Скачать или смотреть Jobs-to-be-Done: The Ultimate Guide to Tech Strategy

Tech Strategy is not Tech Implementation. So many get that confused and they really need to be separated


Introduction: The End of the Traditional Enterprise Roadmap


As a technology leader, take a hard look at the artifacts that govern your strategy. Your enterprise architects present meticulously crafted capability models. Your PMO manages a multi-year roadmap of complex system integrations and decommissioning projects. Everything looks organized, logical, and aligned.


But let me ask you this: When was the last time you could draw a straight, undeniable line from an updated capability map to an improvement in your company’s P&L? When did a system context diagram stop a key business stakeholder from complaining that "IT is too slow" or, worse, from funding their own shadow IT?





The Practical Innovator's Guide to Customer-Centric Growth is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.





This is the uncomfortable truth of traditional enterprise technology strategy. The tools we use—the capability maps, the system flows, the project-based roadmaps—are excellent for describing our complex technology landscape. They are essential for managing and organizing our work. But as tools for strategic decision-making, they are fundamentally flawed. They give us the illusion of alignment while creating a massive gap between technology investment and business value.


They describe what we have and what we plan to do to it, but they systematically ignore the one thing that justifies the entire IT budget: helping the business get its job done better. It’s time to stop mapping our server racks and start mapping the business value streams they are meant to support.


The Old Way: Why Capability Maps and System Flows Fail as Strategy


To be clear, business capability maps and system diagrams have their place. They are vital for enterprise architects and delivery teams. But when they are elevated to the primary tool for strategy, they become a dangerous liability.


The Illusion of Alignment


A capability map looks like a tool for business-IT alignment. It lays out what the business does ("Manage Supply Chain," "Process Invoices," "Onboard Employees") and allows you to overlay your applications. It feels like you’re creating a shared language.


The problem is that a capability is just a label. The map tells you that you have a capability, but it tells you nothing about its performance. Can you "Process Invoices" in two hours or two weeks? Does your "Onboard Employees" capability provide a great experience that retains talent, or a frustrating one that causes new hires to quit? The capability map is silent on these crucial questions. It aligns IT to a set of nouns, not to a set of business outcomes.


Disconnected from Business Value


Because capability maps lack performance metrics, the roadmaps built upon them are inherently disconnected from value. The strategy becomes a game of "application rationalization" or "filling capability gaps." The roadmap says things like "Decommission Legacy CRM" or "Implement New HRIS Platform."


These are technology projects, not business improvements. The CIO is left trying to justify a multi-million dollar "HRIS Implementation" to the board, when what the CEO actually cares about is "reducing time-to-hire by 50%" or "increasing employee retention by 15%." The project becomes the goal, and the business value becomes a hoped-for byproduct, often lost in a sea of change orders and integration challenges.


The Inventory is Not the Strategy


Ultimately, a capability map is an inventory of what the business does. A system architecture diagram is an inventory of how it does it. An inventory is passive. It's a static snapshot.


A strategy, by contrast, is active. It's a theory about how to win. It requires you to make choices about where to invest and where to divest, based on where you can create a competitive advantage. You can't see competitive advantage in a capability map because it treats all capabilities as equal. It provides no mechanism to identify which parts of which business processes are most broken and most important to fix.


The New Way: A Job-to-be-Done (JTBD) Lens for Enterprise Processes


The alternative is to flip the entire model on its head. Instead of starting with an inventory of your capabilities and systems, you must start with the core jobs of the business. This is the application of Outcome-Driven Innovation (ODI) and JTBD theory to the enterprise.


The "customer" in this context is often an internal business unit—Finance, Supply Chain, Sales, HR. These units are trying to execute core business processes, or "jobs," to create value for the company. Your technology and your teams are the "products" they "hire" to get these jobs done.


It’s Not About Your Capabilities, It’s About the Business's Job


This shift redefines the purpose of IT. The IT department isn't just a supplie...