Uncovering New Service Potential: Jobs to Be Done as a discovery framework
I’ve been fascinated by Jobs to Be Done (JTBD) for many years. I know I’ve written about it somewhere before, but my introduction to the concept came through the famous "milkshake story." In short, Clayton Christensen did some consulting work for McDonald’s to help them figure out how to sell more milkshakes. McDonald’s had already experimented with texture, sweetness, branding, and other tweaks, but no matter what they tried, sales didn’t improve.
Christensen took a different approach. Instead of focusing solely on the product, he explored: why do people buy milkshakes? He wanted to understand the psychology, triggers, and deeper reasons behind their purchase decisions. JTBD is all about identifying the “job” a product or service fulfills for its user. Essentially, what are they trying to accomplish?
In this case, he found that the many milkshakes were often sold as a breakfast substitute—something convenient and enjoyable that people could consume during their morning commute or errands. This insight helped McDonald’s rethink how they marketed and positioned milkshakes, especially during breakfast hours. The result? A significant boost in sales.
Another JTBD example that has always stuck with me involves the difference between Snickers and Milky Way. Yes, they’re both chocolate-based candy bars, but apparently, they each fulfill very different “jobs.” Research suggests that Snickers is often chosen as a snack to satisfy hunger, which led to its positioning as the go-to option for a quick energy boost to get you through the day. Milky Way, on the other hand, fulfills a more indulgent and escapist role, offering a moment of dreamy pleasure or a personal treat. This insight shaped branding around the idea of relaxation and indulgence.
JTBD & Libraries
JTBD theory has always made me think about why people use certain library services and how we might better position our portfolios to match the “jobs” that students, faculty, and various communities are trying to get done. I think we often assume we know what people need from us, but is there a deeper psychology we could tap into? Perhaps stronger functional associations? Could we better align with and communicate our services based on their terms rather than our own? Understanding the underlying motivations, triggers, and challenges our wide range of users face might allow us to reimagine how we design, market, and deliver what we offer—making libraries even more integral to our user’s success.
There’s a fascinating vocabulary that frames how we think about the "jobs" people are trying to accomplish. For example, jobs can be broken into three main types:
Functional Jobs: the practical, task-oriented outcomes someone wants to achieve.
Social Jobs: how someone wants to be perceived or interact with others.
Emotional Jobs: the feelings or experiences someone seeks, like reducing stress before a deadline, finding inspiration, or feeling accomplished.
Beyond these types of jobs, JTBD also explores other components:
Unmet Needs: gaps between what users want to achieve and what current services provide.
Emerging Needs: newly forming demands or expectations driven by shifts in technology, behavior, or circumstances.
Pain Points: specific frustrations or challenges people encounter while trying to complete a job.
Barriers or Roadblocks: external or internal obstacles that prevent users from achieving their goals
JTBD challenges us to dive deeper into the motivations behind people’s decision-making and actions. It pushes us to consider what people need and why they need it, and how we can (re)imagine our services to truly meet them where they are.
Diving into JTBD
I’ve dabbled with aspects of JTBD for a while, but I recently had the opportunity to dive into a more concentrated study. It started with a hallway conversation I had with an engineering faculty member. At the end of our chat, he mentioned a common challenge: getting new lab members up to speed on conducting literature reviews. People arrived with varying levels of experience, so he provided mentoring to help establish a baseline each semester as new members joined. It struck me as a potential touchpoint where a library might be able to help.
Around this time, generative AI and innovative search tools like Perplexity, Connected Papers, and Litmaps were emerging. This convergence piqued my interest. I decided to adapt the JTBD framework to flexibly explore the current landscape of literature reviews. I wanted to see firsthand how people were tackling this work.
I ended up hosting over 25 informal conversations. While the central focus was on literature reviews, I kept the discussions open-ended . This led to fascinating insights into adjacent themes like knowledge management, lab management, data management, productivity and workflows, research development and grant seeking, outreach, and mentoring.
Curiosity Over Solutions
My intention and approach wasn’t about trying to sell an idea or push an obvious library solution—I was genuinely curious. I entered these conversations with an open mind, asking people how they approached literature reviews and inviting them to show me their methods and toolkits. What I discovered was fascinating: many relied on spreadsheets, and this has reshaped how I organize and track resources for my own research. (Here’s an example.)
I didn’t come into this project wearing a “library hat” or pushing a purely library agenda. Instead, I adopted a wide-angle lens, focusing on the broader research landscape. My goal was to discover what people truly need, what they’re trying to accomplish, and how their processes reflect those goals. It was less about advocating for specific tools, services, or directions and more about observing and learning from their experiences and struggles.
Exploring JTBD: from theory to application
During this time, I immersed myself in readings, webinars, and reflections on JTBD. I even took a short course on the topic to deepen my understanding. JTBD comes with a variety of maps, tools, and protocols, but I knew I wanted my approach to be less formal and more open-ended than the traditional work often seen in business consulting.
While literature reviews were my initial focus, the process led me to uncover rich insights into the broader research landscape. Ultimately, I landed on a more thoughtful and expansive perspective—but I realized more work would be needed to scope out potential new services based on these findings. In short, this was a discovery mission into both JTBD (as an innovation method) and the needs of researchers, offering me a chance to experiment with the process in a meaningful way.
From conversations to insights
I ended up creating a massive spreadsheet and populating it with job statements—a core concept in JTBD that captures what people are trying to achieve, framed in their own terms. A typical job statement is structured as a combination of a noun and a verb, often accompanied by context or a desired outcome. For example: “Find relevant articles quickly,” “Organize references for a paper,” or “Collaborate with team members to refine a research question.” These statements emphasize the user's underlying task or goal, independent of the specific tools or methods they may use. While the approach to completing a job may change or vary, the fundamental job itself remains unchanged.
The scale of this project was enormous: 1,300+ job statements. To ensure privacy, I anonymized all the data before diving into the analysis. Each job statement was categorized by type—functional, social, or emotional—and linked to associated pain points, desired outcomes, or unmet needs.
Over the past two years, I’ve hosted conversations, transcribed notes, built and refined this massive spreadsheet, and conducted various analyses. What began as a simple curiosity turned into a rich, ongoing side project.
If you know me, you know I like to innovate. This project gave me a solid grasp of the methodology, but one challenge stood out: reporting actionable insights. Since JTBD is widely used in industry, much of the reporting appears to be proprietary, treated as a competitive advantage. Even after reaching out to a few JTBD experts, I didn’t find clear guidance on handling large volumes of content and how to package it effectively.
It took several false starts and revisions before I found an approach that worked for me. Essentially, I treated the spreadsheet as a dynamic tool for building different types of analyses. For example, among the 1,300+ job statements, I identified 103 specific to literature reviews. In the traditional JTBD model, you’d outline these into a sequential job map, pinpointing where your services, products, or resources could fit into the process. While I dabbled with this, I wanted to take a more expansive approach.
Rather than creating a step-by-step process, my goal was to map the broader landscape and identify entry points for further exploration. To do this, I sorted all 1,300+ jobs into 11 categories. For each category, I developed a 2x2 matrix to conceptualize or contextualize potential services. I used various axis that resonated with me, but the beauty of this approach is its flexibility—the axes or matrices can be reformatted or re-conceived with different factors depending on the focus or interests.
Here’s an example:
With literature reviews, I found that the context often varied. Sometimes, people worked alone, such as on an article or dissertation. Other times, they worked collaboratively—perhaps for a research proposal or to explore an interdisciplinary angle on an idea or project. Similarly, the objectives could differ: sometimes, the need was for great depth in a specific topic, while other times, the goal was broader coverage across multiple related areas.
Looking at this through a JTBD lens sparks conversations and possibilities. Traditionally, when thinking about literature review support as a library service, the focus might center on individuals working on theses or dissertations, which is a significant need. However, this matrix helped uncover and expand a different perspectives — other ways to approach lit reviews and related needs.
One key takeaway from this work is that research groups, centers, or labs often have complex and collaborative needs, particularly when it comes to team science projects. Packaging services at the group or lab level—rather than exclusively targeting individuals—could be an innovative and highly relevant way to address these needs.
Here is a list of all the thematic categories that I explored:
AI
Commercialization
Data
Ethics & Inclusivity
Interdisciplinarity
Lab Culture
Lab Management
Lit Reviews
Mentorship
Outreach & Research Communication
Research Development (Grant Seeking)
To further illustrate the concept, here are a few examples of the matrices I developed:
Not everything I considered was within the library’s purview, but that wasn’t the point. My interest wasn’t limited to library-specific functions; instead, I aimed to take a wide-angle view of the research landscape. That said, there is a clear throughline related to how information is gathered, developed, curated, shared, and ultimately used. Along with the mechanics and logistics of information – there was also emotional and psychological dimensions too. I wasn’t just interested in what people were doing, but also how they felt about it.
Also: the culture and management of a lab are deeply connected to the practices and workflows happening within. In short, all these elements are inherently interconnected. These themes naturally emerged in my conversations, weaving together threads that extended far beyond my core interest in literature reviews.
For each segment of the 2x2 matrices, I created an short package that included:
Challenges
Emerging Needs
Potential Actions
Transformative Ideas
Imagining or Reimagining the Library’s Role
Key areas for further research
I chose PowerPoint as my primary tool for this work because it’s easy to share, present, and distill key points—much more so than spreadsheets or documents. For instance, if I’m interested in services aimed at groups or teams, I can quickly pull together relevant segments across all the categories and seek out how to support, partner with, or engage in collaborative efforts. Plus PPT makes it easier to present in conversations – it's ready made for storytelling.
It’s important to note that my exploration was expansive but not comprehensive. I don’t claim to have uncovered everything about AI, Data, or Lab Culture, for example. However, I gathered enough insights to develop a solid understanding, and to be able to ask more thoughtful and informed questions -- and to begin constructing possible directions for library services and partnerships. Ultimately, this was an innovation discovery tool.
Identifying Opportunity Spaces
The final phase of my project was to develop a series of Opportunity Spaces. That’s my phrasing and not officially part of the JTBD method. Essentially, I combined insights from my large spreadsheet and the various matrices to identify areas most ripe for further ideation and uniquely relevant to my university.
These Opportunity Spaces included:
Addressing Grand Challenges
AI as the Next Evolution in Information and Society
Elevating Interdisciplinarity
Elevating Team Science as a Competitive Advantage
Empowering Research Through Grants and Storytelling
Research Metrics & Impact
Rethinking Knowledge and Workflow Management
Shaping the Future of AI and Creativity
Shaping the Future of AI-Driven Scientific Discovery
Shaping the Future of Open Citizen Science
Transforming Dissertation Success
For each Opportunity Space, I created a slide deck that included:
A framing of the problem or need
A vision of impact, supported by a lightweight logic model (inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact)
An outline of what a service suite might look like
A long-term, future-state vision
Linkages back to segments in the matrices
Value propositions tailored to different stakeholders or potential audiences
Altogether, this effort resulted in 375 slides spread across the multiple packets. It was a massive undertaking but ultimately a transformative exercise. It allowed me to dive deeply into JTBD while better understanding modern literature review practices and other pragmatic aspects of the research enterprise.
Next
As my institution shifts into a new round of strategic planning, some of these ideas might take root. But honestly, for me, this project was more about the journey than the outcome. It was about exploring new ways of thinking, asking different questions, and challenging myself to see the library’s role via a broader and more interdisciplinary lens.
I’d love to share more about this experience in a presentation—perhaps at the next Library Assessment Conference or the Entrepreneurship & Libraries Conference—to explore how JTBD can inspire innovation in library services. I can even imagine hosting a workshop on this topic down the road if there is enough interest.
Lastly, I want to thank Keith Webster for his encouragement, conversations, and camaraderie around JTBD, and for pushing me to challenge myself throughout this process.
