Analyze and Fix Flawed JTBD Statement

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
JTBD STATEMENT ANALYSIS & CORRECTION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Original: “When I need to be more productive, I want a dashboard to see tasks,
so I can get more done.”

🔴 CRITICAL ISSUES:

1. ❌ CIRCULAR LOGIC
   Motivation: “need to be more productive”
   Outcome: “get more done”
   Problem: These are the same thing! Outcome must be specific and distinct
   from motivation.

2. ❌ SOLUTION LANGUAGE
   “dashboard to see tasks” is a solution, not a motivation
   The job exists regardless of what tool or solution is used.

3. ❌ VAGUE SITUATION
   “When I need to be more productive” - This is too abstract. When does this
   need arise? What’s the specific trigger?

4. ❌ NO MEASURABLE OUTCOME
   “Get more done” - How do you measure when you’re “done”? What does success
   look like?

5. ❌ WEAK VERBS
   “see” is passive - doesn’t describe what action is being taken with the
   information

───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
CORRECTED STATEMENT
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

When: I start my workday facing multiple competing priorities
I want to: Identify which tasks will have the greatest impact on my goals
So I can: Allocate my limited time to high-value activities that move work
forward

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
CONSTRUCTION EXPLANATION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

✅ SITUATION CLARIFIED: “start my workday facing multiple competing priorities”

• Made trigger specific: beginning of workday
• Identified real context: competing priorities create the need
• Removed abstract “need to be productive” in favor of concrete situation

✅ MOTIVATION EXTRACTED: “Identify which tasks will have the greatest impact”

• Removed solution language: “dashboard” and “see” were solutions
• Used strong verb: “Identify” implies evaluation and decision-making
• Made specific: Not just seeing tasks, but determining which are important
• Focused on underlying need: prioritization, not visualization

✅ OUTCOME DEFINED: “Allocate my limited time to high-value activities that
move work forward”

• Made measurable: “high-value activities” vs generic “get more done”
• Distinct from motivation: identifying ≠ allocating
• Clear “done” state: Time is allocated to the right things
• Captures real goal: Not productivity for its own sake, but moving work
  forward

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
MISTAKES AVOIDED
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

❌ SOLUTION LANGUAGE
Original said: “dashboard to see tasks”
Problem: Dashboard is a specific UI solution. Job must be solution-agnostic.
Fix: Focused on decision-making need (identify, allocate)

❌ CIRCULAR LOGIC
Original: “need to be productive” → “get more done”
Problem: Motivation and outcome are identical - just rephrased
Fix: Motivation = identify high-impact tasks; Outcome = allocate time
effectively (two distinct activities)

❌ VAGUE OUTCOME
Original: “get more done”
Problem: Not measurable. More done than what? When is it enough?
Fix: “Allocate time to high-value activities” - can measure if this
happened

❌ WEAK VERB
Original: “see”
Problem: “See” doesn’t describe an action or goal, just passive observation
Fix: “Identify” (active decision-making) and “Allocate” (action taken)

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
VALIDATION TIPS
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Test this corrected statement by asking:

1. ✅ Does this job exist even if no product existed?
   YES - People have always needed to prioritize work, long before dashboards

2. ✅ Is the outcome measurable?
   YES - Can measure: Did I spend time on high-impact vs low-impact activities?

3. ✅ Are motivation and outcome distinct?
   YES - Identifying important tasks (thinking) ≠ Allocating time (doing)

4. ✅ Could this inspire multiple different solutions?
   YES - Task dashboards, AI prioritization, calendar blocking, eisenhower
   matrix, time tracking analytics, etc.

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ALTERNATIVE PHRASINGS
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

MORE SPECIFIC VERSION (narrower scope):
“When I start my workday with more tasks than time available, I want to
determine which 3-5 tasks will create the most value, so I can focus my
energy on what matters most and defer less important work”

MORE GENERAL VERSION (broader scope):
“When facing limited resources and competing demands, I want to assess which
activities align with my strategic goals, so I can make deliberate resource
allocation decisions rather than reacting to urgency”

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
WHY THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT LIKELY FAILED
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

ROOT CAUSE:
The original statement was too vague to drive meaningful product decisions.

LIKELY IMPACT:

• Built generic task dashboard (because statement mentioned dashboard)
• Added task list views (because statement mentioned seeing tasks)
• Didn’t solve prioritization problem (the real job)
• Features felt like “nice to have” rather than solving urgent need

WHAT TO DO NOW:

1. Stop using the original statement
2. Validate corrected statement with 3-5 users
3. Ask: “Tell me about a time when you struggled to decide what to work on
   first”
4. Listen for prioritization pain points, not requests for dashboards
5. Build features that help identify high-impact work, not just display tasks