Why you need Qualitative interviews & Quantitative measurements plus a map of the complete idea space for successful JTBD.
“What if the unmet needs are so clear that you can match them to R&D pipeline?”
Great question and I love that you’re testing assumptions and generalizations that’s an important part of solving seemingly unsolvable problems.
The answer in one word strategy.
Product or business?
What is your goal? Are you trying to create a one-time flash-in-the-pan product or a profitable sustainable business? There’s nothing wrong with a one-off product for short-term needs. As a business strategy that tends to be much more risky and cost more than growing a product into a family of related products and services.
If the unmet needs are so clear how are you going to deal with competition? This is another point about risk and profitability.
Which of the needs are most important?
Which of the needs are most profitable?
Will the product properly satisfy?
What level of each benefit do customers require to satisfy each unmet need? If you deliver something that’s too low they won’t buy. If you deliver something that’s too high they also might not be because the product is too expensive. Either way you miss customers and lose money you could have otherwise had.
Time to deliver
How long to get it through the pipeline? Waiting until customers are screaming for a product makes it difficult to get the most value from that market. It also introduces tremendous risk. Someone else might satisfy it before you do including customers. Short deadlines cause stress on developers & breeds low quality products.
Too little too late
If you’re targeting a short-term product then the amount of the market you can reach might not have enough value to give you a good return on investment. And even this would benefit from quantitative measurements.
Those are only a some of the reasons you need Qualitative interviews & Quantitative measurements plus a map of the complete idea space for successful JTBD. You can only do that with Predictive Innovation.
Predicting most people will be unhappy is simple math. Polls show a very tight race between Romney and Obama. If the country were perfectly divided then half the people would be unhappy with the decision. Since there is a substantial amount of people who want someone other than those two that means the majority of people will be unhappy with the result of the election.
What is the cure? More alternatives! No, not more candidates. Electing any one person causes a win lose situation. That will always result in someone being upset and quite often the majority will be unhappy with the result. The cure is more alternatives than electing a president.
Amazingly there are 1,296 alternatives related to any choice. I suspect you never realized those 1,296 alternatives even existed.
The 1,296 alternatives aren’t political parties or even candidates. No matter who is selected for president it’s the same type of choice. It’s a choice for someone else to make your decisions.
To make matters worse, you don’t even get to choose who chooses for you.
Let that sink in a bit. Every decision at the federal level and most decisions at the state and even local level are made by someone other than you. Not only are those choices made by someone other than you, it’s someone who doesn’t even personally know you. How in the world do you think they’ll choose what you want?
The cure is simple, choose a different set of the 1,296 alternatives. So, what are these 1,296 alternatives?
For any decision there is who makes the decision and the actual decision itself. Each of those can be further broken down into categories of 6 Directions and 6 Scales. The 6 Directions and 6 Scales form a grid of 36 Alternatives. The combination of 36 Who Decides and 36 Decisions forms a total of 1,296 Alternatives.
Lets examine Who decides to get a better understanding of the Alternatives.
6 Scales for Who Decides:
- Single 1: One person or type of person decides. Example: individual decision.
- Partial %: Some people decide. Example: Voting where a % makes the decision.
- Multiple M: More than one person required to make a decision. Example: Having a baby requires two people.
- Any ∞: Anyone can decide. Example: Freedom, choices over your own property.
- All ∑: Everyone required to decide. Example: Criminal jury trial, all 12 members must agree to convict.
- None 0: No one decides. Example: Left to chance. Decision is prohibited.
6 Directions for Who Decides
- Direct +: The person or people directly involved in doing or benefiting from the action make the decision. Examples: personal choice, buying something for cash.
- Opposite -: Decided by a person or persons who oppose the action or who will be harmed by the action. Example: veto.
- Other ≠: Someone other than the person it affects. Example: government official.
- Same =: Person stays the same or person is neutral. Examples: Life time appointment. Judge.
- Stabilize →: Starts as a different alternative before stabilizing: Example: tie breaker.
- Changing ~: Person who decides changes. Example: taking turns deciding.
President is a Single Other Alternative. Other examples of Single Other are: parent, boss, or criminal such as a mugger or rapist.
Nearly all elections in the USA are Partial Other. Either through the party system, or ballot access rules someone else has filtered your available choices.
Supposedly everyone is allowed to vote but people under 18 are not allowed and in many states prisoners are banned from voting. Also people without a fixed address or who split their time between places are only allowed to vote in elections in one place. That means they are prohibited from voting on issues or officials who affect their lives.
So all elections in the USA are Partial Other. That means only 2 of the 36 Alternatives for Who Decides are even offered as choices. That is less than 6% of the Alternatives for Who Decides.
Who Decides isn’t even the most important choice. What you really care about is the actual decision. Again there are 36 Alternatives for the Decision.
6 Scales for Decision
- Single 1: Single decision. Decide once.
- Partial %: Partial decision. Sometimes decide.
- Multiple M: Decide on many things. Decide many times. Multiple alternatives to arrive at decision.
- Any ∞: Any option is possible. Decide anytime.
- All ∑: All options without compromise. Everything you want. Always decide, not left to chance. Continuously. Continuously decide, moment to moment.
- None 0: Never decide, leave up to chance. Decide to never do it.
6 Directions for Decision
- Direct +: Decide for action. Decision directly connected to the action.
- Opposite -: Decide against action. Decide for opposing action. Decision causes opposite action.
- Other ≠: Decide another choice. Action caused by a different decision.
- Same =: Don’t change existing. Neutral choice. Same choice.
- Stabilize →: Decision stabilizes. Becomes decision. Starts undecided or as a different decision then becomes the final decision.
- Changes ~: Decision changes. Effect of the decision changes.
Decisions made by government almost always are Single Direct decisions causing You to Pay More Taxes or Single Opposite denying your right to do something. The decisions are single because most laws are never repealed.. So again only 2 of the 36 Alternatives. Combined with Who decides only 0.3% of the Alternatives are ever offered. No wonder so many people complain about government.
Out of 1,296 possible Alternatives 99.7% are ignored.
The 1,296 Alternatives don’t only apply to politics, these are the Alternatives for any decision. This forms the basis of business strategy. The goal of innovation is to satisfy unmet desires. Understanding all of the decisions potential customers can make gives you a significant advantage.
I’ve prepared a report describing all 36 Alternatives of Who Decides and all 36 Alternatives for Decisions. Get a copy of the report.
AT&T is going to force customers who already pay for voice and data to pay to connect devices to their iPhones which they were able to do using free software. AT&T is not providing any new service, they are just double charging already paying customers. They can do that because there really isn’t any competition. Verizon similarly abuses customers. The solution is to provide real competition to the government empowered oligopolies.
Several of the comments mention there is a social benefit to using technology and the greed of these corporations is holding back society. Recently I’ve been talking with Frithjof Bergmann, the founder of New Work, New Culture, about ways to provide low cost communication. And I’ve been working on a project to revitalize Detroit by establishing self-sufficient communities. If communication is a community value then it makes sense to have a community owned telecom.
Imagine a cellular co-op where all the users are also owners. The co-op model could potentially operate at much lower costs than the for-corporate model. Additionally, a co-op telecom could be crowd funded for the start-up. It also would not need to be one monolithic organization. It could equally well work as a coalition of regional co-op service providers. Electricity and insurance in rural USA were originally operated as co-operatives and some still are operated that way. This is obviously a big project but it is clearly possible.
For some ideas about how a co-op corporation could operate