Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory
Innovation, success and competitive advantage
Master Thesis Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Entrepreneurship and Diversity
Student: Esmée Mommers Student number: 11355921 Submission date: 18-06-17
Study: MSc. Business Administration Track: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Institution: ABS, UvA
Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Esmée Mommers who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Acknowledgments
Hereby I would like to thank mr. van der Voort for his critical thinking. The feedback moments provided me inspiration to work even harder, get new insights and stay motivated to the end of this Master Thesis. These feedback moments were crucial in order to finalize this Master Thesis. Furthermore, I would like to thank the respondents who were willing to cooperate and give insights in their organization. It provided positive energy and interesting results in regard to this research.
Abstract
In this research the elements of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory at start-ups and corporates are examined in regard to innovation and success. To investigate this, multiple case studies, following a deductive design are conducted. In order to gain insights on the interrelatedness between the different concepts multiple CEO’s were interviewed at successful technology start-ups and corporates in the Netherlands. The results of the study exhibit in the finding that no organization is known with the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. Organizations apply elements of the theory without being aware of it. But the customer is influencing the innovativeness and success of an organization. Organizations do think that the theory could provide a competitive advantage. The reason why organizations don’t apply this theory is because it is time consuming and a lack of an organizational structure. This research provides the insight that disruptive innovators might apply the theory. Besides this, the importance of customer innovation will increase, but organizations will focus on big data instead of qualitative research in order to understand the causation process of their customer.
Table of Contents
Statement of originality p.1
Acknowledgements p.2
Abstract p.3
Table of content p.4
Overview figures and tables p.7
1. Introduction p.8 2. Literature review p.11 2.1 Innovation p.11 2.1.1 Innovation success p.11 2.1.2 Innovation definitions p.13 2.1.3 Innovation dimensions p.14 2.1.4 Innovation types p.17 2.1.5 Customer innovation p.18
2.1.5.1 Customer based innovation p.19
2.1.5.2 Customer orientation p.20
2.1.5.3 User driven innovation p.20
2.1.5.4 Co-creation p.21 2.2 Disruptive Innovation p.22 2.2.1 Clayton M. Christensen p.22 2.2.2 Disruptive innovation p.22 2.3 Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory p.24 2.3.1 Introduction p.24
2.3.2 About the theory p.24
2.3.3 Jobs-to-Be-Done in practice p.26
2.3.3.1 Defining the Jobs Theory p.26
2.3.3.2 How to find a job? P.27
2.3.3.3 Where to find a job? P.27
2.3.3.4 Circumstances a job arises in p.28
2.3.3.5 Building experiences for customers p.29
2.4 Reflection theories p.32
2.4.1 Reflection conducting theory in business p.32
2.4.2 Reflection disruptive innovation p.34
2.4.3 Reflection Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory p.35
2.5 Interrelatedness p.38
3. Research design p.42
3.1 Description of the case study p.42
3.1.1 Start-up cases p.43
3.1.2 Corporate cases p.44
3.2 Description of research methods and procedures p.45
3.3 Analysis strategy p.46
3.4 Analysis strategy results p.48
3.5 Strengths and limitations of the research design p.49
4. Results p.50
4.1 Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory p.50
4.1.1 Innovation theories p.51
4.1.2 Customer based innovation p.51
4.1.3 Jobs-to-Be-Done elements p.52
4.1.3.1 Jobs p.52
4.1.3.2 Circumstances customer p.53
4.1.3.3 Experiences customer p.54
4.1.3.4 Integrating experiences organization p.55
4.1.3.5 Conclusion Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory p.56
4.2 Relation Jobs Theory, innovation and success p.57
4.2.1 Conclusion Jobs Theory, innovation and success p.58
4.3 Relation Jobs Theory and competitive advantage p.58
4.3.1 Conclusion relation Jobs theory and competitive advantage p.60
4.4 Relation theories and type of organization p.61
4.4.1 Conclusion theories and type of organization p.62
4.5 Factors leading to innovation, success and competitive advantage p.62
4.5.1 Success p.62
4.5.2 Factors influencing success p.63
4.7 Innovation p.66
4.7.1 Factors influencing innovation p.67
4.7.2 Conclusion innovation p.70
5. Discussion and conclusion p.71
5.1 Theoretically and managerial implications p.73
6. Limitations and further research p.74
7. References p.76
8. Appendices p.82
8.1 Appendix 1: Structure of the interviews p.82
8.2 Appendix 2: Interview transcripts p.84
Overview figures and tables Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual framework p.40
Figure 2: Additional conceptual framework p.41
Figure 3: Word cloud p.47
Figure 4: Venn diagram, match between cases and theory p.49
Tables
Table 1: Overview reflection theories p.38
Table 2: Cases (organizations) from the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory p.43
Table 3: Overview of the case studies and interviews p.45
Table 4: General overview cross-case analysis p.48
Table 5: Overview Jobs-to-Be-Done elements start-up and corporate p.57
Table 6: Overview success start-ups and corporates p.65
1. Introduction
‘‘What is needed for your company to be successful in today’s dynamic economy?’’ the most probable answer will be: innovation’’ (Kuratko et al., 2014). According to Johannessen et al. (2001) the environment of the economic dynamics is changing. This change occurs in the technology, the shift in the nature of customer demand and the competition among organizations is growing. These continuous changes in the state of knowledge produces new disequilibrium situations, this brings new profit opportunities or ‘’gaps’’ Jacobson (1992). Because of the change of the environment unexpected opportunities raise (Drucker, 2014). These unexpected opportunities can lead to innovation for an organization. Schumpeter (1934) as seen as one of the greatest economists of the first half of the twentieth century, already believed that innovation is considered as an essential driver of competitiveness, economic dynamics and the profit of companies as result of innovation. The following statement gives a reflection on the importance that organizations give to innovation within their organization: ‘’Companies that do not invest in innovation put their future at risk. Their business is unlikely to prosper, and they are unlikely to be able to compete if they do not seek innovative solutions to emerging problems’’ Australian government website (Bessant & Tidd, 2007).
In today’s economy, innovation is seen as an important factor in order to be successful. The importance of innovation is also increasing among the executives within organizations. Research of Kuratko et al. (2014) state that 90% of the executives believe that their company’s long-term success depends on the ability to innovate. The following statement of world’s most profitable company is focusing on innovation (Kell, 2015): ‘’We are always saying to ourselves. We have to innovate. We’ve got to come up with that breakthrough’’ Bill Gates, former chairman and CEO, Microsoft (Bessant & Tidd, 2007).
Mone et al. (1998) mention that innovation is the most important determinant of an organizations performance. According to Statistics Canada (Bessant & Tidd, 2007) a few factors characterize successful enterprises. First, innovation is found to be the most important factor associated with success. Second, innovative organizations have stronger growth and are more successful than organizations that do not innovate. Finally, organizations that gain market share and increasing revenues are the most innovative ones. Thus, innovation has an important role in the success of an organization. Besides the successfulness of an organization, innovation can be regarded as a source of a competitive sustaining advantage (Baregheh et al., 2009) in an increasingly changing environment (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). About 20% of the executives believe their own innovation strategy provides a clear competitive advantage (Kuratko et al., 2014). Besides, innovation is seen as factor to succeed and as the driver of competition. Innovation will also lead to higher profit margins, increased earnings streams and higher stock prices (Kuczmarski, 2003). Profit growth can be achieved through the adoption of an innovation mind-set and dedication to breakthrough innovation (Kuczmarski, 2003).
But why aren’t then all organizations successful if innovation is the key to success? Innovation is regarded as something so uncertain (Boer & During, 2001). But, according to Christensen et al. (2016) with help of his new theory, innovation can be made predictable. In Christensen’s et al. (2016) recently published book ‘’Competing against luck, the story of innovation and customer choice’’ the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory is explained. The publication of this book is the starting point for the subject of this Master’s thesis because the theory will provide the opportunity for organizations to predict innovation with help of focusing on customer choice. Because of the possibility to predict, the innovation won’t be uncertain anymore. The publication of the theory is a follow up of the disruptive innovation theory
from Christensen et al. (2015), this theory and the relation it has with the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory will be explained in the literature review. Will the use of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory result in innovation that is leading to success and a competitive advantage?
This Master Thesis is structured as follows. First, the phenomena innovation will be explained. After this, the theories of Clayton M. Christensen are analysed and the relation between the theories will be explained. This is followed by a critical reflection on the business theories. Finally, the possible interrelatedness between the theories, innovation and success will be discussed. Based on the literature review a methodology will be developed to research the impact of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory and the role of innovation and success at different type of organizations (start-ups and corporates) in the Netherlands.
2. Literature review
The literature review will start with an introduction on the importance of innovation. After this, an outline of innovation will be given. This outline of innovation will include an explanation of the definition of innovation, the innovation dimensions, the innovation types and the innovation methods. After this, the theories of Clayton M. Christensen; the disruptive innovation theory and the Jobs-to-Be-Done theory will be analysed. Finally, a critical reflection on the theories will be given and the possible interrelatedness between the theories, innovation, success and type of organizations will be discussed.
2.1 Innovation
2.1.1 Innovation success
The research of CBS (ICT, kennis en economie, 2016) stated that in the Netherlands 21% percent of the revenue of companies was, revenue generated through innovation. Many researchers state that innovation will lead to success for an organization but what is success in regard to innovation? According to Heunks (1998) success out of innovation can be defined as ‘’any sign of economic profitability, like growth, increasing productivity and profits’’. In 2014 product innovation consists out of 9% of the total revenue from organizations in the Netherlands (ICT, kennis en economie, 2016). According to Peters (2009) product innovation success greater under a few circumstances, namely if the product provides a high contribution to the firm, the R&D process is well planned and executed, the product is introduced early on the market and there is a high management support. Besides this, if organizations focus on in-depth understanding of the customer and the marketplace the success of the product innovation would be greater. This is in line with the main focus of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory.
A distinction between start-up and corporate innovation success can be made. The innovation process occurs in two ways, at corporate organizations and start-ups that are recently established by entrepreneurs (Freeman & Engel, 2007). Not only corporates drive their revenue from innovation but also small organizations with ten to fifty employees. Large organizations and start-ups are different organizations. ‘’Each sides had what the other one lacks’’ (Weiblen & Chesbourgh, 2015). The corporate has resources, scale, power, the routines needed to run a proven business model efficiently (Weiblen & Chesbourgh, 2015), a developed brand presence and the right organization structure (Freeman & Engel, 2007). On the other hand, start-ups have more opportunities to innovate, are smaller (Freeman & Engel, 2007) have promising ideas, organizational agility, the willingness to take a risk, and aspirations of rapid growth (Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015). ‘’In small firm’s success depends on innovation’’ (Heunks, 1998). If small firms innovate it will lead to an increase in productivity and growth but the profits tend to be low (Heunks, 1998). Start-ups have an edge over corporates when it comes to agility. Corporates would have material advantages and start-ups have behavioural advantages (Heunks, 1998). Peter Diamandes and Singularity University claim that exponential technologies are impacting fast, and that humans are not wired to comprehend exponential changes in the environment (Weiblen & Chesbourgh, 2015). This perspective implies a need for corporates to innovate and move faster. The current ecosystem is supporting a growing number of start-ups (Weiblen & Chesbourgh, 2015). In contrast, according to Heunks (1998) the relationship between innovation and firm size is not very clear. Above mentioned is leading to the following question: Is there a relationship between innovation success and the type of an organization?
2.1.2 Innovation definitions
Innovation could lead to success for organizations, but what is innovation? One of the challenges of innovation is a lack of a common definition and understanding of innovation. Innovation is studied in many disciplines from different perspectives and multiple definitions are given to innovation. According to Schumpeter (1934) innovation arises when there is an ‘entrepreneur’ who comes up with a ‘new combination’. Innovation would be essential to explain economic growth; the entrepreneur is the central innovator. Innovation involves the cooperation of many different actors. In order to demonstrate the diversity of the definition of innovation a few examples of definitions of innovation will be given. Schumpeter (1934) defines innovation as ‘’Process of industrial mutation, that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one’’. According to Schumpeter (1934) innovation can be seen as the ‘creative destruction’, because of the new innovation the old system will get destructed. Recently innovation is defined differently than the definition of Schumpeter (1934) innovation could be a process and an outcome according to Crossan & Apaydin (2010). The definition of Schumpeter (1934) would suit with the definition of disruptive innovation nowadays. ‘’Disruptive technology is probably the cause behind the ‘’creative destruction’’ that economist Joseph Schumpeter observed to be primary engine of economic progress more than half a century ago’’ (Christensen, 2003). Besides, recently definitions of innovation focus much less on the destroying of the old one, but emphasize more the change and different dimensions of innovation. Crossan & Apaydin (2010) define innovation as ‘’Innovation is production or adoption, assimilation and exploitation of a value added novelty in economic and social spheres, renewal and enlargement of products, services and markets, development of new methods of production and the establishment of new management systems, it is both a process and an outcome’’.
In this Master Thesis the following definition of innovation will be used: ‘’The process of making changes, large and small, radical and incremental, to products, processes and services that result in the introduction of something new for the organization that adds value to customers and contributes to the knowledge store of the organization’’ (O’sullivan & Dooley, 2009). This definition of innovation is used because it is a broad definition, mentioning the different types of innovation. Besides this, it implements the adding value for the customer, this is in relevance to the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. Christensen et al. (2016) the inventor of the disruptive innovation theory and the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory defines innovation as: ‘’Less about producing something new and more about enabling something new and important for customers’’. In his vision innovation should take place with help of insights of customers. In order to understand the different dimensions and innovation types mentioned in the innovation definition of this Master Thesis. First the innovation dimensions; product, process, service and open innovation will be explained and after this the incremental and radical innovation types, followed by customer based innovation methods.
2.1.3 Innovation dimensions
The nature of an innovation various from creating something new, changing the existing or improve the existing (Baregheh et al., 2009). Older mainstream innovation literature has a focus on the distinction between product and process innovation. In this Master Thesis the focus will be on product, process, service and open innovation.
In product innovation the innovation is often driven by the demands of customers or their desire to penetrate new markets (Boer & During, 2001). Product innovation is about changes in the offerings of an organization (Bessant & Tidd, 2007). Boston Consulting Group Senior Executive Innovation Survey (Andrew et al., 2010) found that product innovation was one of
the top three priorities for 71% of companies, and even important to the company’s future. The success of new product development is dependent on the extent to which product is perceived as satisfying customer needs (Slater et al., 2014).
Process innovation on the other hand is about a change in the ways the offerings are created (Bessant & Tidd, 2007). ‘’Process innovation combines the adoption of a process view of the business with the application of innovation to key processes’’ (Davenport, 2013). The definition of process innovation is the ‘’envisioning of new work strategies, the actual process design activity and the implementation of the change in all its complex technological, human and organizational dimensions’’ (Davenport, 2013). The motives of process innovation are, reducing lead time, lower operational costs and increased flexibility (Boer & During, 2001). Besides these motives Davenport (2013) mentions major improvements in quality, service levels or other business objectives.
Besides product and process innovation the importance of service innovation is growing rapidly. ‘’For decades, the importance of services to the global economy has grown steadily while the importance of goods has declined’’ (Berry et al., 2006). Service innovation is mostly an incremental process (Berry et al., 2006). These improvements would be limited in the kind of return they can produce according to Berry et al. (2006). ‘’Rarely does a company develop a service that created an entirely new market or so reshapes a market that the company enjoys unforeseen profits for a considerable length of time’’ (Berry et al., 2006). If an organization would develop an entire different service it will influence the behaviour of the customers and of the competitors. If an organization is disruptive is it then making use of service innovation?
Not only the service innovation is more important in the current economy also open innovation raises awareness (Enkel et al., 2009). The core of open innovation is a cooperation with externals in order to increase the innovativeness of the organization and reduce time to market. ‘’Proctor and Gamble announced that they were able to increase their product success rate by 50% and the efficiency of their R&D by 60% by introducing the open innovation concept to the organization’’ (Enkel et al., 2009). With open innovation three processes can be differentiated according to (Enkel et al., 2009). First the outside-in approach. This entails enriching the organizations knowledge through integration of suppliers, customers and external sources. How are the customers integrated within the process? Besides the outside-in approach innovation can occur through the inside-out process. This process is about bringing new ideas to the market from inside the organization. The final process is a combination of the inside-out and outside-in approach. ‘’Developments in internet technology and social networking technologies will allow companies to interact with numerous sources and predict an unprecedented level of richness’’ (Enkel et al., 2009). The possibility to interact with other sources provides the opportunity of co-creation for organizations. ‘’Users will be more empowered in all sorts of industry sectors, creating their own goods, which meet their demands better, not only as investors but also as manufacturers’’ (Enkel et al., 2009). Do companies even have a possibility to choose if they want to interact with customers? Is the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory a type of co-creation with the customers? Co-creation will be further explained in chapter 2.1.5.
The different innovation dimensions are leading towards a more satisfying way for customers, reducing lead time, lower operational costs, increased flexibility, improvements in quality, increased service levels and the possibility to cooperate within the innovation will increase. What change is occurring in the innovation dimensions’ organizations are applying?
Furthermore, what is the relation between innovation dimension and the business theories of Christensen et al. (2016)?
2.1.4 Innovation types
Innovation is variating between incremental and radical innovation. Incremental innovation is about improvement within a given frame of solutions, doing better than the company already is doing (Norman & Verganti, 2014). Henderson & Clark (1990) mention that incremental innovation occurs in individual components, but the underlying core concepts and links would remain the same. ‘’Incremental product innovation refers to the small changes in a product that helps to improve its performance, lower its costs, and enhance its desirability, or simply result in a new model release’’ (Norman & Verganti, 2014). Besides incremental innovation, radical innovation can be seen as a change of a framework, doing something that the company did not do before (Norman & Verganti, 2014). Radical innovation is about fundamental changes and a clear departure from existing practices in the organization (Henderson & Clark, 1990). The radical innovation would establish a new dominant design, and a new set of core design concepts (Henderson & Clark, 1990). Radical innovation would be most innovating but rare, and most attempts at it fail (Norman & Verganti, 2014). Much of the articles about innovation focuses on radical innovation. Radical innovation is often characterized as disruptive or destroying. According to Markides (2006) ‘’Radical innovations are disruptive to consumers because they introduce products and value propositions that disturb prevailing consumer habits and behaviours in a major way’’. Radical innovations would be disruptive to the established competitors because they would create new-to-the-world products (Markides, 2006). The major difference between incremental and radical innovation is whether the innovation is perceived as a continuous modification of previously accepted practices or whether it is new, unique, and discontinuous (Norman &
Verganti, 2014). Radical innovations are often called disruptive, but what is disruptive innovation? In the following part the disruptive innovation theory of Christensen et al. (2015) will be explained. Before this explanation the different customer based innovation methods will be analysed.
2.1.5 Customer innovation
Innovation can occur within different dimensions. The innovation radar (Sawhney et al., 2006) designed and relates all the dimensions in which an organization can innovate. If companies would apply this innovation radar companies wouldn’t miss innovation opportunities (Sawhney et al., 2006). The innovation radar provides twelve different ways for companies to innovate. Three out of the twelve dimensions are focused on customer based innovation. First, the dimension solutions, this is about creating integrated and customized offerings that solve end-to-end customer problems. ‘’A solution is a customized, integrated combination of products, services and information that solves a customer problem’’ (Sawhney et al., 2006). The second dimension customers, focuses on discovering unmet customer needs or identify underserved customer segments. ‘’To innovate along this dimension, the company can discover new customer segments or uncover unmet needs’’ (Sawhney et al., 2006). The last innovation dimension related to customer innovation is called customer experience. ‘’This dimension considers everything a customer sees, hears, feels and otherwise experiences while interacting with a company at all moments’’ (Sawhney et al., 2006). This dimension is about redesigning customer interactions across all touch points and all moments of contact with the organization. The focus in this Master Thesis will be on customer based innovation, because this is related to the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. In the following part different approaches (customer orientation, user driven innovation and
co-creation) based on customer innovation will be analysed. Can the Jobs Theory be compared with customer innovation methods?
2.1.5.1 Customer based innovation ‘’In the global knowledge economy innovation is becoming an increasingly important competitive factor, it is a competition that involves technology but also a keen understanding of customer needs’’ (Rosted, 2005). If companies understand what the customer wants they can use that and that understanding to drive innovation (Selden & MacMillan, 2006). ‘’Customer driven approach has become the mantra for all organizations and for innovation in particular’’ (Gribaudo et al., 2015). But how do companies know what their customer needs are? In order to find out, companies can innovate with help of customer based innovation. Innovating where the customer is playing a central role is becoming more and more important.
There are multiple reasons why customer based innovation is getting more important. One of the reasons is the changing environment (Von Hippel, 2005). The preferences of the customer changes because of environment changes in culture, societal norms, technology, and globalisation. Besides the changing environment, customer based innovation is an important source of competitiveness in the future (Rosted, 2005). ‘’In today’s competitive milieu, every organisation aims to become customer orientated’’ (Mukerjee, 2013). Another reason can be found in the improving design capabilities (Von Hippel, 2005). And in the improving of the individual users to coordinate their innovation offers via the internet (Von Hippel, 2005). As a result of focusing on customer understanding the employee and customer loyalty will increase (Mukerjee, 2013). Another reason for a customer-orientated approach is because the organization needs to keep up with the changing needs of customers and adapt its offerings to
suit the contemporary needs of customers (Mukerjee, 2013). Besides this, the culture of customer-oriented organisations tracks delivery and customer satisfaction (Mukerjee, 2013).
2.1.5.2 Customer orientation
Two types of customer orientation approaches can be applied by organizations. These approaches can be applied by helping understanding customers. Slater et al. (2014) make a distinction between two forms of customer orientation, responsive and proactive customer orientation. Organizations who are responsive focus on solving existing customers’ needs. Responsive customer orientation may generate incremental innovations (Slater et al., 2014). If companies focus on identification of emerging or latent customer needs, the company is proactive (Slater et al., 2014). Latent needs are needs that are not yet in the customer awareness. Proactive customer orientation is necessary for radical innovation for future cash flows (Atuahene-Gima, 2005). The question is: Do customers know what they want? A big issue in the customer driven innovation approach entails that customers express their requirements in their own language and which is convenient for them, which is inappropriate for creating customer based innovation (Gribaudo et al., 2015). According to Christensen et al. (2016), customers don’t always know what their needs are and why they buy a particular product. This is why the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory would offer a solution, because it goes deeper than customer understanding in general.
2.1.5.3 User driven innovation
Another approach that goes deeper than customer orientation is user driven innovation. ‘’User-driven innovation uses the customer as the starting point, it is the expectation and the desire to fulfil a customer need that drives innovation’’ (Rosted, 2005). User-driven innovation is the strive for delivering a product that provides a product with special value for
the consumer (Rosted, 2005). ‘’Users, are firms or individual consumers that expect to benefit from using a product or service’’ (Von Hippel, 2005). User innovation offers the opportunity to get users what they want, provides a complement for manufacturer innovation, and is increases social welfare (Von Hippel, 2005). The cause for user-innovation can be found in the reason that users want something what is not yet available on the market (Von Hippel, 2005). The most of the companies innovate with ‘’one size fits all’’ but this does not offer a solution for many customers, the market is heterogeneous. If a company applies user-driven innovation they maintain a strong customer focus, customers are frequently used sources on innovation and customers are among the most important sources of innovation (Rosted, 2005). ‘’Working with customer needs often requires significant resources, it could be argued that only large companies are capable of channelling customer needs into a viable innovation’’ (Rosted, 2005). This is not the case, small and medium sized companies have a customer focus according to (Rosted, 2005). The user is innovating itself and brings technical and customer innovation together. If users innovate they are able to develop innovations that enable to do new types of things for the first time. In contrast, if organizations innovate they will change something that makes the existing product more conveniently or reliable, but not radical new. Is there a difference between start-ups and corporates on innovating incremental/radical and disruptive?
2.1.5.4 Co-creation
Another approach that goes a step further than user driven innovation is co-creation. Co-creation provides interaction between companies and customers, which is made possible because of technology changes (Galvagno & Dalli, 2014). As a result of the above mentioned changes in the environment there is shift occurring within the relationship between companies and customers. The relationship between companies and customer is getting more
equal, this results in a growing interaction of both parties and is leading towards a value co-creation (Galvagno & Dalli, 2014). ‘’From the co-co-creation perspective, suppliers and customers are, conversely, no longer on opposite sides, but interact with each other for the development of new business opportunities’’ (Galvagno & Dalli, 2014). This interaction can result in a product or a service for the customer. Is the theory of Christensen et al. (2016) a sequel of the existing customer based innovation theories? In the following part the theories of Christensen are analysed.
2.2 Disruptive Innovation
2.2.1 Clayton M. Christensen
‘’Clayton M. Christensen is regarded as one of the world’s top experts on innovation and growth’’ (Clayton M. Christensen, 2017). Professor Christensen is the author of eight books and more than a hundred articles. ‘’The Innovator's Dilemma’’ received the Global Business Book Award as the best business book. Later ‘’The Economist’’ named the book as one of the six most important books about business ever written. Finally, in a poll of thousands executives, consultants and business school professors, Professor Christensen was named as the most influential business thinker in the world. Christensen is known for his disruptive innovation theory. The disruptive innovation theory will be explained in the following part, in order to understand the context on which the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory is a follow up.
2.2.2 Disruptive innovation
Disruptive innovation is established in 1995, by Clayton M. Christensen. The theory is conducted through inductive research. ‘’The theory has proved to be a powerful way of thinking about innovation-driven growth’’ (Christensen et al., 2015). Leaders of small entrepreneurial companies and large well-established companies used the theory as their
disruptive technologies. Christensen and other researchers found out that the theory was not only applicable in the field of technology but also in other business fields. Disruptive innovation can be described as ‘’a process whereby a smaller company with fewer resources is able to successfully challenge established incumbent business’’ (Christensen et al., 2015). Disruptive innovations get started in two types of markets that incumbents overlook. A disrupter will start in a low end market or a new market. Disrupters start in a low end market because ‘’Incumbents typically try to provide their most profitable and demanding customers with ever-improving products and services, and they pay less attention to less-demanding customers’’ (Christensen et al., 2015). In the new-market disrupters create a new existing market, where the disrupters turn no consumers into consumers. Disruptive innovations are initially inferior by incumbent’s customers. At first customers are not willing to switch to the new offering, even if the prize is low. Customers will wait until the quality of the offering of the disruptor rises enough until they are satisfied with the quality. ‘’Disruptive innovations don’t catch on with mainstream customers until quality catches up their standards’’ (Christensen et al., 2015). If the quality level is satisfying enough, consumers adopt the new product and accept the lower price. In this way, ‘’Disruptors first appeal to low-end or unserved customers and then migrate to the mainstream market’’ (Christensen et al., 2015). How could companies overcome a disruptor? According to Christensen (2003) keeping close to the customer is main important for handling sustaining innovation, it may provide misleading data for disruptive ones. Thus, in order to win from the disruptor, successful companies routinely are giving their customers more and better versions of what they say they want. ‘’This is a valued capability for handling sustaining innovation, but it will not serve the purpose when handling disruptive technologies’’ (Christensen, 2003). The disruptive innovation theory does not provide a solution for winning from a disrupter. This is the reason why Christensen et al. (2016) designed the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. The theory
can offer a solution for winning from the disrupter, because it applies a customer focused approach for innovation. In the next part the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory will be introduced.
2.3 Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory
2.3.1 Introduction In order explain the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory an example out of the recently published book from Christensen et al. (2016) is given, called the Milkshake Dilemma. In a restaurant where they would like to improve their performance, a consulting agency is hired to give advice. Most of the researchers would ask customers questions and feedback. But do customers really know what the reason behind their buying of a particular product? The Jobs-to-Be-Done theory is approaching the study in a different way. The question that the theory raises is ‘’What jobs arises in consumer’s lives that causes them to come to the shop and buy a milkshake?’’ Customers are not buying a product; they are hiring a product to fulfil a specific job in their lives at a particular moment. When the research team was trying to answer the question, they found out that consumers don’t buy a milkshake just to drink. Consumers buy a milkshake to make their long way in the car more enjoyable. The long car ride is the causation for consumers behind buying a milkshake. If a company knows the causation behind a purchase they will be able to innovate in a successful way. The theory would be applicable in a wide range of industries and organizations because the theory covers why customers make choices they do (Christensen et al., 2016).
2.3.2 About the theory
The Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory is a theory to understand what causes consumers to make choices they do and predict with help of this theory new innovation opportunities (Christensen et al., 2016). ‘’The theory helps companies avoid the frustration of hit-and-miss
innovation because it makes innovation five times more predictable’’ (Ulwick, 2017). ‘’Results show that while traditional methods yield a 17 percent success rate on average, the success rate of ODI is 86 percent’’ (Ulwick, 2017). The core of the theory is revealing the causation behind the buying process of a customer. ‘’Consumers don’t buy products or services, they pull them into their live to make progress’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). When consumers buy a product, they essentially ‘’hire’’ something to get a job done. These are products or services that would help consumers make the progress they were struggling to achieve. According to the Jobs Theory companies will exist if they solve the problem of the consumer. The core of the theory is that customers don’t buy products or services; they buy them to make progress in their lives. This progress is the job, companies need to uncover and understand. If companies uncover why customers make choices it allows them to create better solutions that customers want to buy. ‘’Studying the underlying process a customer is trying to execute, rather than focusing on the product or the customer, provides companies a deep understanding of the customer’s needs and presents a path to make innovation more predictable’’ (Ulwick, 2017). The theory offers a kind of blueprint. ‘’This is very different from the traditional marketing concept of needs because it entails a much higher degree of specificity about what you are solving for’’ (Christensen et al., 2016).
The theory would provide organizations a possibility to understand the causation process customers are making and thus predict innovation. In this way organization can over win competitors and disrupters. This provides companies a competitive advantage and a possibility to sustain innovation (Christensen et al., 2016). The above mentioned advantages are reasons for organizations to apply the theory in order to grow in core, adjacent and new markets (Ulwick, 2017). The Jobs Theory provides companies a way how to think, not what
to think. Christensen et al. (2016) describe how the theory should be applied in practice, this will be explained in the following part.
2.3.3 Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory in practice In order to understand the causation behind a purchase of a customer Christensen et al. (2016) defined a few steps in order to apply the theory in practice. The first step is to uncover jobs. After this, the circumstances of the job need to be defined. This is followed by creating the right experiences customers seek. Finally, the experiences and the job need to be integrated into the organization. In the following part the steps of the Jobs Theory in practice will be explained.
2.3.3.1 Defining the Jobs Theory
The first step in the process is to uncover and trying to understand a job. This starts with understanding ‘’the progress that a person is trying to make in a particular circumstance’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). This is relevant in order to understand why customers make choices they make. The progress is a movement towards a goal or aspiration. According to Ulwick (2017) characteristics of a perfect job statement should include:
1. Customer description of the process they are trying to execute.
2. The job must be functional (not emotional) stated as a process that can be broken down and analysed.
3. Define precisely what the customer is trying to accomplish. 4. Abstracted at a level that will reveal opportunities for growth. 5. Abstracted at a level that fits within the organization’s capabilities.
2.3.3.2 How to find a job?
Jobs can be found with help of the following questions according to Christensen et al. (2016): 1. What progress is that person trying to achieve?
2. What are the circumstances of the struggle?
3. What obstacles are getting in the way of the person making progress?
4. Are customers making do with imperfect solutions through some kind of compensating behaviour?
5. How would they define what quality means for a better solution, and what trade-offs are they willing to make?
After answering the above mentioned questions an organization would be able to find a job. But where can organizations find a job?
2.3.3.3 Where to find a job?
Christensen et al. (2016) pointed out five possibilities for organizations to know where to find jobs. Companies should start with looking nearby, as Christensen et al. (2016) calls it ‘’a job close to home’’. This means that people should trust them on feelings and needs and make this idea work. If it works for them, it will probably also work for others. Another possibility is to focus on the things consumers cannot find a solution for that actually satisfies their job and opt to do nothing instead. Focusing on a strategy to find a job with the focus on consumers who are unhappy with the available solutions to a job they very deeply want to solve and that they are going to great lengths to create their own solution could also be a possibility. Besides this, companies should be looking for jobs people don’t want to do. Negative jobs are often the best innovation opportunities according to Christensen et al. (2016). Finally, there can be a lot to learn by observing how customers use products,
especially when they use them in a way that is different from what the organization has envisioned.
2.3.3.4 Circumstances a job arises in
After companies defined the job, the circumstances around the job need to be defined. In what circumstances are customers buying a product or service and does the job arise? ‘’A job can only be defined and a successful solution created relative to the specific context in which it arises’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The context of the job can be found if companies define their market around the job. A company should in this step define the target market as ‘’a group of people with the job they are trying to get done’’ (Ulwick, 2017). This has many benefits, it provides a central point for the company’s customer need, it provides global insights, it defines the competition and the defining of the target market could be a protection against disruption. Christensen et al. (2016) conducted a few questions in order to define the circumstances. These questions are: Where are you? When is it? Who are you with? While doing what? What where you doing half an hour ago? What will you be doing next? What social or cultural or political pressures exert influence? The life stage of the customer also needs to be taken into account. Different forms of complexity are important to understand the circumstances. The forms of complexity can be divided into; functional, social and emotional complexity. The reason for this is because customer’s cannot explain what they want. Christensen et al. (2016) state that the most organizations focus on the functional complexity, this should not be the case because in reality customers social and emotional needs can have much more influence in comparison to the functional complexity. Besides knowing what you customers do want, it is also important to notice what your customers don’t want. ‘’What they hire and equally important, what they fire tells a story’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). This story is about the functional, emotional and social dimensions of their desire to progress. Consumers face anxiety of choosing something new. For this reason, the job has to have
magnitude to cause people to change their behaviours. ‘’The pull of the new has to be much greater than the sum of the inertia of the old and the anxieties about the new’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). According to Christensen et al. (2016), the theory helps innovators identify the full picture of the progress a customer is trying to make including the complex set of competing needs and relative priorities. Jobs transform how companies define the business they are in and the size and the shape of the market they compete in. ‘’The key to getting hired is to understand the narrative of the customer’s life in such rich detail that you are able to design a solution that far exceeds anything the customer themselves could have found words to request’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). Uncovering why consumers make choices allows organizations to create solutions that get hired. Concluding, in order to innovate organizations must find a promising vein and understand the context this vein is in.
2.3.3.5 Building experiences for customers
After defining a job and the context it rises in, the customer experience need to be created. ‘’Competitive advantage is built not just by understanding customers’ jobs but by creating the experiences that customers seek both in purchasing and using the product or service and then crucially building internal processes to ensure that those experiences are reliably delivered to the customer every time’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The experience an organization offers to its customers is important because it is hard for competitors the copy. ‘’New products succeed not because of the features and functionality they offer but because of the experiences they enable’’ (Christensen et al., 2016).
2.3.3.6 Integrating experiences into an organization
The final step is to integrate the company’s internal capabilities and processes, in order to consistently focus on the theory. ‘’Aligning our internal processes with the job in order to provide the desired experiences’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The organization culture should
be jobs focused. ‘’Through a job lens, what matters most than who reports to whom is how different parts of the organization interact to systematically deliver the offering part that perfectly performs customers job to be done’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The jobs focused organization creates at all levels employees that understand and are motivated by how their work contributes in order to help customers getting the job done. Having a jobs focused organization leads to four categories of benefit according to Christensen et al. (2016). The first benefit is about distributed decision making. This entails ‘’Employees throughout the organization are empowered to make good decisions that align with the job, and to be autonomous and innovative’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). In this way employees will be empowered to make jobs focused decisions. A second benefit is the resource optimization. ‘’The jobs focus shines a light on which resources are aligned against what matters most and which are not, and enables them to be rebalances accordingly’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). In this way resources will be used who matter most. The third benefit is about inspiration. The Jobs Theory provides a common goal for employees to work on. ‘’Solving a customer’s job is inherently inspiring to individuals in an organization, as it enables them to see how their work enables real people to make progress in their lives’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The way an organization’s employees work together toward a common goal is the basis of its culture. The final benefit is related to better measurement. ‘’With a focus on the job, people will naturally seek to measure and manage to more customer-centric metrics’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The Jobs Theory would not only optimize the processes of the organization but it also changes the way organizations measure their success (Christensen et al., 2016).
Besides the benefits created through integrating the Jobs Theory, companies can also fall into three fallacies. These fallacies can occur after the phase in which a product is introduced and will occur at managerial level. The following fallacies are mentioned by Christensen et al. (2016): the fallacy of active versus passive data, the fallacy of surface growth and the fallacy
of conforming data. The fallacy of actives versus passive data entails that if products are launched and data about the product is a known, managers could focus more on the data instead of other sources. ‘’We can predict however that as soon a job to be done becomes a commercial product, the context rich view of the job begins to recede as the active data of operations replaces and displaces the passive data of innovation’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The second fallacy is the negative impact of focusing on creating many products for many customers instead of focusing on the job. ‘’When a company makes big investments in developing relationships with customers, natural incentives arise to find ways to sell more products to existing customers’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The final fallacy of conforming data, is the fallacy that companies lose their focus on the customers’ jobs to be done. ‘’The tendency to treat facts as insights and leap directly from data to action’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The problem with data is that numerical data is seen as more trustworthy in comparison to qualitative data (Christensen et al., 2016). Managers put too much emphasis on data and pay to less attention to a true understanding of consumers (Christensen et al., 2016). Jobs Theory focuses on helping customers do their job, rather than narrow internally measured efficiencies. ‘’The solution lies not in the tools you are using, but what you are looking for and how you piece your observations together’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). In contrast, managers who are embracing the theory focus on their customers and are willing to create a proposition that resonates with them and are willing to improve their products and conceptualize new product that will address new opportunities (Ulwick, 2017).
The goal of the theory is to discover the job, create desired experience and ingrate the company around the job in a way that customers are willing to pay premium prices for a product or service. According to Christensen et al. (2016) the theory is a continuation on the disruptive innovation theory. The theory would provide companies an answer to win from the
competitors. In the following part a critical reflection on the theories conducted by Christensen et al. (2016) will be given.
2.4 Reflection theories
Are theories in business leading to an increase in success and innovation within an organization or start-up? What is the value and reliability of business theories in practice? In the following part a reflection will be given on theories in business in general and after this a reflection will be given on the disruptive innovation theory and the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. Are the disruptive innovation theory and the Jobs Theory leading towards the results that Christensen et al. (2016) is portraying?
2.4.1 Reflection conducting theory in business
What to do, is increasingly becoming the central challenge facing managements, especially those of big companies that have enjoyed long-term success’’ (Drucker, 1994). Can ‘’What to
do’’ be solved with help of applying an innovation strategy or theory? When is a theory a good theory and are companies even applying these academic theories in practice? According to Page (1993) only half of all innovating firms are making use of an explicit innovation strategy or theory. As Pfeffer (1982) mentioned a good theory is, parsimonious, testable, and logically. Besides this, if a theory will be good is also depending on the strength of a method and the evidence grounding the theory. The theories Christensen et al. (2016) conducted are based on case studies. Developing theory out of case studies has got several strengths and weaknesses, and conditions that need to be taken into account. First, the conditions a good theory must consist out of will be explained after this the strengths and weaknesses from conducting theory out of case studies will be mentioned.
One of the conditions that need to be met is the base on which cases are being selected (Eisenhardt, 1989). On basis of what did Christensen et al. (2016) collected his cases? Besides this, theory-building researchers combine multiple data collection methods. With inductive research, interviews, observations and archival sources have been used (Eisenhardt, 1989). Which instruments and protocols did Christensen used to conduct his theory? And did Christensen used a combination of qualitative and quantitative research? Besides this, the amount of team members who participated in the case studies has influence on the outcome. The more team members participate the better the insights will be and the this enhances confidence in the findings (Eisenhardt, 1989). Furthermore, a feature of research to build theory from case studies is the frequent overlap of data analysis with data collection. In what degree did Christensen find his overlap? How did he find relationships among the cases? The above mentioned questions are still not clear. It would be helpful in regard to reliability to gain this information.
Conducting theory out of case studies has got several weaknesses and strengthens. ‘’Case research has typically been criticized as lacking objectivity and methodological rigor’’ (Johnston et al., 1999). A weakness of conducting theory out of a case study is that the theory will be to specific and narrowed so it cannot be generalized to a higher level (McDougall et al., 1994). For this reason, it is important to know what level of analysis have been used and if the right questions have been asked. ‘’The risks are that the theory describes a very idiosyncratic phenomenon or that the theorist is unable to raise the level of generality of the theory’’ (Eisenhardt, 1989). Another limitation are the arguments that case studies are lacking in rigor and reliability (Johnston et al., 1999). This is leading to the question if a theory conducted out of case studies is a good theory? Besides the weaknesses of conducting theory with case studies, it has got several strengths. A strength of conducting theory out of case studies, is that the emergent theory is likely to be testable with constructs that can be readily
measured and hypotheses that can be proven false (Eisenhardt, 1998). The theory is likely to be empirically valid according to Eisenhardt (1989). This is the case because the theory-building process is tied with evidence that so it will be consistent with empirical observation. Christensen et al. (2016) conducted his theories while doing research among different cases, this can enhance the empirically validity. But certain questions are unanswered in order to make a conclusion about the reliability of the theories.
2.4.2 Reflection disruptive innovation
Disruptive innovation has become a part of business thinking, but it is in danger of losing its usefulness because the theory has been misunderstood and misapplied (Christensen et al., 2015). According to Christensen et al. (2015) too many people speak about a disruptive innovator, without having the knowledge about the theory. King & Baatartogtokh (2015) are questioning the disruptive innovation theory, how useful is the disruptive innovation theory? King & Baatartogtokh (2015) argue that the full theory of disruptive innovation should only be applied when specific conditions are met. The theory would describe examples of dysfunction and failure, not what business should do to be successful. This is in line with Christensen et al. (2015); ‘’Disruption theory does not, and never will explain everything about innovation specifically or business success generally’’. Besides this, Christensen et al. (2015) mention that not all disruptive innovators succeed, a company can be disruptive but not successful. According to King & Baartartoogtokh (2015) disruptive innovation provides a good potential of pitfalls, but it doesn’t predict what companies will do. Because the theory does not predict what companies should do Christensen et al. (2016) set up the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. According to Christensen (2003) keeping close to the customer is main important for handling sustaining innovation. Besides applying the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory, corporates could also collaborate with other companies and in particular work with start-ups to leverage their own strength. In order to win from the disruptor, successful companies
routinely are giving their customers more and better versions of what they say they want. Besides the contradiction in defining a disrupter and the usefulness of the theory, does the type of organization (start-up or corporate) matters in order to be disruptive? Is a disruptor a start-up growing towards a corporate, or is a corporate disruptive? Disruptive innovation can be described as ‘’a process whereby a smaller company with fewer resources is able to successfully challenge established incumbent business’’ (Christensen et al., 2015). What is a smaller company in Christensen et al. (2015) definition? In the following part a reflection on the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory will be given.
2.4.3 Reflection Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory
The theory provides companies a competitive advantage, a possibility to sustain innovation and an opportunity for growth (Christensen et al., 2016). Besides this, the theory enables companies to discover growth opportunities and create and predict products and services that customers want (Ulwick, 2017). What type of organizations are applying the theory, are this corporates or start-ups? Christensen et al. (2016) are mentioning that the theory would lead to a predictable strategy to innovate, but is it possible to predict innovation? Besides this question, the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory raises several other questions. First, how does the theory differ from theories focused on customer innovation? And how new is the theory of Christensen et al. (2016)? Besides the book of Christensen et al. (2016), other authors wrote about the Jobs Theory, Ulwick (2016), Wunker et al. (2016) and Spiek & Moesta (2014). A few authors claim that they are the introducers of the theory. Who originally designed the theory and what are the differences and similarities between the different viewpoints on the Jobs Theory?
The viewpoint of Wunker (2012) is that companies can find new markets by doing customer research. ‘’The wrong place to start is by asking customers what they want’’ (Wunker, 2012).
Wunker (2012) divided the Jobs Theory into six steps. First, ‘’rather than looking just at what people buy, examine the needs that arise during their lives’’. This step is in contradiction to Christensen et al. (2016) approach because he examines that finding jobs will go deeper than customer understanding. The second step is that companies should focus on pain points associated with competitive offerings. Christensen et al. (2016) mention the Jobs Theory to stand out from the competitor but this is not based on competitive offerings, it is about the experience an organization offers. The third step is that organizations should compare themselves to directly comparable firms. This is not in line with the Jobs Theory, here the focus is around the job and it is not about comparable firms as main focus. The fourth step is to go in conversation with the customer, this is similar to the Jobs Theory, but this step is integrated in finding a job. The fifth step is comparable with the Jobs Theory; this step is about managers that are too enamoured of their own ideas. Finally, the sixth step is about the values of customers, this step Christensen et al. (2016) conduct in the first step finding the job. Wunker (2012) has a different idea on the theory and doesn’t focus in detail on the causation process a customer is making while buying a product.
Another point of view on the theory is from Ulwick (2017). The Outcome-driven innovation (ODI) theory from Ulwick (2017) differs from the Jobs Theory from Christensen et al. (2015). The execution of the ODI takes time, this can make the evaluation itself very expensive (Gribaudo et al., 2015). Is the Jobs Theory realistic to use in practice in relation to time and costs in the rapidly changing environment of organizations and upcoming disrupters? Ulwick (2017) also defined six steps to define the job in which he is analysing the needs of customers. ‘’The problem is that there is a confusion and lack of agreement as to what a need even is.’’ (Ulwick, 2017). These steps are taking into account with help of quantitative and qualitative research. ‘’Discovering hidden segments of opportunity with
confidence requires statistically valid market research’’ (Ulwick, 2017). Is it possible to compare the ODI with the Jobs Theory? The difference between the Jobs Theory of Christensen et al. (2016) and the ODI from Ulwick (2017) can be found within the type of research, whereas Christensen et al. (2016) is only applying qualitative research, Ulwick (2017) is applying a combination of quantitative and qualitative research. What method will provide the most reliable results? Besides this, Ulwick (2017) doesn’t take the experiences a company’s offers and the integration of the job in the organizations internal processes into account. In literature different point of views exist on the Jobs Theory, it is not clear what the most successful innovation method is.
Besides the different applicability’s of the Jobs Theory, there is also a difference between the Jobs Theory and the disruptive innovation theory. The disruptive innovation theory focuses on new markets, in which customer understanding doesn’t seem to play an important role. Because disrupters seem to take steps customers would not expect them to do. Whereas customer understanding is the centre of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. According to Christensen (2003) keeping close to the customer is main important for handling sustaining innovation but it may provide misleading data for disruptive ones. The disruptive organization is focused on disruptive or radical innovations whereas the Jobs Theory focuses on incremental or sustaining innovation. What type of organization is applying which theory? Are the most disruptive innovators small organizations like Christensen et al. (2015) mentions? The Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory is a theory that provides the opportunity to win or stay in competition with a competitor. Do organizations use the theory in practice or are companies only making use of elements of the theory? If organizations are applying elements of the theory is it than contributing to the innovativeness and success of organizations? The critical reflections from literature are provided in the table below. In the
following part the relation between innovation, success, type of organization and business theories will be described.
Table 1: Overview reflection theories
General reflection Disruptive innovation reflection
Jobs-to-Be-Done reflection
• When is a theory a good theory? (Pfeffer, 1982)
• How are the cases selected? (Eisenhardt, 1989)
• With how many researchers is the theory conducted? (Eisenhardt, 1989) • How objective is the
theory? (Johnston et al., 1999)
• How generalizable, reliable and rigorous is the theory? McDougall et al., 1994)
• To what extent is the theory misunderstood? (Christensen et al., 2015)
• Are the specific conditions met? (King & Baatartogtokh, 2015)
• The theory is not predicting what will happen (King & Baatartogtokh, 2015)
• Who conducted the theory? Ulwick (2016), Wunker et al. (2016) and Spiek & Moesta (2014)
• What are the differences between the approaches of the theory? Ulwick (2016), Wunker et al. (2016) and Spiek & Moesta (2014).
• General reflection
2.5 Interrelatedness
This Master Thesis focuses on the relation between the two different theories of Clayton M. Christensen (disruptive innovation theory and the Jobs-to-Be Done Theory), besides the relation between the two theories this Thesis focuses on the relation between innovation, success, type of organization and the theories.
First the phenomena innovation is described. In this innovation part the relation between: innovation and success, innovation definitions, dimensions, types and customer based innovation is explained. Which lead to a few questions: What is innovation? Is it possible to predict innovation? And what is the relation between innovation and success? Besides the innovation part, the relation in regard to type (start-up or corporate) of organization is taken
