The method that names what the customer is trying to do as a job, with a triggering situation and a desired outcome. The base template:

When [situation], [target audience] hires [product] to [motivation], so they can [outcome].

What this method does

The customer hires a product to make progress on a job. The job is what they are trying to accomplish, not the product they buy. The value statement names that job in the customer’s own language, with the situation that triggered the hire and the outcome they want from it.

The framework comes from Clayton Christensen’s lineage (Competing Against Luck) and was operationalized by Bob Moesta into a switch interview methodology. The slot here uses Moesta’s situation, motivation, and outcome framing because it produces a sentence the marketing team can act on without survey infrastructure.

Steps

1. Identify the trigger

What pushed this customer to start looking for something different?

The trigger is the “when.” The situation that pushed the customer into motion. Without a trigger, the statement is just a need description, and need descriptions do not explain timing or buying behavior.

To find the trigger:

• Interview customers who recently switched (to your product, to a competitor, or away from doing nothing). Look for “switchers,” anyone who changed their behavior in the last six months.
• Ask: “When did you first think about looking for something different?” The first thought is more diagnostic than the eventual purchase, because it surfaces what set the change in motion.
• Trace the timeline backwards from the purchase. First thought, active looking, trial or consideration, decision. Each step has its own trigger; the first one is the most informative.
• Listen for moments when anxiety, frustration, or dissatisfaction spiked. The trigger is almost always paired with one of those.
• A trigger is rarely “I needed a new X.” It is usually “something went wrong with how I was doing it before.”

If you cannot interview customers, infer the trigger from market observation. Treat the result as a hypothesis until interviews validate it.

2. Identify the motivation

What progress are they trying to make, beyond what your product happens to do?

The motivation is the progress the customer is trying to make. The classic test from Christensen: “customers don’t want a quarter-inch drill, they want a quarter-inch hole.” The drill is the product. The hole is the motivation.

To find the motivation:

• Strip product and feature language from anything the customer said. What remains is closer to the motivation.
• Ask “why” until the answer stops naming features and starts naming desired change. Three to five whys is usually enough.
• Distinguish functional motivations (“I want to finish this report”), emotional motivations (“I want to feel in control of the numbers”), and social motivations (“I want to look prepared to my CFO”). All three can coexist. Name each one.
• A motivation written in product language is a feature wish. A motivation written in customer language is a job.

3. Identify the outcome

What changes in the customer’s life that you could observe from outside?

The outcome is the end state the customer is trying to reach. The “so they can” clause. It describes what observably changes once the job is done well.

To find the outcome:

• Ask: “What happens after you make this change? What does success look like a week later? A month later?”
• The outcome is observable. The customer can tell when they have it.
• The outcome usually involves time saved, money kept, status gained, anxiety reduced, or peace of mind.
• Skip the productized version (“I get reporting”). Name the result (“I get my Friday afternoon back”).

4. Combine into one sentence

Can the situation, motivation, and outcome live in one customer-voice sentence?

Use the template:

When [situation], [target audience] hires [product] to [motivation], so they can [outcome].

Rules for the combined sentence:

• Use the customer’s exact phrasing wherever possible. Pull verbatim from interviews.
• The product is named only in the “hires” slot. No feature language anywhere else in the sentence.
• One job per statement. If two “so they cans” appear, split into two statements.
• Readable aloud by a customer without them stopping to ask what it means.

Worked example, using a fictional RevOps tool called RevSync:

When a board meeting is two days away and the pipeline number in Salesforce doesn’t match the warehouse, RevOps teams hire RevSync to reconcile both sources automatically, so they walk into the meeting with one defensible number.

Decomposed:

• Situation: a board meeting is two days away and the pipeline number in Salesforce doesn’t match the warehouse. Specific. Time-pressured. Observable.
• Target audience: RevOps teams.
• Motivation: reconcile both sources automatically. The progress they want, stated without naming the product’s mechanism.
• Outcome: walk into the meeting with one defensible number. Observable. Tied to a concrete moment.

5. Pressure-test the statement

Would this customer keep doing what they do today, or does the trigger force change?

Run the draft through three checks before treating it as final.

The “do nothing” check. Does the statement explain why the customer would not just keep doing what they currently do? If the customer would shrug and continue, the trigger is too weak.

The four forces check (Moesta). A customer makes the switch only when the push of the current situation plus the pull of the new solution outweighs the anxiety about the new and the habit of the present. Does the statement make the push and the pull visible? If only the pull is visible, the customer will not switch.

The outsider read. Have someone outside your company read the statement. Can they say in their own words who has this job and why they would hire a product to do it?

Common pitfalls

• Writing the statement from the inside out, with your product already in mind. Strip product language even from private drafts. If the sentence still makes sense without your product, it is a job. If it doesn’t, it is a feature wish.
• Confusing the job with the product. “I want a CRM” is a product wish. “I want to know which deals are at risk before my Monday forecast call” is a job.
• Too abstract. “When I want to grow my business, I hire X so I can succeed” describes nothing. Push for specificity in the trigger and the outcome until both are concrete enough to point at.
• Too specific. If the sentence essentially describes one product flow, it has slipped back into feature framing. The job should be broader than the product that fills it.
• Forgetting the situation. A statement without “when” is just a need description. Need descriptions cannot explain timing, which is the entire point of the trigger.
• Two jobs in one sentence. If two “so they cans” appear, split into two statements. A product may serve multiple jobs; each gets its own.

Validation checklist

Before treating the statement as final, run it against every item below. If any fail, the statement is not done.

• The trigger is a specific event or moment, not a generic state of dissatisfaction.
• The motivation is in customer language, with no product or feature words.
• The outcome is observable from outside. You could tell when the customer has it without asking them.
• One job per statement. No second “so they can” clause, no “and”s linking outcomes.
• An outsider reading the statement can identify who has the job and why they would hire something to do it.
• Both the push (current pain) and the pull (new outcome) are visible. Pull-only statements do not predict switching.

When to use this method

New categories. Fuzzy competitive sets. Decisions driven by a triggering situation rather than a head-to-head comparison. Markets where the customer cannot tell you what they would compare you to. Also when you are pre-product and trying to validate the underlying job before building.

Where it disagrees with the rival

JTBD bypasses competitive context. It focuses on situation and outcome instead, which is its strength for new categories and its weakness for established ones. Dunford-derived copy emphasizes “us, not them.” JTBD-derived copy emphasizes “this situation, this outcome.” Both are legitimate. The market structure decides which lands.

When to pick the rival instead

When the competitive set is stable and the buyer’s decision is comparative, Dunford produces a sharper sentence.

Self-check

Can you now use the JTBD value statement?

You should be able to:

• Identify the trigger from a switch interview transcript.
• Distinguish a motivation from a feature wish in a customer’s own words.
• Write an outcome statement that is observable from the outside.
• Run the four forces check (push, pull, anxiety, habit) on a draft statement.
• Recognize when JTBD is the wrong tool because the competitive set is stable and the buyer’s decision is comparative.

If any of these are unclear, return to the relevant step in the Steps section.