In his excellent blog post “Replacing The User Story With The Job Story” Alan Klement provided a very compelling argument to move away from mapping based on personas of users and instead focusing on what jobs need to be accomplished. I cannot do his post justice here, so please check it out here . The difference between the two is briefly illustrated as follows:
I started using this framework immediately with Butterfly (more here), as well as some other products we were developing here at Protegra, as we felt that it was a novel and straightforward way to build empathy with customers and drill deeper into their motivations and expectations. Also, as illustrated above, the user story map is laden with far to many unspoken assumptions; whereas the assumptions with the job story map are explicit and readily testable. As we were starting to use this framework, we wanted to find a way to integrate into some of the other tools we use to develop products and services – namely the Business Model Canvas and Value Proposition Canvas (excellently described here by Alex Osterwalder). In other words, our challenge was to connect the job story maps we were creating with potential customers to a new value proposition. So we added two more blanks to fill under “pain” and “potential gain”:
By adding these two additional columns, we are better able to understand what the current challenges are for the customer, as well as how our proposed solution may provide value. Please note that the Situation, Motivation, Expected Outcome, and Pain are all created with an eye to the current reality; whereas the Potential Gain is created with an eye to the future. This information easily feeds into the Value Proposition Canvas illustrated below (Situations, Motivations, and Outcomes form the Jobs; Pains are the Pains, Potential Gain is the Gain).
Remember, as in all thing in the world of innovation and development, that everything you write in the blanks is an assumption that needs to be verified by leaving the office and talking to customers.