---
title: Outcome-Driven Innovation (ODI)
type: concept
tags: [jtbd, odi, innovation, customer-needs, opportunity-algorithm, ulwick, metrics]
sources:
  - "[[sources/2009-ulwick-what-is-odi]]"
  - "[[sources/2016-christensen-jobs-to-be-done]]"
created: 2026-04-20
updated: 2026-04-20
---

# Outcome-Driven Innovation (ODI)

**Ulwick / Strategyn's quantitative operationalisation of Jobs-to-Be-Done.** Where Christensen's JTBD is narrative, ODI is metric-based: it decomposes a job into a job map, extracts **desired-outcome statements** with strict syntax, scores each on **importance × satisfaction**, and ranks unmet needs with the **Opportunity Algorithm**. ([[sources/2009-ulwick-what-is-odi]])

## Where it sits

- ODI is the methodological backbone Ulwick has built since the mid-1990s.
- It predates Christensen's public JTBD writing; Christensen cited Ulwick in HBR Jan 2002.
- ODI is one strand of [[frameworks/jtbd]]; the other is Christensen's narrative strand.

## The five operational artefacts

### 1. Job Map (universal 8-step structure)

> "All functional jobs are processes and can be analyzed as such." ([[sources/2009-ulwick-what-is-odi]], p. 10)

| Step | Sub-actions |
|---|---|
| Define | Plan · Select · Determine |
| Locate | Gather · Access · Receive |
| Prepare | Set Up · Organize · Examine |
| Confirm | Validate · Prioritize · Decide |
| Execute | Perform · Transact · Administer |
| Monitor | Verify · Track · Check |
| Modify | Update · Adjust · Maintain |
| Conclude | Store · Finish · Close |

Job map ≠ process map: job map is the **needs view** (what the customer is trying to get done); process map is the **solution view** (what the company actually does). See Bettencourt & Ulwick, "The Customer-Centered Innovation Map", HBR May 2008.

Typical dimensions: **8–12 process steps** per job, **6–12 needs per step**, **50–150 desired outcomes** total.

### 2. Hierarchy of Customer Needs

```
Core Functional Job
 ├── Other Functional Jobs (directly related · indirectly related)
 ├── Emotional Jobs (personal · social)
 └── Consumption Chain Jobs (12): Purchase · Receive · Install · Set Up ·
      Learn to Use · Interface · Transport · Store · Maintain · Upgrade ·
      Replace · Dispose
```

Each consumption-chain job has its own job map and need statements.

### 3. Desired-Outcome Statement syntax

> [Direction of improvement] [Unit of measure] [Object of control] [Contextual clarifier] [Example of object control]

Examples (corn farmer):
- "Minimise the time it takes for the corn seeds to germinate"
- "Increase the percentage of plants that emerge at the same time"

Strict syntax eliminates terminology variance that would otherwise corrupt importance/satisfaction ratings.

### 4. Opportunity Algorithm

> **Opportunity = Importance + max(Importance − Satisfaction, 0)**

(First published HBR Jan 2002, "Turn Customer Input into Innovation.") Scale: 1–10 on both Importance and Satisfaction. Thresholds:
- **>10** — solid opportunity
- **>12** — high opportunity
- **>15** — extreme opportunity

Plotting Importance (x) × Satisfaction (y) yields the **Opportunity Landscape** — segments: *Appropriately Served*, *Overserved* (ripe for disruption), *Underserved* (innovation opportunity).

Also supports **opportunity-based segmentation**: find sub-populations with different unmet-need profiles.

### 5. Six growth strategies (once unmet needs are known)

1. Add features to existing platform → help core job done better.
2. Add features to existing platform → help related jobs get done.
3. New platform → core job done better/cheaper.
4. New platform → core + related jobs.
5. New platform → new job executor for core.
6. New platform → new executor for core + related.

Claimed outcome: 70–90% success rate (vs 70–90% failure rate of conventional processes); 19 years of methodology development across hundreds of engagements ([[sources/2009-ulwick-what-is-odi]], pp. 8, 17).

## Relation to BPM

The most direct BPM bridge in the JTBD literature:

- **"All functional jobs are processes."** Ulwick literally says a job decomposes into process steps; the job map is structurally a BPMN-minus-gateways flow from the customer's side of the transaction.
- **Job map as outside-in BPMN.** Running an ODI job map alongside an internal as-is BPMN ([[methods/process-discovery-methods]]) reveals where the company's process misaligns with the customer's job — the same seams [[sources/2016-christensen-jobs-to-be-done]] identifies in the SNHU case.
- **Opportunity algorithm for process pain prioritisation.** `Importance + max(Importance − Satisfaction, 0)` transfers cleanly to scoring activity-level pain points by business-value × process-performance gap. *(Transfer is plausible but unverified against BPM literature.)*
- **Consumption chain jobs ≈ end-to-end scope.** Purchase → Dispose is a customer-side lifecycle parallel to Sharp's TRAC end-to-end framing ([[sources/2014-sharp-using-scope-models]]).

## Cross-references

- [[frameworks/jtbd]] — parent framework.
- [[sources/2009-ulwick-what-is-odi]] — primary source.
- [[sources/2016-christensen-jobs-to-be-done]] — narrative-strand counterpart.
- [[entities/tony-ulwick]] · [[entities/clayton-christensen]]
- [[concepts/business-process]] — the other definition of "process" ODI maps against.
- [[methods/process-discovery-methods]] · [[syntheses/qualitative-discovery-method-selection-matrix]]

## Open questions

- Empirical validation of the 86% success rate outside Strategyn's self-reporting *(unverified)*.
- Mapping from ODI desired-outcome syntax to BPM **performance measure** definitions in Dumas et al. 2018 (time, cost, quality, flexibility) — looks isomorphic but not formally established.
- Whether ODI's strict syntax can be learned by a generic LLM well enough to auto-generate outcome statements from interview transcripts.