“解雇”——旧产品) |
| hypothesis building | 假设构建(与假设检验相对,指通过研究探索未知、构建假设的方法) |
| Jack | 保留原文(Jack Dorsey,Twitter 联合创始人) |
| Jason Fried | 37signals 创始人,保留原文 |
| Job Moves | 职业变动(书名,原文保留) |
| Jobs-to-be-Done | 待完成理论(一种理解和预测用户需求的框架) |
| Karen Dillon | 保留原文 |
| Kyoto | 保留原文(按摩椅品牌) |
| Laser Ventures | 保留原文(Bob Moesta 的投资公司) |
| layers of language | 语言的层次(访谈中揭示购买动机的不同深度层次) |
| Learning to Build | 保留原文(Bob Moesta 著书名) |
| Lenny | 播客主持人,保留原文 |
| little hire | 小雇佣(指在已有产品使用过程中发现的小型”雇佣”行为) |
| Maria Delano | 保留原文 |
| masticate | 咀嚼成团(食物在口腔中被嚼碎混合的过程) |
| Matt Hodges | 保留原文(Intercom 团队成员) |
| Milky Way | 保留原文(玛氏旗下巧克力棒品牌) |
| Never Split The Difference | 保留原文(书名) |
| Nutrisense | 保留原文(Techstars 孵化的公司) |
| ongoing use | 持续使用(购买六阶段之一,指建立新习惯的阶段) |
| Oppenheimer | 《奥本海默》(电影) |
| pablum layer | 糊弄层(语言的第一个层次,指人们给出表面化、无实质内容的回答) |
| passive looking | 被动观望(购买六阶段之一,指问题已知但解决方案未知的阶段) |
| Paul Adams | 保留原文(Intercom 团队成员) |
| Paul Le Blanc | 保留原文(南新罕布什尔大学前校长) |
| QuickBooks | 保留原文(Intuit 旗下的财务软件) |
| Ryan Singer | 保留原文(37signals 产品策略师) |
| Sean Townson | 保留原文(Intercom 团队成员) |
| Shape Up | 保留原文(Ryan Singer 著书名) |
| Sharam Krishnan | 保留原文(播客听众,曾在 Twitter 工作) |
| social energy | 社会性能量(推动行动的能量来源之一,涉及他人对自己的看法) |
| Southern New Hampshire University | 南新罕布什尔大学 |
| struggling moment | 挣扎时刻(待完成理论中的核心概念,指触发用户需求的关键情境) |
| supply side driven | 供给侧驱动(从产品/技术出发而非从用户需求出发的思路) |
| Taddy Hall | 保留原文 |
| Techstars | 保留原文(知名创业加速器) |
| The Circuit Breaker | 保留原文(播客名称) |
| The Rewired Group | 保留原文(Bob Moesta 的设计咨询公司) |
| Tide | 保留原文(宝洁旗下洗衣液品牌) |
| Todd Rose | 保留原文(作者、哈佛大学教育学院前教员) |
| Tony Ulwick | 保留原文(待完成理论另一位实践者,Outcome-Driven Innovation 方法创始人) |
Reformatted by reformat_english.py
如何找到你热爱的工作 | Bob Moesta(Jobs-to-be-Done 联合创立者,《Job Moves》作者)
文字稿
待完成理论的常见误区
Bob Moesta: 我认为待完成理论最大的误解之一,是人们把它理解为关于”痛苦与收益”,而不是关于”情境与结果”。当你听到某人的故事觉得不合常理时,我们常常会有人说:“天哪,这是个特例,不可能发生的。“但你会意识到,是情境让看似不合常理的事情变得合理。所以当你听到一个故事时觉得”难以置信”,十有八九是因为你不知道故事的全部。我们要做的,就是去理解完整的情境背景——是什么驱动一个人做出那样的决定。“为什么有人会砍掉自己的胳膊?“如果他们处在这样那样的情况下,没有人会说想砍掉自己的胳膊,但在特定情境下你会这么做。所以我们试图发现的是,人们会在什么情况下改变行为?
播客简介
Lenny: 欢迎来到 Lenny’s Podcast,在这里我访谈世界级的产品领导和增长专家,从他们打造和增长当今最成功产品的宝贵经验中学习。今天的嘉宾是 Bob Moesta。Bob 与 Clay Christensen 共同创立了待完成理论框架。正如你将在我们对话开头听到的,根据 LinkedIn 上的反响,他可能是我做过的嘉宾中期待度最高的一位。Bob 创办了八家公司,目前是 Rewired Group 的联合创始人兼 CEO,致力于帮助各种规模的公司发掘隐藏洞察,打造成功的产品和服务。
在我们这次对话中,我们深入探讨了待完成理论框架的方方面面——它是什么、如何应用到你的产品中、什么时候不太适用、如何通过访谈客户来获得对其痛点的准确洞察,以及待完成理论在零到一产品中的应用实例,还有很多其他内容。感谢所有为这次对话提供问题和话题的朋友们。请欣赏我与 Bob Moesta 的对话。
正式访谈
Lenny: Bob,非常感谢你来到这里,欢迎来到播客。
Bob Moesta: 谢谢,Lenny。很兴奋来到这里,我是你的粉丝。
Lenny: 啊,我才是你的粉丝。在筹备这次播客之前,我对你的了解其实不算太多。但正如你所看到的,我在 LinkedIn 上发帖征集大家对你会问什么问题,以及对整个待完成理论有什么看法。我从来没见过这么多评论和问题,也从来没见过嘉宾引发这么大的热情——我想大概有——
Bob Moesta: 真的假的?
Lenny: 绝对是真的。大概有一百三十多条问题和评论,像 37signals 的创始人 Jason Fried、Intercom 的 Des 都出来表示期待这期节目,所以我们有不少内容可以聊。
Bob Moesta: 我和他们都合作过,都是非常棒的人,合作起来很有趣。
Lenny: 我完全没想到大家对完成理论有这么大的热情。我有一大堆问题想问你,很多来自听众,一些来自我自己。所以我非常期待深入探讨这些内容。
Bob Moesta: 好,开始吧。
待完成理论的基本概念
Lenny: 好的,我觉得先从最基础的部分开始会很有帮助——用最简单的方式理解一下,待完成理论框架到底是什么?
Bob Moesta: 我觉得最简单的理解方式是这样的:我是一个工程师,电气工程出身,做产品差不多有三十年了。我从小被灌输的一句话就是”建好了,他们自然会来”。所以我们总是从技术角度出发——怎么把这个东西造出来,然后——谁会要这个产品?但我在职业生涯很早就意识到,这种方式其实行不通,我没法让它行得通。
待完成理论的基本前提是:人们不是”购买”产品,而是”雇佣”产品,雇佣它们来让自己的生活取得进步。如果我们退一步来看这件事,就会以一种完全不同的视角来理解——在某个时刻,人们身处某种情境之中,想要达成某种结果。如果我们能理解这一点,就会开始意识到,不同的东西之间其实存在竞争关系。
举一个简单的例子,想想士力架(Snickers)和 Milky Way。它们都是糖果棒,都在收银台旁边卖,原料几乎一样,一个有花生一个没有。如果你去比较产品本身,做竞品对标分析,你会发现一个稍微软一点,一个硬一点,一个热量高一点,一个低一点。但当你去问人们上次吃士力架是什么时候、上次吃 Milky Way 是什么时候,你就会发现,士力架通常是在这种场景下被选择的——他们错过了上一顿饭,还有很多活要干,精力快不够用了,想尽快回到工作状态。于是你就会意识到,士力架几乎就像一顿代餐,它的核心是肚子在咕咕叫之类的问题。而且你会发现,如果他们没有士力架,它的竞争对手其实是蛋白饮料、红牛、咖啡。
Milky Way 的竞争格局
Bob Moesta: 而 Milky Way 通常是在经历了一段情绪波动之后被吃的——可能是积极的情绪,也可能是消极的。它通常是一个人独处时吃的,是在情绪事件之后给自己一段时间来恢复和调整。于是你就会意识到,它的竞争对手其实是红酒、布朗尼,说实话,甚至是一段跑步。所以当你开始意识到这一点的时候,待完成理论帮你看到的是真正的竞争格局——从需求侧去看的竞争格局,而不是从供给侧——也就是基于技术或底层商业模式来定义的那种竞争格局。这样一来,你就能真正看到客户想要什么,而不是一直在想”我们怎么把东西卖给别人”。
痛点与需求的关系
Lenny: 顺着这个例子再追问一下,你发现有多少时候,这些”任务”是在产品已经开发出来之后才被识别出来的?比如士力架或 Milky Way 这个例子,有多少时候是他们在开发过程中碰巧看到了这个问题,甚至无意中就用了这种方法?
Bob Moesta: 有意思的是,至少对我来说,我学到的一件事是:供给和需求并不像所有人以为的那样紧密相连。大多数人以为,创造了一个产品就会创造需求。但如果你去研究因果关系,你会发现真正引发需求的是挣扎时刻(struggling moment)。你会开始意识到,在某些情况下,这种挣扎时刻一直存在,而且可能存在很久,但没有人来解决它。我曾经帮助过的一家企业是南新罕布什尔大学(Southern New Hampshire University),当时校长是 Paul Le Blanc。2010 年的时候,我们发现了一些异常数据——有一批学生在注册入学,但实际上从不来上课,所有内容都在线上看。大概有五六十个这样的人,而且他们交的是全款,就是不愿意来上课。对 Paul 来说,这就像是——他们为什么要这样做?
当我们去深入研究这些人的时候,我们发现他们的”任务”与典型的 18 到 24 岁大学生完全不同。首先,他们年纪更大一些,通常要么已经有一个学位,要么之前尝试读过大学但没读完。现在到了一个他们必须承担起责任、去做点新事情的时间点。所以他们根本没有提前设计过这个产品。当他们开始去看——有多少人想回到学校但回不了的时候,他们发现这不是一千人,也不是一万人,他们最终有了超过二十万名学生,成为了全球最大的大学之一。而这一切的起点是一个挣扎时刻,不是一个产品。
挣扎时刻驱动的产品路线图
这就是我们所说的”以客户为中心”的含义——我们去研究客户的挣扎时刻。像 Intercom 和 Basecamp 这样的公司,他们就是盯着挣扎时刻看的,挣扎时刻就是他们的产品路线图。因为你想一想路线图这件事——我本质上是在告诉你我未来 24 个月要构建什么,但我们谁也没预见到 ChatGPT 的出现。于是突然之间,我不得不去推翻整个路线图。但如果我谈的是我要去解决哪些挣扎时刻,那情况就不一样了——我会发现,当我抵达那个挣扎时刻的时候,解决它的方式是多种多样的。所以我们不会只谈功能特性。通常前 90 到 120 天可能还是在谈功能,但那之后我们就只谈挣扎时刻了,因为那才是真正创新的种子,也是新产品诞生的源头。
Lenny: 我想把这个框架再拆解一下。如果你去找一个创始人,告诉他”你应该关注挣扎时刻”,我觉得他们所有人都会说”对对对,我们知道,我们就是这么做的。我们就是去找痛点然后解决它”。所以我更好奇的是,正确的方式到底是什么?
Bob Moesta: 但不仅仅是痛点。我们在商学院学到的是”痛点与收益”,但现实是,关键在于情境。比如我之前没吃午饭,我还有很多活要干,我还有这个播客要录——不是我处于痛苦之中,而是这个情境让我在当下这个时刻对某个东西的重视程度远超其他选择。所以关键不仅仅在于痛点和收益,而是情境与结果。
当你从这个角度来构建的时候,它就变成了一个矢量——一个进步的矢量,或者说一个意图的矢量,表明他们想要达成什么。一旦我们把这个框架搭建起来,就可以围绕它来选择技术。而有趣的是,我以前一直被教导——只要做出最好的产品,就能卖得更好。但我学到的是,一个厉害的半成品比一个敷衍的完整品更好,这也是 Jason 常说的。现实是,你看 QuickBooks——功能只有一半,价格却是两倍。你就会开始意识到,到了某个阶段,核心在于在客户所在的地方去满足他们,而不是试图惊艳他们,也不是试图说服他们。是他们自己说服自己去做出改变。
四力模型
Lenny: 我想进一步理解你说的这个”矢量”的部分,因为感觉它非常重要。你的意思是,不仅仅是一个痛点存在、然后去解决它,更重要的是围绕那个痛点的情境以及它之前发生的事情?
Bob Moesta: 对,所以第一点是我们不会去跟”只是想试试”的人聊。
Lenny: 给播客听众说明一下,Bob 现在拿出了一张图在画,所以建议大家去 YouTube 上看这期视频,看看他在画什么。
Bob Moesta: 假设有某个产品 A 是旧产品,某个产品 B 是新产品。人不会无缘无故做任何事。待完成理论方法的核心,就是理解是什么推动一个人说出”今天就是那一天,我必须得做点不一样的事情了”。这种推力,或者说他们所处的情境,跟新产品完全无关——它只是他们离开旧产品的唯一理由。如果没有这种推力,他们甚至看不见你的产品,因为我们是习惯的动物,对吧?所以一旦我有了推力——我把它叫作 F1,也就是力一——然后我对可能性有了一些认知,我就会产生 F2,也就是被拉向一个新的结果、一个新的状态、一个新事物的拉力。所以在某个时刻,我必须处在这种情境中,并且我必须想要这个结果。
但还有另一部分——存在一条”水面线”,水面线下还有其他力量,另外还有两个力。每次我向别人展示一个新东西的时候,它实际上会制造焦虑——对新事物的焦虑,我叫它 F3。然后另一件事是,我必须让他们脱离旧的东西,我称之为”当下的习惯”,叫 F4。你开始意识到,如果 F1 和 F2 的合力不大于 F3 和 F4,他们就不会行动,什么都不会发生。所以我们做的事情,本质上是在把市场定义为一个行为系统。大多数人会说”只要我加更多功能,创造更多拉力,人们就会买”。但事实并非如此。更多功能反而会制造焦虑——它能做那么多事吗?
减少摩擦比增加功能更有效
Bob Moesta: 你会开始意识到,如果我能减少摩擦——也就是下面那部分——我其实根本不需要在产品上做任何改动,只需要让事情变得更简单就行了。举个例子,我以前盖过房子,人们在搬家时的一个摩擦点是,搬家的本质就是把所有东西打包然后搬到别的地方。所以我卖公寓给他们,他们从三千平方英尺的房子搬到一千五百平方英尺的公寓,六周后他们就取消了交易,因为他们不知道该怎么处理所有东西——这就是一个摩擦点。那我做了什么呢?我实际上提高了公寓的价格,把搬家和两年的仓储服务打包进公寓的交易里,因为那是一个摩擦系数,结果我的销量增长了超过百分之三十。
Lenny: 这个太好了。
Bob Moesta: 所以这一切的核心就是以客户为中心,理解背后的因果关系,然后用设计思维去真正认识到:我们如何才能真正帮助人们取得进步?我们不需要去推销,我们需要帮助他们完成购买。
《需求侧销售》
于是我写了一本书叫《Demand Side Sales》,核心理念就是停止试图推销,而是帮助人们取得进步,帮助他们购买。整本书的观点是:与其把销售流程建立在”我们想怎么卖”的基础上,不如把销售流程建立在”他们想怎么买”的基础上。看起来好像是一回事,但其实是非常、非常不同的两件事。
Lenny: 有没有什么公司或产品的例子能让这一点更加具体?
Autobooks 案例:重新设计销售流程
Bob Moesta: 我最近合作很多的一家公司叫 Autobooks,总部就在底特律。简单来说,他们帮助银行通过 Apple Pay 之类的服务来做发票收款。所以小企业不用非得用 Square 或 PayPal,直接通过自己的银行就能完成这些操作。这里面有两件事:他们既要向小企业推销,也要向银行推销。当我们开始讨论的时候,他们说的是银行为什么需要这个产品?我们做的第一件事就是发现银行想要这个产品有三个完全不同的原因。
他们的流程原来是围绕挣扎时刻来谈,了解发生了什么,然后所有步骤都指向让对方看演示。一旦我们让他们看了演示,就得立刻成交。但事实是,购买流程实际上有不同的阶段。首先是”第一念头”,然后有一个叫”被动观望”的阶段——他们意识到自己有问题,但不知道有什么解决方案,需要学习很多东西;接着是”主动寻找”的阶段——他们同时对问题和解决方案都有认知,在尝试弄清楚并构建一个方案;然后才是”决策”阶段,这个阶段的核心是做取舍。
所以当我开始跟团队讨论这些的时候,我说:“客户在他们的购买时间线上处于什么位置?“他们一脸茫然地看着我。我说:“不是,不是,你们有一个你们想怎么卖给他们的时间线,演示完了就想成交。但如果他们其实还在被动观望阶段,看演示只是为了了解更多信息呢?这跟我想要成交是完全不同的。“我们最终做的就是把演示拆开,先问客户他们在购买流程的哪个阶段。通过这样做,我们实际上找到了一种方式,给他们提供三种不同的演示——一种讲案例故事,给他们提供问题的背景知识;另一种展示所有可选方案;最后一种是基本上给他们提供不同的推进路径,让他们做选择。
你可能会觉得这样会让销售流程变长,但实际上它让销售流程缩短了将近一半,转化率提升了四倍,因为我们现在是在客户所在的位置与他们对接,而不是在我们希望他们所在的位置。
Lenny: 这是你一般在销售流程中都会发现的情况吗?就是存在这三个阶段,每个人都得经历,而且需要分别考虑?
购买的六个阶段
Bob Moesta: 对,实际上我称之为六个阶段。第一念头、被动观望、主动寻找、决策、首次使用,然后是持续使用——也就是我们如何建立新习惯?如果我们不去研究人们如何通过一个挣扎时刻完成自我转变这个部分,我们就不知道他们真正想要什么。如果我去问想买房的人,他们会告诉自己想要花岗岩台面和硬木地板,他们会把一切都说成自己想要的东西。
但当你真正去跟已经买了房的人聊,你会发现他们实际上做了很多取舍。比如说,我在买房前做的调查中,百分之九十三的人说自己想要符合 Energy Star 标准的房子。当时要达到 Energy Star 标准需要多花三万美元。但实际情况是没人选这个,他们全都选了带装修的地下室。这就是人们嘴上说的和自己真正想要的之间的差距。
所以这个方法本身不是基于传统研究或市场研究去问人们想要什么。它实际上是基于刑侦和情报审讯的方式——请你告诉我那个故事,你是怎么决定”今天就是我买房的日子”或者”今天就是我回去上学的日子”的。这不是随机的。如果它不是随机的,那我们就需要真正找到它。对我来说,这是一个更大的差异——大多数人把销售流程建立在概率之上:“如果我拿到这么多线索,就能转化这么多到这一步,再到那么多……”但最根本的问题是,有多少人真的准备好了接受你的产品?他们必须真正准备好才行。而这正是待完成理论的核心——理解他们身处何处,是什么在推动他们,以及他们如何做出取舍。
如何进行客户访谈
Lenny: 那我们就顺着访谈这个线索,聊聊如何跟潜在客户和现有客户交谈来理解待完成理论。你推荐的具体流程是什么?
Bob Moesta: 我们做的第一件事是构建一个问题框架。我对这件事的看法是这样的——大多数人……关于我有一点需要了解,就是我从事产品开发已经超过三十年了,参与过跨越很多行业的三千五百多种产品和服务,但我七岁之前受过三次闭合性头部脑损伤,我不会阅读也不会书写。所以对我来说,我从市场营销那里拿到的研究报告我根本看不懂——他们会说”我需要一个简单的、快速的、有趣的、便宜的东西”。我就想,好吧,这些到底是什么意思?什么叫快?多快才算快?什么不算快?你开始逐一拆解这些东西。
所以我们做的第一件事就是开始构建框架——我们就来聊聊,是什么让人们说出”今天就是我该去度假的日子”或者”今天就是我该换窗户的日子”。你围绕这个来构建框架,然后去找那些最近刚买过的人,问他们:“到底发生了什么,让你说出今天就是我需要新窗户的日子?“你会开始发现其中有推力、拉力、焦虑和习惯。所以我们首先要做的就是从客户那里提取故事。故事不一定是关于我的产品,也可以是关于别人的产品,尤其是我的产品还没做出来的时候——就是人们”雇佣”我的时候,他们要”解雇”什么?
从故事中提取模式
Bob Moesta: 当我们收集到这些故事后,故事会带给我们推力、拉力、焦虑和习惯,还有权衡取舍,以及我们所说的雇佣和解雇标准。接下来我们要做的,不是试图从所有故事中寻找主题,而是做一些不同的事情——我们不对它们做细分,而是做聚类,找出路径。因为你会逐渐意识到,人们做一件事的原因不是一个,而是一组原因,而且这些原因相互配合。推力和拉力是协同工作的——当他们有这些推力时,他们想要那些拉力;当他们没有这些推力时,他们也不想要那些拉力。
当你开始看到这些模式并提取出来时,你会意识到大多数公司或大多数产品被”雇佣”来做三四个甚至五个不同的任务,而且这些任务之间是相互冲突的。一个人想要更快,另一个人想要更细致。但更细致就意味着更慢。如果我说我们很细致,那些想要快的人就会说”我不要这个,太慢了”。那么你怎么把这些东西梳理清楚,理解背后的冲突在哪里,并据此思考不同的产品?
Intercom 就是这么做的,对吧?Intercom 发现人们”雇佣”它的原因有四个非常不同的方向,然后他们没有去开发四个不同的产品,而是直接在自己的产品里把跟用户想要走的路径无关的功能关掉。比如获取客户这个方向,他们不需要一大堆其他功能,所以他们实际上是围绕”怎么帮用户转化”来构建的。而这个任务直接与 HubSpot 竞争。还有一个方向是帮助做客户支持,那个直接与 Zendesk 竞争。于是他们调整了定价模型,去匹配竞争对手是谁,去匹配人们想要取得的进展——因为 Zendesk 太重太复杂,而 HubSpot 对人们当时的状态来说又像杀鸡用牛刀。他们基本上想清楚了自己如何定位为介于什么都没有和 HubSpot 之间的一个好的下一步。这就是他们如何成长为估值超过二十亿美金的公司的。
Lenny: 我有个追问,但你刚才是不是说你不识字也不会写字?
Bob Moesta: 对,不会读也不会写。实际情况是我读不懂自己写的字,也读不懂……如果有人念给我听,我能复述出来。我会听音频。但事实是,我学阅读的方式是——当我看一段话的时候,我先看到的是词与词之间的空白,然后通常看到的是单词的左边缘,也就是最后三个字母。我妈妈教我看一页上五个最长的词,把页面上最长的词圈出来,然后我去研究这些词、翻译这些词,再想出这五个词有什么共同点。因为对我来说,大脑里出问题的部分是我没法足够快地查找信息。等我盯住一个词、弄清它是什么、查到定义的时候,前面的词我全忘了。
Lenny: 天哪。那你怎么写书的?
Bob Moesta: 这是一种天赋。我跟你说,这是一种天赋,一种我绝不希望我孩子拥有的天赋。但说实话,它赋予了我用很多不同方式看到模式的能力,因为我能记住第一段的前五个词和最后一段的最后五个词,我把一本书翻三四遍,理解力和别人一样好。
Lenny: 这太不可思议了。你怎么写书的?
Bob Moesta: 很简单,我有一家叫 Scribe Media 的公司。我们做的第一件事就是找人们有哪些挣扎时刻,然后看围绕这些时刻有哪些竞品书。接着我大致勾勒出”进展”是什么样的。然后我们把每一章定义为一个系统,明确每一章需要做什么来帮助读者在这条路上取得进展。然后我们就聊,不停地聊,做十个两小时的录音 session,然后有人把内容整理出来。所以如果你听或读我的任何一本书,听起来就像我在跟你说话,因为确实是我在说话。
Lenny: 哇。
Bob Moesta: 我大概三个半月到四个月就能出一本书。
Lenny: 太厉害了。
传承与回馈
Bob Moesta: 现在我是一个老师,在西北大学凯洛格管理学院做兼职讲师,然后在东海岸不同的商学院做客座讲座,还帮 Techstars 和 Y Combinator。我真的在把自己推进一个传承的阶段——我有过一些了不起的导师帮助过我,而且再说一遍,我高中毕业时别人建议我去当行李搬运工或建筑工人,是我妈妈觉得我能做得更多。然后我遇到了这些人,他们把知识倾注到我身上,让我有能力做所有这些事情,所以现在我想尽可能地把这份恩情传递下去。这也是为什么我尽可能多地做播客。所以再次感谢你邀请我来。
Lenny: 是的,这是一个很好的传承机会,我很高兴我们正在做这件事。我对你的这些经历一无所知,谢谢你分享这些。
Bob Moesta: 很有趣。我有时候掐自己都觉得不可思议。我也不知道自己怎么走到今天的。过去十年我一直在研究人们为什么从一家公司跳到另一家公司,去真正理解”工作中的工作”——因为实际上是员工在”雇佣”公司,而不是公司在雇佣员工。于是你开始意识到,挣扎时刻就是为什么我们没有足够的人,或者我想离开但不知道怎么离开。我现在正在和 Michael Horn 以及 Ethan Bernstein 一起写一本关于这个话题的书。
Lenny: 关于这项研究,你能不能分享一个关于人们为什么离开工作或加入工作的洞察?
人们为什么换工作
Bob Moesta: 我想说的第一点是,几乎所有人——当你问他们是怎么得到现在这份工作的时候,最常听到的一句话是”太幸运了,真是太幸运了,简直就是掉到我怀里的”。但当你真正拆解他们的故事时,运气跟这件事毫无关系。他们做了准备,他们准备好了,有推力、有拉力、有焦虑,他们有能力去做。你开始意识到——而且有趣的是,如果我跟一个经历过三四次跳槽的人聊,他们都能说”对,我做过那份工作,对,我也做过那份,对,那个也做过”。所以其实是有框架的,去理解你真正想要取得的进展是什么?是我需要平衡?还是我的挑战不够?
当你开始用这个框架去思考时,你会意识到——我愿意拿更少的钱去跟更聪明的人在一起,因为我以后想创业。于是你开始明白,所有那些我们认为必须出更高薪水的想法,超过百分之五十找到新工作的人并没有拿到更多的钱。这是个谎言。关键在于进展,在于他们想学到什么?想获得什么技能?到某个阶段确实会关乎钱,但并不总是关于钱。
另一个有趣的地方是,当谈到钱的时候,我们会讲到一个”拆解”的概念。我们会问:“那你为什么需要更多的钱?“回答可能是:“因为我的责任更大了”,或者”我想要更多的钱,因为那代表着更多的尊重”。于是你会发现,在雇佣/解雇的标准里,他们嘴上说的是钱,但钱的影响远不止于钱本身——它关乎尊重,关乎责任,关乎他们对进步的衡量标准。背后有许许多多的东西,绝不仅仅是钱。这才是有意思的地方。
Lenny: 对,我自己也确实有过这种感受,工作中有一种身份地位的成分在里面。
Bob Moesta: 对,我想要那个头衔,对吧?这种事太常见了。
如何做待完成理论访谈
Lenny: 我想回到我们刚才讨论的关于通过访谈来理解待完成理论的话题。LinkedIn 上有很多人想了解,从实操层面来说,需要做到哪些关键点才能准确地识别出”任务”。所以我想问,你有没有什么具体的访谈技巧可以推荐?
Bob Moesta: 我给你三个建议。第一个建议是去读 Chris Voss 写的《Never Split The Difference》。我本来也想写一本书,讲我在八九十年代学到的访谈技巧,但他的书写得实在太好了,尤其是关于如何真正了解一个人的部分。我会故意把对方说的话复述错,因为他们会纠正我说”不对”,然后我再说”好吧,那你纠正一下”,于是他们就会说更多。一旦对方说了”是”,那就没什么可说的了。所以你需要学会一系列技巧,本质上就是让他们持续开口说话。
第二点是我只跟那些已经尝试过取得进展的人交谈。比如说,有人会说:“你又不能把这个方法用到全新的东西上,那个东西根本还不存在。“我曾经跟一家——这么说吧,一家相当大的社交媒体公司合作过。在某个时间点,他们发现有人在他们的平台上进行交易行为,但他们对此一无所知,也没有搭建任何相关功能。我们后来去研究了 eBay 和 Etsy,去了解是什么让人们决定”就在今天,我要开一家 eBay 店铺”或者”我要在 Craigslist 上卖东西”。通过这些研究,我们发现了卖家和买家各自要完成的所有任务。现在我想那已经是一个将近 30 亿美元的市场了,而当初这一切根本不存在——他们所有认知都是从竞争对手那里学来的。
Lenny: 听起来像是 Facebook Marketplace?我不说。
Bob Moesta: 我可没说过。
Lenny: 你建议做多少次访谈才能得出有信心的结论?
Bob Moesta: 这是一个很有争议的好问题。有趣的是,从因果机制和集合论的角度来看——也就是推力、拉力、焦虑和习惯这些因素的组合——大概到第七、第八个人的时候就开始出现重复了。我通常做 10 次,最多不超过 12 次。而且我宁愿做两轮各 12 次的访谈,也不愿意一口气做 24 次。我有一些非常棒的导师,其中一位是 Deming 博士,他是精益和质量体系之父。他总是推动我用更快、更小的方式去做事情。我的很多方法都来源于此。你也会发现人们会说”我们必须做到统计上的显著性”。如果你是随机抽样,那确实需要,但如果你真正理解了你的市场范围——比如你知道 50% 的用户在 30 岁以上,50% 在 30 岁以下——那我完全可以通过有针对性的采样来获得一个好的代表性,而不需要做 50 次访谈。所以我们用的是一种叫做”设计实验”的方法来解决这个问题。
Lenny: 我很喜欢这些具体的数字。顺着这个话题,当你实际向人们提问的时候,你有没有什么关于问题措辞的最佳实践,能帮助你获得可信的回答?
Bob Moesta: 在很多情况下,你需要从多个角度来看问题。我的另一个建议是——不要用访谈提纲。这一点让很多人抓狂,因为每个人都想问同样的一套问题。但问题在于,当你拘泥于固定的问题列表时,你反而无法追随那些最有价值的信息线索。所以我的做法是用推力、拉力、焦虑和习惯这个框架,去问”是什么促使他们做了这件事”,其他一切就是一场了解他们故事的对话。
这其中很重要的一部分是学会问”为什么”类型的问题,但你不能一个劲地问”为什么、为什么、为什么”。你应该说”能再多讲讲吗?给我举个例子。“很多时候,我会把受访者推到一种我称之为”语言的边缘”的状态——他们已经找不到合适的词来描述了。这时我会给出一个二选一的问题来引导他们:“所以,是更偏向这个,还是更偏向那个?“其实我知道两个选项都不对,但这会迫使他们继续说下去。核心永远是想办法让他们多表达。因为当我复述的时候——“所以你做了这个、这个、这个和这个”——他们会说”不对,不是那样的”。跟我合作的人会说”你知道那不是正确答案啊”,我说”我知道,但他们会解释为什么不是那个答案”。所以本质上,这就是在揭示人们行为背后的因果机制。
待完成理论的正式与简化应用
Lenny: 当我思考待完成理论的时候,我从来没有真正实施过什么结构化的框架,但我发现它在我的 Newsletter 和播客工作中非常有用——就是去想,我的 Newsletter 到底在为人们完成什么任务?对我来说,就是帮助人们在打造和增长产品的手艺上变得更好。我只是把它想成——这边是各种待完成的任务的分类,那边是那种正式的、真正按框架来做的方式。所以我想问,首先你认同这种说法吗?就是存在一种很简单的用法,也存在一种更正式的用法?
Bob Moesta: 我想说的是,我发现很多创始人,尤其是那些非常成功的创始人,比如 Jason Fried 就是其中之一,他们凭直觉就理解了这一点。他实际上就是这么思考的,只是没有用语言把它包装起来而已。所以我认为这是一个非常有用的框架。但我觉得你可能遇到的危险是,当你透过产品去看客户时——比如如果我透过士力架去看客户,那我就会把 Milky Way 当作竞争对手。但如果我去看客户,问”他们为什么选了那个东西?“我就会发现蛋白质奶昔、一个苹果和一个三明治才是竞争对手,而不是 Milky Way。
Lenny: 明白了。那如果有人想开始朝待完成理论这个方向走,最简单的、第一版的、轻量级的方式是什么?怎么开始这样思考?
从客户故事中获取三种能量
Bob Moesta: 有两件事可以做。如果我有一个产品,去找 10 个最近买了你产品的人,但我要你做的不是跟他们聊产品,而是聊他们为什么买这个产品——当时发生了什么,他们在期待什么,他们在担心什么?他们放弃了什么?他们是怎么说服别人的?就是听他们的故事。先从获取故事开始。
因为我们必须获取三个层面的信息,或者说我所说的三种能量来源。可以这样想:系统中必须有能量,我们才会去做某件事。一种是我所说的功能性能量,通常是时间、空间、精力、知识这些东西。还有情感性能量,就是我的感受——我想感觉更好,我感到沮丧,我感到被忽视,这些都是情感层面的。然后还有社会性层面——我希望别人怎么看待我,或者别人怎么看待我,“哦,我老板要开除我了,因为他觉得我做得不够快,我觉得自己很无能。” 所以理解这些情感性、社会性和功能性组成部分,是理解这个能量来源的一部分。
Lenny: 明白了。
从流失用户身上学习
Bob Moesta: 第二件事是,如果是一个已经存在了一段时间的成熟产品,我会去找那些流失了的人聊聊。因为在流失中,有趣的是,当有人离开你的产品时,他们仍然在追求进步。我们觉得这对我们来说是坏事——可能确实是——但在他们的心里,他们会说”这个太难太复杂了”,或者”你知道吗?它对我们来说不够用”。这能让你真正理解他们的挣扎时刻,因为说到底,他们之前一直在用你的产品,然后发生了什么事,某些情境变了,他们开始感到困难,现在得去找别的东西了。
没有人想要改变。所以这实际上是最容易观察的事情——告诉我人们为什么改变。我们似乎就是不愿意深入到足够深,而是把”随机”和”概率”这种偷懒的词当作知识的替代品,但这不是知识。道理很简单:如果情境相同、结果相同,那我就可以做。但如果我去看橄榄球统计数据,季前赛的三档和季后赛的三档是完全不同的。所以给我一个整个赛季三档转换率的统计数据对我来说毫无意义,因为情境不同。
抱怨不等于切换
Lenny: 你提到过一个观点,人们经常说他们非常讨厌某个东西,表现出来的样子像是他们随时准备切换,会去用你做的更好的产品,但他们实际上不会,因为你提到的那种摩擦。你会寻找什么信号来判断他们是真正会去用、真的认真了?
Bob Moesta: 我首先会说,我从不相信任何人告诉我的他们打算做什么,因为他们自己也无法保证,而且通常不会发生。这是我的经验告诉我的。所以我需要跟那些已经做了某件事、已经尝试了的人聊——即使他们可能失败了——是什么让他们去尝试的?我有一句话叫”Bitchin’ ain’t switchin’“(光抱怨不切换)。人们抱怨某件事,不代表他们会采取任何行动。在 Basecamp 的时候,我们学到的一件事就是,所有人都说”如果你有甘特图就好了,如果你不加甘特图我就不用了,或者资源分配功能”,但不管他们怎么说想要,他们不会因为这个而离开。
还有另一方面,如果你追随你最优秀的用户,他们会把你带到一个世界,然后那个世界实际上会摧毁低端用户之所以在这里的理由。如果 Basecamp 把所有那些东西都加上去了——人们选择 Basecamp 的原因之一就是它实在太简单了。如果我开始加所有这些东西让它变得更复杂,那就不行了。
语言的层次与购买真相
Lenny: 那在这些对话中,有没有什么信号让你发现他们是真正认真的?还是说你会想”在这种情况下他们说什么我都不听,直到我们真正做出来、他们在用了为止”?
Bob Moesta: 比如说,在访谈的前五分钟,他们会告诉你”我买了一辆新车,因为我拿到了一个优惠,而且那是我一直梦想的车”——他们有各种各样的说法。但当你开始深挖的时候,事实是:旧车已经跑了 28 万英里了,过去四个月里有三笔大额维修账单,车子在发出异响,而你马上有一趟长途旅行——这才是你买车的原因。你不是因为那个优惠才买车的。所以我称之为”语言的层次”。最表层我叫它”糊弄层”(pablum layer)——人们就是”今天怎么样?""哦,挺好的”——没人知道那到底意味着什么。如果你再追问一句”那具体好在哪里?“他们就”呃……”
然后你进入下一层,下一层通常是幻想噩梦层——“哦,太好了,因为这样这样”,或者”天哪,太糟了,因为……”他们会往一个方向或另一个方向夸大。然后你要做的就是把它们拉回到实际发生了什么。这就是你必须更像一个调查员和审讯员的地方。我描述它的方式是:这是一种类似刑事和情报审讯,但感觉像心理治疗的过程——因为大多数人其实不知道自己为什么买了东西,他们只想到自己写支票、刷卡的那一刻。但事实是,我曾经采访过一个买衣帽架的人——一个 137 美元的衣帽架。他们花了 18 个月才买下来。在他们心里,他们说自己一个星期就买了,但事实上关于要不要买、为什么不能买的纠结持续了超过 18 个月。所以你不能相信他们说的话,你必须自己做调查才能找到真相。
价值的起点与终点
Lenny: 你刚才说的那个关于进步向量的短语是什么来着?
Bob Moesta: 意图,就是他们所处的情境和想要的结果。事情是这样的——大多数人谈论的是你想达到某个结果,人们重视这个结果,但价值不仅仅是结果。价值也包含你的起点。如果我从这里出发,到这里结束,我会这么重视它。但如果我从这里出发……等等,我得先到那里,从这么低的地方出发,然后到这里,我会重视得多得多。所以价值其实取决于他们从哪里出发、想去哪里。大多数人会说”只要我把他们带到这里,他们就会非常喜欢”,但有些人会说”我只想到这里”。于是你就做过了头,他们反而想要一个价格折扣,因为你给他们的比他们想要的更多。
LinkedIn 上的热门提问
Lenny: 我换个方向。LinkedIn 上点赞最多的问题来自 Sharam Krishnan,他之前也上过我的播客。
Bob Moesta: 对对对,我记得看到过,也听过。顺便说一句,这可能也是我主动联系的原因之一,我觉得”好,我们需要把这个问题澄清一下。”
Lenny: 太好了。你看到了,他算不上是待完成理论的粉丝。
Bob Moesta: 不,不算。
Lenny: 所以他想问的问题是:“有没有哪个创业公司、现代科技公司或任何公司,是运用待完成理论从零到一推出一款产品,并且获得了广泛采用的?“这就是他的质疑。
Bob Moesta: 是说在公司内部运用,还是说开发出来的产品获得了广泛采用?
Lenny: 后者,产品本身做得很成功。
Bob Moesta: 我已经告诉你一个例子了。我不能说,但你能说。不过还有一个例子,Autobooks 也做了这件事,对吧?他们开始意识到,你需要研究挣扎时刻,这能帮你决定什么不该做。太多时候我们只是一味地往产品里加更多东西。在大公司里这非常困难,因为到了某个阶段,主流的市场研究就是假设检验——“我先建立一个假设,然后去做一个研究项目来证明或推翻这个假设。”
但现实是,待完成理论研究是假设构建型的研究。我不知道,这正是关键所在——我们真的不知道。我们以为自己知道,但 Taguchi 博士总是告诉我,未知的东西远比已知的多,永远不要忘记这一点。所以,人们为什么买窗户,原因并不是我们以为的那样。你开始意识到这一点。我觉得 Drucker 说得最好,他说:“企业以为自己在卖的东西,并不是顾客在买的东西。“说实话,他在 1953 年就说了这句话,到今天依然成立。我今天刚做了访谈,对方说”哦,人们是因为这个原因购买的”,我们做了 12 场访谈后你开始发现,不对,这不是他们购买的原因。他们自己也很震惊。
Lenny: 太棒了。好吧,你没说,但也许是 Facebook Marketplace?
Bob Moesta: Autobooks 算一个,从零到一,从无到有,对吧?
Lenny: 对,全新产品,这基本上就是那个问题的核心。
Bob Moesta: 对,在 Techstars,我们基本上确保每个人——他们进来的时候通常还没有产品,至少在芝加哥和旧金山办公室是这样。我们在最开始的阶段就会做待完成理论方面的工作。我们有 Nutrisense、Havoc Shield 这样的公司,还有一大批正在成长、沿着这条路走下去的公司。所以对我来说,这非常有用,尤其是在零到一阶段。
但我 framing 的方式是这样的:当你的产品出来后,人们会停止使用什么?这就是你要去访谈的对象。拿 Marketplace 来说,就是”我想让他们不再用 Craigslist,不再用 eBay,不再用 Etsy。“如果是这样的话,他们在做什么?我怎么才能做得更好,从而理解这一点?实际上没有什么全新的 job,只是我们做得更好了。雇佣/解雇的标准在提升,但情境和结果——大多数 job,我可以回溯 10 年这个 job 就存在,也可以前瞻 20 年这个 job 还会存在。只是技术交付的方式在不断改善。
Lenny: 好的。听起来 Intercom 和 Basecamp 也是待完成理论非常早期的采用者?
Bob Moesta: 非常早期,是的。
Lenny: 我觉得关于 Sharam,我从字里行间读出来的是,他在 Twitter 工作了很多年,我认为 Twitter 曾尝试过待完成理论框架,但可能不太顺利,我觉得这导致很多人认为这是一个糟糕的框架。
待完成理论的不同流派
Bob Moesta: 我觉得这里存在不同的流派。其中一个流派是我所说的非常供给侧驱动的——它从底层技术出发,然后看”我们还能做什么?我们在哪些方面可以做得更好?哪些方面很重要但我们还没有满足?“从而进行优先级排序。这是非常系统化的方法,有几百个步骤,非常规定性。
而我使用的方法——主要是因为我一直身处创业圈,做的是全新的产品——是非常定性、有机的,是流程、实践和技能的结合。每家公司实际上都有自己的创新流程,取决于他们有什么样的人、服务谁、底层技术是什么。所以在我看来,要有一个适用于所有人的可预测的统一流程——我认为存在原则,但不认为存在统一流程。我觉得 Twitter 用的就是那种。
另外一点,我认为 Jack 其实是待完成理论的粉丝,他和 Clay 合作过一些事情,但我觉得他们没有在方法论层面下功夫,而是在思维层面下功夫。所以它更多是——你能做的最危险的事情之一就是坐在一个房间里凭空假设 job 是什么,因为我可以保证你百分之百是错的。这就是所发生的情况。顺便说一句,这也是阅读障碍的礼物——我不是 A 等学生,大多数 A 等学生要到知道答案才开始动手,而大多数 D 等学生因为不知道答案所以就开始动手了。你开始意识到我们在这一点上被塑造得非常不同。所以我总是说,A 等学生在创业方面对 D 等学生有劣势,因为我们直接就开始了,然后在过程中学习。我们不需要先把一切都假设好,因为我们实际上也不知道该怎么做。
Lenny: 所以你的建议基本上是,人们经常把待完成理论用错,因为他们只是坐在一起想待完成理论是什么,而没有真正去做访谈和理解的功课?
Bob Moesta: 对。他们更多想的是结果,想的是我们能给人们带来最好的结果。但你开始意识到,人们会做取舍。最终会有某个非理性的成分,某个非理性的因素让一切扭转过来。这个非理性成分就像,为什么人们饿的时候会吃士力架?那是糖果棒啊。结果发现,当你咬下去的时候,它会咀嚼成一个团,待在胃里,吸收掉让你产生”我得吃点东西”那种感觉的胃酸。所以其中花生和牛轧轧的作用实际上是让它咀嚼粘合在一起。焦糖的作用是把它粘在一起——而相比之下 Milky Way 的焦糖熔点很低,你咬一口,它就变成液体,你像喝水一样把它吞下去,跟食物毫无关系。
所以你开始意识到,关键在于把体验与情境和结果连接起来。是供给侧与需求侧的连接,但首先要从需求侧出发。挣扎时刻和机会在产品出现之前就已经存在了。
Lenny: 你说得我都饿了。
糖果的竞争并非你以为的那样
Bob Moesta: 我买过几条,但没吃,不过确实买过。我的意思是,你深入思考之后就会意识到一个很疯狂的地方——人人都以为自己有竞争对手,但如果你真的回到你拿起一条士力架的那个时刻,你脑子里根本没有 Milky Way。你根本没在想半个糖果货架的东西,你想的是,“我是想吃个三明治,还是想来条士力架?“他们选士力架,一半原因是它有300卡路里,三口就能吃完,不脏手,然后可以继续工作。这就是把食物直接注射进身体。
Lenny: 说实话,我不知道我有没有吃过 Milky Way。
Bob Moesta: 没错。
Lenny: 所以我不需要那种安慰。
Bob Moesta: 有意思的是,你去旧金山所有大型科技中心看看,士力架全空了,Milky Way 全是满的。
Lenny: 这我能理解。你提到待完成理论有多种不同的实践路径,实际上有人问过这个问题——有位叫 Tony Ulwick 的人有一套框架,然后你有你的方法,克莱顿·克里斯坦森可能也有他的路径。你能帮忙厘清一下吗?
待完成理论的不同流派
Bob Moesta: 克莱顿和我是合作发展出这套理论的。我很幸运能有克莱顿做我27年的导师,27年里我每季度和他见面一次。到某个时候我把我思考这个问题的诀窍和做法分享给他,然后他说,“我们需要把它变成一个理论。“对我来说,这更多是我的变通方案——因为我读不了也写不了,“那我去跟人聊,我自己能搞明白。“最终我们把它变成了一套方法。如果你看 Competing Against Luck 这本书,它是由 Taddy Hall、Karen Dillon 和 Dave Duncan 写的,但我帮了那本书16个月。里面有些客户就是我的客户。我觉得 Intercom 的案例也在那本书里。所以克莱顿和我的方向是一致的。克莱顿更倾向于把它变成一个理论,而我会说我更注重让它成为一套可操作的方法。他的更像是一个思维框架、一种哲学和战略视角,而我的非常具体可执行——我们怎么获取信息,然后拿它来做什么。
Ulwick 的出发点非常不同,我同样认为他的方法很有价值,但它源于”功能”的概念,更像是”我们的产品能做什么?我们的产品能完成什么任务?“而我的看法是——只有人有任务,产品没有任务,人有任务,组织没有任务,组织里的人有任务,因为那才是非理性的部分。所以从根本上说,这是两种不同的视角来看待这个问题。但总的来说,我会说克莱顿的方法和我的方法源自同一套数据集,而 Ulwick 的方法源自不同的数据集和不同的经验积累。
Lenny: 太有意思了,我之前完全不知道这些。你觉得在 Twitter 这个案例里,可能更接近克莱顿那种”去思考它”的方式?
Bob Moesta: 对,我觉得没错。我再强调一下,我觉得 Ulwick 的方法非常有价值,特别是在一些风险很高、有监管要求、有很多移动部件、系统非常复杂的公司里。但同时它的步骤太多了,你的组织必须非常有纪律性才能遵循它。
推荐入门书目
Lenny: 如果有人想真正开始实践这套方法,你会推荐他们从哪本书入手来理解你的方法?
Bob Moesta: 我会让他们读 Demand Side Sales,这本书从人们为什么购买的理论出发,讲我们如何真正理解把视角从”试图把东西卖给人”翻转到”帮助人们购买”。它包含了完整的方法框架,适用于产品和创始人。
Lenny: 太好了。待完成理论有没有什么时候不是合适的框架?有没有什么情况不适合用它来决定该构建什么?
待完成理论的局限
Bob Moesta: 有的。几种情况。一是当没有选择、或者没有真正的选择的时候。有意思的是,想想看——为什么你对车险的了解比对健康保险的了解多得多?主要是因为你的健康保险是雇主给你的,你只在生病的时候才用到它。但车险,你得自己掏钱,所以你得坐下来权衡各种取舍。而通过雇主选择的时候,就是”好、更好、最好”三档。实际上就是”我人生处在什么阶段?我生过病吗?“一些基本的东西,但并没有真正的选择。
于是你就会意识到,在没有真正选择的地方,或者在人们想让选择变得显而易见的地方,这套方法行不通。你必须能够接受人们如何看待你,而不是你希望被如何看待。所以当公司来找我们说,“好,我希望你帮我们找到这些任务”——“不行,我做不了,因为行不通。我可以告诉你需求侧在要求什么,然后我们看你的产品如何与之匹配、需要做什么调整,但如果我试图帮你构建一个论据,让任务变成你以为的那样,那是行不通的。”
Lenny: 在那些情况下,你会推荐别的框架吗,还是说其实没有太多选择?
Bob Moesta: 在很多情况下,我会做一些民族志研究,实实在在地找出系统中有摩擦的地方。我可能会围绕不同的替代方案做一些原型测试,但通常更多关注的是我所说的”小雇佣”——比如人们如何使用健康保险,而不是他们为什么购买健康保险。
另一个例子是口香糖。如果我跟人们聊买口香糖这件事,大多数人根本记不得自己什么时候买了一包口香糖,哪怕就在过去一周内——“呃,好像是吧。“但如果我问他们什么时候嚼了口香糖,他们能告诉你。而这最终就能推断出他们什么时候买口香糖。如果某个行为根本不被人意识到,它已经是深层的习惯以至于人们不知道自己在做什么,你就永远无法从他们那里获取信息。同样,习惯性的东西很难看出其中的任务。只有当人们发生变化时你才能看到——就像你可以揭示整座冰山,但如果我已经用了20年 Tide 洗衣液,我问你为什么”雇佣” Tide,你只会瞎编。你根本不知道自己为什么用 Tide。但如果你从 Tide 换成了 Gain,或者从 Gain 换成了 Tide,你能把那个故事讲得非常详细。
常见的误解
Lenny: 有位读者提了一个非常有意思的问题,她叫 Maria Delano。她想知道,一个这么知名的框架,肯定会遇到被人误读、传播不准确信息的情况。她很好奇,关于待完成理论,你最反复听到、最让你头疼的误解是什么?
Bob Moesta: 首先我想说的是,在做这件事的过程中,我是有意让它变得非常易于获取的。因为一旦你把它搞得太受版权保护、太专利化、太什么的,人们就会直接略过它。所以部分原因就是把它放到公共领域,让人们可以讨论、尝试,用它做不同的事情。
关于待完成理论的误解
Bob Moesta: 我想说的是,已经有足够多的人使用过它、实践过它并取得了很好的成果,所以在某种程度上,那些在尝试但用得不好的人,大部分是显而易见的。所以关键在于如何深入投入其中。关于待完成理论最大的误解之一,就是认为它是关于”痛苦和收益”的,而不是关于”情境和结果”的。另一个大误解是认为它纯粹只看结果,而不把情境和结果放在一起来看。
我觉得我见过的最大错误,是人们在会议室里做这件事,却不去跟人交谈。他们没有真正找到矛盾之处,没有找到那些看起来不合理的部分。真正有趣的是,当你听到某个人的故事,觉得它似乎不合理时——比如我们会有人说:“天哪,这是个异常值,这不常发生。“但你会发现,是情境让不合理的变得合理。所以当你听到一个故事,觉得”难以置信”的时候,十有八九是因为你没有听到完整的故事。因此,我们需要理解完整的情境——是什么样的情境会驱使一个人做出某种选择。比如”为什么会有人砍掉自己的手臂?“如果处于某种特定情境下……没有人会说想砍掉自己的手臂,但在某些特定情境中,你会这么做。
所以我们要做的,就是找到人们会在哪里改变行为。大多数人研究的是人们当前所处的位置的惯性,以及他们前进方向的惯性。但现实是,我们试图研究的是——什么导致人们改变方向。而这就是创新发生的地方。创新发生在人们改变的时候。
为什么选择待完成理论
Lenny: 是什么说服你把时间和精力投入到待完成理论上,帮助人们实施这个框架?又是什么一直在吸引你回来?
Bob Moesta: 这个问题问得好。首先,我从一开始就是单纯喜欢造东西。我妈妈会带我去——我们这儿有个叫”大件垃圾日”的活动,就是人们把旧洗碗机、旧迷你摩托之类的东西扔出来。我妈妈基本上会说,只要能塞进后备箱的,我们都可以带回家。所以我一辈子都在做东西,因为我一直对事物如何运作充满好奇。这是第一点。
第二点是,我喜欢帮助别人。我意识到的一件事是,我不能为自己做产品。我创办了七家公司,但我意识到我必须为他人而做。所以为他人做产品是我进入产品领域的起点。后来我意识到自己是一个方法论构建者,我真正在做的是帮助人们创新。我存在的意义就是把抽象的东西变得具体。这句话引导我成为了一名老师和教授,而写书是我以前从来不想做的事,因为我讨厌书。是 Clay 说服了我,说我必须学会演讲,必须写书。
这里有个很好的故事。那是在 1990 年,我的导师 Dr. Taguchi 当时跟我说了一句话,那时候我住在德国科隆。他说:“写一本书。“所以我最小的孩子搬出家之后,我翻开了自己将近 30 年的笔记本——每个项目、每家公司的所有工作记录。三十多年后我想起来,“糟糕,我得写一本书了,因为他让我写的。“就是这样一件事——我意识到我真的喜欢帮助别人,喜欢创建方法论。我非常好奇,有时好奇到让人烦的程度,但这三件事就是我喜欢做的。
三个核心要点
Lenny: 太棒了。Bob,在我们进入非常精彩的闪电问答之前,你还有什么想分享或者想确保我们谈到的吗?
Bob Moesta: 有三个重要的要点。第一,挣扎时刻是关键,人们正是基于挣扎时刻才会采取行动。我想说的是,挣扎时刻无处不在,它们真的无处不在,渗透在我们生活的方方面面。只是在特定的情境下,我们才会突然意识到必须对此做点什么。所以去研究挣扎时刻,因为在某些时刻,那正是最需要创新的地方。第二,想想人们试图取得的进步是什么。他们的标准是什么,而不是你的标准是什么。那个情境是什么?那个结果是什么?最后一点,我的表达方式是——选择你愿意在哪些方面做得不好,想清楚你需要做哪些取舍,并确保你的取舍与客户的取舍是对齐的。因为十有八九,大多数失败的产品,都是因为做了一个客户不同意的取舍。
闪电问答
Lenny: 太好了。那么,我们进入非常精彩的闪电问答环节。我有六个问题。准备好了吗?
Bob Moesta: 好了,我随时准备着。
Lenny: 完美。你向别人推荐最多的两三本书是什么?
Bob Moesta: Ryan Singer 的 Shape Up,非常棒。另一本是 Todd Rose 的 End of Average。我每年都会听一遍,每年都能从中获得新的收获。我已经听了大概八到十年了。我甚至给 Todd 打了电话,我们现在成了朋友,经常交流。那是一本了不起的书。
Lenny: 最近最喜欢的电影或电视剧是什么?
Bob Moesta: 我很喜欢《生活大爆炸》。我每……人们说我像 Sheldon,我觉得我更像 Leonard,但我承认确实有些日子我的表现像 Sheldon,虽然我不是故意的。我也喜欢《奥本海默》。我偏好科学类的内容,不太算科幻迷,更多的是历史纪录片,我都非常喜欢,因为它们帮助我理解科学。
Lenny: 你面试别人时最喜欢问的一个问题是什么?
Bob Moesta: “你今天在业务中最大的三个痛点是什么?如果解决了它们,会从根本上改变你的业务吗?”
Lenny: 喜欢这个问题。最近发现的一个你特别喜欢的产品是什么?
Bob Moesta: 我最近买了一台按摩椅。我之前一直在做按摩,随着年龄增长和锻炼增多——我减了将近 100 磅——现在锻炼更多了。天哪,没人告诉我减重之后会一直觉得冷、一直酸痛、一直饿。所以我需要一种方式来应对这个状况。我以前大约每两周做一次按摩,现在我可以 20 分钟随叫随到地做一次按摩。这真是太棒了。
Lenny: 天哪,我妻子一直想要一台,这对她可能挺好的。
Bob Moesta: 哦我告诉你,它是改变生活的存在。就是那种——我们会做访谈,我可以在访谈和复盘之间钻进去按一下。整个人精神焕发。比任何 app 都好用。
Lenny: 有什么品牌想提一下吗?你最喜欢的是哪个?
Bob Moesta: 我用的是 Kyoto 的。
Lenny: Kyoto。
Bob Moesta: 我在 Costco 买的,非常好。
Lenny: 好的,我们会去看看。有没有什么相对较小的改动,是你帮公司在实施待完成理论时做的,但对它们做好这件事产生了重大影响的?
Intercom 的成功与大组织中的实施
Bob Moesta: 有两个例子。一个是 Intercom。Intercom 真正起飞、做得那么好的原因,其实是两位创始人 Des Traynor 和 Eoghan McCabe 参加了我早期的一个工作坊,他们认真学习了这个方法论并尝试实践,然后我们交流过。之后他们把 Matt Hodges、Paul Adams、Sean Townson 和整个管理团队都带来,亲自做了访谈。他们做完访谈后,清楚地知道该做什么,从那以后一切就势如破竹了。他们学会了如何提出正确的问题。
Lenny: “势如破竹”是好的方向?
Bob Moesta: 是他们学会了如何做访谈的意思,效果非常惊人。Paul Adams 和 Matt Hodges 在 Intercom 的第一天,就是在底特律我的办公室里度过的。所以对我来说,这是其中一个关键因素。
另一个方法是在大型组织中找到一个苦苦挣扎的团队——他们交付不了产品,速度不够快,总是得到错误的洞察,他们说市场会很大——然后把注意力集中在一个非常小的领域,给他们一点空间来展示这个方法的成效,之后它会通过一两个案例研究在组织内传播开来。大多数公司如果能从小案例做起,无论成败都与人分享,或者从高层开始推动,效果都会很好。
餐桌故事
Lenny: 还有两个问题。第一个是,有人让我问你餐桌的故事。你对这个有什么印象吗?
Bob Moesta: 当然。我曾经盖过房子。在盖房子之前,我在一家风险投资和私募股权公司工作,管理大约一亿美元的资金,同时处理 25 笔交易,出差太多了,而我还有四个孩子。所以我和妻子商量之后,我把那个公司收了。然后我问自己:“我接下来做什么?“我想找一个我能参与其中并拥有部分股权的企业,于是我加入了底特律的一家建筑公司,最终在这里盖了一千栋房子,拥有 14 个工地。我们专门为”缩户”群体建房,就是像你父母那样准备缩小居住规模的人。他们反复告诉我们的是:“我们要缩小房子了,不再办节假日聚餐了,这事结束了。我不想要餐桌,我们甚至不能请人来家里了。如果要聚餐,我们去别的地方。我不需要餐桌。”
于是我们建了一种两居室、两个半卫、一楼洗衣房、高档厨房的公寓,非常棒。但我们发现,如果人们不知道餐桌要放在哪里,他们就不会搬家。原来,餐桌是他们整个人生的情感账户。如果你不要它,你的姐妹不要它,你的兄弟也不要它,他们不会把它捐给 Goodwill,也不会把它塞进地下室,也许会放进储物间,但大多数情况下,人们真的会留在原地,直到他们想清楚餐桌该去哪里。
所以我做了与他们告诉我的完全相反的事——我专门设计了一个放餐桌的空间。你根本不可能在那里吃饭,空间也不够把椅子拉开,但它仍然具有象征意义,人们会用它来拼拼图之类的。我牺牲了第二个卧室套间来加这个空间,结果销量增加了 22%。这个案例再次说明,你会学到那种非理性的矛盾——“他们说了这个,但你做了那个,这完全说不通。“这正是待完成理论能帮你的地方,帮你发现那些看似微小却极为重要的洞察。
墙上的恩师
Lenny: 最后一个问题。你之前给我看过你的摄像头布置,其中一个画面里墙上挂着你的人物画像?
Bob Moesta: 对对对。
Lenny: 能给大家展示一下,讲讲他们是谁吗?
Bob Moesta: 好的。我有一个信念:你身体和大脑中的能量,每天都应该用到最后一丝,因为第二天醒来你会重新获得满满一账户,你没法把今天的省下来。所以每天晚上我都会画画。这些是我画的我的导师们的肖像,挂在我上方。Dr. Deming、Clay、Dr. Taguchi,还有 Dr. Willie Moore——我在一本叫《Learning to Build》的书中写过他。这五位教给我的五项技能,使我能够在那么多不同的领域和方向上工作。
Dr. Deming 是我 18 岁时认识的,他带我去了日本。当时我在福特工作,负责一线工作,帮助把福特的产品开发周期从 72 个月缩短到 36 个月。那是我从丰田学到大量工具和方法的地方。然后我学习了 Dr. Taguchi 的方法,围绕设计实验方面非常精妙。Dr. Willie Moore 是我在福特的第一位上司,她是粒子物理学博士,她教会了我用同理心的视角去观察事物、建构问题框架,是一位非常了不起的人。
最后一位是克莱顿·克里斯坦森。我当时直接走进了他的办公室,他办公室门外挂着一块牌子,写着”欢迎异类”。我走进去说:“你看,我就是个异类。我不知道你是不是真的想要异类,但我就是。“我们坐下来开始聊,最后我问他:“你的研究是什么?我能怎么帮你?“他在那里大概已经一年了。他突然变得很凝重,几乎像是眼眶湿润了,我问:“怎么了?“他说:“我在这里一年了,所有人都向我要东西,但从来没有一个人主动说要帮我。你是第一个。“这就是我们关系的起点。之后我每季度与 Clay 进行四小时的交流,持续了 27 年,没有固定议程,这真的很不可思议。
结尾
Lenny: 太了不起了。这真是为我们的对话画上了一个美好的句号,Bob。我做这期访谈的待完成目标就是帮助大家理解待完成理论。我想在一个小时内,我们已经尽可能达到了这个目标。最后两个问题:如果大家想联系你、向你提问,在网上哪里能找到你?
Bob Moesta: LinkedIn 大概是最好的地方,我大部分内容都发在那里。然后我有几家公司,一家叫 The Rewired Group,我已经经营了大约 14 年,是一家围绕帮助人们构建和发布产品的设计咨询公司。我们的客户从财富 100 强到非营利组织再到创业公司,各种类型都有。另一家叫 Laser Ventures,我们实际上以股权形式工作,也会进行投资。这家公司是和 Andrew Glazer 一起做的。我们还有一个播客叫 The Circuit Breaker,基本上是把这些不同的概念做成 20 分钟的节目,我和搭档即兴讨论——什么是同理心视角,进步之力有哪些,诸如此类帮助人们学习的小话题。长度刚好适合通勤或散步时听。
Lenny: 最后一个问题:听众怎样能帮到你?
Bob Moesta: 说实话,我一开始对这期播客就特别兴奋。一方面因为我是你的粉丝,另一方面看到你发的那条帖子以及下面所有的回复,我当时的反应大概是:“天哪,一小时恐怕不够。这太棒了。“所以对我来说,听众最好的帮助就是继续提问、在社区里互动。有意思的是,有些人是带着问题来的,但还有些人,比如 Des 和 Jason,主动联系我说:“这期一定很精彩,你一定会喜欢的。“都是些很暖心的话。
所以对我来说,就是继续保持这个社区的氛围。我的建议是,等这期播客发布之后,继续在上面提更多问题。对我来说,困难的部分其实是以书面形式回答问题。我希望能找到一种更接近对话的方式,比如整理出一系列话题,方便做某种后续的跟进。如果听众们能帮我更好地把问题表达清楚,那就太好了。
Lenny: 好,我们来看看能不能找到合适的方式来实现这个,那会很棒。
Bob Moesta: 那太好了。
Lenny: Bob,再次感谢你来参加节目。
Bob Moesta: 谢谢,谢谢你的邀请。
Lenny: 大家再见。
感谢大家的收听。如果你觉得这期节目有价值,可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你常用的播客应用上订阅本节目。也请考虑给我们打分或留下评价,这真的能帮助更多听众发现这个播客。你可以在 lennyspodcast.com 找到所有往期节目或了解更多关于本节目的信息。下期再见。
术语表
| 原文 | 中文 |
|---|---|
| active looking | 主动寻找(购买六阶段之一,指问题和解决方案均已知的阶段) |
| Andrew Glazer | 保留原文(Laser Ventures 合伙人) |
| Autobooks | 保留原文(底特律的一家金融科技公司) |
| Big Bang | 《生活大爆炸》(美国情景喜剧) |
| Big Trash Day | 大件垃圾日(社区定期处理大型废弃物的活动) |
| Bitchin’ ain’t switchin’ | 光抱怨不切换(Bob Moesta 的口头禅,指抱怨不等于会采取行动) |
| Chris Voss | 保留原文(前 FBI 谈判专家,作者) |
| Clay Christensen | 克莱顿·克里斯坦森(哈佛商学院教授,“颠覆性创新”理论创始人) |
| Competing Against Luck | 保留原文(克莱顿·克里斯坦森著书名) |
| Dave Duncan | 保留原文 |
| deciding | 决策(购买六阶段之一,指进行取舍做决定的阶段) |
| Demand Side Sales | 《需求侧销售》(书名,原文保留) |
| Des | Intercom 联合创始人 Des Traynor,保留原文 |
| design experiments | 设计实验(一种有针对性的采样方法) |
| Dr. Deming | 保留原文(W. Edwards Deming,质量管理大师) |
| Dr. Taguchi | 保留原文(田口玄一,质量管理专家,Taguchi 方法创始人) |
| Dr. Willie Moore | 保留原文(Bob Moesta 在福特的第一位上司) |
| Drucker | 保留原文(Peter Drucker,现代管理学之父) |
| edge of language | 语言的边缘(访谈中受访者无法再用语言表达的状态) |
| emotional energy | 情感性能量(推动行动的能量来源之一,涉及个人感受) |
| empathetic perspective | 同理心视角 |
| End of Average | 保留原文(Todd Rose 著书名) |
| Energy Star | 能源之星(美国环保署的能效认证标准) |
| Eoghan McCabe | 保留原文(Intercom 联合创始人) |
| ethnography | 民族志研究 |
| F1/F2/F3/F4 | 保留原文(四力模型中的四种力:推力、拉力、焦虑、习惯) |
| fantasy nightmare layer | 幻想噩梦层(语言的第二个层次,指人们夸大好的一面或坏的一面) |
| first thought | 第一念头(购买六阶段之一,指最初萌生购买想法的阶段) |
| first use | 首次使用(购买六阶段之一) |
| forces of progress | 进步之力(四力模型的另一种表述,指推动用户采取行动的力量) |
| functional energy | 功能性能量(推动行动的能量来源之一,涉及时间、空间、精力、知识) |
| Gain | 保留原文(宝洁旗下洗衣液品牌) |
| Goodwill | 保留原文(美国知名慈善二手连锁店) |
| Havoc Shield | 保留原文(Techstars 孵化的公司) |
| hire/fire | 雇佣/解雇(待完成理论中的隐喻,指用户”雇佣”新产品替代——“解雇”——旧产品) |
| hypothesis building | 假设构建(与假设检验相对,指通过研究探索未知、构建假设的方法) |
| Jack | 保留原文(Jack Dorsey,Twitter 联合创始人) |
| Jason Fried | 37signals 创始人,保留原文 |
| Job Moves | 职业变动(书名,原文保留) |
| Jobs-to-be-Done | 待完成理论(一种理解和预测用户需求的框架) |
| Karen Dillon | 保留原文 |
| Kyoto | 保留原文(按摩椅品牌) |
| Laser Ventures | 保留原文(Bob Moesta 的投资公司) |
| layers of language | 语言的层次(访谈中揭示购买动机的不同深度层次) |
| Learning to Build | 保留原文(Bob Moesta 著书名) |
| Lenny | 播客主持人,保留原文 |
| little hire | 小雇佣(指在已有产品使用过程中发现的小型”雇佣”行为) |
| Maria Delano | 保留原文 |
| masticate | 咀嚼成团(食物在口腔中被嚼碎混合的过程) |
| Matt Hodges | 保留原文(Intercom 团队成员) |
| Milky Way | 保留原文(玛氏旗下巧克力棒品牌) |
| Never Split The Difference | 保留原文(书名) |
| Nutrisense | 保留原文(Techstars 孵化的公司) |
| ongoing use | 持续使用(购买六阶段之一,指建立新习惯的阶段) |
| Oppenheimer | 《奥本海默》(电影) |
| pablum layer | 糊弄层(语言的第一个层次,指人们给出表面化、无实质内容的回答) |
| passive looking | 被动观望(购买六阶段之一,指问题已知但解决方案未知的阶段) |
| Paul Adams | 保留原文(Intercom 团队成员) |
| Paul Le Blanc | 保留原文(南新罕布什尔大学前校长) |
| QuickBooks | 保留原文(Intuit 旗下的财务软件) |
| Ryan Singer | 保留原文(37signals 产品策略师) |
| Sean Townson | 保留原文(Intercom 团队成员) |
| Shape Up | 保留原文(Ryan Singer 著书名) |
| Sharam Krishnan | 保留原文(播客听众,曾在 Twitter 工作) |
| social energy | 社会性能量(推动行动的能量来源之一,涉及他人对自己的看法) |
| Southern New Hampshire University | 南新罕布什尔大学 |
| struggling moment | 挣扎时刻(待完成理论中的核心概念,指触发用户需求的关键情境) |
| supply side driven | 供给侧驱动(从产品/技术出发而非从用户需求出发的思路) |
| Taddy Hall | 保留原文 |
| Techstars | 保留原文(知名创业加速器) |
| The Circuit Breaker | 保留原文(播客名称) |
| The Rewired Group | 保留原文(Bob Moesta 的设计咨询公司) |
| Tide | 保留原文(宝洁旗下洗衣液品牌) |
| Todd Rose | 保留原文(作者、哈佛大学教育学院前教员) |
| Tony Ulwick | 保留原文(待完成理论另一位实践者,Outcome-Driven Innovation 方法创始人) |
此文档由 AI 分片翻译(translate_long_document)