Comment

Comment by Erwin Fielt on June 30, 2010 at 4:09am

@Mike, for now I tried to focus on the meaning of the concept, not yet directly on specific approaches. But I see an obvious fit between the job-to-be-done approach and what Woodruff calls the 'desired consequences in use situations,' which is one level up from the 'desired product attributes and attribute performances.'

Comment by Mike Lachapelle on June 29, 2010 at 4:04pm

Thank you Erwin

That is a very interesting summary of the subject; made more pertinent as I recently was challenged, while discussing the definition of a business model, to differentiate value creation from value capture. I particularly like the "value-in-use" and "value-in-exchange" perspective.

Of late, when talking about the value proposition in the business model, I have focussed on Christensen's (and Johnson's) idea of looking at the 'job-to-be-done' and the 'need-to-be-served' as the underlying principles. I like the way that approach helps the business people to focus on what they are delivering for the client, rather than what they are doing. For example, it was an important discussion to have to move procurement people away from the belief contracting was the value they provide. The client has a job to deliver their program; to do that they have a need for some goods and services. Putting a contract in place doesn't solve the client's need if the contractor doesn't deliver effectively. Therefore the value proposition is a delivered good or service, not the activity of contracting.

I think the use - exchange dichotomy will help to emphasize that necessary differentiation.

Comment by Marc Borremans on June 29, 2010 at 9:37am

For this purpose, we tend to refer to the NABC value proposition approach (developed by SRI). NABC = Need-Approach-Benefits-Competition. The focus is on Need (customer pain) and Benefits (quantifiable from customer perspective).