{"id":7661,"date":"2025-03-24T23:07:23","date_gmt":"2025-03-24T22:07:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/oberwasser-consulting.de\/origin-of-jobs-to-be-done-theory-where-the-method-comes-from-and-why-it-is-so-valuable\/"},"modified":"2026-08-11T22:11:02","modified_gmt":"2026-08-11T20:11:02","slug":"origin-of-jobs-to-be-done-theory-where-the-method-comes-from-and-why-it-is-so-valuable","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/oberwasser-consulting.de\/en\/origin-of-jobs-to-be-done-theory-where-the-method-comes-from-and-why-it-is-so-valuable\/","title":{"rendered":"Origin of Jobs to Be Done Theory: Where the method comes from and why it is so valuable"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The jobs-to-be-done theory (JTBD<\/strong>) has gained significant influence on innovation management, product development and customer-centric<\/strong> corporate strategies<\/strong> in recent years. But what exactly is behind the method, and how did it originally come about? In this article, we highlight the beginnings, key figures and decisive moments that led to the development of JTBD theory. <\/p>\n\n

What is the Jobs to Be Done method?<\/h2>\n\n

The jobs-to-be-done theory is an approach based on deeply understanding customer needs. The focus is not on the product or service, but on the actual “job” that a customer wants to do – i.e. the task or need<\/strong> behind<\/strong> the purchase decision<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n

The Decisive Beginnings: Japanese Influences<\/h2>\n\n

Bob Moesta<\/strong>, one of the central developers of the jobs-to-be-done theory, explains that his early experiences in Japan had a significant impact on the development of the JTBD method<\/a>. While working in Japan in the late 1980s, Moesta learned that product development<\/strong> should not only solve problems<\/strong>, but must first understand the underlying function<\/strong>. Otherwise, new problems constantly arise (“whack-a-mole problem”). <\/p>\n\n

One example of this was the functioning of a timing belt: \u2018The job of a timing belt is not to prevent wear or noise. Its job is to efficiently transfer energy from the engine to the camshaft. If you understand the function properly, the problems disappear by themselves,\u2019 explains Moesta in the podcast episode with Peter Rochel<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

From the function to the customer perspective<\/h2>\n\n

In the early 1990s, Bob Moesta transferred this thinking to customer expectations and needs. Together with Clayton Christensen, Rick Pedi and Julia Wesson, he formed the first ideas for the Jobs-to-Be-Done theory at Harvard Business School. The term \u2018Jobs to Be Done\u2019 was coined to describe why customers really buy products: to make specific progress in their lives<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n

At the same time, Tony Ulwick independently developed a similar method known as Outcome-Driven Innovation (ODI)<\/a>. While Moesta and Christensen saw the JTBD method in a more qualitative and explorative context, Ulwick focussed more on quantifiable results and clear customer needs analyses using systematic methods such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD). <\/p>\n\n

The famous milkshake story<\/h2>\n\n

The JTBD theory became widely known through the so-called \u2018Milkshake Story\u2019 (1995\/96). Bob Moesta and his team were tasked with finding ways to increase sales in fast food restaurants. They realised that many customers bought milkshakes in the morning, not because they wanted a milkshake, but because it made their journey to work more pleasant. The milkshake therefore fulfilled the \u2018job\u2019 of combating boredom and hunger during the car journey. This realisation led to innovations such as breakfast smoothies, which are now standard products. <\/p>\n\n

Although the management at the time was initially sceptical, the realisation prevailed in the long term: Today, smoothies are among the most popular products in the fast food industry.<\/p>\n\n

Three types of innovation and their connection to JTBD<\/h2>\n\n

The JTBD theory was further developed by Clayton Christensen and today differentiates between three types of innovation:<\/p>\n\n