Use this when you need to understand what customers are really trying to accomplish — their underlying jobs, desired outcomes, and switching triggers — to inform product strategy, feature prioritization, or positioning.
Framework attribution: Jobs-to-be-Done was developed by Clayton Christensen and further refined by Tony Ulwick (Outcome-Driven Innovation) and Alan Klement.
Process
Step 1: Gather inputs
Ask the user to provide:
- Product or feature area — what product, feature, or problem space are we analyzing?
- Target users — who are the customers or user segments to focus on?
- Available research — any of the following (the more the better):
- User interview transcripts or notes
- Support tickets or customer complaints
- Survey data or NPS feedback
- Usage analytics or behavior data
- Team hypotheses (if no formal research exists)
- Purpose — what decision will this analysis inform? (e.g., "prioritize our roadmap," "reposition the product," "find new opportunities")
If no formal research is available, the analysis will be hypothesis-driven. Note this clearly in the output.
Step 2: Identify core jobs
Analyze the inputs and identify the core jobs customers are trying to get done. Use the JTBD format:
When (situation/trigger), I want to (motivation/action), so I can (expected outcome/progress).
For each job, classify it:
| Job type | What it captures | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Functional | The practical task the customer needs to accomplish | "When I receive a new lead, I want to respond within 5 minutes, so I can maximize conversion rate." |
| Emotional | How the customer wants to feel | "When presenting to leadership, I want to feel confident in my data, so I can make recommendations without second-guessing." |
| Social | How the customer wants to be perceived | "When my team reviews my work, I want to appear thorough, so I can maintain credibility." |
Step 3: Map outcomes and competing solutions
For each core job, map:
- Desired outcomes — the specific, measurable results the customer wants
- Current solutions — what the customer "hires" today to get this job done (competitors, workarounds, manual processes, doing nothing)
- Satisfaction level — how well current solutions serve the job (Overserved, Adequately served, Underserved)
Step 4: Generate the analysis
Output in this format:
Jobs-to-Be-Done Analysis: (product/feature area)
Date: (today's date) Target users: (user segments analyzed) Evidence base: (research used — or "hypothesis-driven" if no formal research)
Core jobs
Job 1: (short job name)
When (situation), I want to (motivation), so I can (expected outcome).
Type: Functional / Emotional / Social Frequency: (how often this job arises — daily, weekly, per-event) Importance: High / Medium / Low
Job 2: (short job name)
When (situation), I want to (motivation), so I can (expected outcome).
(Continue for each identified job — typically 3-7 core jobs.)
Outcome map
| Job | Desired Outcome | Current Solution | Satisfaction |
|---|---|---|---|
| (Job 1) | (specific, measurable outcome) | (what they use today) | Underserved / Adequately served / Overserved |
| (Job 1) | (second outcome) | (current solution) | (satisfaction) |
| (Job 2) | (outcome) | (current solution) | (satisfaction) |
| ... |
Switching triggers
What causes customers to look for a new solution?
- (Trigger 1) — (what happens that makes the current solution inadequate)
- (Trigger 2) — (a change in context, scale, or expectations)
- (Trigger 3) — (frustration or failure with current approach)
Opportunities
Underserved jobs — jobs where current solutions fall short:
- (Job) — (why it's underserved and what a better solution looks like)
Overserved jobs — jobs where current solutions are more complex than needed:
- (Job) — (opportunity to simplify)
Non-consumption — jobs people aren't addressing at all:
- (Job) — (why people are currently doing nothing, and what would make them "hire" a solution)
Implications for (purpose)
- (Insight) — (what it means for the product/strategy)
- (Insight) — (what it means)
- (Insight) — (what it means)
Step 5: Review and validate
Ask the user:
- Do these jobs ring true based on your experience with customers?
- Any jobs missing that you've heard in conversations?
- Which underserved jobs feel like the biggest opportunity?
- Want me to prioritize these jobs using
/rice-score?
Related skills
/competitive-analysis— analyze how competitors address the same jobs/persona-draft— build personas around the jobs that matter most/discovery-questions— generate interview questions to validate job hypotheses/rice-score— prioritize which jobs to address first
Output location
Present the analysis as formatted text in the conversation. If the user needs it for a workshop or stakeholder presentation, offer to adapt the format.
Example Output
Input
- Product or feature area: Expense reporting and reimbursement workflow within Finch Expense, a mid-market SaaS product
- Target users: Two segments — (1) employees who submit expenses, (2) finance managers who approve and reconcile them
- Available research: 14 user interview transcripts from recent discovery sprint, 3 months of NPS verbatims (n=312), and Mixpanel data showing 68% of reports are abandoned mid-submission
- Purpose: Prioritize Q3 roadmap features and identify positioning angles against Expensify and Concur
Output
Jobs-to-Be-Done Analysis: Expense Reporting & Reimbursement Workflow
Date: July 14, 2025 Target users: Expense submitters (individual contributors, managers with T&E budgets) and finance managers (controllers, AP leads at 200–2,000 employee companies) Evidence base: 14 discovery interviews, NPS verbatim corpus (n=312), Mixpanel abandonment data
Core Jobs
Job 1: Clear the receipt backlog
When I've returned from a trip or client event, I want to log and categorize all my receipts in one pass, so I can stop worrying about missing the reimbursement deadline and move on to actual work.
Type: Functional + Emotional Frequency: Weekly to per-trip (avg. 2–3x/month per submitter) Importance: High
Job 2: Submit with confidence
When I'm filling out an expense report, I want to know whether my purchases comply with policy before I hit submit, so I can avoid the embarrassment of a rejection or a follow-up from Finance.
Type: Emotional + Social Frequency: Every submission Importance: High
Job 3: Close the books without chasing people
When the month-end cutoff is approaching, I want to see which reports are outstanding and nudge submitters automatically, so I can hit the close deadline without sending a dozen Slack messages.
Type: Functional Frequency: Monthly (high urgency) Importance: High
Job 4: Spot policy abuse without being the "expense police"
When I'm reviewing submitted reports, I want anomalies flagged before I open each report, so I can focus my scrutiny where it matters without slowing down compliant submitters.
Type: Functional + Social Frequency: Weekly Importance: Medium
Job 5: Prove the T&E budget is under control
When my CFO asks for a spending summary, I want to pull a clean breakdown by team, category, and project in under two minutes, so I can look like I have the business under control.
Type: Social + Functional Frequency: Monthly / ad hoc Importance: Medium
Outcome Map
| Job | Desired Outcome | Current Solution | Satisfaction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clear the receipt backlog | All receipts categorized and submitted in <5 min | Manual upload + dropdown selection in Finch | Underserved — 68% abandonment mid-submission; OCR misfires cited in 9/14 interviews |
| Clear the receipt backlog | Zero receipts lost or forgotten | Email-forwarding workaround, photos in Notes app | Underserved — "I found a $400 receipt in my camera roll two months later" (NPS verbatim) |
| Submit with confidence | Know before submitting whether the report will be approved | Policy docs in Confluence; tribal knowledge | Underserved — no inline policy guidance in current product |
| Submit with confidence | Reimbursed within a predictable timeframe | None — must ask Finance directly | Underserved — top NPS complaint category |
| Close the books without chasing | Outstanding reports visible in one view | Exported CSV + manual Slack follow-ups | Underserved — finance managers averaging 47 min/month on manual follow-up (interview avg.) |
| Close the books without chasing | Automated reminders without manual effort | Email reminders (generic, not targeted) | Adequately served — works but not integrated |
| Spot policy abuse | Anomalies surfaced before manual review | None — line-by-line review | Underserved — "I'm reviewing 200 line items to find 3 problems" (interview quote) |
| Prove T&E is under control | Export-ready summary by cost center in <2 min | Finch reports + Excel pivot tables | Adequately served for power users; Underserved for less technical managers |
Switching Triggers
- Receipt volume crosses a threshold — When employees start traveling more than 2x/month, the manual receipt process breaks down and they begin Googling alternatives. Cited in 6/14 interviews as the moment they pushed IT to evaluate Expensify.
- A reimbursement is delayed or lost — A single missed payment creates lasting distrust. Three NPS detractors specifically traced low scores to a single unexplained delay, not ongoing friction.
- Finance headcount doesn't scale with company growth — When the team grows past ~150 employees and the AP team is still one person, the manual chasing and approval queue becomes a blocker. This is the trigger for evaluating Concur.
- An audit or investor due diligence request exposes weak controls — Finance managers who couldn't produce clean T&E reports on short notice reported this as a "wake-up call" that accelerated procurement of a new solution.
Opportunities
Underserved jobs — biggest gaps to close:
- Clear the receipt backlog — OCR accuracy and mobile-first capture are broken. A reliable "photo → categorized line item in 10 seconds" experience would directly address the 68% abandonment rate and is the single highest-leverage improvement available.
- Submit with confidence — Inline policy guardrails (e.g., a real-time flag: "Meals over $75/person require manager approval") would reduce rejection rates and eliminate the anxiety that causes submitters to delay starting reports.
- Spot policy abuse — A rules-based anomaly score surfaced in the approval queue requires no AI investment to build and addresses a real pain point for finance managers with no current solution.
Overserved jobs — candidates for simplification:
- T&E reporting and exports — Finch's current reporting module has 23 filter combinations. Most finance managers use two: "by month + cost center" and "by employee." Simplifying the default view would reduce time-to-insight and remove a perceived complexity barrier cited in onboarding feedback.
Non-consumption — jobs no one is addressing today:
- Pre-trip spend planning — No interviewee had a tool for estimating whether a planned trip was within budget before booking. Employees self-reported "hoping it's fine" as their current approach. A lightweight pre-authorization or spend-estimate feature would capture a job currently owned by guesswork — and reduce after-the-fact rejections upstream.
Implications for Q3 Roadmap Prioritization & Positioning
-
Mobile receipt capture is a table-stakes gap, not a differentiator — The 68% abandonment rate is driven primarily by OCR failure on mobile. This isn't a feature to celebrate; it's a defect that's actively triggering churn consideration. It should be treated as a P0 reliability fix, not a roadmap initiative.
-
Inline policy guidance is a credible wedge against Expensify — Expensify's policy tooling is opaque to submitters. A "know before you go" compliance layer is both underserved in the market and directly responsive to Job 2. This is the clearest positioning opportunity for Q3 messaging targeting finance managers evaluating both tools.
-
The finance manager's job (closing the books) has higher switching weight than the submitter's job — Submitters tolerate friction; finance managers own the buying decision and are more likely to escalate when their close process breaks. Features targeting Jobs 3 and 4 will have disproportionate impact on retention and expansion, even though they affect fewer users.
-
Pre-authorization is a medium-term category expansion, not a Q3 bet — The non-consumption opportunity around pre-trip spend planning is real but requires a different workflow than reactive expense reporting. Flag for H1 2026 discovery rather than pulling roadmap focus now.
Do these jobs reflect what you're hearing from customers? Any jobs missing — particularly around multi-currency or corporate card reconciliation? Want to run /rice-score against Jobs 1–3 to pressure-test the Q3 prioritization?