Jobs theory around scientific products

<p><a class="wikilink" href="/jobs_theory/">jobs theory</a> and the <a class="wikilink" href="/literature/202303251644_jobs_to_be_done_framework/">Jobs to be done framework</a> are great tools to identify opportunities and define features for a <a class="wikilink" href="/minimum_viable_product/">minimum viable product</a>. I believe <a class="wikilink" href="/science-based_startups/">science-based startups</a> can greatly benefit from their use but almost no one is using it.</p> <p>Assuming we focus on <a class="wikilink" href="/scientific_products/">scientific products</a> that can be purchased by a single PI (not infrastructure-type of investment). </p> <p>The <strong>Job Executor</strong> will have the hands on the product. They are probably a PhD, Postdoc, or <em>technician</em>. </p> <p><strong>The Product Lifecycle Support Team</strong> will either be a distributor, or someone at the institute who needs to handle certifications, installation, trainings, etc. </p> <p><strong>Purchase decision maker</strong> will be the PI. </p> <p>It is crucial next, to identify the <strong>type of job</strong> each one will be doing around the instrument. </p> <p><strong>The core functional job</strong> of the executor is relatively clear, extracting some information from our machine. For the lifecycle team, the training of new users could be the core job. </p> <p>But what is the core functional job for the PI? Since they run on publishing papers, it's a safe bet to assume that's their core job. </p> <p><strong>Related jobs</strong> are an interesting point, because they are the ones that easily drive a product to failure. What does it take to prepare the sample, analyze data, clean up. There are always so many steps with a machine's operation. What about replication and reproducibility? Some of these jobs may be performed by different people at different moments in time. (See: <a class="wikilink" href="/there_is_always_a_cost_to_introducing_new_technology/">There is always a cost to introducing new technology</a>). </p> <p><strong>Emotional jobs</strong> are greatly responsible for poor adoption. People who spent countless hours solving issues and becoming an expert at a technique, will not easily change to the next shiny thing. There's a given prestige about doing something right, even if it's sub-optimal. Instruments designed like those from <a class="wikilink" href="/izon/">iZon</a> appeal in part to that. Or those fancy lasers that require realignments... </p> <p><strong>Consumption chain jobs</strong>, are often not relevant at the moment of defining a <a class="wikilink" href="/minimum_viable_product/">minimum viable product</a>, but nonetheless relevant for credibility. How is the maintenance of equipment, up to date software, troubleshooting, replacing components, and eventually the end of life? Does it take 3 days to train a user or few minutes? If the product uses consumables, what about their acquisition, use, and disposal? </p> <p><strong>Purchase decision job</strong> which in many cases comes down to "is it cheaper/faster", for academia it takes a different meaning: <strong>grant writing</strong>. That's the core job of the PI to lead the sale of equipment. There will be a compromise: buying this equipment means not buying another one, which circles back to the emotional jobs of the PI.</p>