Alan Klement’s War On Jobs-To-Be-Done

Klement is trying to hijack the JTBD brand by claiming the proven Jobs-to-be-Done Theory is all wrong (it’s not) and that only he has the credentials to reinvent it (he doesn’t).

Over the past year or so I’ve often been asked about the different explanations of Jobs-to-be-Done Theory that have emerged. People are confused as they are being exposed to conflicting views of Jobs Theory. Interestingly, the source of all the controversy and confusion can be traced back to one person — Alan Klement.

Prior to 2016, Alan Klement was a relative unknown in the Jobs-to-be-Done community. He briefly worked for Bob Moesta’s Rewired Group as a researcher. Since that time Klement has been trying to sell himself as an expert on Jobs-to-be-Done Theory. He released an e-book called When Coffee and Kale Compete in October 2016 and claimed it was the first book ever written about jobs-to-be-done (it wasn’t — What Customer’s Want published in 2005, Service Innovation in 2010, The Social Innovation Imperative in 2012, and others came first). In his book he completely rewrites the history of Jobs-to-be-Done Theory, leaving out those who actually created and advanced it.

Klement has been the source of daily drama in the JTBD community as he routinely launches social media attacks on the leaders in the space (Clayton Christensen, Alexander Osterwalder, Lance Bettencourt, me, and others). He’s called us idiots, frauds, scammers and hacks and attacked our ideas, shamelessly misrepresenting them along the way. Klement selectively blocks people from commenting on his misleading articles and disparaging remarks, making it appear to readers that his criticisms are valid when they are not.

Klement routinely conflates terms and creates fallacies to confuse readers. He likes to pose straw man arguments to try and convince people that methods used for decades to successfully put Jobs Theory into practice (specifically the Outcome-Driven Innovation process) can’t possibly work — despite the fact that it’s been applied in over 1000 instances by Fortune 500 companies, with many documented successes.

I took the time months ago to debate him on a highly misleading article he wrote conflating solution preferences with desired outcome statements (see Klement’s Fallacy Misleads The Jobs-to-be-Done Community) only to see him delete his replies, post a dishonest recap of the debate, and block me (and everybody else) from commenting on his phony recap. On top of that, he continues to make the same false claims, knowing full well they are untrue.

(SUPPLEMENT)

On January 15, 2018, Klement released a new article in which he labels Outcome-Driven Innovation the “jobs-as-activities” version of JTBD and labels Christensen’s theory the “jobs-as-progress” version. He does this to set up three straw man arguments:

1. Klement misrepresents ODI as something its not (task analysis) and falsely claims it has limited use. In reality, ODI is nothing like task analysis. Nor is it focused on activities. When applying ODI a job can be an objective, a goal or a task, a problem to be solved, something to be avoided, a “Be or Do” goal, or anything else people are trying to accomplish. It’s been applied over 1000 times in nearly every industry for each of these purposes, with many documented successes — a fact that Klement has chosen to ignore.
2. Klement falsely claims that the tenets behind ODI theory and Clay’s theory are very different. In reality, they share a comment set of tenets and have since 2003. (See The Core Tenets of Jobs-to-be-Done Theory and the chart below). There is only one proven Jobs Theory (i.e., jobs are functional with emotional components, stable over time, the unit of analysis, etc.).
3. Lastly, Klement claims that the tenets behind his JTBD “theory” and Clay’s Theory are one in the same. In reality, the core tenets of Clay’s theory totally conflict with those espoused by Klement who is still claiming that jobs are purely emotional, a job can’t contain a functional component, only emotional jobs are stable over time, and more. Klement is pretending that Christensen supports his new tenets/theory when in fact he does not.

What Klement is trying to do here is truly unconscionable.

Up until recently, Klement was Tweeting that Clay’s theory was all wrong, was “utter garbage” and that he disagreed with it. Now, in this new article, Klement has suddenly changed his narrative and claims that both he and Christensen are wholeheartedly aligned with the “jobs-as-progress” (as he labels it) model — even though Clay would 100% disagree with Klement’s unproven “jobs-as-progress” tenets.

Getting called out has not stopped Klement. He continues to conflate and confuse concepts to try and make himself a voice in the Jobs-to-be-Done community. With his false narratives and ever-changing set of “facts,” Klement is the sole-source of confusion in the JTBD community.

Alan Klement’s Jobs-to-be-Done “Theory”

While attacking the pioneers in the JTBD community, Klement has devised and promoted his own version of Jobs-to-be-Done Theory — one that totally contradicts the well established tenets of the proven Jobs-to-be-Done Theory that date back to Christensen’s book The Innovator’s Solution (2003) (See The Core Tenets of Jobs-to-be-Done Theory). Despite the fact that Klement’s “theory” bears no resemblance to the proven theory, Klement still insists on calling his so-called theory “Jobs-to-be-Done.” This insistence, along with his persistent attacks on me and others, has started a Jobs-to-be-Done war.

According to Klement‘s JTBD “theory” — jobs are ONLY emotional, people DON’T have needs, jobs AREN’T stable over time (unless they are emotional), and most products AREN’T purchased to get a job done. Ironically — Klement’s “theory” is literally the opposite of the JTBD theory proven in practice.

Keep in mind that Klement claims his “theory” is valid, yet he has never tested it in the field — it’s just a hypothesis — he’s never applied it with success. To call something a theory, it must be a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. Klement has no evidence that his hypothesis is valid or can advance product marketing or innovation. He changes his hypothesis monthly — it’s a work in process.

While his tactics are unscrupulous and highly unprofessional, and his “theory” is untested, he has nonetheless built a base of followers. By flooding Twitter and Medium with his rhetoric, Alan Klement has gone all out to try and become a leading voice in the JTBD community at the expense of those who established the space.

What is Klement trying to accomplish?

Klement’s behavior can be explained. For the past 2 years or so, Klement has been carrying out a plan that he devised to hijack the jobs-to-be-done brand.

Here’s the story based on my historical knowledge of the space and what I have learned and witnessed:

• Bob Moesta, Rick Pedi and John Palmer (former partners in a marketing consulting company) introduced Clay Christensen to their Milkshake Marketing concept around 1997. Their ability to put the idea into practice was not yet fleshed out and Moesta’s and Christensen’s first attempts to use it (for McDonald’s milkshakes and Unilever margarine) failed as Christensen et al describe in Competing Against Luck (pages 173 and 13 respectively).
• I introduced Outcome-Driven Innovation (ODI) and its underlying theory to Clay Christensen in October, 1999. ODI had already been tested and proven in practice with over 100 applications. The first documented success using the process (1991) was detailed in the 2002 HBR article Turn Customer Input into Innovation. The first patent on the process was filed in 1996 and granted in 1999.
• Christensen saw similarities in the two concepts and created his own hypothesis around them that he introduced as “Jobs-to-be-Done Theory” in his book The Innovator’s Solution (2003). Clay touted the power of the theory and its applicability to both marketing and innovation.
• Christensen cited both parties for their contributions.

What I have learned more recently is that Christensen’s Jobs-to-be-Done Theory, as he defined it in The Innovator’s Solution, didn’t sit well with Moesta, Pedi and Palmer, as it was not in full alignment with their thinking. According to Alan Klement, they were upset that Clay had misunderstood their theory and meshed it with the tenets upon which the Outcome-Driven Innovation (ODI) process was built (jobs are stable, the job is the unit of analysis, the core job is functional, etc.).

The way they saw it, their Milkshake Marketing concept was meant to be used to help a marketing team try to sell more of a product that already exists by “aligning it with the real reasons customers are buying them” (according to Pedi and Palmer). It was not meant to be applied to innovation.

In The Innovator’s Solution, however, Clay Christensen touted Jobs-to-be-Done Theory as a way to make product innovation more predictable, and he cited Strategyn’s work and ODI as evidence of how it had successfully been put into practice. According to Alan Klement, Moesta, Pedi and Palmer were not happy with this and for years Moesta et al worked to convince Clay that ODI was (i) not their version of JTBD and, (ii) could not work for innovation. More recently (April, 2016) John Palmer posted this document which shows him arguing that his version of Jobs Theory is different than ODI. Palmer goes on to completely misrepresent the ODI process while trying to prove my version of the theory can’t work for innovation.

With this unique knowledge of what had transpired behind the scenes, Klement realized that 3 versions of Jobs-to-be-Done theory had emerged:

1. The “Ulwick” version — which is tied to ODI’s underlying theory and the core tenets introduced to Clay in 1999 (the job is the unit of analysis, stable over time, functional with emotional components, etc.). This version of the theory has been stable for 26 years and is proven in practice to make innovation more predictable.
2. The “ Pedi and Palmer” version — which they now call Customer Jobs Theory, as described in this document, which studies buyers of a specific product to discover their jobs-to-be-done. The theory is still used to improve sales of an existing product, although according to Palmer, attempts are being made to evolve it for use in innovation.
3. The “Christensen and Moesta” version (described in both The Innovator’s Solution and Competing Against Luck) — which combines the core tenets that Christensen and I have both espoused since 2003 with the research practices that were brought to him by Moesta et al.

Klement noticed early on what others are beginning to understand today; that the “Christensen/Moesta” version of Jobs Theory relies on research practices that don’t work well for innovation, thus invalidating the theory. This insight gave Klement the ammunition he was looking for…

Using the narrative that ODI isn’t JTBD (even though it is) and couldn’t work for innovation (even though it does) and that Christensen got Moesta’s, Pedi’s and Palmer’s theory wrong, Klement saw an opportunity to try and hijack the JTBD brand with a fourth version of Jobs Theory — one that he would create.

Klement’s Jobs-to-be-Done War Tactics

First, Klement tried to paint Clay Christensen as an “intellectual yet idiot (IYI)” using that exact phrase to explain that “Clay doesn’t understand his own theory.” Klement went on to declare that Clay Christensen just “thinks and talks” and has never practiced the theory, never talked to a customer and never advanced the theory — all disparaging statements that can easily be disproven.

Klement also takes pride in claiming that Pedi and Palmer describe Clay’s 2016 book, Competing Against Luck, as “utter garbage,” as they openly disagree with many of Clay’s latest ideas. From Klement’s perspective, if Christensen doesn’t understand his own theory and the theory is “garbage” to begin with, then the door is open for him to reinvent it.

Next, Klement tried to paint me as a fraud — a label he has put on me often, along with “hack” and “scammer.” He’s felt emboldened to do this for two reasons:

• Klement says he was told by Bob Moesta et al that ODI can’t work for innovation; so he took their word for it (without reading ODI articles or books) and spread the narrative that anyone claiming ODI can work, including me, must be a scammer.
• Clay Christensen chose not to mention my work or ODI in his 2016 book Competing Against Luck. Therefore, Klement surmised, it’s okay for him to spread the narrative that ODI has nothing to do with Jobs-to-be-Done and to ignore ODI’s obvious history.

Klement often cites these points as his justifications for slandering me and writing me out of JTBD history. (My books tell the actual story). From Klement’s perspective, claiming ODI is not JTBD enables him rewrite history and remove ODI from the space, leaving a void he could fill.

Third, Klement tried to gain credibility in the JTBD community by praising Rick Pedi and John Palmer and getting them to write a foreword for his e-book. Klement pretends they are the true and only JTBD founders and that their original Customer Jobs Theory is the “real” JTBD Theory. By denouncing all other contributors (including both Christensen and myself), and having Pedi and Palmer on his side, Klement hoped he would be able to gain credibility in the space.

Klement often touts the fact that Pedi and Palmer wrote the foreword for his e-book. From Klement’s perspective, if he’s helping the “true” JTBD founders advance the theory, then that makes him a founder of the theory as well (yes, this is something he has claimed — Klement has also claimed he taught Clay Christensen Jobs Theory).

So this was Klement’s plan: with Clay Christensen painted as an “idiot” who got Jobs-to-be-Done all wrong, and me painted as a “fraud” Alan Klement felt he, a self-proclaimed expert and pioneer with two JTBD-based entrepreneurial successes behind him, would be free to take over the Jobs-to-be-Done brand with his new “theory.”

Klement Is Exposed

As it turns out, Christensen is not an idiot, ODI works great for breakthrough innovation, and Klement’s “theory” is just an unproven hypothesis. Klement’s efforts to spin the facts differently have not withstood the scrutiny. Klement is fighting a war that cannot be won without him introducing a superior theory — and that is something he is unlikely to accomplish overnight — it is yet to be created.

After all his bluster, it turns out that Alan Klement and his new “theory” is a sham. Klement doesn’t have a theory, yet he has the gall to misrepresent himself as an innovation guru who used his own “evolved version” of JTBD theory to become a rich entrepreneur. For nearly 2 years Klement has repeatedly slandered and attacked the pioneers in the space and purposely tricked his followers into believing his lies.

Klement’s actions go well beyond intellectual dishonesty. They show that Klement has no trouble ignoring the moral and ethical norms that govern civility in business.

The core tenets of Jobs-to-be-Done Theory

Klement continues to conflate and confuse concepts to try and make himself a voice in the Jobs-to-be-Done community. Klement is the source of the confusion that abounds in the JTBD community. This is just one more example of Klement’s intellectual dishonesty.

Learn more: download a FREE PDF version of my latest Jobs-To-Be-Done book, JOBS TO BE DONE: Theory to Practice.

Download a FREE PDF