npx skills add https://github.com/wondelai/skills --skill jobs-to-be-done一个基于基本真理的创新发现框架:客户并非购买产品——他们“雇佣”产品来完成生活中的特定任务。
待办任务 = 客户在特定情境下希望取得的进展。
定义的关键要素:
目标:10/10。 在审查或制定产品策略或定位时,根据以下原则的遵守程度进行 0-10 分评分。10/10 表示完全符合所有准则;较低的分数表示存在需要解决的差距。始终提供当前分数以及达到 10/10 所需的具体改进措施。
每个任务都有三个不可分割的维度——忽略任何一个都意味着失败:
| 维度 | 问题 | 示例(奶昔) |
|---|---|---|
| 功能性 | 客户需要做什么? | 在无聊的通勤路上让自己有事可做 |
| 情感性 | 他们想感受如何? | 给自己一点小小的款待 |
| 社交性 | 他们希望被如何看待? | 作为一个明智的家长(不买甜甜圈) |
广告位招租
在这里展示您的产品或服务
触达数万 AI 开发者,精准高效
核心概念: 任务陈述捕捉了客户在特定情境下寻求的进展,以一种结构化的格式表达,将情境、期望的进展和预期结果分开。
为何有效: 通过迫使团队用客户的语言和情境来阐述任务,可以防止解决方案优先的思维,并使创新立足于真实的人类进展。
关键见解:
产品应用:
| 情境 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 新产品构思 | 在头脑风暴功能之前定义任务 | “当我独自通勤时,我想要一些东西来占据我的时间并满足饥饿感,这样我直到午餐前都不会饿” |
| 功能优先级排序 | 评估某个功能是否服务于核心任务 | 优先考虑有助于完成所述任务的功能,而不是锦上添花的附加功能 |
| 定位与信息传递 | 在营销文案中使用任务陈述的语言 | 以情境和期望的进展开头,而不是产品规格 |
文案模式:
道德边界: 切勿捏造或夸大情境以制造紧迫感。任务必须反映真实的客户进展,而不是人为制造的焦虑。
核心概念: “雇佣”新产品的决定源于四种力量的相互作用:推力(对当前状况的沮丧)、拉力(对新解决方案的吸引力)、焦虑(对新事物的恐惧)和习惯(对当前行为的舒适感)。只有当 推力 + 拉力 > 习惯 + 焦虑 时,改变才会发生。
为何有效: 大多数创新努力只专注于使产品更好(增加拉力),而忽略了同样强大的反改变力量。理解所有四种力量揭示了为什么优秀的产品仍然无法获得采用。
关键见解:
产品应用:
| 情境 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 入门设计 | 通过免费试用、保证和社会证明来减少焦虑 | 退款保证解决了“如果它不起作用怎么办?”的焦虑 |
| 切换活动 | 通过使迁移毫不费力来直接解决习惯问题 | 从竞争对手一键导入数据,减少了习惯摩擦 |
| 内容营销 | 通过指出他们的沮丧来唤醒被动寻求者的推力 | 博客文章:“你的当前工具每周浪费你数小时的 5 个迹象” |
文案模式:
道德边界: 切勿通过夸大痛苦或制造恐惧来制造人为的推力。减少真实的焦虑是道德的;制造新的焦虑来推动销售则是操纵。
核心概念: 有两个不同的决策时刻:大雇佣(购买/注册决策,发生一次)和小雇佣(当下使用的决策,反复发生)。赢得大雇佣并不能保证赢得小雇佣。
为何有效: 许多产品赢得了销售却失去了客户,因为它们只优化了购买决策,而忽略了重复使用的决策。理解这两个时刻揭示了留存问题的真正根源。
关键见解:
产品应用:
| 情境 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 留存分析 | 区分大雇佣指标和小雇佣指标 | 将“注册后的首次使用”和“每周活跃使用”与注册转化率分开跟踪 |
| 产品设计 | 优化重复使用体验,而不仅仅是第一印象 | 即使入门流程已经很顺畅,也要减少日常工作流程中的摩擦 |
| 客户成功 | 监控小雇佣信号以预测流失 | 使用频率下降是小雇佣失败的信号,预示着即将流失 |
文案模式:
道德边界: 切勿设计那些赢得大雇佣(例如,隐藏费用、误导性试用)却在小雇佣上失败的黑暗模式。两个决策都必须提供真正的进展。
核心概念: 真正的竞争是客户可以为同一任务“雇佣”的一切,通常来自完全不同的产品类别。竞争对手由任务定义,而不是由行业分类定义。
为何有效: 通过产品类别分析竞争会产生盲点。一杯奶昔与香蕉、百吉饼、无聊和播客竞争。Netflix 与 TikTok、睡眠、家庭对话和游戏竞争。通过围绕任务绘制完整的竞争格局图,团队可以发现传统分析看不见的威胁和机会。
关键见解:
产品应用:
| 情境 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 竞争分析 | 绘制跨类别为同一任务雇佣的所有选项 | 一个项目管理工具与电子表格、便利贴、电子邮件线程和记忆竞争 |
| 定位策略 | 针对真正的替代方案进行定位,而不是显而易见的那个 | 针对“手动操作”进行定位,而不是针对某个命名的竞争对手 |
| 定价策略 | 根据任务的价值定价,而不是竞争对手的定价 | 如果该任务每周节省 10 小时,则根据该时间的价值定价,而不是根据类似的 SaaS 产品定价 |
文案模式:
道德边界: 切勿歪曲竞争对手或制造虚假的等同关系。基于任务的诚实竞争框架是强大的;扭曲替代方案则是欺骗性的。
核心概念: 不要直接问客户“你需要什么”——他们不知道。相反,通过重建首次想到、搜索、购买和使用的时间线来调查购买时间线,以发现真实的任务。
为何有效: 客户事后合理化决策,并且无法表达潜在需求。通过回顾他们决策旅程中的具体事件,你可以发现驱动他们行为的真实情境、动力和权衡。
关键见解:
产品应用:
| 情境 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 新市场进入 | 采访最近转向或离开竞争对手的人 | 重建时间线,找出是什么把他们推开,又是什么把他们拉向新解决方案 |
| 减少流失 | 采访流失客户关于他们的决策时间线 | 发现失败是大雇佣(错误期望)还是小雇佣(糟糕的日常体验) |
| 功能发现 | 采访使用变通方法的客户 | 一个客户在使用你的产品的同时还使用电子表格,这揭示了一个未满足的任务维度 |
文案模式:
道德边界: 切勿引导访谈对象走向预定的结论。目标是真正的发现,而不是确认现有的假设。
核心概念: 围绕帮助客户完成他们的任务来构建整个产品体验——功能、指标和组织——而不是围绕内部能力或竞争性的功能对标。
为何有效: 当每个产品决策都回答“这能帮助客户更好地完成他们的任务吗?”时,团队就能避免功能膨胀,构建连贯的体验,并创造客户真正重视的产品。如果你无法回答这个问题,说明你还不理解这个任务。
关键见解:
产品应用:
| 情境 | 应用 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 指标设计 | 围绕任务完成定义成功指标 | 跟踪“从问题到解决的时间”,而不是“每次会话使用的功能数” |
| 产品路线图 | 根据任务维度(功能性、情感性、社交性)确定优先级 | 一个忽视情感维度的功能改进可能不会产生效果 |
| 组织对齐 | 围绕任务构建团队结构,而不是产品组件 | 一个“早晨通勤任务”团队拥有从内容到包装再到分销的一切 |
文案模式:
道德边界: 切勿设计服务于参与度指标而非真正客户进展的成瘾性模式。任务框架要求客户的进展是真正的北极星,而不是你的留存数字。
| 错误 | 为何失败 | 修正方法 |
|---|---|---|
| 围绕你的产品过于狭隘地定义任务 | 你会错过真正的竞争格局,并构建没人需要的功能 | 从客户的角度定义任务,绝不提及你的产品 |
| 忽略情感和社交维度 | 仅功能性的任务会错过客户实际选择(并坚持使用)产品的原因 | 始终完成所有三个维度:功能性、情感性和社交性 |
| 混淆任务与目标或任务 | 目标太抽象(“保持健康”),任务太具体(“点击按钮”),无法驱动战略 | 任务描述特定情境下的进展——比目标更具体,比任务更具战略性 |
| 只增加拉力而忽略焦虑和习惯 | 如果转换成本和恐惧太高,优秀的产品仍然会失败 | 绘制所有四种力量,并为每种力量设计干预措施,特别是减少反改变力量 |
| 赢得大雇佣但忽略小雇佣 | 高获取率伴随高流失率——购买了但从未使用 | 将重复使用决策与购买决策分开跟踪和优化 |
| 问客户“你想要什么?” | 客户会合理化且无法表达潜在需求;你得到的是渐进式的功能请求 | 使用基于时间线的发现访谈,重建实际行为和决策 |
| 按产品类别定义竞争 | 你会错过来自相邻类别和非消费的真实威胁和机会 | 列出客户可以为同一任务“雇佣”的所有替代方案,包括什么都不做 |
| 问题 | 如果否 | 行动 |
|---|---|---|
| 你能在不提及产品的情况下用一句话陈述任务吗? | 你是产品导向的,而不是任务导向的 | 写一个任务陈述:“当[情境]时,我想[进展],以便我能[结果]” |
| 你绘制了所有四种力量(推力、拉力、焦虑、习惯)吗? | 你可能过度投资于拉力而忽略了障碍 | 绘制每种力量,并为焦虑和习惯设计具体的干预措施 |
| 你知道任务的情感和社交维度吗? | 你的产品可能在功能上获胜,但在体验上失败 | 进行侧重于决策过程中的感受和社交情境的发现访谈 |
| 你识别出来自其他类别的非显而易见的竞争对手了吗? | 你的竞争格局存在盲点 | 列出客户可以为同一任务“雇佣”的一切,包括非消费 |
| 你是否将小雇佣与大雇佣分开跟踪? | 你无法区分获取问题和留存问题 | 为购买转化率和重复使用参与度创建单独的指标 |
| 你的团队能解释一个功能如何帮助完成任务吗? | 你在没有战略基础的情况下构建功能 | 要求每个功能提案都引用它所服务的具体任务维度 |
| 你采访过客户关于他们的购买时间线吗? | 你对任务的理解基于假设,而不是证据 | 进行 10 次以上的发现访谈,重建从首次想到到使用的旅程 |
参见 references/diagnostics.md 获取完整的诊断清单。
参见 references/case-studies.md 获取详细分析(SNHU、American Girl、Intuit)。
克莱顿·M·克里斯坦森(1952-2020)是哈佛商学院金·B·克拉克工商管理教授,也是现代最具影响力的管理思想家之一。他最著名的成就是在其里程碑式的著作《创新者的窘境》(1997)中提出了颠覆性创新理论,这从根本上改变了商业领袖对竞争和市场演变的思考方式。克里斯坦森开发了待办任务框架,作为一种理解客户动机和推动成功创新的实用方法论,详细阐述于《与运气竞争》(2016)一书中。他共同创立了创新咨询公司 Innosight 和克莱顿·克里斯坦森颠覆性创新研究所。克里斯坦森被 Thinkers50 评为全球排名第一的管理思想家,并多次获得该奖项。他的著作,包括《创新者的解答》和《你要如何衡量你的人生?》等九本书,继续塑造着全球的产品战略、企业创新和创业思维。
此技能基于克莱顿·M·克里斯坦森开发的待办任务框架。要了解完整的方法论、案例研究和更深入的见解,请阅读原著:
每周安装次数
381
代码库
GitHub 星标数
260
首次出现
2026年1月30日
安全审计
安装于
opencode340
codex334
gemini-cli334
cursor328
github-copilot324
kimi-cli316
Framework for discovering innovation based on a fundamental truth: customers don't buy products - they "hire" them to do a specific job in their lives.
Job to Be Done = the progress a customer wants to make in specific circumstances.
Key elements of the definition:
Goal: 10/10. When reviewing or creating product strategy or positioning, rate it 0-10 based on adherence to the principles below. A 10/10 means full alignment with all guidelines; lower scores indicate gaps to address. Always provide the current score and specific improvements needed to reach 10/10.
Every job has three inseparable dimensions - omitting any means failure:
| Dimension | Question | Example (milkshake) |
|---|---|---|
| Functional | What does the customer need to do? | Occupy myself during boring commute |
| Emotional | How do they want to feel? | Have a small treat for myself |
| Social | How do they want to be perceived? | As a sensible parent (not buying donuts) |
Core concept: A job statement captures the progress a customer seeks in a specific circumstance, expressed in a structured format that separates context, desired progress, and expected outcome.
Why it works: By forcing teams to articulate the job in the customer's language and circumstances, it prevents solution-first thinking and keeps innovation grounded in real human progress.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| New product ideation | Define the job before brainstorming features | "When I'm commuting alone, I want something to occupy me and satisfy hunger, so I'm not hungry until lunch" |
| Feature prioritization | Evaluate whether a feature serves the core job | Prioritize features that help accomplish the stated job over nice-to-have additions |
| Positioning & messaging | Use the job statement language in marketing copy | Lead with the circumstance and desired progress, not product specs |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundary: Never fabricate or exaggerate circumstances to manufacture urgency. The job must reflect genuine customer progress, not artificially created anxiety.
See: references/innovation-process.md
Core concept: The decision to "hire" a new product results from the interplay of four forces: Push (frustration with current situation), Pull (attraction of new solution), Anxiety (fear of the new), and Habit (comfort with current behavior). Change only happens when Push + Pull > Habit + Anxiety.
Why it works: Most innovation efforts focus only on making the product better (increasing Pull), but ignore the equally powerful anti-change forces. Understanding all four forces reveals why great products still fail to gain adoption.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Onboarding design | Reduce anxiety with free trials, guarantees, and social proof | Money-back guarantee addresses "what if it doesn't work?" anxiety |
| Switching campaigns | Address habit directly by making migration effortless | One-click data import from competitor reduces habit friction |
| Content marketing | Awaken push in passive seekers by naming their frustration | Blog post: "5 signs your current tool is costing you hours every week" |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundary: Never manufacture artificial push by exaggerating pain or creating fear. Reducing real anxiety is ethical; creating new anxiety to drive sales is manipulation.
See: references/competitive-strategy.md
Core concept: There are two distinct decision moments: the Big Hire (purchase/signup decision, happens once) and the Little Hire (decision to use in the moment, happens repeatedly). Winning the Big Hire does not guarantee the Little Hire.
Why it works: Many products win the sale but lose the customer because they optimize only for the purchase decision and neglect the repeated usage decision. Understanding both moments reveals where retention problems truly originate.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Retention analysis | Distinguish Big Hire metrics from Little Hire metrics | Track "first use after signup" and "weekly active usage" separately from signup conversion |
| Product design | Optimize the repeated usage experience, not just first impression | Reduce friction in daily workflows even if onboarding is already smooth |
| Customer success | Monitor Little Hire signals to predict churn | Declining usage frequency is a Little Hire failure signaling upcoming churn |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundary: Never design dark patterns that win the Big Hire (e.g., hidden fees, misleading trials) while failing the Little Hire. Both decisions must deliver genuine progress.
See: references/case-studies.md
Core concept: True competition is everything a customer can "hire" for the same job, often from completely different product categories. Competitors are defined by the job, not by industry classification.
Why it works: Analyzing competition through product categories creates blind spots. A milkshake competes with bananas, bagels, boredom, and podcasts. Netflix competes with TikTok, sleep, family conversation, and games. By mapping the full competitive landscape around the job, teams spot threats and opportunities invisible to traditional analysis.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Competitive analysis | Map all hires for the same job across categories | A project management tool competes with spreadsheets, sticky notes, email threads, and memory |
| Positioning strategy | Position against the real alternative, not the obvious one | Position against "doing it manually" rather than against a named competitor |
| Pricing strategy | Price relative to the job's value, not competitor pricing | If the job saves 10 hours per week, price against the value of that time, not against similar SaaS products |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundary: Never misrepresent competitors or create false equivalences. Honest competitive framing based on the job is powerful; distorting alternatives is deceptive.
See: references/competitive-strategy.md
Core concept: Don't ask customers directly "what do you need" -- they don't know. Instead, investigate the purchase timeline by reconstructing the moments of first thought, search, purchase, and usage to uncover the real job.
Why it works: Customers rationalize decisions after the fact and can't articulate latent needs. By walking backward through the concrete events of their decision journey, you uncover the true circumstances, forces, and tradeoffs that drove their behavior.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| New market entry | Interview people who recently switched to or from a competitor | Reconstruct the timeline to find what pushed them away and pulled them toward the new solution |
| Churn reduction | Interview churned customers about their decision timeline | Discover whether the failure was Big Hire (wrong expectations) or Little Hire (poor daily experience) |
| Feature discovery | Interview customers using workarounds | A customer using spreadsheets alongside your product reveals an unmet job dimension |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundary: Never lead interview subjects toward predetermined conclusions. The goal is genuine discovery, not confirmation of existing assumptions.
See: references/innovation-process.md
Core concept: Build the entire product experience -- features, metrics, and organization -- around helping the customer accomplish their job, not around internal capabilities or competitive feature parity.
Why it works: When every product decision answers "will this help the customer better accomplish their job?", teams avoid feature bloat, build coherent experiences, and create products that customers genuinely value. If you can't answer the question, you don't understand the job yet.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Metrics design | Define success metrics around job completion | Track "time from problem to resolution" instead of "features used per session" |
| Product roadmap | Prioritize based on job dimensions (functional, emotional, social) | A functional improvement that ignores the emotional dimension may not move the needle |
| Organizational alignment | Structure teams around jobs, not product components | A "morning commute job" team owns everything from content to packaging to distribution |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundary: Never design addictive patterns that serve engagement metrics rather than genuine customer progress. The job framework demands that the customer's progress is the true north, not your retention numbers.
See: references/organizational-change.md
| Mistake | Why It Fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Defining jobs too narrowly around your product | You miss the real competitive landscape and build features no one needs | Define the job from the customer's perspective, never mentioning your product |
| Ignoring the emotional and social dimensions | Functional-only jobs miss why customers actually choose (and stay with) products | Always complete all three dimensions: functional, emotional, and social |
| Confusing jobs with goals or tasks | Goals are too abstract ("be healthy") and tasks are too specific ("click button") to drive strategy | Jobs describe progress in specific circumstances -- more concrete than goals, more strategic than tasks |
| Only increasing Pull while ignoring Anxiety and Habit | A great product still fails if switching costs and fear are too high | Map all four forces and design interventions for each, especially reducing anti-change forces |
| Winning the Big Hire but ignoring the Little Hire | High acquisition with high churn -- purchased but never used | Track and optimize the repeated usage decision separately from the purchase decision |
| Asking customers "what do you want?" | Customers rationalize and can't articulate latent needs; you get incremental feature requests | Use timeline-based discovery interviews that reconstruct actual behavior and decisions |
| Question | If No | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Can you state the job in one sentence without mentioning your product? | You're product-focused, not job-focused | Write a job statement: "When [circumstances], I want to [progress], so I can [outcome]" |
| Have you mapped all four forces (Push, Pull, Anxiety, Habit)? | You're likely over-investing in Pull and ignoring barriers | Map each force and design specific interventions for Anxiety and Habit |
| Do you know the emotional and social dimensions of the job? | Your product may win functionally but lose on experience | Conduct discovery interviews focused on feelings and social context around the decision |
| Have you identified non-obvious competitors from other categories? | You have blind spots in your competitive landscape | List everything a customer could "hire" for the same job, including non-consumption |
| Are you tracking Little Hire separately from Big Hire? | You can't distinguish acquisition problems from retention problems | Create separate metrics for purchase conversion and repeated usage engagement |
| Can your team explain how a feature helps accomplish the job? | You're building features without strategic grounding | Require every feature proposal to reference the specific job dimension it serves |
See: references/diagnostics.md for the full diagnostic checklist.
See: references/case-studies.md for detailed analyses (SNHU, American Girl, Intuit).
Clayton M. Christensen (1952-2020) was the Kim B. Clark Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School and one of the most influential management thinkers of the modern era. He is best known for introducing the theory of disruptive innovation in his landmark book The Innovator's Dilemma (1997), which fundamentally changed how business leaders think about competition and market evolution. Christensen developed the Jobs to Be Done framework as a practical methodology for understanding customer motivation and driving successful innovation, detailed in Competing Against Luck (2016). He co-founded the innovation consulting firm Innosight and the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation. Christensen was ranked the #1 management thinker in the world by Thinkers50 and received the award multiple times. His body of work, spanning nine books including The Innovator's Solution and How Will You Measure Your Life? , continues to shape product strategy, corporate innovation, and entrepreneurial thinking worldwide.
This skill is based on the Jobs to Be Done framework developed by Clayton M. Christensen. For the complete methodology, case studies, and deeper insights, read the original book:
Weekly Installs
381
Repository
GitHub Stars
260
First Seen
Jan 30, 2026
Security Audits
Gen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykPass
Installed on
opencode340
codex334
gemini-cli334
cursor328
github-copilot324
kimi-cli316
程序化SEO实战指南:大规模创建优质页面,避免内容单薄惩罚
34,000 周安装
| Defining competition by product category | You miss the real threats and opportunities from adjacent categories and non-consumption | Map every alternative the customer could "hire" for the same job, including doing nothing |
| Have you interviewed customers about their purchase timeline? |
| Your understanding of the job is based on assumptions, not evidence |
| Conduct 10+ discovery interviews reconstructing the first-thought-to-usage journey |