Mommers Esmee 11355921 MSC BA

Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory
Innovation, success and competitive advantage
Master Thesis Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Entrepreneurship and Diversity
Student: Esmée Mommers
Student number: 11355921
Submission date: 18-06-17
Study: MSc. Business Administration
Track: Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Institution: ABS, UvA
First supervisor: Dhr. Drs. R.C.W. van der Voort
Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Esmée Mommers who declares to take full responsibility
for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this
document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its
references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is
responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory 1
Acknowledgments
Hereby I would like to thank mr. van der Voort for his critical thinking. The feedback
moments provided me inspiration to work even harder, get new insights and stay motivated to
the end of this Master Thesis. These feedback moments were crucial in order to finalize this
Master Thesis. Furthermore, I would like to thank the respondents who were willing to
cooperate and give insights in their organization. It provided positive energy and interesting
results in regard to this research.
Abstract
In this research the elements of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory at start-ups and corporates are
examined in regard to innovation and success. To investigate this, multiple case studies,
following a deductive design are conducted. In order to gain insights on the interrelatedness
between the different concepts multiple CEO’s were interviewed at successful technology
start-ups and corporates in the Netherlands. The results of the study exhibit in the finding that
no organization is known with the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. Organizations apply elements of
the theory without being aware of it. But the customer is influencing the innovativeness and
success of an organization. Organizations do think that the theory could provide a
competitive advantage. The reason why organizations don’t apply this theory is because it is
time consuming and a lack of an organizational structure. This research provides the insight
that disruptive innovators might apply the theory. Besides this, the importance of customer
innovation will increase, but organizations will focus on big data instead of qualitative
research in order to understand the causation process of their customer.
Keywords: Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory, innovation, success and competitive advantage.
Table of Contents
Statement of originality p.1

Acknowledgements p.2
Abstract p.3
Table of content p.4
Overview figures and tables p.7
1. Introduction p.8
2. Literature review p.11
2.1 Innovation p.11
2.1.1 Innovation success p.11
2.1.2 Innovation definitions p.13
2.1.3 Innovation dimensions p.14
2.1.4 Innovation types p.17
2.1.5 Customer innovation p.18
2.1.5.1 Customer based innovation p.19
2.1.5.2 Customer orientation p.20
2.1.5.3 User driven innovation p.20
2.1.5.4 Co-creation p.21
2.2 Disruptive Innovation p.22
2.2.1 Clayton M. Christensen p.22
2.2.2 Disruptive innovation p.22
2.3 Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory p.24
2.3.1 Introduction p.24
2.3.2 About the theory p.24
2.3.3 Jobs-to-Be-Done in practice p.26
2.3.3.1 Defining the Jobs Theory p.26
2.3.3.2 How to find a job? P.27
2.3.3.3 Where to find a job? P.27
2.3.3.4 Circumstances a job arises in p.28
2.3.3.5 Building experiences for customers p.29
2.3.3.6 Integrating experiences into an organization p.29
2.4 Reflection theories p.32
2.4.1 Reflection conducting theory in business p.32
2.4.2 Reflection disruptive innovation p.34
2.4.3 Reflection Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory p.35
2.5 Interrelatedness p.38
3. Research design p.42
3.1 Description of the case study p.42
3.1.1 Start-up cases p.43
3.1.2 Corporate cases p.44
3.2 Description of research methods and procedures p.45
3.3 Analysis strategy p.46
3.4 Analysis strategy results p.48
3.5 Strengths and limitations of the research design p.49
4. Results p.50
4.1 Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory p.50
4.1.1 Innovation theories p.51
4.1.2 Customer based innovation p.51
4.1.3 Jobs-to-Be-Done elements p.52
4.1.3.1 Jobs p.52
4.1.3.2 Circumstances customer p.53
4.1.3.3 Experiences customer p.54
4.1.3.4 Integrating experiences organization p.55
4.1.3.5 Conclusion Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory p.56
4.2 Relation Jobs Theory, innovation and success p.57
4.2.1 Conclusion Jobs Theory, innovation and success p.58
4.3 Relation Jobs Theory and competitive advantage p.58
4.3.1 Conclusion relation Jobs theory and competitive advantage p.60
4.4 Relation theories and type of organization p.61
4.4.1 Conclusion theories and type of organization p.62
4.5 Factors leading to innovation, success and competitive advantage p.62
4.5.1 Success p.62
4.5.2 Factors influencing success p.63
4.5.3 Conclusion success p.65
4.6 Relation innovation and success p.66
4.7 Innovation p.66
4.7.1 Factors influencing innovation p.67
4.7.2 Conclusion innovation p.70
5. Discussion and conclusion p.71
5.1 Theoretically and managerial implications p.73
6. Limitations and further research p.74
7. References p.76
8. Appendices p.82
8.1 Appendix 1: Structure of the interviews p.82
8.2 Appendix 2: Interview transcripts p.84
8.3 Appendix 3: Cross-case analysis p.151
Overview figures and tables
Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual framework p.40
Figure 2: Additional conceptual framework p.41
Figure 3: Word cloud p.47
Figure 4: Venn diagram, match between cases and theory p.49
Tables
Table 1: Overview reflection theories p.38
Table 2: Cases (organizations) from the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory p.43
Table 3: Overview of the case studies and interviews p.45
Table 4: General overview cross-case analysis p.48
Table 5: Overview Jobs-to-Be-Done elements start-up and corporate p.57
Table 6: Overview success start-ups and corporates p.65
Table 7: Overview innovation start-up and corporate p.70
1. Introduction
‘‘What is needed for your company to be successful in today’s dynamic economy?’’ the most
probable answer will be: innovation’’ (Kuratko et al., 2014). According to Johannessen et al.
(2001) the environment of the economic dynamics is changing. This change occurs in the
technology, the shift in the nature of customer demand and the competition among
organizations is growing. These continuous changes in the state of knowledge produces new
disequilibrium situations, this brings new profit opportunities or ‘’gaps’’ Jacobson (1992).
Because of the change of the environment unexpected opportunities raise (Drucker, 2014).
These unexpected opportunities can lead to innovation for an organization. Schumpeter
(1934) as seen as one of the greatest economists of the first half of the twentieth century,
already believed that innovation is considered as an essential driver of competitiveness,
economic dynamics and the profit of companies as result of innovation. The following
statement gives a reflection on the importance that organizations give to innovation within
their organization: ‘’Companies that do not invest in innovation put their future at risk. Their
business is unlikely to prosper, and they are unlikely to be able to compete if they do not seek
innovative solutions to emerging problems’’ Australian government website (Bessant &
Tidd, 2007).
In today’s economy, innovation is seen as an important factor in order to be successful. The
importance of innovation is also increasing among the executives within organizations.
Research of Kuratko et al. (2014) state that 90% of the executives believe that their
company’s long-term success depends on the ability to innovate. The following statement of
world’s most profitable company is focusing on innovation (Kell, 2015): ‘’We are always
saying to ourselves. We have to innovate. We’ve got to come up with that breakthrough’’ Bill
Gates, former chairman and CEO, Microsoft (Bessant & Tidd, 2007).
Mone et al. (1998) mention that innovation is the most important determinant of an
organizations performance. According to Statistics Canada (Bessant & Tidd, 2007) a few
factors characterize successful enterprises. First, innovation is found to be the most important
factor associated with success. Second, innovative organizations have stronger growth and
are more successful than organizations that do not innovate. Finally, organizations that gain
market share and increasing revenues are the most innovative ones. Thus, innovation has an
important role in the success of an organization. Besides the successfulness of an
organization, innovation can be regarded as a source of a competitive sustaining advantage
(Baregheh et al., 2009) in an increasingly changing environment (Tushman & O’Reilly,
1996). About 20% of the executives believe their own innovation strategy provides a clear
competitive advantage (Kuratko et al., 2014). Besides, innovation is seen as factor to succeed
and as the driver of competition. Innovation will also lead to higher profit margins, increased
earnings streams and higher stock prices (Kuczmarski, 2003). Profit growth can be achieved
through the adoption of an innovation mind-set and dedication to breakthrough innovation
(Kuczmarski, 2003).
But why aren’t then all organizations successful if innovation is the key to success?
Innovation is regarded as something so uncertain (Boer & During, 2001). But, according to
Christensen et al. (2016) with help of his new theory, innovation can be made predictable. In
Christensen’s et al. (2016) recently published book ‘’Competing against luck, the story of
innovation and customer choice’’ the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory is explained. The publication
of this book is the starting point for the subject of this Master’s thesis because the theory will
provide the opportunity for organizations to predict innovation with help of focusing on
customer choice. Because of the possibility to predict, the innovation won’t be uncertain
anymore. The publication of the theory is a follow up of the disruptive innovation theory
from Christensen et al. (2015), this theory and the relation it has with the Jobs-to-Be-Done
Theory will be explained in the literature review. Will the use of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory
result in innovation that is leading to success and a competitive advantage?
This Master Thesis is structured as follows. First, the phenomena innovation will be
explained. After this, the theories of Clayton M. Christensen are analysed and the relation
between the theories will be explained. This is followed by a critical reflection on the
business theories. Finally, the possible interrelatedness between the theories, innovation and
success will be discussed. Based on the literature review a methodology will be developed to
research the impact of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory and the role of innovation and success at
different type of organizations (start-ups and corporates) in the Netherlands.
2. Literature review
The literature review will start with an introduction on the importance of innovation. After
this, an outline of innovation will be given. This outline of innovation will include an
explanation of the definition of innovation, the innovation dimensions, the innovation types
and the innovation methods. After this, the theories of Clayton M. Christensen; the disruptive
innovation theory and the Jobs-to-Be-Done theory will be analysed. Finally, a critical
reflection on the theories will be given and the possible interrelatedness between the theories,
innovation, success and type of organizations will be discussed.
2.1 Innovation
2.1.1 Innovation success
The research of CBS (ICT, kennis en economie, 2016) stated that in the Netherlands 21%
percent of the revenue of companies was, revenue generated through innovation. Many
researchers state that innovation will lead to success for an organization but what is success
in regard to innovation? According to Heunks (1998) success out of innovation can be
defined as ‘’any sign of economic profitability, like growth, increasing productivity and
profits’’. In 2014 product innovation consists out of 9% of the total revenue from
organizations in the Netherlands (ICT, kennis en economie, 2016). According to Peters
(2009) product innovation success greater under a few circumstances, namely if the product
provides a high contribution to the firm, the R&D process is well planned and executed, the
product is introduced early on the market and there is a high management support. Besides
this, if organizations focus on in-depth understanding of the customer and the marketplace the
success of the product innovation would be greater. This is in line with the main focus of the
Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory.
A distinction between start-up and corporate innovation success can be made. The innovation
process occurs in two ways, at corporate organizations and start-ups that are recently
established by entrepreneurs (Freeman & Engel, 2007). Not only corporates drive their
revenue from innovation but also small organizations with ten to fifty employees. Large
organizations and start-ups are different organizations. ‘’Each sides had what the other one
lacks’’ (Weiblen & Chesbourgh, 2015). The corporate has resources, scale, power, the
routines needed to run a proven business model efficiently (Weiblen & Chesbourgh, 2015), a
developed brand presence and the right organization structure (Freeman & Engel, 2007). On
the other hand, start-ups have more opportunities to innovate, are smaller (Freeman & Engel,
2007) have promising ideas, organizational agility, the willingness to take a risk, and
aspirations of rapid growth (Weiblen & Chesbrough, 2015). ‘’In small firm’s success depends
on innovation’’ (Heunks, 1998). If small firms innovate it will lead to an increase in
productivity and growth but the profits tend to be low (Heunks, 1998). Start-ups have an edge
over corporates when it comes to agility. Corporates would have material advantages and
start-ups have behavioural advantages (Heunks, 1998). Peter Diamandes and Singularity
University claim that exponential technologies are impacting fast, and that humans are not
wired to comprehend exponential changes in the environment (Weiblen & Chesbourgh,
2015). This perspective implies a need for corporates to innovate and move faster. The
current ecosystem is supporting a growing number of start-ups (Weiblen & Chesbourgh,
2015). In contrast, according to Heunks (1998) the relationship between innovation and firm
size is not very clear. Above mentioned is leading to the following question: Is there a
relationship between innovation success and the type of an organization?
2.1.2 Innovation definitions
Innovation could lead to success for organizations, but what is innovation? One of the
challenges of innovation is a lack of a common definition and understanding of innovation.
Innovation is studied in many disciplines from different perspectives and multiple definitions
are given to innovation. According to Schumpeter (1934) innovation arises when there is an
‘entrepreneur’ who comes up with a ‘new combination’. Innovation would be essential to
explain economic growth; the entrepreneur is the central innovator. Innovation involves the
cooperation of many different actors. In order to demonstrate the diversity of the definition of
innovation a few examples of definitions of innovation will be given. Schumpeter (1934)
defines innovation as ‘’Process of industrial mutation, that incessantly revolutionizes the
economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a
new one’’. According to Schumpeter (1934) innovation can be seen as the ‘creative
destruction’, because of the new innovation the old system will get destructed. Recently
innovation is defined differently than the definition of Schumpeter (1934) innovation could
be a process and an outcome according to Crossan & Apaydin (2010). The definition of
Schumpeter (1934) would suit with the definition of disruptive innovation nowadays.
‘’Disruptive technology is probably the cause behind the ‘’creative destruction’’ that
economist Joseph Schumpeter observed to be primary engine of economic progress more
than half a century ago’’ (Christensen, 2003). Besides, recently definitions of innovation
focus much less on the destroying of the old one, but emphasize more the change and
different dimensions of innovation. Crossan & Apaydin (2010) define innovation as
‘’Innovation is production or adoption, assimilation and exploitation of a value added novelty
in economic and social spheres, renewal and enlargement of products, services and markets,
development of new methods of production and the establishment of new management
systems, it is both a process and an outcome’’.
In this Master Thesis the following definition of innovation will be used: ‘’The process of
making changes, large and small, radical and incremental, to products, processes and services
that result in the introduction of something new for the organization that adds value to
customers and contributes to the knowledge store of the organization’’ (O’sullivan & Dooley,
2009). This definition of innovation is used because it is a broad definition, mentioning the
different types of innovation. Besides this, it implements the adding value for the customer,
this is in relevance to the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. Christensen et al. (2016) the inventor of
the disruptive innovation theory and the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory defines innovation as:
‘’Less about producing something new and more about enabling something new and
important for customers’’. In his vision innovation should take place with help of insights of
customers. In order to understand the different dimensions and innovation types mentioned in
the innovation definition of this Master Thesis. First the innovation dimensions; product,
process, service and open innovation will be explained and after this the incremental and
radical innovation types, followed by customer based innovation methods.
2.1.3 Innovation dimensions
The nature of an innovation various from creating something new, changing the existing or
improve the existing (Baregheh et al., 2009). Older mainstream innovation literature has a
focus on the distinction between product and process innovation. In this Master Thesis the
focus will be on product, process, service and open innovation.
In product innovation the innovation is often driven by the demands of customers or their
desire to penetrate new markets (Boer & During, 2001). Product innovation is about changes
in the offerings of an organization (Bessant & Tidd, 2007). Boston Consulting Group Senior
Executive Innovation Survey (Andrew et al., 2010) found that product innovation was one of
the top three priorities for 71% of companies, and even important to the company’s future.
The success of new product development is dependent on the extent to which product is
perceived as satisfying customer needs (Slater et al., 2014).
Process innovation on the other hand is about a change in the ways the offerings are created
(Bessant & Tidd, 2007). ‘’Process innovation combines the adoption of a process view of the
business with the application of innovation to key processes’’ (Davenport, 2013). The
definition of process innovation is the ‘’envisioning of new work strategies, the actual
process design activity and the implementation of the change in all its complex technological,
human and organizational dimensions’’ (Davenport, 2013). The motives of process
innovation are, reducing lead time, lower operational costs and increased flexibility (Boer &
During, 2001). Besides these motives Davenport (2013) mentions major improvements in
quality, service levels or other business objectives.
Besides product and process innovation the importance of service innovation is growing
rapidly. ‘’For decades, the importance of services to the global economy has grown steadily
while the importance of goods has declined’’ (Berry et al., 2006). Service innovation is
mostly an incremental process (Berry et al., 2006). These improvements would be limited in
the kind of return they can produce according to Berry et al. (2006). ‘’Rarely does a company
develop a service that created an entirely new market or so reshapes a market that the
company enjoys unforeseen profits for a considerable length of time’’ (Berry et al., 2006). If
an organization would develop an entire different service it will influence the behaviour of
the customers and of the competitors. If an organization is disruptive is it then making use of
service innovation?
Not only the service innovation is more important in the current economy also open
innovation raises awareness (Enkel et al., 2009). The core of open innovation is a cooperation
with externals in order to increase the innovativeness of the organization and reduce time to
market. ‘’Proctor and Gamble announced that they were able to increase their product success
rate by 50% and the efficiency of their R&D by 60% by introducing the open innovation
concept to the organization’’ (Enkel et al., 2009). With open innovation three processes can
be differentiated according to (Enkel et al., 2009). First the outside-in approach. This entails
enriching the organizations knowledge through integration of suppliers, customers and
external sources. How are the customers integrated within the process? Besides the outside-in
approach innovation can occur through the inside-out process. This process is about bringing
new ideas to the market from inside the organization. The final process is a combination of
the inside-out and outside-in approach. ‘’Developments in internet technology and social
networking technologies will allow companies to interact with numerous sources and predict
an unprecedented level of richness’’ (Enkel et al., 2009). The possibility to interact with other
sources provides the opportunity of co-creation for organizations. ‘’Users will be more
empowered in all sorts of industry sectors, creating their own goods, which meet their
demands better, not only as investors but also as manufacturers’’ (Enkel et al., 2009). Do
companies even have a possibility to choose if they want to interact with customers? Is the
Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory a type of co-creation with the customers? Co-creation will be
further explained in chapter 2.1.5.
The different innovation dimensions are leading towards a more satisfying way for
customers, reducing lead time, lower operational costs, increased flexibility, improvements in
quality, increased service levels and the possibility to cooperate within the innovation will
increase. What change is occurring in the innovation dimensions’ organizations are applying?
Furthermore, what is the relation between innovation dimension and the business theories of
Christensen et al. (2016)?
2.1.4 Innovation types
Innovation is variating between incremental and radical innovation. Incremental innovation is
about improvement within a given frame of solutions, doing better than the company already
is doing (Norman & Verganti, 2014). Henderson & Clark (1990) mention that incremental
innovation occurs in individual components, but the underlying core concepts and links
would remain the same. ‘’Incremental product innovation refers to the small changes in a
product that helps to improve its performance, lower its costs, and enhance its desirability, or
simply result in a new model release’’ (Norman & Verganti, 2014). Besides incremental
innovation, radical innovation can be seen as a change of a framework, doing something that
the company did not do before (Norman & Verganti, 2014). Radical innovation is about
fundamental changes and a clear departure from existing practices in the organization
(Henderson & Clark, 1990). The radical innovation would establish a new dominant design,
and a new set of core design concepts (Henderson & Clark, 1990). Radical innovation would
be most innovating but rare, and most attempts at it fail (Norman & Verganti, 2014). Much of
the articles about innovation focuses on radical innovation. Radical innovation is often
characterized as disruptive or destroying. According to Markides (2006) ‘’Radical
innovations are disruptive to consumers because they introduce products and value
propositions that disturb prevailing consumer habits and behaviours in a major way’’. Radical
innovations would be disruptive to the established competitors because they would create
new-to-the-world products (Markides, 2006). The major difference between incremental and
radical innovation is whether the innovation is perceived as a continuous modification of
previously accepted practices or whether it is new, unique, and discontinuous (Norman &
Verganti, 2014). Radical innovations are often called disruptive, but what is disruptive
innovation? In the following part the disruptive innovation theory of Christensen et al. (2015)
will be explained. Before this explanation the different customer based innovation methods
will be analysed.
2.1.5 Customer innovation
Innovation can occur within different dimensions. The innovation radar (Sawhney et al.,
2006) designed and relates all the dimensions in which an organization can innovate. If
companies would apply this innovation radar companies wouldn’t miss innovation
opportunities (Sawhney et al., 2006). The innovation radar provides twelve different ways for
companies to innovate. Three out of the twelve dimensions are focused on customer based
innovation. First, the dimension solutions, this is about creating integrated and customized
offerings that solve end-to-end customer problems. ‘’A solution is a customized, integrated
combination of products, services and information that solves a customer problem’’
(Sawhney et al., 2006). The second dimension customers, focuses on discovering unmet
customer needs or identify underserved customer segments. ‘’To innovate along this
dimension, the company can discover new customer segments or uncover unmet needs’’
(Sawhney et al., 2006). The last innovation dimension related to customer innovation is
called customer experience. ‘’This dimension considers everything a customer sees, hears,
feels and otherwise experiences while interacting with a company at all moments’’ (Sawhney
et al., 2006). This dimension is about redesigning customer interactions across all touch
points and all moments of contact with the organization. The focus in this Master Thesis will
be on customer based innovation, because this is related to the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. In
the following part different approaches (customer orientation, user driven innovation and co-
creation) based on customer innovation will be analysed. Can the Jobs Theory be compared
with customer innovation methods?
2.1.5.1 Customer based innovation
‘’In the global knowledge economy innovation is becoming an increasingly important
competitive factor, it is a competition that involves technology but also a keen understanding
of customer needs’’ (Rosted, 2005). If companies understand what the customer wants they
can use that and that understanding to drive innovation (Selden & MacMillan, 2006).
‘’Customer driven approach has become the mantra for all organizations and for innovation
in particular’’ (Gribaudo et al., 2015). But how do companies know what their customer
needs are? In order to find out, companies can innovate with help of customer based
innovation. Innovating where the customer is playing a central role is becoming more and
more important.
There are multiple reasons why customer based innovation is getting more important. One of
the reasons is the changing environment (Von Hippel, 2005). The preferences of the customer
changes because of environment changes in culture, societal norms, technology, and
globalisation. Besides the changing environment, customer based innovation is an important
source of competitiveness in the future (Rosted, 2005). ‘’In today’s competitive milieu, every
organisation aims to become customer orientated’’ (Mukerjee, 2013). Another reason can be
found in the improving design capabilities (Von Hippel, 2005). And in the improving of the
individual users to coordinate their innovation offers via the internet (Von Hippel, 2005). As
a result of focusing on customer understanding the employee and customer loyalty will
increase (Mukerjee, 2013). Another reason for a customer-orientated approach is because the
organization needs to keep up with the changing needs of customers and adapt its offerings to
suit the contemporary needs of customers (Mukerjee, 2013). Besides this, the culture of
customer-oriented organisations tracks delivery and customer satisfaction (Mukerjee, 2013).
2.1.5.2 Customer orientation
Two types of customer orientation approaches can be applied by organizations. These
approaches can be applied by helping understanding customers. Slater et al. (2014) make a
distinction between two forms of customer orientation, responsive and proactive customer
orientation. Organizations who are responsive focus on solving existing customers’ needs.
Responsive customer orientation may generate incremental innovations (Slater et al., 2014).
If companies focus on identification of emerging or latent customer needs, the company is
proactive (Slater et al., 2014). Latent needs are needs that are not yet in the customer
awareness. Proactive customer orientation is necessary for radical innovation for future cash
flows (Atuahene-Gima, 2005). The question is: Do customers know what they want? A big
issue in the customer driven innovation approach entails that customers express their
requirements in their own language and which is convenient for them, which is inappropriate
for creating customer based innovation (Gribaudo et al., 2015). According to Christensen et
al. (2016), customers don’t always know what their needs are and why they buy a particular
product. This is why the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory would offer a solution, because it goes
deeper than customer understanding in general.
2.1.5.3 User driven innovation
Another approach that goes deeper than customer orientation is user driven innovation.
‘’User-driven innovation uses the customer as the starting point, it is the expectation and the
desire to fulfil a customer need that drives innovation’’ (Rosted, 2005). User-driven
innovation is the strive for delivering a product that provides a product with special value for
the consumer (Rosted, 2005). ‘’Users, are firms or individual consumers that expect to
benefit from using a product or service’’ (Von Hippel, 2005). User innovation offers the
opportunity to get users what they want, provides a complement for manufacturer innovation,
and is increases social welfare (Von Hippel, 2005). The cause for user-innovation can be
found in the reason that users want something what is not yet available on the market (Von
Hippel, 2005). The most of the companies innovate with ‘’one size fits all’’ but this does not
offer a solution for many customers, the market is heterogeneous. If a company applies user-
driven innovation they maintain a strong customer focus, customers are frequently used
sources on innovation and customers are among the most important sources of innovation
(Rosted, 2005). ‘’Working with customer needs often requires significant resources, it could
be argued that only large companies are capable of channelling customer needs into a viable
innovation’’ (Rosted, 2005). This is not the case, small and medium sized companies have a
customer focus according to (Rosted, 2005). The user is innovating itself and brings technical
and customer innovation together. If users innovate they are able to develop innovations that
enable to do new types of things for the first time. In contrast, if organizations innovate they
will change something that makes the existing product more conveniently or reliable, but not
radical new. Is there a difference between start-ups and corporates on innovating
incremental/radical and disruptive?
2.1.5.4 Co-creation
Another approach that goes a step further than user driven innovation is co-creation. Co-
creation provides interaction between companies and customers, which is made possible
because of technology changes (Galvagno & Dalli, 2014). As a result of the above mentioned
changes in the environment there is shift occurring within the relationship between
companies and customers. The relationship between companies and customer is getting more
equal, this results in a growing interaction of both parties and is leading towards a value co-
creation (Galvagno & Dalli, 2014). ‘’From the co-creation perspective, suppliers and
customers are, conversely, no longer on opposite sides, but interact with each other for the
development of new business opportunities’’ (Galvagno & Dalli, 2014). This interaction can
result in a product or a service for the customer. Is the theory of Christensen et al. (2016) a
sequel of the existing customer based innovation theories? In the following part the theories
of Christensen are analysed.
2.2 Disruptive Innovation
2.2.1 Clayton M. Christensen
‘’Clayton M. Christensen is regarded as one of the world’s top experts on innovation and
growth’’ (Clayton M. Christensen, 2017). Professor Christensen is the author of eight books
and more than a hundred articles. ‘’The Innovator's Dilemma’’ received the Global Business
Book Award as the best business book. Later ‘’The Economist’’ named the book as one of
the six most important books about business ever written. Finally, in a poll of thousands
executives, consultants and business school professors, Professor Christensen was named as
the most influential business thinker in the world. Christensen is known for his disruptive
innovation theory. The disruptive innovation theory will be explained in the following part, in
order to understand the context on which the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory is a follow up.
2.2.2 Disruptive innovation
Disruptive innovation is established in 1995, by Clayton M. Christensen. The theory is
conducted through inductive research. ‘’The theory has proved to be a powerful way of
thinking about innovation-driven growth’’ (Christensen et al., 2015). Leaders of small
entrepreneurial companies and large well-established companies used the theory as their
guide. Initially, the theory was conducted for technology firms and the theory was about
disruptive technologies. Christensen and other researchers found out that the theory was not
only applicable in the field of technology but also in other business fields. Disruptive
innovation can be described as ‘’a process whereby a smaller company with fewer resources
is able to successfully challenge established incumbent business’’ (Christensen et al., 2015).
Disruptive innovations get started in two types of markets that incumbents overlook. A
disrupter will start in a low end market or a new market. Disrupters start in a low end market
because ‘’Incumbents typically try to provide their most profitable and demanding customers
with ever-improving products and services, and they pay less attention to less-demanding
customers’’ (Christensen et al., 2015). In the new-market disrupters create a new existing
market, where the disrupters turn no consumers into consumers. Disruptive innovations are
initially inferior by incumbent’s customers. At first customers are not willing to switch to the
new offering, even if the prize is low. Customers will wait until the quality of the offering of
the disruptor rises enough until they are satisfied with the quality. ‘’Disruptive innovations
don’t catch on with mainstream customers until quality catches up their standards’’
(Christensen et al., 2015). If the quality level is satisfying enough, consumers adopt the new
product and accept the lower price. In this way, ‘’Disruptors first appeal to low-end or
unserved customers and then migrate to the mainstream market’’ (Christensen et al., 2015).
How could companies overcome a disruptor? According to Christensen (2003) keeping close
to the customer is main important for handling sustaining innovation, it may provide
misleading data for disruptive ones. Thus, in order to win from the disruptor, successful
companies routinely are giving their customers more and better versions of what they say
they want. ‘’This is a valued capability for handling sustaining innovation, but it will not
serve the purpose when handling disruptive technologies’’ (Christensen, 2003). The
disruptive innovation theory does not provide a solution for winning from a disrupter. This is
the reason why Christensen et al. (2016) designed the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. The theory
can offer a solution for winning from the disrupter, because it applies a customer focused
approach for innovation. In the next part the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory will be introduced.
2.3 Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory
2.3.1 Introduction
In order explain the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory an example out of the recently published book
from Christensen et al. (2016) is given, called the Milkshake Dilemma. In a restaurant where
they would like to improve their performance, a consulting agency is hired to give advice.
Most of the researchers would ask customers questions and feedback. But do customers really
know what the reason behind their buying of a particular product? The Jobs-to-Be-Done
theory is approaching the study in a different way. The question that the theory raises is
‘’What jobs arises in consumer’s lives that causes them to come to the shop and buy a
milkshake?’’ Customers are not buying a product; they are hiring a product to fulfil a specific
job in their lives at a particular moment. When the research team was trying to answer the
question, they found out that consumers don’t buy a milkshake just to drink. Consumers buy
a milkshake to make their long way in the car more enjoyable. The long car ride is the
causation for consumers behind buying a milkshake. If a company knows the causation
behind a purchase they will be able to innovate in a successful way. The theory would be
applicable in a wide range of industries and organizations because the theory covers why
customers make choices they do (Christensen et al., 2016).
2.3.2 About the theory
The Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory is a theory to understand what causes consumers to make
choices they do and predict with help of this theory new innovation opportunities
(Christensen et al., 2016). ‘’The theory helps companies avoid the frustration of hit-and-miss
innovation because it makes innovation five times more predictable’’ (Ulwick, 2017).
‘’Results show that while traditional methods yield a 17 percent success rate on average, the
success rate of ODI is 86 percent’’ (Ulwick, 2017). The core of the theory is revealing the
causation behind the buying process of a customer. ‘’Consumers don’t buy products or
services, they pull them into their live to make progress’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). When
consumers buy a product, they essentially ‘’hire’’ something to get a job done. These are
products or services that would help consumers make the progress they were struggling to
achieve. According to the Jobs Theory companies will exist if they solve the problem of the
consumer. The core of the theory is that customers don’t buy products or services; they buy
them to make progress in their lives. This progress is the job, companies need to uncover and
understand. If companies uncover why customers make choices it allows them to create better
solutions that customers want to buy. ‘’Studying the underlying process a customer is trying
to execute, rather than focusing on the product or the customer, provides companies a deep
understanding of the customer’s needs and presents a path to make innovation more
predictable’’ (Ulwick, 2017). The theory offers a kind of blueprint. ‘’This is very different
from the traditional marketing concept of needs because it entails a much higher degree of
specificity about what you are solving for’’ (Christensen et al., 2016).
The theory would provide organizations a possibility to understand the causation process
customers are making and thus predict innovation. In this way organization can over win
competitors and disrupters. This provides companies a competitive advantage and a
possibility to sustain innovation (Christensen et al., 2016). The above mentioned advantages
are reasons for organizations to apply the theory in order to grow in core, adjacent and new
markets (Ulwick, 2017). The Jobs Theory provides companies a way how to think, not what
to think. Christensen et al. (2016) describe how the theory should be applied in practice, this
will be explained in the following part.
2.3.3 Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory in practice
In order to understand the causation behind a purchase of a customer Christensen et al. (2016)
defined a few steps in order to apply the theory in practice. The first step is to uncover jobs.
After this, the circumstances of the job need to be defined. This is followed by creating the
right experiences customers seek. Finally, the experiences and the job need to be integrated
into the organization. In the following part the steps of the Jobs Theory in practice will be
explained.
2.3.3.1 Defining the Jobs Theory
The first step in the process is to uncover and trying to understand a job. This starts with
understanding ‘’the progress that a person is trying to make in a particular circumstance’’
(Christensen et al., 2016). This is relevant in order to understand why customers make
choices they make. The progress is a movement towards a goal or aspiration. According to
Ulwick (2017) characteristics of a perfect job statement should include:
1. Customer description of the process they are trying to execute.
2. The job must be functional (not emotional) stated as a process that can be broken
down and analysed.
3. Define precisely what the customer is trying to accomplish.
4. Abstracted at a level that will reveal opportunities for growth.
5. Abstracted at a level that fits within the organization’s capabilities.
2.3.3.2 How to find a job?
Jobs can be found with help of the following questions according to Christensen et al. (2016):
1. What progress is that person trying to achieve?
2. What are the circumstances of the struggle?
3. What obstacles are getting in the way of the person making progress?
4. Are customers making do with imperfect solutions through some kind of
compensating behaviour?
5. How would they define what quality means for a better solution, and what trade-offs
are they willing to make?
After answering the above mentioned questions an organization would be able to find a job.
But where can organizations find a job?
2.3.3.3 Where to find a job?
Christensen et al. (2016) pointed out five possibilities for organizations to know where to find
jobs. Companies should start with looking nearby, as Christensen et al. (2016) calls it ‘’a job
close to home’’. This means that people should trust them on feelings and needs and make
this idea work. If it works for them, it will probably also work for others. Another possibility
is to focus on the things consumers cannot find a solution for that actually satisfies their job
and opt to do nothing instead. Focusing on a strategy to find a job with the focus on
consumers who are unhappy with the available solutions to a job they very deeply want to
solve and that they are going to great lengths to create their own solution could also be a
possibility. Besides this, companies should be looking for jobs people don’t want to do.
Negative jobs are often the best innovation opportunities according to Christensen et al.
(2016). Finally, there can be a lot to learn by observing how customers use products,
especially when they use them in a way that is different from what the organization has
envisioned.
2.3.3.4 Circumstances a job arises in
After companies defined the job, the circumstances around the job need to be defined. In
what circumstances are customers buying a product or service and does the job arise? ‘’A job
can only be defined and a successful solution created relative to the specific context in which
it arises’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The context of the job can be found if companies define
their market around the job. A company should in this step define the target market as ‘’a
group of people with the job they are trying to get done’’ (Ulwick, 2017). This has many
benefits, it provides a central point for the company’s customer need, it provides global
insights, it defines the competition and the defining of the target market could be a protection
against disruption. Christensen et al. (2016) conducted a few questions in order to define the
circumstances. These questions are: Where are you? When is it? Who are you with? While
doing what? What where you doing half an hour ago? What will you be doing next? What
social or cultural or political pressures exert influence? The life stage of the customer also
needs to be taken into account. Different forms of complexity are important to understand the
circumstances. The forms of complexity can be divided into; functional, social and emotional
complexity. The reason for this is because customer’s cannot explain what they want.
Christensen et al. (2016) state that the most organizations focus on the functional complexity,
this should not be the case because in reality customers social and emotional needs can have
much more influence in comparison to the functional complexity. Besides knowing what you
customers do want, it is also important to notice what your customers don’t want. ‘’What
they hire and equally important, what they fire tells a story’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). This
story is about the functional, emotional and social dimensions of their desire to progress.
Consumers face anxiety of choosing something new. For this reason, the job has to have
magnitude to cause people to change their behaviours. ‘’The pull of the new has to be much
greater than the sum of the inertia of the old and the anxieties about the new’’ (Christensen et
al., 2016). According to Christensen et al. (2016), the theory helps innovators identify the full
picture of the progress a customer is trying to make including the complex set of competing
needs and relative priorities. Jobs transform how companies define the business they are in
and the size and the shape of the market they compete in. ‘’The key to getting hired is to
understand the narrative of the customer’s life in such rich detail that you are able to design a
solution that far exceeds anything the customer themselves could have found words to
request’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). Uncovering why consumers make choices allows
organizations to create solutions that get hired. Concluding, in order to innovate organizations
must find a promising vein and understand the context this vein is in.
2.3.3.5 Building experiences for customers
After defining a job and the context it rises in, the customer experience need to be created.
‘’Competitive advantage is built not just by understanding customers’ jobs but by creating the
experiences that customers seek both in purchasing and using the product or service and then
crucially building internal processes to ensure that those experiences are reliably delivered to
the customer every time’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The experience an organization offers to
its customers is important because it is hard for competitors the copy. ‘’New products
succeed not because of the features and functionality they offer but because of the
experiences they enable’’ (Christensen et al., 2016).
2.3.3.6 Integrating experiences into an organization
The final step is to integrate the company’s internal capabilities and processes, in order to
consistently focus on the theory. ‘’Aligning our internal processes with the job in order to
provide the desired experiences’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The organization culture should
be jobs focused. ‘’Through a job lens, what matters most than who reports to whom is how
different parts of the organization interact to systematically deliver the offering part that
perfectly performs customers job to be done’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The jobs focused
organization creates at all levels employees that understand and are motivated by how their
work contributes in order to help customers getting the job done. Having a jobs focused
organization leads to four categories of benefit according to Christensen et al. (2016). The
first benefit is about distributed decision making. This entails ‘’Employees throughout the
organization are empowered to make good decisions that align with the job, and to be
autonomous and innovative’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). In this way employees will be
empowered to make jobs focused decisions. A second benefit is the resource optimization.
‘’The jobs focus shines a light on which resources are aligned against what matters most and
which are not, and enables them to be rebalances accordingly’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). In
this way resources will be used who matter most. The third benefit is about inspiration. The
Jobs Theory provides a common goal for employees to work on. ‘’Solving a customer’s job is
inherently inspiring to individuals in an organization, as it enables them to see how their work
enables real people to make progress in their lives’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The way an
organization’s employees work together toward a common goal is the basis of its culture. The
final benefit is related to better measurement. ‘’With a focus on the job, people will naturally
seek to measure and manage to more customer-centric metrics’’ (Christensen et al., 2016).
The Jobs Theory would not only optimize the processes of the organization but it also
changes the way organizations measure their success (Christensen et al., 2016).
Besides the benefits created through integrating the Jobs Theory, companies can also fall into
three fallacies. These fallacies can occur after the phase in which a product is introduced and
will occur at managerial level. The following fallacies are mentioned by Christensen et al.
(2016): the fallacy of active versus passive data, the fallacy of surface growth and the fallacy
of conforming data. The fallacy of actives versus passive data entails that if products are
launched and data about the product is a known, managers could focus more on the data
instead of other sources. ‘’We can predict however that as soon a job to be done becomes a
commercial product, the context rich view of the job begins to recede as the active data of
operations replaces and displaces the passive data of innovation’’ (Christensen et al., 2016).
The second fallacy is the negative impact of focusing on creating many products for many
customers instead of focusing on the job. ‘’When a company makes big investments in
developing relationships with customers, natural incentives arise to find ways to sell more
products to existing customers’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). The final fallacy of conforming
data, is the fallacy that companies lose their focus on the customers’ jobs to be done. ‘’The
tendency to treat facts as insights and leap directly from data to action’’ (Christensen et al.,
2016). The problem with data is that numerical data is seen as more trustworthy in
comparison to qualitative data (Christensen et al., 2016). Managers put too much emphasis on
data and pay to less attention to a true understanding of consumers (Christensen et al., 2016).
Jobs Theory focuses on helping customers do their job, rather than narrow internally
measured efficiencies. ‘’The solution lies not in the tools you are using, but what you are
looking for and how you piece your observations together’’ (Christensen et al., 2016). In
contrast, managers who are embracing the theory focus on their customers and are willing to
create a proposition that resonates with them and are willing to improve their products and
conceptualize new product that will address new opportunities (Ulwick, 2017).
The goal of the theory is to discover the job, create desired experience and ingrate the
company around the job in a way that customers are willing to pay premium prices for a
product or service. According to Christensen et al. (2016) the theory is a continuation on the
disruptive innovation theory. The theory would provide companies an answer to win from the
competitors. In the following part a critical reflection on the theories conducted by
Christensen et al. (2016) will be given.
2.4 Reflection theories
Are theories in business leading to an increase in success and innovation within an
organization or start-up? What is the value and reliability of business theories in practice? In
the following part a reflection will be given on theories in business in general and after this a
reflection will be given on the disruptive innovation theory and the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory.
Are the disruptive innovation theory and the Jobs Theory leading towards the results that
Christensen et al. (2016) is portraying?
2.4.1 Reflection conducting theory in business
What to do, is increasingly becoming the central challenge facing managements, especially
those of big companies that have enjoyed long-term success’’ (Drucker, 1994). Can ‘’What to
do’’ be solved with help of applying an innovation strategy or theory? When is a theory a
good theory and are companies even applying these academic theories in practice? According
to Page (1993) only half of all innovating firms are making use of an explicit innovation
strategy or theory. As Pfeffer (1982) mentioned a good theory is, parsimonious, testable, and
logically. Besides this, if a theory will be good is also depending on the strength of a method
and the evidence grounding the theory. The theories Christensen et al. (2016) conducted are
based on case studies. Developing theory out of case studies has got several strengths and
weaknesses, and conditions that need to be taken into account. First, the conditions a good
theory must consist out of will be explained after this the strengths and weaknesses from
conducting theory out of case studies will be mentioned.
One of the conditions that need to be met is the base on which cases are being selected
(Eisenhardt, 1989). On basis of what did Christensen et al. (2016) collected his cases?
Besides this, theory-building researchers combine multiple data collection methods. With
inductive research, interviews, observations and archival sources have been used (Eisenhardt,
1989). Which instruments and protocols did Christensen used to conduct his theory? And did
Christensen used a combination of qualitative and quantitative research? Besides this, the
amount of team members who participated in the case studies has influence on the outcome.
The more team members participate the better the insights will be and the this enhances
confidence in the findings (Eisenhardt, 1989). Furthermore, a feature of research to build
theory from case studies is the frequent overlap of data analysis with data collection. In what
degree did Christensen find his overlap? How did he find relationships among the cases? The
above mentioned questions are still not clear. It would be helpful in regard to reliability to
gain this information.
Conducting theory out of case studies has got several weaknesses and strengthens. ‘’Case
research has typically been criticized as lacking objectivity and methodological rigor’’
(Johnston et al., 1999). A weakness of conducting theory out of a case study is that the theory
will be to specific and narrowed so it cannot be generalized to a higher level (McDougall et
al., 1994). For this reason, it is important to know what level of analysis have been used and
if the right questions have been asked. ‘’The risks are that the theory describes a very
idiosyncratic phenomenon or that the theorist is unable to raise the level of generality of the
theory’’ (Eisenhardt, 1989). Another limitation are the arguments that case studies are lacking
in rigor and reliability (Johnston et al., 1999). This is leading to the question if a theory
conducted out of case studies is a good theory? Besides the weaknesses of conducting theory
with case studies, it has got several strengths. A strength of conducting theory out of case
studies, is that the emergent theory is likely to be testable with constructs that can be readily
measured and hypotheses that can be proven false (Eisenhardt, 1998). The theory is likely to
be empirically valid according to Eisenhardt (1989). This is the case because the theory-
building process is tied with evidence that so it will be consistent with empirical observation.
Christensen et al. (2016) conducted his theories while doing research among different cases,
this can enhance the empirically validity. But certain questions are unanswered in order to
make a conclusion about the reliability of the theories.
2.4.2 Reflection disruptive innovation
Disruptive innovation has become a part of business thinking, but it is in danger of losing its
usefulness because the theory has been misunderstood and misapplied (Christensen et al.,
2015). According to Christensen et al. (2015) too many people speak about a disruptive
innovator, without having the knowledge about the theory. King & Baatartogtokh (2015) are
questioning the disruptive innovation theory, how useful is the disruptive innovation theory?
King & Baatartogtokh (2015) argue that the full theory of disruptive innovation should only
be applied when specific conditions are met. The theory would describe examples of
dysfunction and failure, not what business should do to be successful. This is in line with
Christensen et al. (2015); ‘’Disruption theory does not, and never will explain everything
about innovation specifically or business success generally’’. Besides this, Christensen et al.
(2015) mention that not all disruptive innovators succeed, a company can be disruptive but
not successful. According to King & Baartartoogtokh (2015) disruptive innovation provides a
good potential of pitfalls, but it doesn’t predict what companies will do. Because the theory
does not predict what companies should do Christensen et al. (2016) set up the Jobs-to-Be-
Done Theory. According to Christensen (2003) keeping close to the customer is main
important for handling sustaining innovation. Besides applying the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory,
corporates could also collaborate with other companies and in particular work with start-ups
to leverage their own strength. In order to win from the disruptor, successful companies
routinely are giving their customers more and better versions of what they say they want.
Besides the contradiction in defining a disrupter and the usefulness of the theory, does the
type of organization (start-up or corporate) matters in order to be disruptive? Is a disruptor a
start-up growing towards a corporate, or is a corporate disruptive? Disruptive innovation can
be described as ‘’a process whereby a smaller company with fewer resources is able to
successfully challenge established incumbent business’’ (Christensen et al., 2015). What is a
smaller company in Christensen et al. (2015) definition? In the following part a reflection on
the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory will be given.
2.4.3 Reflection Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory
The theory provides companies a competitive advantage, a possibility to sustain innovation
and an opportunity for growth (Christensen et al., 2016). Besides this, the theory enables
companies to discover growth opportunities and create and predict products and services that
customers want (Ulwick, 2017). What type of organizations are applying the theory, are this
corporates or start-ups? Christensen et al. (2016) are mentioning that the theory would lead to
a predictable strategy to innovate, but is it possible to predict innovation? Besides this
question, the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory raises several other questions. First, how does the
theory differ from theories focused on customer innovation? And how new is the theory of
Christensen et al. (2016)? Besides the book of Christensen et al. (2016), other authors wrote
about the Jobs Theory, Ulwick (2016), Wunker et al. (2016) and Spiek & Moesta (2014). A
few authors claim that they are the introducers of the theory. Who originally designed the
theory and what are the differences and similarities between the different viewpoints on the
Jobs Theory?
The viewpoint of Wunker (2012) is that companies can find new markets by doing customer
research. ‘’The wrong place to start is by asking customers what they want’’ (Wunker, 2012).
Wunker (2012) divided the Jobs Theory into six steps. First, ‘’rather than looking just at what
people buy, examine the needs that arise during their lives’’. This step is in contradiction to
Christensen et al. (2016) approach because he examines that finding jobs will go deeper than
customer understanding. The second step is that companies should focus on pain points
associated with competitive offerings. Christensen et al. (2016) mention the Jobs Theory to
stand out from the competitor but this is not based on competitive offerings, it is about the
experience an organization offers. The third step is that organizations should compare
themselves to directly comparable firms. This is not in line with the Jobs Theory, here the
focus is around the job and it is not about comparable firms as main focus. The fourth step is
to go in conversation with the customer, this is similar to the Jobs Theory, but this step is
integrated in finding a job. The fifth step is comparable with the Jobs Theory; this step is
about managers that are too enamoured of their own ideas. Finally, the sixth step is about the
values of customers, this step Christensen et al. (2016) conduct in the first step finding the
job. Wunker (2012) has a different idea on the theory and doesn’t focus in detail on the
causation process a customer is making while buying a product.
Another point of view on the theory is from Ulwick (2017). The Outcome-driven innovation
(ODI) theory from Ulwick (2017) differs from the Jobs Theory from Christensen et al.
(2015). The execution of the ODI takes time, this can make the evaluation itself very
expensive (Gribaudo et al., 2015). Is the Jobs Theory realistic to use in practice in relation to
time and costs in the rapidly changing environment of organizations and upcoming
disrupters? Ulwick (2017) also defined six steps to define the job in which he is analysing the
needs of customers. ‘’The problem is that there is a confusion and lack of agreement as to
what a need even is.’’ (Ulwick, 2017). These steps are taking into account with help of
quantitative and qualitative research. ‘’Discovering hidden segments of opportunity with
confidence requires statistically valid market research’’ (Ulwick, 2017). Is it possible to
compare the ODI with the Jobs Theory? The difference between the Jobs Theory of
Christensen et al. (2016) and the ODI from Ulwick (2017) can be found within the type of
research, whereas Christensen et al. (2016) is only applying qualitative research, Ulwick
(2017) is applying a combination of quantitative and qualitative research. What method will
provide the most reliable results? Besides this, Ulwick (2017) doesn’t take the experiences a
company’s offers and the integration of the job in the organizations internal processes into
account. In literature different point of views exist on the Jobs Theory, it is not clear what the
most successful innovation method is.
Besides the different applicability’s of the Jobs Theory, there is also a difference between the
Jobs Theory and the disruptive innovation theory. The disruptive innovation theory focuses
on new markets, in which customer understanding doesn’t seem to play an important role.
Because disrupters seem to take steps customers would not expect them to do. Whereas
customer understanding is the centre of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. According to
Christensen (2003) keeping close to the customer is main important for handling sustaining
innovation but it may provide misleading data for disruptive ones. The disruptive
organization is focused on disruptive or radical innovations whereas the Jobs Theory focuses
on incremental or sustaining innovation. What type of organization is applying which theory?
Are the most disruptive innovators small organizations like Christensen et al. (2015)
mentions? The Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory is a theory that provides the opportunity to win or
stay in competition with a competitor. Do organizations use the theory in practice or are
companies only making use of elements of the theory? If organizations are applying
elements of the theory is it than contributing to the innovativeness and success of
organizations? The critical reflections from literature are provided in the table below. In the
following part the relation between innovation, success, type of organization and business
theories will be described.
Table 1: Overview reflection theories
General reflection Disruptive innovation Jobs-to-Be-Done

reflection reflection
• When is a theory a • To what extent is the • Who conducted the
good theory? (Pfeffer, theory misunderstood? theory? Ulwick (2016),
1982) (Christensen et al., Wunker et al. (2016)
• How are the cases 2015) and Spiek & Moesta
selected? (Eisenhardt, • Are the specific (2014)
1989) conditions met? (King • What are the
• With how many & Baatartogtokh, differences between
researchers is the 2015) the approaches of the
theory conducted? • The theory is not theory? Ulwick (2016),
(Eisenhardt, 1989) predicting what will Wunker et al. (2016)
• How objective is the happen (King & and Spiek & Moesta
theory? (Johnston et Baatartogtokh, 2015) (2014).
al., 1999) • General reflection
• How generalizable,
reliable and rigorous is
the theory? McDougall
et al., 1994)
2.5 Interrelatedness
This Master Thesis focuses on the relation between the two different theories of Clayton M.
Christensen (disruptive innovation theory and the Jobs-to-Be Done Theory), besides the
relation between the two theories this Thesis focuses on the relation between innovation,
success, type of organization and the theories.
First the phenomena innovation is described. In this innovation part the relation between:
innovation and success, innovation definitions, dimensions, types and customer based
innovation is explained. Which lead to a few questions: What is innovation? Is it possible to
predict innovation? And what is the relation between innovation and success? Besides the
innovation part, the relation in regard to type (start-up or corporate) of organization is taken
into account. Is there a relation between innovation, success and the type of organization?
And is there a relation between the theories of Christensen et al. (2016) and type of
organization? After this, the customer based innovation type is analysed because the Jobs-to-
Be-Done Theory is customer focused. Is the theory of Christensen et al. (2016) a sequel of
the existing customer based innovation theories? At the end of this Master Thesis the
disruptive innovation theory and the reaction to the disruptive theory, the Jobs-to-Be-Done
Theory were analysed. Clayton M. Christensen conducted two theories out of multiple case
studies. First, the disruptive innovation theory. Explaining how organizations can shake up a
total industry, and are more innovative than the existing industry. ‘’Besides Airbnb examples
as Facebook or Tesla motors have shaped the anticipation that it will be start-ups, not
established corporations who come up with the ‘’next big thing’’ to create uncontested
marketspace and disrupt entire industries’’ (Weiblen & Chesbourgh, 2015). Will start-ups
come up with the next big thing instead of corporates? Christensen et al. (2016) mention the
possibility to win from the disruptor if organizations will make use of the Jobs-to-Be-Done
Theory. Innovation can be predicted with the use of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory, a theory
describing what is the causation of the buying process of a customer. According to
Christensen et al. (2016) it is ‘’less about producing something new and more about enabling
something new and important for customers’’. In Christensen et al. (2016) innovation should
take place with help of insights of customers. The use of the theory enables organizations to
win or stay in competition with the competitor (disrupter), innovate and being successful. Is
the use of the theory leading towards the result Christensen et al. (2016) is portraying? Are
organizations applying elements of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory?
The insights of the literature review lead to the following research question: ‘’Do successful
start-ups/corporates in the Netherlands apply components of the Jobs-to-Be-Done theory in
order to innovate and win from the competitor?’’. In order to answer the research question
the following sub questions are formulated:
1. ‘’Do start-ups and corporates apply elements of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory?’’
2. ‘’Are the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory and type of organization related to innovation
and success?’’
3. ‘’Are the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory and type of organization related to win from
the competitor?’’
In order to answer the research question and providing a clear overview of the varying
definitions and theories, and their interrelationships, a conceptual framework is conducted.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework
If start-ups and corporates apply elements of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory it could lead
directly towards innovation and indirectly towards success and a competitive advantage. But
what if other factors are also leading towards these outcomes? This is leading to another sub
question:
4. ‘’Are other factors influencing success and innovation besides the Jobs-to-Be-
Done Theory?’’.
This is leading towards an additional conceptual framework provided below.
Figure 2: Additional conceptual framework
In the following chapter the research design is described, providing a method in order to
being able to answer the research question.
3. Research design
In this part the research design and implementation of the design of this Master Thesis will be
described. The starting point for this Master Thesis is the publication of ‘Competing against
luck’ from Christensen et al. (2016). In the book Christensen et al. (2016) describe the Jobs-
to-Be-Done Theory as a reaction of the disruptive innovation theory. The research is
deductive (Becker, 2012), because on basis of the literature review the research question and
sub questions are conducted and the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory is created inductively. In order
to answer the research question and the sub-questions, qualitative research is conducted
because it studies phenomena in the environments in which they naturally occur and is
focused on the understanding of a certain phenomenon (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011) and
Christensen et al. (2016) also focus on qualitative research when conducting the Jobs-to-Be-
Done and Disruptive innovation theory.
3.1 Description of the case study
The research method of King & Baatartogtokh (2015) could have been applied for this
research because the disruptive innovation theory of Christensen is tested within this
research. In the research 77 cases, that Christensen applied when conducting the disruptive
innovation theory, were analysed. Due to time limits within this research, it is not possible to
do case studies at the cases that Christensen applied when conducting the Jobs-to-Be-Done
Theory, however an overview of the cases is presented in table 2.
Table 2: Cases (organizations) from the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory
1. Airbnb 21. Consumer Financial 41. HOLE HAWG 61. PICA
2. Alternative school for Protection Bureau 42. IKEA 62. Pixar Animation
Math & Science 22. CVS Minute-Clinics 43. Innosight Studios
3. Amazon 23. Deseret News 44. Intermountain 63. Procter & Gamble
4. American Girl Doll 24. DeWalt Healthcare 64. Ptolemy
5. American Heart 25. Digital Equipment 45. Lunchables 65. Qualcomm
Association Corporation 46. Lyft 66. QuickBooks
6. Apple 26. DriveNow 47. MacMillan accounting software
7. Arm & Hammer 27. Drybar 48. Mattell 67. QuickMedx
8. Bain & Company 28. Facebook 49. Maven 68. Sargento cheese
9. ING direct 29. Fast Company 50. Mayo Clinic 69. Sawzall
10. Becton Dickinson & 30. Federal express 51. McKinsey & Company 70. Science magazine
Company 31. FiveThirtyEight 52. Medtronic 71. Segway
11. Black & Decker 32. Ford motor 53. Milwaukee Electric 72. Snapchat
12. BMW 33. Volvo Tool Corporation 73. Sony Walkman
13. Bristol-Myers Squibb 34. Wingcast 54. MinuteClinics 74. Starbucks
14. Burlington Northern 35. Geely 55. Netflix 75. Uber Unilever
and Santa Fe railroad 36. Geizinger Health 56. New York Times 76. Lifebouy soap
15. Campbell’s Soup System 57. NyQuil 77. V8 brand juice
Company 37. General Motors 58. Onstar 78. Yelp
16. Capital One 38. Onestar 59. Opentable 79. Youtube
17. Care.com 39. Google 60. Pampers 80. ZzzQuil
18. Toyota 40. Healty Hart for All
19. Chevron
20. Church & Dwight
The research of King & Baatartogtokh (2015) consisted mainly out of quantitative research.
In order to gain more insight in the relations between the different factors and elements of the
Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory, the focus of this Master Thesis is on qualitative research. The
findings could provide insights in what elements further research should contain, for
example, a research in line with the research of King & Baartartogtokh (2015). In order to
answer the research question, data is collected through multiple case studies. Case studies are
interesting in order to recognize patterns and relationships among the constructs and their
underlying logical arguments (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). And to research, if there could
be a difference between types of organization and the components they are applying. Eight
case studies are held at technology start-ups and two case studies at technology corporates in
the Netherlands, in total ten case studies are held.
3.1.1 Start-up cases
The start-up cases are selected with help of the ‘’Ranking Technology Fast 50 2016’’ list
from Deloitte (2016). The Deloitte list is used because it contains start-ups in the Netherlands
that had the highest growth percentage over the last four years. The start-ups were established
before 2011 and had a revenue higher than €50.000 in 2012, and higher than €800.000 in
2015. Thus, the organizations started as start-ups but have been through a growth phase. All
the start-ups are emailed, the ones who were willing to cooperate are chosen. The replies on
the mail, if the organization were willing to operate in this research, confirmed that eight out
of the fifty start-ups were willing to cooperate in an interview. And that no organization was
known with the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. At every start-up one interview will be conducted
with CEO’s or directors of the organizations.
3.1.2 Corporate cases
For the selection of the corporate cases, two successful and innovative technology corporates
in the Netherlands, Stork and Spie were willing to cooperate. The corporate cases are relevant
in order to make a distinction between start-ups and corporate organizations. At Stork
multiple interviews are conducted, more employees work on innovation within the
organization. In total four interviews are held at Stork, this is a reliable amount according to
Creswell (2007). At Spie one interview is conducted with the director. In order to get an
overview of the cases and the function of the respondents, an overview of the cases and
interviews is presented in the table on the following page.
Table 3: Overview of the case studies and interviews
Organization in the technology sector Function interviewees Interview date
Global Orange Managing Director April 25, 2017
Mobile Strategy CEO April 25, 2017
Eleanor CEO April 28, 2017
Experius CEO May 1, 2017
Voicebooking CEO May 3, 2017
Ultimaker CEO May 3, 2017
Hello Flex Group CEO May 4, 2017
AnylinQ CEO May 5, 2017
Stork Asset Management director May 10, 2017
Principal Consultant 1
Principal Consultant 2
Innovation and Knowledge transfer
Spie Director May 24, 2017
3.2 Description of research methods and procedures
In order to gain insights from every case, semi-structured interviews will be used as method.
With use of semi-structured interviews, it is possible to blend open- and close-ended
questions, followed-up by why or how questions (Adams, 2010). Making use of this method
provides a deeper understanding of the information given by a respondent and the reason for
this is that not every organization is familiar with the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. Semi-
structured interviews provide the ability to gain insight if organizations are applying elements
of the Jobs-to-Be-Done theory without being aware of it. The semi-structured interviews are
taken with the CEO of the start-ups, with the director, two principal consultants and one
innovation and knowledge transfer manager at Stork, and with the director of Spie. These
functions are selected because these positions have to most knowledge about the innovation
processes and the relation to success and the theories within the organization.
Before interviewing respondents from the different cases, the key elements of the Jobs-to-Be-
Done Theory have been identified. These can be divided as follows: (1) jobs, (2)
circumstances of the customer (functional, emotional and social), (3) the experience of the
customer and (4) the integration of the customer’s experience in the internal processes. At the
start of the interviews the respondents were asked if they were known with the disruptive
innovation theory and the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. This information was not recorded, in
order to not bias the answer of the respondent. After this, a short explanation of both of the
theories was given. After this, the respondents were informed about the possibility to disclose
identity and the recording of the interview. All the respondents choose to disclose their
identity. Each interview takes 45 to 60 minutes and is recorded and transcribed (Appendix 2),
in order to analyse the collected data and to make the research more reliable (Shenton, 2004).
At the end of every interview the respondents were asked to give their opinion about the
theory, in order to understand what their thoughts are in regard to the theory and the related
factors (success and innovation). At every start-up one interview is conducted and at Stork
and Spie five interviews are conducted in total. Thus, in total thirteen interviews are
conducted. This amount of interviews will lead to data saturation according to Marshall et al.
(2013). Besides this, conducting thirteen interviews will be 12,5% more interviews conducted
than in the research of King & Baatartogtokh (2015).
3.3 Analysis strategy
The interviews were semi-structured; the structure was based on the literature review
structure, this provided analytical categories (Pope et al., 2000) before analysing the collected
data and provided a guideline for deriving the codes. An overview of the interview structure
can be found in Appendix 1. After conducting the interviews, the interviews were transcribed
in order to analyse and categorize the data with the main goal of being able to process a
constant comparison (Pope et al., 2000). After collecting and transcribing all the data, the
data was divided among different codes. A code is a ‘’qualitative inquiry is most often a word
or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing, and/or
evocative attribute for a portion of language based or visual data’’ (Saldana, 2012). During
the coding process a computerized data system called QRS Nvivo 11 was used for the
analysis process (Welsch, 2002). Nvivo 11 provides a possibility to structure data from
interviews in a thematic way. This thematic analysis offers an opportunity to identify, analyse
and it is a method to see the patterns between constructs within the data (Braun & Clarke,
2006). The analysis process of the data within Nvivo 11 consist out of three steps. First a
word cloud within Nvivo 11 was made. This word cloud provided a broad overview of the
most used words and the related topics and categories to these words.
Figure 3: Word cloud
Second, the data was divided among the selective codes (Lockyer, 2004) created before the
data collection, these codes are the base of the coding process. The selective codes needed to
be redefined after the analysis. In order to analyse the data with an open mind-set, open codes
were created. This is a method of defining particular fragments that are important in the
research. Open coding was followed by axial coding, creating connections between
categories and subcategories. The different codes were placed in a hierarchical order, this can
be seen as an interim step between open and axial coding.
3.4 Analysis strategy results
A cross-case analysis was held in order to create an overview of the results after analysing the
codes. This contains a ‘’creation of word tables that display the data from the individual cases
according to some uniform framework’’ (Yin, 2009). A cross-case analysis can go beyond
the first discovered patterns, it can reveal information because it provides an opportunity to
see systematic patterns and interrelationships among the cases (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
The cross-case analysis was done with help of a framework metrics in Nvivo 11. The cross-
case analysis contains individual cases and the different codes that were derived from the
data. The most important detailed quotations were analysed and made visible in Appendix 3.
The cross-case table entails detailed information, because of this a general overview of the
results of the different cases is created, see table 4.
Table 4: General overview cross-case analysis
Type of Type of innovation Innovation Positive/Neutral/

organization Theories Negative Jobs
Theory
Case 1 - Global Orange Start-up Incremental No Positive
Case 2 - Mobile Strategy Start-up Incremental Disruptive Negative
Disruptive innovation
Case 3 - Eleanor Start-up Disruptive No Positive
Case 4 - Experius Start-up Incremental No Positive
Case 5 - Voicebooking Start-up Disruptive No Neutral
Case 6 - Ultimaker Start-up Incremental No Positive
Disruptive
Case 7 - Hello Flex Group Start-up Incremental No Neutral
Case 8 - AnylinQ Start-up Incremental No Neutral
Disruptive
Case 9 - Stork Corporate Incremental No Positive
Disruptive
Case 10 - Spie Corporate Incremental No Neutral
The cross-case analysis serves as a tangible overview in order to answer the research question
and sub questions. Besides the cross-case analysis a Venn diagram as in the research of King
& Baatartogtokh (2015) is provided.
Figure 4: Venn diagram, match between cases and theory
3.5 Strengths and limitations of the research design
Conducting theory out of case studies got several weaknesses and strengths. If the cases
confirm different relationships between variables the confidence in validity of the
relationships will increase (Eisenhardt, 1989). If this is not the case and contradicting
findings are found it will lead to a decrease of the internal validity. The external validity is
low because only limited cases will be hold. A weakness of conducting theory out of a case
study is that the theory will be to specific and narrowed so it cannot be generalized to a
higher level (McDougall et al., 1994). In contrast it could be external valid because Deloitte
(2016) made a selection of the Technology Fast 50 list. Another limitation is the argument
that case studies are lacking in reliability (Johnston et al., 1999). In order to increase the
reliability, the same research could be done with the list of Technology Fast 50 2015 in the
Netherlands. Finally, case studies could be held at organizations in a different industry than
technology. Besides this, ‘’good qualitative analysis relies on skills, vision, and integrity of
the researcher doing the analysis’’ (Pope et al., 2000). There does not exist a ‘best’ way to
code or a ‘best’ way to analyse qualitative data (Saldana, 2012). But does a best way to
analyse the data gathered in qualitative research exists?
4. Results
In order to answer the research question, the sub questions are analysed. The structure of the
analysis is based on the sub questions. First, the elements of the Jobs-to-Be-Done theory that
start-ups and corporates apply are analysed. Second, the opinion about the theory in relation
to success and innovation is analysed. Third, the opinion about the theory in relation to
gaining a competitive advantage is analysed. Finally, other factors what are relevant in order
to be innovative, successful and creating a competitive advantage are analysed. In order to do
so, the concepts ‘’success’’ and ‘’innovation’’ are analysed. This provides deeper insight in
the context in which the respondents answered questions related to the Jobs-to-Be-Done
Theory and what other factors could lead to success and innovation and thus a competitive
advantage. Within every concept a distinction between start-ups and corporates is made. The
reason for this is to analyse the similarities and differences among start-ups and corporates.
At the end of every concept the data and literature will be connected in order to answer the
sub question.
4.1 Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory
In the following part the elements of the theory, that the different type of organizations apply,
without being aware of it, are analysed. First the use and awareness of innovation theories is
analysed. Second, the importance of the customer within the innovation process is analysed
in order to get insights in the focus points when innovating. After this, the elements the start-
ups and corporates apply from the theory are analysed. Finally, a conclusion is made in which
the sub question is answered and connected to the literature.
4.1.1 Innovation theories
The gathered data shows that zero respondents are known with the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory.
On the question: ‘’Are you aware of applying innovation theories?’’ answers arranged from:
‘’We probably do, but it is more intuitive than explicit’’ (CEO, Ultimaker) to ‘’No not
actively’’ (CEO, Experius) and ‘’I would say no’’ (CEO, Voicebooking). Even corporates are
not aware of applying innovation theories. Their answers arranged from: ‘’Not really’’
(Innovation and Knowledge transfer, Stork), to ‘’We do it by heart’’ (Asset Management
director, Stork) and ‘’We use our farmer sense’’ (Director, Spie). According to the analysed
data only one organization applied an innovation theory, Mobile Strategy applies the
disruptive innovation theory.
4.1.2 Customer based innovation
In order to understand what the role of the customer is within the innovation process, multiple
questions about the customer and the involvement in the innovation process were asked. This
data resulted in a finding that in almost all the start-up cases innovation was a product of
constant direct interaction with the customer. This is analysed within the following data:
‘’There are clients who are a head of the curve and they challenge us with their questions’’
(CEO, Experius), ‘’We have a feedback mechanism with a handful of key customers, we do a
lot of testing as part of the feedback mechanism’’ (CEO, Ultimaker) and ‘’What we see is
that we do a lot of sessions with leading customers, customers who are also in front row of
innovation and we keep an open mind for their feedback’’ (CEO, Hello Flex Group).
The role of the customer in the innovation process of corporates is ‘’Hugh, because they got
to buy it and they must we willing to accept it’’ (Innovation and Knowledge transfer, Stork)
and the customer need to be willing to buy it (Asset Management director, Stork). The
relation with the customers is key, this is similar to the start-up results of the data. ‘’We try to
find out what of course is in the mind of our customers, a lot of our relationships with
customers are based on long year relationships and on trust’’ (Principal Consultant 1, Stork).
Trust and listening to the customers is important within these relationships. This could result
in a co-operation with the customers (Director, Spie).
4.1.3 Jobs-to-Be-Done Elements
In this part the elements of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory applied in practice are analysed.
These elements consist out of: Jobs, circumstances of customers, experiences of customers
and the integration of the experience of the customer in the internal organization processes.
4.1.3.1 Jobs
The relation with the customer is key within the innovation process, but how do organizations
know what customers want? A combination of qualitative and quantitative research offers the
organizations an opportunity to understand their customer. The focus of the start-ups and
corporates is on qualitative research, having direct contact with their customers (Managing
director, Global Orange). ‘’Most of the time it is recognising patters in the normal contact
with customers, we see what goes wrong, we see their complaints and we read all the
reviews.’’ (CEO, Voicebooking). The respondents of the corporates answered similar as the
start-ups, conversation with their customer is most important in order to innovate and
knowing what their customer want. Qualitative research can also be found in: detecting
problems from customers (CEO, Eleanor), customer feedback (CEO, Hello Flex Group) and
co-creation. ‘’To understand our own interviews, we are co-creating with our clients’’ (CEO,
Experius). The question is whether customers are aware of their needs. Do organizations
search for the underlying needs of their customers (latent needs)? ‘’You got existing needs,
then there are ill defined customer needs, latent needs’’ (CEO, Ultimaker). ‘’I like what
Henry Ford said: I did not listen to my customer’s wants because they said a faster horse’’
(Innovation & Knowledge transfer, Stork). On the question if organizations focus on the
causation process of their customer or their latent needs the answers are: ‘’Not on top of my
mind’’ (CEO, Experius) or because of a lack of time it is not possible to focus on this (CEO,
Eleanor). Nor start-ups nor corporates are searching for the underlying causation of the
buying process of their customers. The quantitative part exists out of analysing data and
doing market research in order to find trends in the market. The CEO of AnylinQ focuses on
data to predict the future and data to understand the history. ‘’We learn our technical people
to predict what the customers will need in the future’’ (Director, Spie). This method would
result in a defined understanding of the customer and an opportunity to predict the future.
4.1.3.2 Circumstances customer
Do start-ups and corporates take the circumstances in which their customers behave in the
buying process into account? These circumstances consist out of three factors influencing the
behaviour of customers: the functional, social and emotional part. The data analysis for the
start-up cases results in the main importance of the emotions of customers. The functional
part is seen as something which is there, but putting more relevance on the emotions could
create more success of the service or product. The following quotations are based on the
emotional part: ‘’The emotional part is really important for us, because we deliver an
ingredient of a production, we try to innovate from the situation the customer is in’’ (CEO,
Voicebooking), ‘’Two rules seeing or hearing, you need to see or hear the machine because
then you get connected’’ (CEO, Ultimaker) and ‘’What we see is that sometimes the most
innovative product is never going to fly, because it does not look right, doesn’t have the right
user experience, it is not bringing the right emotion somebody wants to have’’ (CEO,
AnylinQ).
For the corporates the emphasize is first on the functional circumstances and after that on the
social and emotional circumstances. Emotions are important when taking the circumstance of
the customer into account, but a negative result could be that the emphasize is too much on
the customer. ‘’Social is an important factor but it is not the objective when you start, the
biggest mistake is that you only look at the human side and then you will not innovate’’
(Principal Consultant 2, Stork). In contrast to this the director of Spie thinks the opposite.
‘’The only way to gain a competitive advantage is when you focus on behaviour, so on the
social part. The technical innovation is not that important, the social innovation is more
important’’ (Director, Spie). Stork first takes the functional part into account after this the
social part and finally the emotional part. ‘’So after we take the social into account but also in
front we take the risk management into account’’ (Principal Consultant 1, Stork). For
corporates the functional circumstances are the most important, after this the social
circumstances and finally the emotional circumstances.
4.1.3.3. Experiences customer
The opinion on the importance of customer experience is divided between pro customer
experiences (start-ups and corporates) and anti-customer experiences respondents (start-ups).
The respondents who are pro customer experience value the experience they offer to their
customers. ‘’Yeah in terms that the software should we easily useable so that has to do with
the user experience design’’ (Managing Director, Global Orange), ‘’Well we are called
Experius and that is not for nothing, it is experience us, experience is really important to us’’
(CEO, Experius) and ‘’I think it is key, because if the experience is not good nobody is going
to adopt it or use it’’ (CEO, Hello Flex Group). In contrast to the pro customer experience
group, the anti-customer experience group does not value the experience they offer to their
customers. ‘’It is not really important, because the service is something that needs to be
done’’ (CEO, Eleanor) and ‘’It is not really important’’ (CEO, AnylinQ). The negative
attitude towards the value of the experience of customer could be a result of an ill-defined
organization structure or an organization that is focused on data.
4.1.3.4 Integrating experiences organization
Start-ups integrate the customer experiences into their internal processes. This integrating
entails, giving people the authority to do what they think is best for the customer experience
(CEO, Experius), by focussing on the customer journey and story (CEO, Ultimaker), by
integrating why questions ‘’I think the culture is also asking the why question. Why are you
using it? Why are you not using it? Why are you happy? Why are you dissatisfied? And then
you get a lot of feedback and then you know you are on the right track’’ (CEO, Hello Flex
Group). Besides this the start-ups also work in teams with different disciplines, including the
client teams (CEO, Mobile Strategy).
Corporates integrate the customer experiences into account, but raise awareness that the focus
should not be on too specific customers. ‘’You try to but you need to watch out that you don’t
take a to specific customer into account, and this makes it less easy to leverage it across the
industry’’ (Innovation and Knowledge transfer, Stork). The open communication and
possibility to communicate in a direct way, is part of the integration of the experiences in the
internal processes of Spie. ‘’We are really open and transparent, the customer likes it to have
the possibility to communicate direct’’ (Director, Spie). Corporates work in teams in order to
know what the needs are of the client. ‘’We use agile, scrum and lean, so we can look at what
the client need’’ (Principal Consultant 1, Stork).
4.1.3.5 Conclusion Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory
Start-ups and corporates are not aware of the Jobs-to-Be-Done theory, besides this only one
organization is applying an innovation theory. The relation with the customer is crucial for
start-ups and corporates. The customer can provide a feedback mechanism and as an
inspiration of innovation which could lead to co creation. With help of qualitative research,
this is in line with Christensen et al. (2016), organizations try to understand their customers.
But the focus is not on the underlying buying process of a customer. A few organizations
search for the causation process of their customer, it would be time consuming (Gribaudo et
al., 2015) and other factors would gain more priority. When looking at the trends
organizations follow, collecting data in order to understand the customer is getting more and
more important. According to Christensen et al. (2016) all the circumstances (functional,
emotional and social) of the customers need to be taken into account. The start-ups and
corporates differ when taken these circumstances into account. For the start-ups the
emotional circumstances are main important, for the corporates the emphasize is on the
functional and social part. None of the organizations focus on all the three types of
circumstances.
The importance of the experience of the customer can be divided in two groups, one group
that is pro customer experience and the other is against. The respondents who are pro
customer experience value the experience they offer to their customers, the ones against lack
a mature organization structure or are focused on data. This could result in the fallacy of
confirming data (Christensen et al., 2016). For start-ups integrating the customer experiences
into their organization is valued. Corporates integrate the customer experiences also, but raise
awareness that the focus should not be on too specific customers. The answer on the sub
question: ‘’Do start-ups and corporates apply elements of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory?’’ is
that the customer is crucial for every organization but very few elements are applied by
organizations and many of the elements that are applied are used without being aware of it. In
order to get a clear overview of what elements start-ups and corporates apply from the Jobs-
to-Be-Done Theory an overview is provided in table 5.
Table 5: Overview Jobs-to-Be-Done elements start-up and corporate
Start-up Corporate
Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory No No
Jobs • Qualitative • Qualitative
• Quantitative • Quantitative
Circumstances • Emotional • Functional
Experience • Valuable • Valuable
• Not valuable
Integrating experiences • Freedom employees • Open communication
• Culture • Project teams
• Project teams
4.2 Relation Jobs Theory, innovation and success
Does the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory lead to success and innovation? Or do elements of the
theory lead to innovation and success? According to the data collected from the start-ups and
corporates, success and innovation is not depending on the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. ‘’In the
end a theory is a theory’’ (CEO, Mobile Strategy) and ‘’Business theories are just a tool’’
(Innovation and Knowledge transfer, Stork). Factors that do influence the success and
innovativeness are; the idea (CEO, Eleanor), the creation of a concept, the creative work
(CEO, Mobile Strategy), knowing what your client wants (CEO, Eleanor) and the
organization structure (CEO, Experius). Spie adds to this ‘’The people who are best in
history, the one who can make the best decisions and the one who will have less failures are
the ones who are successful’’ (Director, Spie). Finally, success would be depending on how
an organization changes the outside information into their internal processes, and thus the
‘’how’’ of applying a theory is the most important when having success in innovating (CEO,
Ultimaker). The customer is playing a sub part in this, ‘’It is about having a product or
service and changing the life of a customer and having the people to make that happen and
then the other rule is never ever forget your existing customers’’ (CEO, Ultimaker).
4.2.1 Conclusion relation Jobs Theory, innovation and success
According to the data collected from the start-ups and corporates, success and innovation is
not depending on the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. The organizations mention other factors that
are contributing to their success and innovation. One element of this is knowing what your
client wants, this is an element of the theory (Christensen et al., 2016). The data of the start-
ups and corporates shows similarities in thinking about the theory in relation to innovation
and success. Thus, ‘’Are the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory and the type of organization related to
innovation and success?’’ success and innovation are not depending on the theory, regardless
of the type of organization. Thus, innovation is not taking place with help of customer
insights only (Christensen et al., 2016).
4.3 Relation Jobs Theory and competitive advantage
The Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory would provide an opportunity to win from the disrupter. Is it
possible that when applying the Jobs-to-Be-Done theory, the organization can over-win
disrupters and stay in competition? According to the data, the theory could be a guideline to
operate, but success or winning is depending on multiple factors. ‘’I think it can be
successful, but not that you are a winner, it is more like that you are reacting on what is
happing on the market, if you try to predict a market or try to create a market you are a step
ahead’’ (CEO, Mobile Strategy). Overall, the respondents are positive about the relation
between the theory and winning from competitors or disrupters. ‘’It probably can be a guide
line, make sure you don’t forget things and gives you an idea what your competitors might be
doing, the theory could lead to innovation and success’’ (Managing Director, Global Orange).
Another important factor is how organizations are applying the theory and integrating it in
their own uses. ‘’It is a good theory, but it really depends on how you are using it if it is
successful’’ (CEO, Experius). Is it possible to predict who will have a competitive advantage
and will win? ‘’Well I mean that is always the question who is going to win, you never know.
The thing with customer based innovation is that it takes time’’ (CEO, Mobile Strategy).
What makes competitors more innovative or successful in comparison to other organizations?
Do disrupters apply elements of customer based innovation? ‘’The customer is a key aspect
in being a disrupter, because it is about the service for the customer and that they will get the
most benefit out of it’’ (CEO, Eleanor). The opinion of Experius is in one line with above
mentioned, he mentions that disrupters ’listen to what the market really wants’’ (CEO,
Experius). It that sense disrupters apply customer based innovation, more respondents agree
on this. But the question remains, what is the cause of the success of a disrupter? ‘’I think the
interesting about disrupters is that the biggest pie in the market does not buy disrupters stuff.
So, sometimes it is even better to be the first follower than being the disrupter’’ (CEO,
Experius). Who is more successful, the disrupter or the follower? ‘’We analysed disruptive
organizations and looked at what they are innovative in, these companies are successful
because of their software platform’’ (Director, Spie). The disrupters can be seen as a signal to
the old market to adapt (CEO, AnylinQ). Was the old then not listening to what the
underlying needs of the customers are?
4.3.1 Conclusion relation Jobs Theory and competitive advantage
The Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory would provide an opportunity to win from the disrupter or
competitor according to Christensen et al. (2016), but do organizations agree? The opinion on
the theory in practice is that a competitive advantage is not only depending on a theory. In
order to create a competitive advantage, organizations need to understand their market and
customers, this is a subject of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. When do organizations apply the
theory? Is this only the case when the organizations apply all the elements, according to King
& Baatartogtokh (2015). ‘’If you really know what your developments are among your
customers and what the decision process is than you would really understand what you have
to do’’ (CEO, Voicebooking). This is similar to the opinion of Christensen et al. (2016).
According to the data success and innovation would depend on different factors, but the
theory could provide structure and a guideline. Overall, the respondents are positive about the
relation between the theory and winning from competitors or disrupters.
Are disrupters successful because they are applying customer based innovation? According to
the analyses respondents agree on this, and think that disrupters are the ones who see the
underlying needs of customers and react on this in a traditional market. Indirectly a
conclusion can be made that disrupters might apply elements of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory.
Even though they are not focused on the customer (Christensen et al., 2015). This could
provide a reason that disrupters are not always successful, customers could be not yet ready
to adopt. Thus, ‘’Are the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory and type of organization related to win
from the competitor?’’ if the customer based innovation is a sources of the success of the
disrupter, it could provide a competitive advantage.
4.4 Relation theories and type of organization
According to the data, there is a difference between start-ups and corporates in applying
business theories. Corporates would apply more theories in comparison to start-ups. ‘’I think
the corporates are using the most theories because there are a lot of professionals in the
corporate’’ (CEO, Experius) and ‘’I think a corporate will use more theories of course, I think
a start-up will just do things’’ (CEO, Voicebooking). Corporates would apply more theories
because they have professionals and more time and money to invest in theories. ‘’I think
corporates and the people go to the business schools and get all the business theories, start-
ups just start and define their own rules and own business process’’ (Principal Consultant 1,
Stork), thus ‘’Corporates will have more access to business theories’’ (Director, Spie). Start-
ups apply less theories because they have to focus on surviving. ‘’If you are a start-up the last
thing you worry about is a business theory, you innovate quick but learn by doing’’ (CEO,
Mobile Strategy). According to Mobile Strategy corporates could learn from the flexibility
and quick learning from start-ups. Besides applying less or no theories, start-ups focus on
point solution (CEO, Hello Flex Group). Because of the point solution, start-ups are focused
on one solution. This would make is accessible for them to apply, one theory (Innovation and
Knowledge transfer, Stork). When start-ups are getting successful, then they would start with
applying business theories (Principal Consultant 2, Stork). If start-ups raise to another growth
phase they could benefit from applying theories the most according to Global Orange. ‘’I
would say that: bigger companies might already have the knowledge, so smaller companies
should benefit from the theories to speed up and improve their innovation power, but maybe
the bigger organizations would use the theory and the small organizations would just do it’’
(Managing Director, Global Orange). In the end it is not about theories according to
Ultimaker. ‘’It is all about having the old stuff, having the right people, having the right
focus. There is a difference between start-up and corporate, as a start-up no one is seeing you,
all start-ups face the same, not enough money, not enough people, you always struggle with
resources’’ (CEO, Ultimaker).
4.4.1 Conclusion theories and type of organization
The opinion of corporates and start-ups about the use of business theories is similar.
According to the data, start-ups would apply less theories in comparison to corporates. The
reason for this would be point solution and a focus on surviving. Besides this, corporates
have more time and money to invest in theories and would be more attached to these theories.
This is in line with the literature of Weiblen & Chesbourgh (2015). This finding is in contrast
with the findings of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory, because besides one organization, no
organization is applying an innovation theory regardless the type of organization.
4.5 Factors leading to innovation, success and a competitive advantage
According to the data, organizations don’t apply the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory, thus this is not
directly linked to innovation and success of organizations. But what factors do lead to
innovation, success and competitive advantage of start-ups and corporates? In order to gain
more insights in these concepts success and innovation is further analysed.
4.5.1 Success
According to the data ‘success’ is described in a broad sense and is depending on the
interpretation of success from the respondent. The result of analysing the different definitions
of the cases is that the focus is on the people. In the following citations the focus is on people:
‘’Happy people, happy colleagues and happy customers’’ (CEO, AnylinQ) and ‘’Success for
us is when our own people and our customer are very satisfied with the products we develop
and success is also that we are always two steps ahead of the market’’ (CEO, Hello Flex
Group). According to the data the definition of success for start-ups need to contain the
following elements: happy customers (Managing Director, Global Orange & CEO, Hello
Flex Group & CEO, AnylinQ) and successful customers (CEO, Mobile Strategy), positive
change (CEO, Eleanor), growth and cash (CEO, Voicebooking & CEO, Ultimaker),
workplace (CEO, Experius & CEO, AnylinQ), recruit and retain talent (CEO, Ultimaker) and
finally stay ahead of the market (CEO, Hello Flex Group). Where the people are the key
factor of success for start-ups, the focus of success for corporates is finance. The following
citations confirm the importance of the finance: ‘’Success is normally rated in numbers
financially, revenues and margins and growth’’ (Principal Consultant 1, Stork) and ‘’I define
success if more clients come to us, we generate more revenue and more profits’’ (Innovation
and Knowledge transfer, Stork). Corporates define success in multiple ways but the emphasis
is on the numbers and revenues in comparison to start-ups in which the focus is on the people
(customers and employees).
4.5.2 Factors influencing success
Different factors are influencing having more success than competitors. The first factor are
the competitors. There are two point of views when focusing on competitors. The first
motivation is being better than the competitor and differentiate, by implementing successful
innovations of competitors into their own organization. The CEO of Voicebooking uses the
competitors as sources of success. ‘’If we see a success, we think how does that success
work? Then we try to decompose that into little pieces and compare what pieces of the
success are useable to our concept’’ (CEO, Voicebooking). The other motivation is applied
by corporates, it entails learning from the competitor and co-operate on open innovation and
creating success for both parties (Director, Spie). The co-operation would lead to creation of
sharing of knowledge and this will be important when trying to compete with other
organizations.
Second, the type of organization has influence on the success and innovation of
organizations. According to the different respondents there is a difference between start-ups
and corporates in regard to success. The advantages for a start-up are flexibility (CEO,
Eleanor) and a mix of structure and creativity (CEO, Ultimaker). Start-ups are innovative but
sometimes it would be hard for them because of the budgets and timelines (Managing
director, Global Orange). In contrast to start-ups, corporates ‘’have shown that they are really
good at transforming, but there are also large corporates that are too slow in moving and
changing towards a new economy’’ (CEO, Mobile Strategy).
Besides the competitors and type of organization, the following factors are influencing the
success of start-ups: the relationship with customers, employees (Managing Director, Global
Orange), experience (CEO, Mobile Strategy), investment in research and development (CEO,
Hello Flex Group) and following the trends (market) (CEO, AnylinQ). The factors
influencing the rate of success of start-ups is not significantly different than the factors
important for corporates. The following factors are influencing the success of corporates: the
amount of failures, the market in which the corporate is operating (Innovation and
Knowledge transfer, Stork), investment in research and development, the relationship with
the customers (Asset Management director, Stork) and the capability to match customer
demand (Principal Consultant 1, Stork). The difference between start-ups and corporates is
the focus on the employees and failures. Start-ups focus more on their employees and making
mistakes, failure is seen as something positive and an opportunity to learn. Where corporates
are aiming at making less mistakes.
4.5.3 Conclusion success
When defining success, corporates tend to focus on revenues, whereas start-ups focus more
on talent of employees and customers. The data resulted in the finding that success is directly
linked to competitive advantage. Multiple factors influence the success of organizations and
these results are linked to the competitive advantage of the organization. Similar factors that
influence the success and competitive advantage for start-ups and corporates are: focus on the
competitors, type of organization, research and development and customers and employees.
The factors for start-ups consist out of: focus on the competitors, the type of organization, the
customers and employees, research and development and the ability to predict and follow
trends. For corporates the amount of failures is negative related to success. This provides a
sub answer to the sub question: ‘’Are other factors influencing success and innovation
besides the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory?’’. In order to get a clear overview of the differences
between start-ups and corporates and the factors influencing the success, an overview is
provided in table 6.
Table 6: Overview success start-ups and corporates
Start-up Corporate
Definition success • Finance • Finance
• Customer satisfaction • Customer satisfaction
• Workplace
• Employees
• Market
Competitive advantage • Relations • Relations
factors • Market • Market
• Employees • Less failures
• R&D • Co-operation
• Competitors • Customer demand
Differences start-ups • Flexibility • Budget
and corporates • Creativity • Time
4.6 Relation innovation and success
Success is leading toward a competitive advantage, but what is the influence of innovation on
success? Innovation is seen as leading in the success of the start-ups. On the question: What
is the role of innovation in the success of your organization, respondents answer; ‘’It is a key
driving factor’’ (CEO, Ultimaker), ‘’It is a big one’’ (CEO Voicebooking) and ‘’it is quite
important’’ (CEO, AnylinQ). Innovation would separate an organization from the rest of the
market (CEO, Eleanor). For corporates innovation is as a key driver of the success of the
organization. ‘’If there is no innovation and there is no knowledge transfer, I am not
successful’’ (Innovation and Knowledge transfer, Stork). Besides this, innovation would
create a possibility to stay ahead of the competition. ‘’The role of innovation is that when you
don’t innovate, you become a commonalty, the margin and the competition is getting bigger’’
(Asset Management director, Stork). For start-ups and corporates innovation is a factor which
can create the opportunity to win from the competitor and provides the opportunity to be
successful. But how do these organizations define innovation?
4.7 Innovation
The definition on innovation is interpreted differently at the start-up cases. The definitions
have in common that innovation is about getting better, constantly moving and change.
Innovation can be defined as something which is vague according to the data. ‘’It is very
complex to find good words for that’’ (CEO, Voicebooking), and ‘’Innovation is difficult to
describe’’ (CEO, Mobile Strategy). Start-ups define innovation as ‘’constantly improve and
to challenge’’ (CEO, Global Orange) and ‘’doing something new, product wise, market wise
or technology wise’’ (CEO, Experius). Combining the different elements of the definition of
innovation is leading toward the following definition: Innovation is to constantly improve,
challenge and change (CEO, Global Orange), something new (CEO, Experius) and listening
to the customers and making sure they are satisfied (CEO, Ultimaker & CEO AnylinQ).
The definition of corporates consists of elements that are the same as the definitions of start-
ups. Corporates define innovation as ‘’it is combining existing knowledge and existing
experiences in a new combination’’ (Principal Consultant 1, Stork), ‘’doing something
different that adds value to our customer’’ (Innovation and Knowledge transfer, Stork) and
‘’Generating future ideas and a vision that needs to be fulfilled in the future’’ (Director,
Spie). The definition exists out of the elements: new (Asset Management director, Stork),
future ideas (Director, Spie) and adding value to the customer (Innovation and Knowledge
transfer, Stork). These elements are similar to the elements of the definition of innovation
from start-ups.
4.7.1 Factors influencing innovation
First the type of innovation, influences the innovation process. According to the data a
distinction can be made between incremental innovation, radical innovation and disruptive
innovation. What is the definition of these types of innovation? Incremental innovation is
defined as innovation step by step (Director, Spie). The definition of disruptive can differ in
every case. For Stork disruptive innovation can be defined as: ‘’For us disruptive has a
meaning in terms of when we have to change or competences and when we need other
competences’’ (Principal Consultant 2, Stork). Multiple start-ups combine incremental and
disruptive innovation. Innovation does hardly occur in one way. ‘’You can also be innovative
with existing channels and existing things, incremental change. But you can also be
disruptive and come up with something totally new and disrupt a market’’ (CEO, Mobile
Strategy), ‘’We do incremental and disruptive because we have different type of printers’’
(CEO, Ultimaker). Start-ups have the ability to be disruptive, their organization structure is in
the beginning phase and this provides the opportunity, this is in contrast to corporates.
Corporates innovate in an incremental way. But smaller departments have the opportunity the
innovate in a more disruptive way (Innovation and Knowledge transfer, Stork). Stork
innovates incremental for 99%, but ‘’for ourselves we can do smaller innovations that are
more radical or disruptive’’ (Asset Management Director, Stork). This is in contrast to the
disruptive innovation from start-ups. If start-ups innovate in a disruptive way, this implies
being disruptive with the entire organization. An incremental innovation can result in a
radical innovation over time, according to Innovation and Knowledge transfer from Stork.
The corporates can be described as follower or early adopter. ‘’I think we are more in the
second leak, the early adopter or follower’’ (Principal consultant 1, Stork). Start-ups are
innovating in a more radical or disruptive way, where corporates innovate incremental but
these incremental steps could lead to radical innovation according to Stork. It is important to
take the meaning from the different types of innovations into account. Besides this,
sometimes organizations want to be disruptive but then the customers are not yet ready for
this change, then the organization will innovate on a more incremental way. Thus, the type of
customer and the type of market an organization is in, play as key factors (CEO, AnylinQ).
Besides type of innovation the competitors influence the innovation process. For start-ups
innovation is important in regard to competitors, but according to the data most of the start-
ups are doing things different than their competitors ‘’We also look at competitors and if we
feel that they are doing the same then we try to do it different’’ (CEO, Global Orange).
Besides this, they are focusing on a traditional market in which they implement a new
successful innovation, this is the reason why these start-ups don’t face much competition yet.
‘’Nobody took us serious but at the end we are a threat’’ (CEO, Ultimaker). ‘’They stay
traditional, while disruption comes from companies who are taking another road to the
future’’ (Principal Consultant 1, Stork). Because there is less competition among the
innovation start-ups have the ability to set the rules in an industry. Besides innovation, the
resources that are available are important in regard to creating a competitive advantage. ‘’We
have everything within the group, the developers, the execution power to launch the tools, we
have support, we have services’’ (CEO, Hello Flex Group). Innovation could lead to a
competitive advantage but only in regard to two factors. Organizations should have the
perfect mix of people that are able to adopt change and being aware of the market (Director,
Spie). Besides this, how much is an organization willing to invest in innovation? ‘’That
learning cycle is difficult many times, how long will it take, how much time can we spend on
it before we say it does not bring anything’’ (Principal Consultant 2, Stork).
Another factor influencing innovation is the type of organization. According to the different
respondents there is a difference between start-ups and corporates in regard to innovation. On
the question: Do you think that the type of organization has influence on success and
innovation? ‘’Absolutely, for us it is the flexibility’’ (CEO, Eleanor) and ‘’I think there is a
big difference’’ between start-ups and corporates (Principal Consultant 1, Stork). Start-ups
tend to be innovative and fast but they lack budgets and timelines. ‘’Start-ups usually have a
very good idea that is innovative but sometimes it is hard to make something for them within
the budgets and timelines’’ (CEO, Global Orange). ‘’The great thing about a corporate is that
you really have big budgets and you don’t have to succeed, but in the other way if you are a
start-up and you have an idea you can start tomorrow’’ (CEO, Experius). Another advantage
for a start-up over a corporate is the opportunity for the start-up to focus on one area and all
the employees have the ability to work on the innovation. ‘’Start-up has one focus on one
specific area and can recruit for that and is positioned about that and is motivated towards
that’’ (Innovation and Knowledge transfer, Stork). ‘’So everyone is working on innovation,
so we can go really fast, we all know what is going and we all have a role in what is going
on’’ (CEO, Voicebooking).
4.7.2 Conclusion innovation
Innovation is seen as something which is vague. Vague in how to innovate, vague in what the
innovation will result in and vague in what the source of innovation is. New, future and the
customers are main concepts in regard to innovation according the data. Besides this, the type
of innovation does not need to influence the success or competitive advantage, but influences
the innovation. Start-ups are applying a combination of incremental and disruptive innovation
and have more access to disruptive innovation. Where corporates focus on incremental
innovation, which could lead to radical innovation. The competitors field, the type of
innovation and the type of organization are influencing the innovation process of an
organization. This provides the answer to the sub question: ‘’Are other factors influencing
success and innovation besides the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory?’’. In order to get a clear
overview on innovation and the factors related to it in regard to the type of organization, an
overview is provided in table 7.
Table 7: Overview innovation start-up and corporate
Start-up Corporate
Definition innovation • New, improvement • New, improvement
• Customers • Customers
Innovation process • Disruptive • Incremental
• Incremental • Radical
Competitive advantage High Moderate
Differences start-ups and • Flexibility • Budget
corporates • Focus • Time
• Creativity
5. Discussion and conclusion
This study attempted to explore the use of the components of the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory at
successful start-ups and corporates. Besides this, the use of these elements, and if they are
contributing to the success, innovation and competitive advantage of an organization has
been investigated. Literature about the theory is limited, as the book of Christensen et al
(2016) is published in the end of 2016. Furthermore, different views on the theory exist.
Literature is lacking in what elements of the theory organizations apply and if a difference
can be made between start-ups and corporates.
The main purpose of this study was to identify if organizations apply elements of the theory,
even if they were not aware of applying these elements. In order to do so a deductive research
was chosen, because the theory was developed inductively, through multiple cases. The
theory is conducted with integrating findings of multiple case studies; this is the reason why
in this Master Thesis is chosen for qualitative research. Multiple interviews were hold at
different case studies, 12.5% more interviews were conducted than in the research of King &
Baatartogtokh (2015), a research on the usefulness of the first theory of Christensen et al.
(2016). Case studies were conducted at start-ups and corporates in order to take a possible
difference between the type of organization into account. By making use of semi-structured
interviews a deeper insight on the different concepts and their interrelatedness could be
analysed.
Based on the results it can be concluded that no organization within this research is known
with the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. Interesting remains, why are all the organizations a known
with the disruptive innovation theory and not with the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory? And does
this say something about the reflection of the theory? Organizations are applying elements of
the theory without being aware of it, no organization is searching for jobs. Thus, there is
hardly focus on the causation process of the buying process of the customer. The reason for
this is that organizations are not aware of them or lack resources in order to do more research
on the jobs. However, the customer is key within the success and innovation of a start-up and
corporate and thus also when gaining a competitive advantage. There are two trends
occurring in regard to the customer. Organizations are more and more focusing on co-
creating or integrating customer feedback within their development process. And
organizations are getting more data driven focused, in which data could provide insight in the
customers and their history. This is leading towards a more important role of the customer
within the organization. In regard to customer innovation, a finding of the results, is leading
to the insight that disrupters might be searching for jobs. Disrupters (mostly start-ups) seem
to focus more on the customer than organizations who are innovating in an incremental way.
This is in contrast with Christensen (2003), in which is stated that keeping close to the
customer may provide misleading data for disruptive organizations. But applying the theory
would provide an opportunity to win from the disrupter according to the respondents and
literature. Organizations do focus on taking the circumstances of their customer into account,
start-ups mostly focus on the emotional circumstances where corporates tend to focus on the
functional and social circumstances. Besides this, a contradiction can be found within the
analyses on focusing on the experience of a customer. Organizations do focus on the
experience or do not focus on the experience of the customer. This could be a result of a
different focus or a lack of organizational structure, these are also factors which are relevant
when integrating the experience of the customers in the organization. In relation to the theory
only a small distinction had to be made between start-ups and corporates
When focusing on other factors that are influencing the success and innovation of an
organization. The customer is seen as one influencing factor but other factors as environment,
business field and employees are seen as more influential. In regard to theories in general,
start-ups apply less or no business theory where corporates use theories for checks, balances
and structure. Theories are adopted and changed in order to fit the organization. Concluding,
one of the researched organization is applying an innovation theory, this is in line with the
finding of Page (1993). Theories in practice differ from theories in literature, and with regard
to the difference between start-ups and corporates. Each one has what the other one lacks, it
would be valuable to cooperate more often.
5.1 Theoretically and managerial implications
This research theoretically contributes to the Jobs-to-Be-Done literature, by being the first
providing an insight on the awareness of the theory among the organizations. Besides this, it
provides information on the elements organizations apply of the theory. The research
managerially contributes by providing managers the insight that focusing on the customer on
different levels could provide an opportunity in the latent needs and causation process of their
customer. Besides this, the theory could provide a check on what features could be applied
within the organization in order to gain more awareness among the customer. Finally, a
possible combination of big data and the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory, a combination of
quantitative and qualitative research, could provide future predicting insights on which the
organization can react when innovating and gaining a competitive advantage.
6. Limitations and further research
This study has several limitations and indications for further research. First, the research is
conducted among organizations within the technology industry. The chance that these
organizations are disrupters and that their environment consist out of the highest disruption
percentage is present, the disruption theory is based on the technology industry (Christensen
et al., 2015). This is the reason why it would be interesting to gain more insights in different
industries in relation to the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. Second, the lacking of a consistent
definition of success and innovation is leading towards less trustworthiness and rigor. An
overall definition of success and innovation would provide more consistent data. Although,
these concepts are changing over time, and there does not exist an overall definition. Third,
this research was conducted at organizations that are successful. Is the Jobs-to-Be-Done
Theory leading towards success of organizations that are not successful? Or does it offer an
opportunity to increase their success? And if organizations are applying the theory already, to
what extent would it lead to success, innovation and a competitive advantage? Fourth, when
is a theory a good theory? And is the theory conducted in a rigorous and trustworthiness
manner? Further research could gain more insights on the parsimonious, testability and
logically of the theory (Page, 1993). This research is lacking in this analyses. The analysis
could be conducted applying a quantitative research method, or by analysing the literature.
Out of what elements does a ‘’good’’ theory consist? Fifth, further research could focus on
the difference between the theory and customer based innovation or on big data and the
causation process of the customer. Big data is getting more important and organizations will
focus on data in the future. How does data relate to the causation process of customers? And
can organizations apply only quantitative research in order to gain information from their
customers? Sixth, multiple case studies could be held at corporate organization and in
general. Limited case studies are conducted in order to provide a generalizable result. Finally,
in this research a qualitative research method is applied. This entails that the researcher’s
interpretation could have influenced the outcomes (Eisenhardt, 1989). But in order to make
these influences as less as possible the whole analysis cycle is provided. This qualitative
research could provide a starting point for a similar research as King & Baatartogtokh (2015)
in order to test the validity and generalizability of the theory.
7. References
Adams, W. C. (2010). Conducting semi-structured interviews. Handbook of practical

program evaluation, 365.
Andrew, J., Manget, J., Michael, D., Taylor, A., Zablit, H. (2010). Innovation 2010, A return
to prominence and the emergence of a new world order. Retrieved from:
https://www.bcg.com/documents/file42620.pdf
Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability—rigidity paradox in new product

innovation. Journal of marketing, 69(4), 61-83.
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of
innovation. Management decision, 47(8), 1323-1339.
Becker, S., Bryman, A., & Ferguson, H. (2012). Understanding research for social policy
and social work: themes, methods and approaches. Policy Press.
Berry, L., Shankar, V., Parish, J. T., Cadwallader, S., & Dotzel, T. (2006). Creating new
markets through service innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(2), 56.
Bessant, J., & Tidd, J. (2007). Innovation and entrepreneurship. John Wiley & Sons.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research
in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Boer, H., & During, W. E. (2001). Innovation, what innovation? A comparison between
product, process and organisational innovation. International Journal of Technology
Management, 22(1-3), 83-107.
Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to
fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
Christensen, C. M. (2003). The innovator's dilemma: The revolutionary book that will change
the way you do business (p. 320). New York, NY: HarperBusiness Essentials.
Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). Disruptive innovation. Harvard
Business Review, 93(12), 44-53.
Christensen, M. C., Taddy, H., Karen, D., & David, S. D. (2016). Competing against luck, the
story of innovation and customer choice. New York: HarperCollinsPublishers.
Clayton M. Christensen (2017) Retrieved from

http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=6437
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Crossan, M.M. and M. Apaydin (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational

innovation, Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1154-1191.
Davenport, T. H. (2013). Process innovation: reengineering work through information

technology. Harvard Business Press.
Deloitte (2016) Ranking Technology Fast 50 2016. Retrieved from

https://www2.deloitte.com/nl/nl/pages/technologie-media-telecom/articles/rankings-
technology-fast50.html
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.
Drucker, P. (2014). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge.
Drucker, P. F. (1994). The theory of the business. Harvard business review, 72(5), 95-104.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of

management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation:
exploring the phenomenon. R&d Management, 39(4), 311-316.
Freeman, J., & Engel, J. S. (2007). Models of innovation: Startups and mature corporations.
California Management Review, 50(1), 94-119.
Galvagno, M., & Dalli, D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature
review. Managing Service Quality, 24(6), 643-683.
Gribaudo, M., Iacono, M., Manini, D., Pironti, M., & Pisano, P. (2015). A Simulation Based
Approach For The Evaluation Of Outcome Driven Innovation Models. In ECMS (pp. 138-
144).
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of

existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative science
quarterly, 9-30.
Heunks, F. J. (1998). Innovation, creativity and success. Small Business Economics, 10(3),
263-272.
ICT, kennis en economie 2016 (2016). Retrieved from https://www.cbs.nl/nl-

nl/publicatie/2016/26/ict-kennis-en-economie-2016
Jacobson, R. (1992). The “Austrian” school of strategy. Academy of management

review, 17(4), 782-807.
Johannessen, J. A., Olson, B., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2001). Innovation as newness: what is new,
how new, and new to whom?. European Journal of innovation management, 4(1), 20-31.
Johnston, W. J., Leach, M. P., & Liu, A. H. (1999). Theory testing using case studies in
business-to-business research. Industrial marketing management, 28(3), 201-213.
Kell, J. (2015) the 10 most profitable companies of the Fortune 500. Retrieved from
http://fortune.com/2015/06/11/fortune-500-most-profitable-companies/
King, A. A., & Baatartogtokh, B. (2015). How useful is the theory of disruptive innovation?.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(1), 77.
Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2014). Why implementing corporate
innovation is so difficult. Business Horizons, 57, 5, 647-655.
Kuczmarski, T. D. (2003). What is innovation? And why aren’t companies doing more of it?.
Journal of consumer marketing, 20(6), 536-541.
Lockyer, S. (2004). Coding Qualitative Data. In The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science
Research Methods. V. 1, 137-138. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of product

innovation management, 23(1), 19-25.
Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013). Does sample size matter in
qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 54(1), 11-22.
McDougall, P. P., Shane, S., & Oviatt, B. M. (1994). Explaining the formation of
international new ventures: The limits of theories from international business research.
Journal of business venturing, 9(6), 469-487.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.
Mone, M. A., McKinley, W. and Barker, V. L. (1998). Organizational decline and

innovation: a contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 23, 115-32.
Norman, D. A., & Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research
vs. technology and meaning change. Design issues, 30(1), 78-96.
O’Sullivan, D., & Dooley, L. (2009). Applying innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peters, B. (2009). Persistence of innovation: stylised facts and panel data evidence. The
Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 226-243.
Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Marshfield, MA: Piiman.
Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Analysing qualitative data. British medical
journal, 320(7227), 114.
Rosted, J. (2005). User-driven innovation. Results and recommendations. Copenhagen: Fora.
Saldana, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Sawhney, M. , Wolcott, R.C. and Arroniz, I. (2006). The 12 different ways for companies to
innovate, in: MIT Sloan Management (2011). Top 10 Lessons on the new business of
Innovation, p. 28D34
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital,
credit, interest and the business cycle, Harvard Economic Studies, Vol. 46, Harvard College,
Cambridge, MA.  
Shenton, K. (2014). The analysis of qualitative data in LIS research projects: A possible
approach. Education for Information. P. 143-162.
Slater, S. F., Mohr, J. J., & Sengupta, S. (2014). Radical product innovation capability:
Literature review, synthesis, and illustrative research propositions. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 31(3), 552-566.
Spiek, C., and Moesta, B. (2014). The jobs-to-be-done handbook: practical techniques for
improving your application of jobs-to-be-done. Retrieved from
https://www.amazon.com/Jobs-be-Done-Handbook-techniques-application/dp/1499339232
Tushman, M. L. and O’Reilly, C. A, (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing

evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8-30.
Ulwick, A. W. (2017). Outcome-Driven Innovation (ODI): Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory in

practice. Strategyn.
Ulwick, A.W. (2017). Applying Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved

from https://global.gotowebinar.com/join/5448198144093522433/215583123
Ulwick, A. W. (2016). Jobs to be done, theory to practice. Retrieved from

https://strategyn.com/jobs-to-be-done/jobs-to-be-done-theory/
Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user

innovation. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 55(1), 63-78.
Weiblen, T., & Chesbrough, H. W. (2015). Engaging with startups to enhance corporate
innovation. California Management Review, 57(2), 66-90.
Welsch, E. (2002). Dealing with data: Using Nvivo in the qualitative data analysis process. In
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 3, No.2).
Wunker, S., Wattman, J., and Farber, D. (2016). Jobs to be done: a roadmap for customer-
centred innovation. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Jobs-Be-Done-Customer-
CenteredInnovation/dp/0814438032/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&r
efRID=PE01ZEGQ3N9RT7AM1X8D
Wunker, S. (2012). Six Steps to Put Christensen’s Jobs-to-be-Done Theory into Practice.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenwunker/2012/02/07/six-steps-to-put-
christensens-jobs-to-be-done-theory-into-practice/#743042d81f63
Yin, R. K. (2009). How to do better case studies. The SAGE handbook of applied social
research methods, 2, 254-282.
8. Appendices
8.1 Appendix 1: Structure of the interviews
General • Company
• Job
Success • How would you define success within the organization?

• How is success measured within the organization?
• What factors influence success?
• What is the role of innovation for the success?
• Is the type of organization influencing the success?
• What factors influence having more success than your
competitors?
Innovation • How would you define innovation?
• Are organizations able to predict innovation?
• What are the innovation focus points within the organization?
• Can you tell me more how the organization is innovating?
(product/process and incremental/radical/disruptive innovation)
• What is the relation between innovation and success?
• And what role does the type of organization has on this?
Customer based innovation • What is the role of the customer in the innovation process?
(orientation, understanding, user driven and co-creation) - What
impact does the customer have on the innovation process?
• How would you describe the relation between customer
innovation and organization success?
innovation and type of organization?
innovation and competitors?
Disruptive innovation theory • Do you know what the disruptive innovation theory entails? (if
not explain).
• Do you think applying customer innovation as contributing to
over-win a disruptor?
• Do you think that disrupters are customer based focused?
Jobs-to-Be-Done theory • Is your organization applying innovation theories? What

theory?
• Do you know the Jobs Theory? If yes, how does your
organization search for jobs?
• How is your organization trying to understand the customer?
• Is your organization applying qualitative or quantitate research
in order to understand the customer? On which one is the
focus?
• What steps is your organization taking?
• Do you focus on the individual or on target groups?
• How does the company apply the customer’s circumstances in
the innovation process? What distinction is made? (functional,
social, emotional)
• How important is the experience you offer the customer?
• How is your organization integrating customers experiences
into the internal organization processes?
Reflection of the theories • What is your opinion on business innovation theories in

practice?
• Do you think that the Jobs Theory offers organizations a
possibility to win from the disruptor or competitor?
Interrelatedness • How would you describe the relation between business theories
and success and innovation?
• How would you describe the role the type (corporate/start-up)
of organization has in the previous question?
8.2 Appendix 2: Interview transcripts
Interview 1 - 25/04/17
Global Orange - Edwin Hoogervorst - Managing director
I = Interviewee
R = Respondent
I: Can you tell me something about the company?

R: Global Orange is a company we build customer applications for customers. Typically,
customers who have complex processes they want to offer to their clients our use that they
use their selves. Which they cannot handle with the standard software.
I: So you offer a specific type of software for a particular organization.
R: Yes, it is not standard, we build everything from scratch. We find out what the customers
need and how they can innovate and become better with help of our software.
I: Can you tell me more about your job function?

R: I’ am responsible for the delivery of the projects. I have a team who are responsible for the
projects. We have for every project a different team. These are people from our own team and
a partner company in Romania. Our office is only in the Netherlands.
I: How would you define success within your organization?

R: Success for us is when our customer becomes successful. So, we try to look at what does
make or customer successful and what is our role in this process. What can we do? What can
we contribute to their success? Is that with creating an application which they can use or they
can sell to their customers. But also help them to make decisions what features in the
software are needed. So we try them help them focus on the features, which are the most
important for them. With what they can earn money.
I: How would you define your customer’s success?

R: It depends. You have different types of customers, sometimes start-ups. Then you could
define success if they have customers and not only users but paying customers. At the end
your bills have to be paid. For another project we are working on an MKB they had already
more customers in healthcare industry, they offered a software solution for the planning of
employees. So success for them is that their current clients will be more happy with working
with the new platform instead the old platform and that they get new features that makes their
work more easy and better. So if differs from client to client.
I: What is success for your organization?

R: If customers are successful they probably will be happy with the work we have done. And
if they earned money they are able to invest that money. In this way we can keep improving
the application.
I: So, improvement is a key success factors for your organization?

R: Yeah, and of course as a company we are also successful if we earn money. Because if we
don’t earn money we can’t make our customers happy, that doesn’t work. And also improve
ourselves. If we learn from a project, to be able to do the new projects better, I think we are
also successful.
I: What role does innovation has in the success part of your organization?
R: It can have a big role, because sometimes our customers are… For example, for this year
we have the goal of starting to do more with machine learning. That is an innovative
technology. So we can help the customers with machine learning to make their software more
easy to use.
I: And this will increase their success?
R: Hopefully, yeah.
I: Do you think you can predict successful innovation?

R: Well, you can predict innovation, but if it is successful that is harder to predict.
I: Why do you think that success is more difficult to predict?
R: Because you can never be sure if the innovation is appealing to the end user.
I: The Jobs Theory is saying that if you use this theory you are able to know what is
appealing to your customers.
R: Ok.
I: Do you think that the type of organization has influence on the innovation success?
R: Uhm, I think so. Start-ups usually have a very good idea that is innovative. But sometimes
it is hard to make something for them within the budgets and timelines. For them also to
convince their investors to show that their idea will be successful in a short period.
R: It is a challenge because they have to manage their investors and us, because we advise
them on how to do things. You have to find a balance in that.
I: What factors do influence your success in comparing to your competitors?

R: Uhm, I think we have done many projects that made our clients happy, so we have good
references. And it is not just a reference but we have a lot of smart people who can do the job.
If you talk about machine learning, we already have some people who have experience with
it. So I think we can show the potential customers that we can do it.
I: How would you define innovation?

R: Uhm, innovation to constantly improve and to challenge. So if you do innovation that
means that there is change as well. Uhm, and it is also try out I think.
I: Can you tell me more about your innovation process?

R: We are innovating by constantly improving our processes and looking at new technologies
we can use, which make it more easy to accomplish things and make it more transparent for
the customers how things work. For example, I was telling you about helping the customers
in making the right decisions for their platform and what features they build and what not.
We constantly improve in that process. To be able to convince them. It is not disruptive
innovation be incremental innovation.
I: What is the role a start-up has in what your explained?

R: Do you see us as a start-up? Uhm, I don’t know. If I answer it or one of our clients, we
have SimpledCard organization, that is a spin-off of GlobalOrange and a start-up. They are
disruptive because they have a totally new product. A payment card they offer to companies
and companies can offer the card to their employees to use it for their expenses.
I: If you are innovating how do you look at competitors then?
R: Yeah, we also look at competitors and if we feel that they are doing the same then we try
to it differently. We currently focus on the software development part more. And we try to
add machine learning.
I: What is the role of the customer in the innovation process?
R: If we talk about machine learning. We will discuss our idea with our current customers,
and see how we can implement machine learning in their software. Because we have a lot
customers who could benefit implementing machine learning. So, that would be a corporation
between us and the customers. They have to invest to learn about the machine learning but at
the end they will be able to earn more money with it.
I: So you cooperate with the customer in order to innovate?

R: Yeah.
I: How would you describe the relation between the customer innovation and the
organization’s success?
R: Uhm, if you mean if we play a part in the innovation of our customers than I think the
answer we play a big role, because if they want to do something innovative we have to
participate. What kind of changes we can do to their software, or if we have to build a new
platform? For example, we have a new start-up as a client and they want to be disruptive.
They want to make meetings more structured and more fun. So we play a big role in that
company, on how to achieve this with help of a new app.
I: How would you describe a start-up?

R: A start-up is company which just starts, has a brilliant idea, which will have a big impact I
think. Uhm. They usually have a short schedule, want to achieve something in a short period
of time. Because probably the competitors are on their necks. Usually they are working with
investors. There is always a kind of weird situation were they do have money but they have
to… They have to convince two parties they have to convince. And you never know if it is
going to be a success, so you have to work really fast and try to validate your idea as soon as
possible with real customers and real users. Only then it will become a success.
I: I just explained the disruptive innovation theory, do you think that if you focus on customer
innovation that you can win from a disrupter?
R: Uhm, I think that we can win, we have references and we are not really a start-up
anymore. It depends on the type of customer. If we go to the MKB then we have more trust
from them then our competitors. And the references and the work we have done in the past,
that plays a big role.
I: The start-up you just mentioned that is disruptive, do they focus on the customer?
R: Not at the moment, I think. Because they just had an idea. And they had to had a product
to be able to show it to the customers. They needed to launch the product really fast.
I: But how did they idea started?
R: I think it came from their own experience that meetings take a long time.
I: Are you aware of applying an innovation theory?

R: Uhm, no.
I: How is your organization trying to understand the customer?
R: Uhm, we are trying to understand our customer by investing time in discussing with him,
not only what he is asking, but also why he needs it. What will it gain for him and his
customers?
I: Are you only taking their needs into account?

R: Also the environment the customer is in, so we have a lot of discussions about the why. In
this why question usually these types of aspects also come to the table. That is something we
changed over the years. When we just started we asked what do you want and why do you
want it? Now we don’t ask how they want it because we decide how. We go much deeper
than we used to.
I: Why is this shift occurring?

R: Because we sometimes saw even if they said we want to have this and then we build it,
that they did not become successful or that they did not get what they really wanted. They
don’t know what they want. We need to help them to find out what they really need. Because
they are not expert on development of software.
I: How do you know what the customers want?

R: We look at the numbers; I mean we try to discuss what features are the most important for
them in terms of revenue.
I: Besides the functional part, do you also take into account the social and emotional part?
R: Uhm, I think so because if you look at user experience that has to do with the type of
people working with an application. And if you do a good user experience design, and divide
the target group into sub groups, because they have different needs. We try to design for a
different role.
I: What are the steps an organization is taking in order to innovate for your customer?
R: Uhm. While I think the innovation part comes as the standard process we have. When we
start the development of the application, what do you need and why do you need it. Thinking
in a way to help their customers better.
I: How do I have to see this?

R: It is ongoing. We start at the top and work our way down. What is your company? What is
your vision? What type of customer do you have? What do you want to achieve? Then he has
this product, how does his product helps in achieving his vision of his company. What
problems do they have? How can we solve that? That is how we start. If we start to define the
details of the application which is in cycles. We only do two weeks of development and then
we start thinking of the next part. So, continuously we detail the specifications and
requirements so we can come up with innovative ideas.
I: What is the experience part in that offering?

R: Uhm. Yeah in terms that the software should be easily useable so that has to do with the
user experience design. The application should be clear from the start. And yeah it depends
some application we want the give the wauw factor. We focus on new application and
improvement of existing applications.
I: How do you know if an application is clear from the start?
R: You only know by testing it out with the users. It is really important to involve the users in
the testing and get their feedback.
I: Do you have internal processes that will lead to innovation?

R: Everyone is aware that we need to constantly improve. Uhm. We use all kind of tools to
make it all easier, to support the work. We are constantly in discussion to improve things and
to innovate.
I: What is your success formula?
R: We have different groups, were we discuss the things we want to achieve and the things
that are not going well at the moment and how we can change it. We have different
departments. We also look at the sales and marketing department and look how we can
improve all departments.
I: What is your opinion about business theories leading to innovation and success?
R: I have no knowledge about business theories. But I know for example lean start-ups, we
do use that. The lean manufacturing. We use this as a guideline for our processes.
I: But you don’t think you should use a theory in order to be successful.
R: No, not at the moments.
I: Do you think that the Jobs to be done Theory can be helpful to win from competitors?
R: I think it would help to use it as a guideline as least.
I: Why?
R: Because it probably can be a guide line, make sure you don’t forget things a gives you an
idea what your competitors might be doing. The theory could lead to innovation and success.
I: Who will make the most use of theories in regard to the type of organization?
R: I would say that; bigger companies might already have the knowledge. So smaller
companies could benefit from the theories to speed up and improve their innovation power.
But on the other hand, smaller organizations are better at fast innovation than bigger
organizations. And maybe the bigger organizations would use the theory and the small
organizations would just do it.
I: Have I forgotten something?

R: Uhm, you can maybe contact SimpledCard as a start-up.
Mobile Strategy - Nishant Dogra – CEO
I: Can you tell me something about your organizations?

R: Mobile Strategy is a full service mobile agency and in short we help brand to engage with
customer on mobile.
I: Can you tell me more about your function?

R: I founded Mobile Strategy 7,5 years ago, back in the days we were the first mobile brand
agency in the Netherlands. And almost 2,5 years ago we moved to Amsterdam and we
became part of TWE. One of the leading global marketing agencies which is part of the
Omnicom group which is the second biggest market holding in the world. Serving brands in
the Netherlands, and expanded internationally. We help our clients realize a mobile channel
that is disrupting their industry or their business. That is one of our key concepts, coming up
with new ideas and creating concepts. Transform existing ideas into a mobile business model.

R: When our customers are happy. Our customers are happy when their customers are happy.
We try to realize experience that goes beyond expectations. And that they are disruptive and
making live more easy while making use of mobile. Do things in a different way.
I: Is there a way to measure the happiness of your customers?
R: Well B2B we do client surveys, and face to face meetings every month. So we get
customer feedback. And the clients of our clients give feedback in several forms; social
media, stores, app ratings and several other points. We measure the ratings of the customers.
I: What factors do influence the success of Mobile Strategy?

R: I think the expertise on retail and brands. We have a strong focus on segment experience
in retail and that is why we know what works and what doesn’t work. So, we can give a tailor
made advise. Obviously we develop a specific mobile strategy tailor made. Experience is one
of the key factors and the people that work here love mobile and love working for retail. I
think you need to have passion of both the be successful.
I: Do you think that the type of organization has influence on success?

R: Difficult to say. Some corporates have shown that they are really good at transforming,
they are advanced and willing to improve. But there are also large corporates that are slow in
moving and changing towards a new economy and we have seen both. And if you look at
start-ups our main clients are bigger retail companies. Start-ups are not our type of clients.

R: Innovation is difficult to describe. You can also be innovative with existing channels and
existing things, incremental change. But you can also be disruptive and come up with
something totally new and disrupt a market. I think both ways are interesting for a corporate
to look at. You have to be incremental all the time but you can also be disruptive once in a
while, to get a head of your competitor. Also what we have seen in the past few years is very
important to disrupt a market is mobile. I think a very good example is Uber and Airbnb,
those are two very good examples on how you can disrupt a total industry in the whole world,
with just one single app. I think that is really interesting to see how that evolves and how
mobile will disrupt other industries. The question will be indeed is it a start-up or a corporate
that will disrupt the market? What you see is that larger existing corporations don’t have the
urge to disrupt a market. That threat in that thinking is that of course there will be start-ups
that will disrupt the market and look at it with a complete new perspective. And focus more
on the customer of the future.
I: Who do you think will be the disrupter?

R: Uhm, I think start-ups have a more disruptive mind-set but the thing is that start-ups don’t
have money and clients. So, it is always a big challenge between start-ups and established
organizations. So, it really depends on the market. But I think that start-ups will have good
cards because you don’t need a lot of money to start on digital. The cost of entry has become
lower. This makes it easier to disrupt, because they don’t need physical products or stores
anymore. Look at Uber and Airbnb it is about mobile and customer experience.
I: Do you think that you can predict successful innovation?

R: You can predict were we are going but it doesn’t always work. It depends on timing and
execution. You can predict what markets are lacking behind and who are going to be
disrupted.
I: Can you tell me more about how you are innovating?

R: Within our agency we are innovating a lot. To be on top of the game. We are attracting
and hiring good creatives within mobile. We are focusing on creatives. We do a lot of
brainstorm sessions with external and internal people. We come up with good ideas we also
proto type, so we give freedom to go and design the best ideas. This is what we also show to
our clients and this helps us win more business.
I: Are you more product, process or service focused?

R: We are service focused but the end product is also really important to us. We are service
focused and help clients. At the end the product needs to be solid and good.
I: Are you only innovating in a disruptive way?

R: It depends. For example, for Hunkmoller it was disruptive because we made the first
loyalty app in Europe. Integrated loyalty program within the app with personalized messages.
So, that was really disruptive. But for another client Omoda we developed a shop app that has
a significant better shop experience and leading towards more sales. So, that is not really
disrupting a complete market but it is better than their competitors, better than the used to had
and it is innovative. So, we do both.
I: Do you innovate as central point from the technology of as central point of the customer?
R: We do focus on technology but the starting point is always the brand. So, it is always
where is the brand positioned, where is it now? And where is it heading? That is the key, we
look at the brand vision and brand strategy. We look at competitors and global players.
I: How would you describe the relation between customer innovation and the success of your
organization?
R: I think it is collaboration at the end. It is equally important that the client and the agency
are both willing to disrupt.
I: How would you describe disruption?

R: Disruption is looking at the market standards and see how everyone is operating in that
standard and come with an idea or a concept that break the convention, you go the other way.
Something in the process you do different than the others. And that is how you disrupt, you
will have a unique voice if you do this in comparison to others. It is core in organization to
come up with ideas to disrupt the market. Clients that don’t want change should not come to
us, because we stand for innovation and doing things different.
I: If an organization is applying a customer based innovation method, are they then able to
win from a disrupter?
R: Mm, well I mean that is always the question who is going to win, you never know. The
thing with customer based innovation is that it takes time. Because you have to do focus
groups, you have to develop products. It can take many years before you get there.
I: Do you think that this type of innovation is to slow?

R: I think in the current market if you want to change and adapt to the customers’ needs
quick, you can innovate with customer based innovation but you should also think about
quicker channels like disruption. Working with customer can be a. very slow and b. lead you
to the wrong direction. A good example is if you would have asked customers on the street if
they need an app, they would say no I have enough apps. If you disrupt a market and show
you can book a transportation, cheaper, easier and more convenient than they will all use it.
So, it really depends. If you innovate it should come from within not from outside. If you
want to be disruptive you should innovate from within.
I: Do you use innovation theories?

R: We use the disruptive innovation theory. We always look at things differently, and look at
things that are not in the market yet and try this.
I: How do you try to understand your customers?

R: We have several conversations, we look at numbers like google analytics, we have market
trends applications. We use different inputs. We dive into it and come with ideas.
I: Is it a combination of quantitative and qualitative research?

R: Yeah, we use both. Numbers also say something but doesn’t say where we are heading.
The speed of change is going quicker and quicker so you cannot rely on the number of the
past two years anymore to predict the growth of the coming five years because technology
and innovation in digital is going in a much faster as we used to.
I: How do you know what is going to be next?

R: Well I don’t know what is going to be next but we do know based on market analysis that
it is going to be quicker. Changes are going to be quicker, so you need to adapt quicker and
better. Because competitors can disrupt the market. If you don’t disrupt the market yourself
someone else will.
I: Do you focus on new or existing customers?

R: Both, from mobile perspective we focus on existing customer but we also focus on new
customers.
I: Do you apply the circumstances of your customer when innovating?

R: Yes, that is what we take into account also in the design process. We look at the end
customer and we take as much variables into account as possible to come with a solid
strategy and concept. We focus on the social, emotional and functional part. These are
equally important to us.
I: How do you take this into account?
R: For the design for example we focus on emotions and we test this on users. Social is key in
every concept we do because the whole digital world is social. So that is something we do
from a standard practice.
I: How do you integrate your customer into your internal processes?

R: We work agile. In this team we have different disciplines that we include and we also
include the client’s teams. So we have a lot of daily interaction and it is a lot of co-creation.
With co-creation you get more ownership of the idea.
I: How does the co-creation work?

R: Daily conversations, calls, meetings with the clients and brainstorms. They should feel that
they are part of the creation of the idea. It is not an outside in but an inside out idea. The
survival of the idea is higher than.
I: What is your idea of business theories in relation to innovation and success?

R: We believe in the disruption theory, but that is one of the theories.
I: How do you apply this theory?
R: Disruption is in our DNA. Disruption does not have to be a very big change. You can also
disrupt in the way you talk to you clients or the way you design. I don’t think disruption
always has to be a very big change. Being different than others.
I: Do you think that the jobs theory would offer an opportunity to win from the competitor?
R: I think it can be successful, but not that you are a winner. It is more like that you are
reacting on what is happening on the market. And if you react and you are a big company
then it will take a while before you can react, because it takes time. If you try to predict a
market or try to create a market you are a step ahead.
I: How would you describe the relation between a business theory and success?
R: In the end a theory is a theory. At the end the most important part is the idea, the creation
of a concept of an idea. The creative work and leading this to a successful end product. In the
end that is what is crucial. A theory is a theory if you don’t have an idea.
I: How do you know if an idea is a good idea?

R: You never know in the beginning. But you can never do all the market research. Because
if you do market research the half of the idea dies and it takes too long. We try to work with
the best talents. Seniors combined with juniors. We have people who have a different look at
the world and who are creative. It is the people at the end and the collaboration, but also the
method disruption.
I: What do you think the type of organization has in the business theories in relation to the
innovation and success?
R: I have been a start-up. If you are a start-up the last thing you worry about is a business
theory. I did not used much of my business background. Because when you are a start-up you
try to develop cool products and being financial stable and independent that is your number
one focus. You innovate quick, but you learn by doing. It is a messy approach. Something
that corporates can learn from start-ups is to go out and try more and learn quicker. In this
way you can be more disruptive.
I: Why did you start your organization?
R: Passion. Predict problems that will arise in the future and that is disruption.
Eleanor - Allard Nooitgedagt – CEO
I: Can you tell me more about your organization?

R: I started together with my brother when we were both student’s business administration.
We always thought if we could find something after our study, that would be great. My
brother wrote an article about Chinese people getting interested in the western lifestyle and
also French wines. We knew the supply side so we thought let’s go and be the middle man in
between. So we went to China and the Bordeaux. This was hard because we did not have a
competitive advantage. When we started to learn the market, we saw it was a traditional
market based on relationships. We saw many people offering the same wines for different
prices many people were holding stocks. So we created a platform, a data base. And then the
platform shows the best prices of the wines. For the clients it is possible to log in and choose
between the lowest prices. Revenue is increasing every year. We have to keep on developing
every year. Next year we will start with a more direct platform between customer and
supplier.
I: Can you tell me more about you function within the organization?
R: I am the founder together with my brother.
I: How did you see the market gap in China?

R: The first was the article and then more important we just did it. What made us different
from all the people in the wine industry is that they were traditional and just continued. We
always try to look at the market from a different perspective. How things work, how things
can be done better. It is a very particular distribution system; the whole wine market is
particular I think. So we see things that are very strange but people just except them. So then
we think how can we make it more useable.
I: Are you still working with your brother?

R: Yes, he is working in Bordeaux close to the suppliers and I work from Amsterdam and do
the trading.

R: Uhm, that is difficult. What you choose will be a success. Since we started and look back
we see positive change and growth. This can be seen as success. Turnover was growing.
Success is when you are growing in turnover, new projects and new ideas that work.
I: What factors influence your success?

R: I think uhm. Success is when we keep managing new project that have not been done. So
success is when we develop projects and we make them work in the market.
I: What is the role of innovation within your success?

R: Major, because it is what separates us from the rest of the market. Also in the way of
thinking, we don’t call it innovation but we also try to see opportunities and we try to make
the best of this opportunity of software.
I: Do you think the type of organization has influence on the success?

R: Absolutely, for us is it the flexibility. We now have an in-house developer what makes it
even better. You see something and then you want to adapt it. Also if you speak to your
clients and they say I don’t like did but I do like that than you have to change it. Also because
we are really involved in the wine industry. That makes it possible to do things that other
people can’t.
I: What is the role of your customer in the innovation process?

R: Uhm. Very important because we don’t want to make things customers don’t want. We
want to interact with them and take them along the development cycle. We talk with clients
and try to get an idea.
I: What other factors influence the innovation process?

R: The new projects do exist because we read the industry journals. We know the latest news
and the insides of the industries. Based on this we see opportunities. And then we think ok
this opportunity we can use. And by developing a new platform or a new online tool we ask
the customers ok what do you think of it a then it grows.
I: Do you focus on individual groups or target groups?

R: Uhm. It is always a mix between your feeling and some things you learn on university. We
don’t do it scientifically it is a combination with feeling.
organization?
R: Uhm, a very direct link. Because success is when project works and when we make things
that did not exist before. But then the success will depend on how the customer will react.
I: Do you see a relation between type of organization and customer innovation?

R: It is hard for me to know how a corporate will do it. But I can imagine that they would
study more. A start-up is more trusting it’s guts feeling. This needs to be done and I see an
opportunity. You can try something and it doesn’t work. Try something and it doesn’t work.
Try something and it does work. A corporate will have more money and more resources that
is good but it is difficult to get the whole thing. We change our business model.
I: Do you use a particular business model?

R: Yes, we do. At first we used a membership model. In the beginning we thought that this
would be the best.
I: So you started with applying business theories?

R: Yes. But we saw the business model was a barrier. I did not work in practice. Because
people first had to pay before they could benefit from it. That is also not psychological. You
need to have very low barriers for people to join. Something we thought it would work and
then we changed it.
I: Are you currently using any innovation model or theory?

R: Uhm. Yeah the membership model we don’t use anymore. What we do is a fixed
permission. We created a business model in advance. But start-ups are different. When you
attract invest, it becomes a different dynamic. We decided to not get investors but grow the
company with profit. To a certain point we want to do it without investment. We started with
savings.
I: Do you think that applying customer innovation will have influence on winning from the
disrupter?
R: This market is really traditional. What we are doing with providing a platform is
disruptive. We are the disrupters. Then the question is how can other people beat us in a few
years? The customer is a key aspect in being a disrupter. Because it is about the service for
the customer and that they will get the most benefit out of it.
I: So you can say that if you are a disrupter you are customer focused?
R: Yeah absolutely. To a certain extent, we use our own feeling.
I: How did you know there was demand for your idea?
R: I think it is difficult. Because you really see an opportunity. You believe that people must
like it. Because it would provide them more money, saves time and it will solve issues they
have. You solve a problem from the customer. Compared to the current options they have this
future option will provide them more benefits. And then you discuss your idea with clients.
I: Do you use qualitative and quantitate methods?

R: No, we only use qualitative methods. Because we come up with a proposition and we test
this on the client. For us that is enough. We do qualitative research with ten to twenty
respondents. It is something that is happening during the whole development phase. When
you talk with people some say I like the idea but it has some lose ends and then we change it.
Then you can call it a co-creation. It is an ongoing process. Also you don’t have to be afraid
of making mistakes you should learn from the mistakes. You should not start with a perfect
platform but with something that works and improve this constantly.
I: Do you apply the circumstances (functional, emotional and social) of the customer in the
innovation part?
R: We focus on the emotion part because China has a different culture and they are price
sensitive. If we have a better price they buy from us and then you build a relationship. If
customers do the first order, this is different than the follow up orders because the first is a
sign of trust. Because sometimes they have to pay a large amount of money before they get
their offer, so it is about trust. And the follow up orders is just about providing the deals they
need.
I: How do you gain their trust?

R: To provide a good service, answer the questions, have everything in time and make the
first order a success and the others as well.
I: Do you offer a special service?

R: The special service is the platform, that they can log in and have an overview of the
market. They can buy from the winemaker, this was something they could not do before.
I: How important is the experience you offer?

R: It is not really important. Because the service is something needs to be done.
I: Do you integrate customer innovation in your internal processes?

R: No not yet. But we are launching a new platform. The next step is to use data of customer
behaviour and see how they interact on the platform and react on this.
I will ask a few steps from the Jobs Theory, can you tell me if you are taking this into
account?
I: Are you trying to understand the process the customer is in?
R: Yes.
I: Do you take the circumstances your customer is in into account?

R: No not really. On daily operational we don’t but strategically we do.
I: Do you look at the obstacles a customer has?

R: On a strategic level we do but on operational level we don’t.
I: Do you look at imperfect solutions that are not available on the market?
R: Yes, that is exactly what we do. We look at the traditional market but is has it flaws.
I: I have five more steps where the theory tells organizations to find jobs. Can you tell me on
which one you operate?
1. Finding a job close to home.
2. Competing with nothing.
3. Workarounds and compensating behaviours
4. Look for what people don’t want to do.
5. Unusual uses.
R: Competing with nothing, workarounds and compensating and look for what people don’t
want to do. The old market is out dated so we provide a better model for the market that will
benefit the customer and the supplier. And that the focus is not on the trade in between. We
look at things people don’t want to do because they don’t want to analyse the market
themselves and don’t want to do the meetings and do the negotiations with the wine makers.
We are their men in the field.
I: What is your opinion about business innovation theories?

R: I like it very much, I read to books. I think 90% is ‘’boeren verstand’’ and sense and 10%
is the theory. Maybe you can implement parts of the theory. It is always good to think how
am I doing? Most of the times we just do and at the end we read the theory and then we
notice we did it most of the times this way. A theory could offer a check or conformation.
I: If your competitors would use a more customer based innovation approach could they then
win from you?
R: That is a good question. In theory I think they can. Because I believe that really good
innovation comes from when you have a really good idea on what the client wants. Again it is
not only what clients want but also what is possible in the market. Uhm. With the wines this
market there is more demand than supply. People want the best wines for the lowest price,
you don’t have to do market research on that.
I: How would you describe the relation between business theories, innovation and success?
R: Let’s start with theories, I see they are a really good tool to analyse. It is good to be aware
of theories but then make your own strategy. And not make a strategy that is from the books.
But it is a competitive advantage if you are aware of these theories.
I: Do you think that the type of organization has a role in this?

R: Uhm. Then again the theory is one but you have to do it in practice. You also need to be
flexible. When it comes the flexibility start-ups will have an advantage.
Experius - Peter van der Reijden – CEO
I: Can you explain me more about your organization?

R: Of course. First to start about our vision, we have two pillars. The first is customer value
and the second one is being a great place to work. On both vision pillars we have different
strategies and goals. Or goal is to achieve an eight or higher on both of them. And if you take
a look at our product, we focus on e-commerce and with the e-commerce domain. And within
this domain being a great place to work and customer value mix up very well. It is a
complicated domain because you have technical integration with all kind of systems. There
are not many companies doing this and it is a very great complex work field to work. We
work with 80% coders. We are a technical firm, we only have a view people working in
marketing and sales.
I: Can you tell me more about your function?

R: I am the founder and my role changes over time. Currently it is more focused on HR,
sales, finance and strategy of course. My question for my employees is what can we do better
to make this a great workplace for you.
I: Why did you started?

R: Because I wanted to. I did a traineeship at a wonderful company called Ormit. You should
check it out. I did four projects at major corporates in the Netherlands. They were all totally
different. So, you see all the different cultures. But you see that the organizations are slow,
and even when you are working harder this doesn’t mean that the organization will go faster.
So I wanted a place where you can really speed up. Second It was a personal achievement to
build something up yourself. I wanted to create a place where people go to work with a smile
on their face.
I: Why did you started this type of organization?

R: We started with lead generating websites in 2008. In 2010 we stopped and sold the
company. Then we started with e-commerce. First the technical part of it but also the
marketing part of it. Then we found out that if we didn’t focus on one strategy we would be
anywhere just like Porter said. Then we started to focus on the technical part and from that
point we started to grow really fast. For example, the Deloitte fast 50. And we won prises for
the best workplace. We won prices on both of our vision pillars. If people feel trust in the
company and management I think the result will come.
I: How would you define success?

R: Well, I think I just said it. It is also good to know; it is not only about being a great place
to work. Because otherwise you could just do a hobby. People need to want your product and
service. You have to earn money. One of my personal goals is to convince others to create a
great place to work. I call this happy organizing. We have self-steering teams. There are some
people who say this is not going to work, how do you convince these people that it will work.
Because we grow at 50% a year. We have the same margin every year. We also grow but we
make also more revenue every year. Some people wonder how you do this and then you can
tell them about your happy organizing part. It is not only about happy and healthy but also
about making money.
I: How do you measure your success?
R: Well, I think there are three things to measure. First, our yearly growth, we focus on 50%
and not faster, it would be a good way to grow. Constantly change but it doesn’t go too fast,
so people are able to adapt to the changing environment. The second is we want to have an
eight or higher from our customers. We interview them weekly, we have around 150
customers and we interview them twice a year. It is a short questionnaire according the net
promoter score. The only thing you basically have to ask people; would you recommend us to
someone else? If they say yes, it is a good sign. If they say no, then what should we do to
improve? That should be the only question but to keep the conversation going we have tree
more and it is about our kindness, our technical solutions and the speed in which we solve
their questions. Those are questions that came out a more in-dept survey about our customer
value. We did the survey multiple times a year. But the last time we asked people on what we
should focus on. We visit many companies and ask them as well. Communication is always
number one. Besides this being a great place to work. The simplest way is every week we ask
what are the daily standards. We ask people daily on a base of zero to ten how good is this
place to work. If people say an eight or higher than it is good. If they say lower than we look
at what we can do to improve this. And every month we have a review here. I give people a
presentation on how did we do, and then you can see on a squat level how we are doing. Or
focus is to get an eight or higher. On the other hand, we have stress level, this is also on the
zero to ten level, we focus on level five. What they say in this theory if you have to little
stress it called bore out and if you have to much stress it called burn out.

R: Because we are a technical company innovation is constant. The technical environment is
changing all the time so you have to innovate. But I think innovation is important because if
you look at the customer value currently within the Dutch market there is too much demand
for e-commerce than there are supply of programmers. You need to be innovative to cope
with this. The main thing we do is automate as much as we can. That is the main thing and
being more efficient. User experience and user interaction are really important in this process;
we have experts on that. What you do today is something totally different than what you did
two years ago.
I: How would you describe innovation?

R: Doing something new, product wise, market wise or technology wise. Most of the time we
focus on technology because technology is changing. You change something I think most of
the time we change something in technology.
I: Are you able to predict innovation?

R: No, the only thing I am able to, I did not do any technical studies, create an environment
where there can innovation and they have to do it. What the next innovation will be is
predictable and I can do that as well, because there are big market trends and you can see
them coming.
I: How do you innovate?

R: I would say most of the time incremental. Because we are not a start-up any more but a
skill up, literature wise. When we were a start-up you are trying to get some market share and
you want people to pay for your product. Now a day the challenge is how to skill this thing
up. And improve it. It creates more innovation time. When you are a start-up you work 60 to
80 hours a week and just trying to survive. Nowadays it is more relaxed.
I: What is the relation between innovation and success?
R: It depends what you call innovation. If you call innovation, following market trends then
you are changing all the time. But if you really want to be disruptive, most of the
organization die fast. If you don’t innovate you die, you have to innovate.
I: Does the type of organization has a role in this?

R: Mm. The great thing about a corporate is that you really have big budgets and you don’t
have to succeed. And of course as a start-up you don’t always have to succeed. But you still
get paid at a corporate. Within corporates you have a big budget and they can try a lot more.
But in the other way if you are a start-up and you have an idea you can start tomorrow. It is
way faster.
I: What is the role of your customer in your innovation process?

R: Many clients don’t have an e-commerce platform. So they don’t really have a big impact
on our innovation. On the other hand, there are clients who are a head of the curve and they
challenge us with their questions.
I: How does your client know what their customers want?

R: There are trends, but the best answer should be because they are doing surveys. But that is
the best question. The truth is they don’t. When we ask them why should you start with e-
commerce or what should you do better? Or if we ask what did you ask your clients. You get
answers like: what would they know. Some of them do a good job but many of them mwaw.
organization?
R: Within Apple Steve Jobs said, your clients could never tell you they wanted an IPhone
until they saw it. But what I do think is that if customer know what they want and they can
tell it we can do it. The domain you have created the client can give you really good input for
your next innovation. You first need to have an iPhone to know what can be improved.
I: How do you know what customers want if they don’t know what they want?
R: I think you watch the biggest companies in the world. For example, Amazon. They are
focusing on artificial intelligence. And what they are doing is insanely innovative.
I: Do you think that if you apply customer based innovation that you can win from
competitors or disruptors?
R: Mm. I think the interesting about disrupters is that the biggest pie in the market does not
buy disrupters stuff. So, sometimes it is even better to be the first follower than being the
disrupter. Because being the disrupter is really hard work and like I said most of them fail. It
is our job to see what kind of disrupter there are in the market and to collaborate with them
and sometimes you could just copy it.
I: Do you think that disrupters use customer based innovation?

R: No they do not. For example, Picknick they are a disrupter, because they listened to what
the market really wants. The same for Uber. It is called listening to their latent needs.
I: Do you focus on latent needs of your customer?

R: No, I don’t. Well maybe. But not on top of my head no.

I: Are you applying innovation theories?
R: No, not actively.
I: How do you understand your customers?

R: With interviews. And with potential customers we really hear them out. Because to win a
new deal you really have to understand a new prospect. To understand our own interviews,
we are co-creating with our clients.
I: Do you only use qualitative research?

R: Yeah, well. The co-creation of course is qualitative, we are just making up ideas and try to
build as many things as they are looking for. The quantitative part are the surveys.
I: Do you focus on individual customers or on target groups?

R: We focus on whole salers.
I: How do you apply the customer’s circumstances in your innovation process?

R: Mm. I think we are probably doing this. But that hard part is that you ask me and not the
people who work on it every day. I am sure we are doing this for our top twenty clients, the
rest will just get all the innovations we have from the top twenty.
I: How do you take the social and emotional part into account?
R: Well I think that if you work together emotional and social is part of it. If you co-create it
is not only about getting to job done. Being a great place to work is that just only for us but
also for our clients.
I: How important is the experience you offer to your customers?

R: Well we are called Experius and that is not for nothing. It is for experience us. So,
experience is really important. The communication is one of the most important things we do
for our customers. They should have a great experience. I think a great experience is there
when you exceed someone’s expectations. To do this you need to know what their
expectations are. We have many communications with our clients so we know what their
expectation is. So, we know how to overachieve. That can be really simple, like having a
really good lunch.
I: How do you integrate your customer experience into you internal processes?
R: Mm. The main way we are doing this is to give people the authority to do what they think
is best for the customer experience. So they do not need my approval.
I: What is your opinion about business theories?

R: I think there is nothing more practical than a good theory. That is something I learned
during my own Business Administration. I read a book a month, not only on business
theories, they are changing but they are not changing that fast. For example, currently I am
reading the goal.
I: Do you think applying the Jobs Theory would create a possibility to win from competitors
and disrupters?
R: It is a good theory. But it really depends on how you are using it if it is successful.
Because basically what you do is listening to the market really well. But it is also about the
latent needs. It depends on what components companies are focusing.

I: How would you describe the relation between business theories and success and
innovation?
R: Mm. well the biggest business theory we are using is self-steering teams. Because of our
organization structure I think we are innovative on the market. I don’t think I came up with
this idea myself, I read it and I tried it. And then you see if it is working in a small team. This
is contributing to our innovation and success. We are applying many theories but sometime
you are not conscious of it.
I: How would you describe the role of type of organization in relation to business theories?
R: I think the corporates are using the most theories because there are a lot of professionals in
the corporate. For example, last week I was in conversation with ING. They were applying
the same organization structure as we do. But it took us a week to transform our organization
to work this way. While ING is still working on it. So that was interesting. We have the
chance to really do things quick and learn from it. While incorporates they first have to make
PowerPoint presentations and try to convince everyone.

Voicebooking - Hylke Vlierhuis – CEO
I: Can you tell me something about your organization?

R: We are Voicebooking.com we are a company that delivers voiceover and other audio
products. We are the first webshop in the world who delivers voiceover. There are a lot
freelance and casting voiceovers it is like the taxi market, there is a lot competition. We have
fast delivery in one working day, that is what makes us special, fixed prices in which we also
are the only one in the world. And we have voice talents, this are the voiceover talents all
around the world working for us every day. So we deliver voiceover and our clients are
people that produce videos. For 95% it is business to business for companies that produce
content for other companies. That is what we do, and as you see here in the studio we also
have some other services. We do editing, mixing of commercials, music and all that kind of
things.
I: What is your function within Voicebooking?

R: I am the CEO. I’m responsible for the operations and the management of the organization
and for sales. We do the management with two persons, we are small, we have ten
employees, some interns and some people working for us from time to time. The basic team
is ten.

R: There is only one word that comes to mind and that is growth. It is important to grow. We
tested this concept in the Netherlands, and we were market leader. We could make a good
profit in the Netherlands if we did not invest in other countries. We chose to invest in the rest
of Europe and the US in the future to grow. This is the only office, but we are planning to
open an office within two years at the US and maybe in Asia because of the time difference.
Success is growing of course you have to make a margin; at the end we have to make a profit
maybe not this year but then next year. Getting new customers in and getting our customer to
increase the amount of voicebookings is the biggest thing.

R: By measuring new customers in a month or a year of course. Measuring the amount of
projects, they buy, per year or per month. Based on the number of sales, not the money.

R: It is a big one, we see that our webshop is the most important thing, where you buy your
voice. Usability of the tool, communication, innovation in developing the best web tool and
developing the best way to deliver the audio is very important.
I: How do you know if the usability is good?

R: We have 2000 clients, so if they complain we do something with that. And we work very
closely with the voiceover talents. They work with the tool everyday with the customers, so
they know what happens. They also have a chat functionality, so if you buy a voiceover with
us, they can chat with you. And in this way you can ask the voice, can you let it sound a bit
different and when are you going to record. Those voice talents have contact with the
customers, in this way we get a lot of information. We combine the personal advice with a
big webshop. So you can ask us, I am looking for a commercial voice and then we advise
them.

R: Those are that questions that are in your head, but it is very complex to find good words
for that. I think innovation for me is looking around in the world what works. If I look at the
cliché companies like Uber an Airbnb, and I compare that with outsiders who do this
completely different. And then we check what works in usability what works in webshop and
what works in… uhm. We compare how our tool works with how other tools work in the
world. We read everything, mostly my partner/companion, he is in charge of innovation.
I: So, you compare yourself with other big companies that are successful?
R: Exactly. If we see a success, we think how does that success work? Then we try to
decompose that into little pieces and compare what pieces of the success are useable to our
concept. Then we think about that for an hour and then we try to build it. That is interesting,
and the other part of innovation for us is that we try to renew something every week. Keep
renewing every week. Little things, releases and testing things. So we look at the large
companies in the world and to our own ideas, and combine this.
I: Do you think that you are able to predict innovation?

R: That is a complex question, a little bit. I think you see developments and read about it and
then you think about them and with a lot of assumptions you make some predictions. We see
the voice over market is more major, when you compare it to five years ago when it was new
and a big success in an instance. You see that our clients build things themselves, so our
clients become our competitors. We try to defend a little bit. But mostly we try to build
something that is that interesting to them that they will keep being our clients and not doing it
themselves.
I: Do you know the disruptive innovation theory?

R: Yes, I know a little bit about it.
I: The Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory is a reaction to the disruptive innovation theory. If you are a
disrupter and your competitors are losing, then if they would apply the new theory they could
overcome the disrupter. So, do you think that you were a disruptive organization?
R: Yes, we were five years ago for sure. The market was really traditional, but now there are
many companies that work a little bit like us. And there are some companies in other
countries that do the same thing now.
I: Did they applied your idea or did they listen to their customers?
R: That is a good question. There are some copy’s, that is terrible to see. The only thing you
can do is always keep developing. If you look at companies that I like innovation wise do
like, Google. They say there always need to be 50% of our stuff who is developing.
Developing is important, they said at the beginning not become a sales organization but
always have 50% of our employees who are developing. It is important to keep renewing
your product and we do that, but the market is changing and we are not the only ones doing it
how we do it.
I: Are there other factors that your competitors do besides copying?

R: Except from the pricing, there are competitors that are a lot cheaper. It is easy in a
freelancer market to compete with prices. Our basic product is 250 euro’s, you can buy that
same product with a slower delivery and a worse quality for 120 euros. The problem is
pricing in the market.

I: Do you think that when you apply customer based innovation and do deep research that
you will become better and innovate successfully?
R: I think so yes. Let’s assume that we could aggregate all our knowledge we get from our
customers that would be great. Like I said we work every day and then go home. It is really
hard to make the time to do the research.
I: What would you do if you would have the time?

R: We will definitely use it.
I: Do you think that if you are a disrupter that you innovate because customer based
innovation?
R: I think in the end it was customer based. It is a combination of course. You see this was
possible because of new technology development. The home study did make our organization
possible. The voice overs have a home studio now. Ten years ago this was not possible yet.
The basic was technology but the idea come from customers that wanted to pay less and have
high quality audio in a faster way. The other development from the customer side, video
production has increased for thousand percentages every year. Because it moved from
television to social media etc. And a lot of text is now video. We saw that customers want
quality but not the quality the traditional competitors were delivering. That is the customer
based innovation.
I: Can you tell me more about the way you innovate?

R: Yes. The most important thing is the platform theory. We try to get the client and the voice
talent as much of the work as possible. We are working toward that servicing platform
theory. We are service innovation focused.
I: In the past you have been a disrupter, how are you innovating at the moment?
R: We have a platform that works every day. We do more than 600 voice overs a month. So it
has to work really well. And we innovate from the high level strategy. And we innovate from
the bottom, at the office. We look at the problems they have every day. The things that cost
too much time and we try to innovate from there. Try to make our process better, for our self,
for the client and the voiceovers. Then we have more time to listen to our customers and do a
better job.
I: How would you describe the relation between innovation and success?
R: I think it is a long term innovation. Because when you do an innovation that works, let’s
say an incremental innovation than it can have a direct growth. But most of innovations are
long-term success. Short term success is sales and marketing; long term would be innovation.
I: Do you think that the type of organization has a role in this? (start-up/ corporate)
R: Yeah. That is really important. I am a start-up scale up fan. Don’t ask me about corporates.
I think that being one department and not having different departments and politics between
people. Everything is integrated and I try to keep it one team. So everyone is working on
innovation. So we can go really fast, we all know what is going on and we all have a role in
what is going on. If we change something and it does not work, we see it within a few hours
and then change it back. The fast response time, the willingness to test new things in a fast
way. I think it is great to be a scale up, it is a really nice way to work besides the big budget.

I: What influence does the customer has in your innovation process?
R: A big impact because in to end we only look at how the process with the customer goes.
So as an operation manager I look at what problems clients had this month. What happened
with our new product? If we have something new I try to NVP it, do you know this?
I: No.
R: Minimal, valuable product. So even if a product is not finished yet we just put it out and
see what happens. Then we only look at the response of the customer. So for example we
change a button and then we see what happens. Or we ask, we are now doing it like this and
we are planning to do it like that, what do you think of it.
I: Is this a questionnaire or survey or something else?
R: We do surveys sometimes but most of the time it is if you are in contact you just ask a few
things. Or for new customers we email them and send them a discount coupon.
I: How would you describe the relation between customer based innovation and success?
R: Uhm. In the end that is all that matters for success. But the complex thing is you have
customers now, and you want new customers. So do you have the customers you want or do
you want new customers? We still have to develop more knowledge in why clients are with
us. We know a few things about that but we need some more information, but it is difficult to
answer.
I: Are you applying any innovation theories?

R: I would say no. But not explicit, but we read a lot and we hire advisors. We do, but it is
not that I think about innovation theories all day.
I: Did you know the Jobs-to-Be-Done theory?

R: No, but it is nice to learn today.
I: Can you tell me more about how you innovate with help of your customers?
R: Most of the time it is not making that extra phone call, most of the time it is about
recognising patters in the normal contact with customers. So we do 600 projects every month,
and per project we have ten contact moments, so I can analyse all of them. So we see the
patterns in customer contact. We see what goes wrong, we see their complaints and we read
all the reviews. We have a trust pilot. If someone is negative we call them, or is not happy, I
call them. So it is basically seeing the patterns and then innovate.
I: So you only use qualitative research?

R: That is a good question. We do some research. Today we send out a questionnaire, not
only to new customers but also to new leads in France. So we do some quantitate research but
it is minimum.
I: Do you focus on the individual customer or on target groups?

R: Uhm. We listen to individual customers but in the end we have target groups per type of
production, the animators, the corporate videos, we have the e-learning explanation. It is
target groups per products at the moment.
I: Do you apply the circumstance of the customer in the innovation process? (functional,
emotional and social part).
R: Uhm. The last one is a bit difficult, we do focus on the social part in France now. We try
to understand the difference in how to work and how you can make them feel comfortable to

do business with them. That emotional part is really important for us, because we deliver an
ingredient of a production. And that person has a lot of emotions to deal with because that
person has a boss and that client has a boss. There is a lot of negative emotion going on in the
production, much stress. We are always trying to innovate and develop tools that help to
reduce the stress. We try to innovate from the situation the customer is in.
I: How do you integrate the customer based innovation in your internal organization
processes?
R: We are still in the beginning in building our organizational processes so basically we only
now have two processes. The operational process and the commercial process, sales and
marketing. The internal process is still not really developed. We do things from our hart, and
we do not think about that.
I: Why are clients with you?

R: Of course we know what our clients need. When you bake a cake you need milk and you
need flower and you need nuts to put on the cake. If some says I bake a cake we say, here you
have the nuts.
I: Do you know the causation behind the buying process of your customers?
R: We partly know it but we want to know more about it. We need to know more about
specific target groups. Now we know a lot of our core target group, but that is only 20% of
our market.
I: What is your opinion about business theories in practice?

R: That is a good question. I find myself not really using those theories. Ten our twenty
minutes a day I read short articles about anything on business and I use that. But there is not
many time for it. I want to and love to lie a little bit to you that I am always reading the books
but it is not true. Feeling, what you customers say and what your customer say. We did not
talk a lot about my employees but they are most important. If you do something and you
develop something you are in the right direction they feel good and feel great. So, my people
tell me what to do.
I: How would you describe the relation between a business theory, innovation and success?
R: I think you need to have a strategic direction. So, you can only innovate if you know
where you are going. Which place in the market there is for you or which strategic
development there are you want to apply. I believe there has to be some direction. Sometimes
I think we have that direction and sometimes I think we are still developing.
I: Do you think that the type of organization has a role in this? (Corporate/ start-up)?
R: I think a corporate will use more theories of course. I think a start-up will just do things. I
believe in testing things and finding things that work. Of course more start-ups than
corporates will go bankrupt, so sometimes testing will kill them. I have worked in
corporations and I really hated meetings about theories, because I just want to do it. We have
meetings and in the end we just start doing something.
I: Do you think that If you know the causation process behind your customers that this would
gain you more success?
R: Yes, of course yeah. If you really know what developments are within your customers and
what the decision process is than you would really understand what you have to do. You
combine it with the knowledge you have on how to deliver the product. Because we know

more about the product than our customer. So if you combine the knowledge advantage of
your customer and your own than somewhere… it is a combination.
I: Do you think that I forgot something?

R: The part about the talent and people is really good to know. If you hire the right people
than that creates an innovating power.

Ultimaker - Jos Burger – CEO

R: Ultimaker is one of the leading 3D companies worldwide, we are the number one for
printers between 2000 and 6000 thousand dollars. We serve major companies like BMW,
Tesla, 70% is higher enterprise and 20% is higher education and 10% is using printers at
home, private. The printers are being used for prototyping and production and tooling.
Segments have benefit from 3D printing.
I: What is your function within the organization?

R: I am the CEO.
I: When did you founded Ultimaker?

R: The company was established in 2011 by three founders who are still there. I joined the
company in 2014. We went from a revenue from 5 million in 2013 to 15 million this year,
from 40 to 300 people now.
I: How did you come with this idea?

R: I am not the founder but I have been involved in the early days. I worked for Phillips and
tried to get funding in the US I am a shareholder in that company. I first started in an advisor
role but then they asked me to manage the company because they had no idea.
I: Do you have major competitors?

R: Yeah, we had major competitors in the UK. But they are all disappear because they are
part of larger corporations. So we are the number one. We face some competition from
European companies but not much. Especially last year we moved up in the chain. Why is
that? Because we not only have printers, we also have the software that they need and we
have the widest support of all types of industrial plastic. We have the best platform, not just
because you are sitting here.

R: I always so as a CEO. It is a limit role. I will explain. You need to be able to tell a story
and the second thing is you have to make sure there is always enough cash in the bank to
operate the business. The third thing the ability to recruit and retain the best people in terms
of success. Most of the success of the company a part from the technology, the market and
luck is people. People is the asset and you need luck. Because we have been lucky.

R: Customer satisfaction, that is the only metrics that really matters. If they are happy they
will buy more.
I: How do you measure your customer satisfaction?

R: Talking to them. It is basically three levels. We want to have at least contact with one key
customer in a segment. Because we want to know what is driving them and what they need. It
is not only important for understanding our own decision but also pushing them an
motivating them to use our platform helps us big time in the value chain. Because a company
as BMW they define the standards. They force the suppliers to use typical products. So we
talk to them ourselves and we have a network with sales partners all over the world in the
major regions. And of course they are an important source for us because they talk directly to

their customers and we are extremely close to our sales partners, they feed us with
information. The other thing is our community, we have a fantastic community of users. It is
about 35.000 active users from all over the world. We are actively talking with them and they
feed us a lot. From different sources we get feedback. That is the only real thing that matters.
I: What is the role of innovation in the success for you?

R: Uhm. It is a key driving factor. But in terms of innovation serving a business purpose
because innovation for the sake of innovation is going nowhere. Basically innovation is
leading to better customer satisfaction, serving the needs of our customers. Innovation is in
our case all about supporting the typical use case of customers. So that they can use our
printers and software and that this serves their needs. We make sure that the print head moves
in such a way that the outcome is quality.
I: So the technical part is the key factor within the printer?

R: Yeah. The core of the printer. But in order to bring all the different components together
you need to have a broader understanding. You need people that can contribute in the full
print process.
I: Do you think that the type of organization has influence on the success?
R: Yes, I do. I think you need a mix of structure and creativity. It is a flat organization; we
don’t have to do any management layers. We give people freedom around a clear set of
subjectives. And a lot of feedback mechanisms to understand. In that sense I am so happy we
have all the key people together in one company and one building, one big floor with coffee
corners and all small rooms where people come together.

R: It is customer satisfaction, because then people are willing to pay, you make money, you
can invest more and you can invest in the next generation.
I: Do you think you are able to predict innovation?

R: Innovation itself or the outcome?
I: The outcome.
R: The outcome, because we cannot predict innovation. Uhm. Yeah. I think. I will give an
example. Volkswagen is one of our customers, they have a very specific type of industrial
plastic that they use to for tools and parts of the cars. They are using this specific type of
plastic, so we knew that we had to be able to support them with that plastic on our platform.
But we did not know what to do. In that sense it is completely unpredictable, it is just time.
Time and resources. We cannot really predict the timing and the outcome.
I: How do you predict what will be the next trends?

R: Well in that sense we are lucky because we know exactly what all our customers are
doing. What they typical do is a life cycle. So they first proto type and then they test and then
do different types of productions. And then it is ready and then spare parts are kicking in. The
whole flow is defined. All we do is tap in to a different part of the flow with 3D printers were
we can make a difference in cost efficiency, spied, operational and that stuff.

I: Are you in that sense disruptive?
R: Yeah. I mean disruptive is such a term. We always say something is disruptive if it is ten
times cheaper and ten times better than what is available today. And we are in comparison to
traditional methods.
I: How do you innovate?

R: Uhm. We do incremental and disruptive because we have different type of printers. We
are trying to constantly make or printers better. That is incremental improvement what we
have today that is where we make money and the market is happy. We are focusing on next
generation of printers, that is more a question mark because it is a new design, new
functionally, everything is new. Then a lot of innovation is concentrated in those machines, a
lot of resources are defined for that machine. For the new generation it is about combining
the best of the research outcome and turning that into a development. We focus in that way
on disruptive and incremental innovation.
I: Can you tell me how you innovate?

R: We are using different models. Because working without structure is useless. We have a
clear defined format that we are using. Where we go from the first phase to the end, the final
production of the machine. And in between you got requirements, proto types then feedback
mechanisms to turn that proto type into an extra proto type and finally in functional proto
types and testing that again.
I: Are this business models or theories?

R: We use extended methods in the production environment. It is basically all the same
systems that Apple, TomTom and OC use.
I: If you think back when you started did you then also used these models?
R: No no no. When I came in the company the printers were defined. But the supply chain
and management, processes, IT etc. was not defined. Now we have stability and we are able
to focus on the next generation of machines including the software.
I: What role has the customer in this process?

R: We have a feedback mechanism with a handful of key customers. We also involve major
distributors; we involve them into the process because they have lot of knowledge about the
market.
I: Is it co-creation in that sense?

R: No, it is involvement. But we do a lot of testing as part of the feedback mechanism.
I: Is this qualitative or quantitative feedback?

R: Depending on the phase. In the first phase, we look at the functionality. We describe the
features, speed, quality user interface and all that stuff. We share that with all levels and key
customers. We get the feedback. Finally, we have a final set of features and then we turn it
into a prototype. If we are happy we involve again the key customers and partners in the
initial testing of the machines, we invite them to come to the Netherlands. And invite them
for two to three days in the Netherlands, they love it.
I: Does that improve the customer satisfaction?

R: Two levels. We are based in Geldermalsen, so we invite them to Amsterdam. We have
taxis that go back and forth.

I: How would you describe the relation between customer innovation and success?
R: It depends how you define customer innovation.
I: Innovating, trying to understand the causation of their buying your customer and use their
feedback.
R: That is the easy part of it. We are not defining a new market. We done if for a long time.
What we are doing is replacing the more traditional infrastructure with 3D printing, making it
far faster and then I am talking about ten times faster and ten times cheaper. It is incredible.
The combination of faster and cheaper allows customers to make more mistakes. In the old
days four mistakes would already costs a lot of money. We help our customer to innovate
better, we help them to succeed.
I: Do you think there is a relation between being a customer based innovation organization
and the type of organization?
R: Uhm. I can think of a few cases. But generally speaking. Enterprises have volume. We
sometimes get the complaint of larger customers that we are too cheap. Because you got these
very expensive systems of 200.000 – 300.000 dollars and then we come in with five to six
thousand and we do the same.
I: How can your competitors survive then?

R: That is an interesting observation. We see that big American players are fearing us big
time. Nobody took us serious but at the end we are a threat.
I: How do you think that your competitors stay ahead of you?

R: Well the big guys are not downsizing to smaller. Because their whole structure is not key
for that. Uhm. And smaller players are too small in this stage. Of course you get the Chinese
guys. But it is all shit, it is nothing that they produce.
I: So you don’t have much competition?

R: We had competition two years ago. I am a humble guy but in this case I can’t. We focus
on all the different aspects in the chain. We got it all under control it is extremely well
organized. Because we did that on global skill we kicked out the competition. They are too
small and not doing the same stuff. As we speak we are securing big investors. Now we talk
about big money to basically kick this company much higher. It is fantastic, we are number
one and set the standard, we serve as third partner for chemical companies. They see us as the
standard so they support us. We make sure our printers can work with all the plastic they are
producing.
I: Do you think that if your competitors would focus on the causations of their customers
would they then could become better then you?
R: It is not only about understanding the customers. I think a few of them do but it is about
having all the different other components in the chain.
I: Could you say that disrupters are focused on customer based innovation?
R: I think we are successful, because we have everything in place. We have this platform not
only the platform we also own the software that is globally used that you need. We own that
software; our software is being used by 300.000. More people are using our software than our
printers.

I: Are you applying innovation theories?
R: We probably do, but it is more intuitive than explicit. If I say intuitive we have special
R&D and product management who have extremely strong experience in product
development, portfolio management and innovation. Of course they use different theories
they have been exposed to. But we don’t have a specific guru.
I: What do you think about the theories of Christensen?

R: Uhm. You know it sounds funny but I tend not to read management books. If I do, I listen
to it in the car. What I do read is Ben Horowitz from the Silicon Valley. He is talking about
all the different aspects that define the success of a company.
I: Do you think that business theories could be applicable in practice?

R: Yeah but more like checks. So what am I doing, do I miss something? In that sense yeah.
I: Do you mostly use qualitative research or also quantitative?

R: Both. You need to understand the market. For example, a lot of customers are using
different types of plastic and everyday people say you need to support this plastic. But it is
about what customers are using globally. We rather focus on another type that is being used
by five thousand customers. But also our sales and marketing efforts. We use research to
decide which markets to focus on in terms of sales and marketing. Qualitative is about
understanding what a customer needs in terms of quality, reliability, speed and all that kind of
stuff. Aspects that are defining the user experience.
I: Defining the causation of customer is that in relation with customer understanding?

R: You got existing needs. Then there are ill defined customer needs, latent needs. It is there
but they are not aware of it. Like the ability to innovate much faster with 3D printing. 3D
printing is providing the possibility to do co-creation with other companies.
I: Do you co-create?
R: Yeah. We do that at a supplier level. We involve our suppliers in terms of component
development.
I: Do you focus on individual customers or target groups?

R: Both. Target groups because we need to know which industries are the most dynamic.
Which industries we can serve best. There is also a strategic component. By focusing on
larger companies we are creating a demand not only in their company but also their supplier.
There is a commercial aspect. We also target on key users. Most of the innovation on 3D
printing is by first time users who are acting as the venture list and pushing the 3D printing. It
is more like sandwiching we do.
I: Do you apply the circumstances of the customer in your innovation process? (functional,
social and emotional?
R: Good point. I get this question a lot. You know why?
I: No.
R: We have a lot of people who visit us also people from typical working environments,
investors and so on. If they are walking around in our company the first they see is the
finance department and the they walk to the testing department, you see them all turning into
small kids. Because it is fantastic what they see, the emotional component is kicking in, there
is nothing we need to do for that. It is also a social part, that is why my people prefer a 3D

printer on their desk. Two rules: seeing or hearing. You need to see or hear the machine
because then you are connected.
I: Do you integrate the experience into the internal organization processes?

R: Yeah. We do. We have a focus on customer journey and customer stories. We have people
turning the customer story into productions. We let people talk about it. We do it in a way
that it motivates not only to watch but also turning into action. We explain our people to
success customer’s success with our people. So we have billboards all over our organization
with screens with success stories. To show the customer cases to our people so they
understand and they know for who they are doing it, on our website it is about the same stuff.
We involve everyone.
I: Do you think that if organizations apply the Jobs theory that it would help to win from
competitors or disrupter?
R: Uhm. To me it all starts with understanding your market. What are the forces in a market
place? What do I need to do to make a difference in the life of our customers? That is part of
the theory. It is looking outside, it is outside in. In that sense the theory would make sense
clearly. The big challenge is to translate everything you see outside into meaningful actions
in your own company, this is a hard part. For big organizations the internal politics and
bureaucracy is a big handicap. You don’t change people.
I: How would you describe the relation between business theories, innovation and success?
R: Again it is a matter of definition. If you want to answer that question you have to look at
specific theories. You can innovate with the theory but success is depending how you
challenge the outside in information into your internal processes. The key is to focus on what
is really important. It is about having a product or service and changing the life of a customer
and having the people to make that happen and then the other rule is never ever forget your
existing customers. Many start-ups make that mistakes, they are always focused on new
customers.
I: How would you describe the roll of the type of organization in the previous question?
R: Well. I will explain. If it is a pure software company and you focus on new service or a
new app. It is extremely easy to produce something new. We can all make an app like Airbnb
or Uber. Using the network effect, it is much easier to make a customer base in the customer
segment. But having said that other companies are doing that only one or two survive. So the
fact that is easy to start a company does not mean it’s going to be successful. It is all about
the old stuff. Having the right people, having the right focus. There is a difference between a
start-up and corporate. As a start-up no one is seeing you. All start-ups face the same, not
enough money, not enough people. You always struggle with resources. The big thing is that
if you are a start-up in Europe it is easy to get the first money from family fools and friends.
But if you want to take it to the next step, it is a dessert. There is nothing. That is a European
challenge. In the US there is a flow in California every year 12 billion euros is being invested
in start-ups.

R: Well, it is interesting to make a comparative analysis between a success and innovation of
start-ups and corporates but maybe also between different European countries. Does it have
to do with culture, does it have to do with money or tradition?

Hello Flex group - Nardo Lambregts – CEO

R: The organization was founded in 2000. It was founded based on a good idea, because what
was the situation, there was no really good software for temporary staffing. Temporary
staffing is an agency like Randstad, all those big companies who supply employers in
temporary staffing. That was the basic in 2000, there was no good software, so we had the
idea to find investors and build a whole new product from scratch.
I: How did you find that market gap?

R: We found that because we did a large project for a text department and that was building
up a very big database, based on people who are unemployed or sick and get fee from the
government. That was mainly focus on temporary staffing. When we did that project we
came in the picture as a company that can deliver. Normally is you look at text department or
the government in general, IT projects are always a problem. We did a good job and they said
we even have a bigger problem in the market. Many temporary staffing agencies asked us to
build a new IRP system for our staffing. We found that a very good idea, so we looked for
investors and we had to raise ten million euros to build the system. It took us two years to
build it, and after that we went live and start selling our product to third parties.
I: What is your role in the organization?

R: At this moment I am the CEO.

R: Poe. Success for us is when our own people and our customers are very satisfied with the
products we develop and success is also that we are always two steps a head of the market.
So, we invest a lot of money in R&D, more than ten percent we invest in that. We do this to
keep up and perform better than the market. So if they start thinking about oh we should have
this solution, we already can say, we have it.
I: How do you make sure you stay two steps ahead?

R: I think the main idea behind it is that we are very curious and we always look at early
adapters. So what you can see for example take Uber or WhatsApp or Facebook you already
see that they are moving a certain way. And we try to translate it to our own situation. We are
mainly focused on temporary staffing. So that is a good defined market, we know it is all
about sourcing or it’s all about recruitment or it’s all about matching or it’s all about sharing
jobs. We are already in this market for seventeen years. We have a lot of colleagues who
work at least ten years for the company so we know the market. Because we know the market
we also know what the trends are and what you see is that when you look at trend watchers
our you look at the situation what is happening in the world, we are moving from having
something to using something. It is more service orientated. For example, five years ago I
was buying a cd etc. now we use Spotify, we don’t own it any more we are using it. That is
also why we moved to owning software. But when you look a Hello Flex that is a cloud
environment. You don’t own the software but you use the software. What you see in the
building we are big supporters of art and the comparison with art is that an artist always
thinks out of the box. I think that if you are an entrepreneur you have is that you start
irritating on things. For example, if you don’t like the chair make another chair, it is about
improvement. Everything starts about that somebody was annoyed about a thing he used and

he said well yeah let’s make an IPhone or do WhatsApp. Mostly it starts about a negative
experience but turning it around into a positive experience.
R: Uhm. This is in general. But when you think how you can be successful in innovation is
that you irritate yourself with something that is happening or cleaning and use a robot to do it.
You are annoyed about the fact that you have to do it every day. What we always use within
the group is use or own products. We are also service orientated. We have outsourcing tools
like Hello Flex People, what we do is support in temporary staffing. So we are also a very big
employer. What you see when you are using your own software, I call this eating your own
dog food then you know how it tastes, so you know if it is horrible or very delicious. That is
also how we use innovation, being an early adopter. It is also not a problem if it is not
working immediately because when you want to be innovative, you need the have the genes
that it is ok when something goes wrong. Making mistakes is the philosophy within the
company. Everybody is a loud to make mistakes. The only rule we have is to make mistakes
but you are responsible to fix it.
I: Do you think there is a difference between type of organization and the possibility to make
a mistake?
R: Yeah. What you see is that a lot of corporates are fixated in stock exchange. We are a
privately owned company we are with four shareholders and what we can do is we can say it
is no problem that we have some losses. When you are at a stock exchange you will be
punished because your stock will go down and you know that the CEO is not a good guy. We
are always looking at the long-term. We have a window of five till ten years. Not that we
know what is going to happen but we are looking forward that it is ok to invest a lot of money
now in something that maybe will not bring us a profit.

R: Uhm. Yeah in a certain way you can because when you look at temporary staffing you can
look at it like now there are a lot of agencies but when you compare it to Uber you have for
each region a taxi, you don’t have something digital. When you look at temporary staffing
and when you also look at the next generation, the next generation is not looking for a job for
life. What you see is that the mix of working and private is going away. What you want to
experience is new things, earn money but also want your freedom, then temporary staffing is
the way to go because you can work over there and there. You have some strings attached but
not for always. When you look at older generations they have a big pension funds, they have
working for years and years at the same company, they always are complaining and they do
nothing about it. Then you get stuck in the middle. But when you have an open mind you
know you are valuable you know you have experience so you know you can work. Have a
good balance between private and work, if you have that you have the possibility to work for
a few weeks or a few months and then go to the next. You also have to make a change as an
employer.
We have a very development plant in the Ukraine. There the people work for maximum for
one year for use, after this they go the Silicon Valley. And sometimes they come back. So we
have everything within the group, the developers, the execution power to launch the tools, we
have support, we have services.
I: Is this your competitive advantage?

R: Yeah for sure.
R: Uhm. Don’t make it too big. Innovation can be in really small things.

I: What is the innovation process within your organization?
R: What we do is that we make for ourselves always room to think out of the box and look at
every situation from different perspectives. We are always looking for challenges and what
we always say for each other we try to ask ourselves is this still the right way. We do checks
and balances.
I: How do you do the checks and balances?

R: We use a lot of agile scrum for development but also within the company. Because I don’t
support the idea that one guy or girl can oversee the total effect. I always think about doing
things step by step. Start traveling otherwise you will always be stuck in this place, you know
there will be bumps on the road, big mountains and weather storms, but just start moving.
I: Do you innovate in an incremental way?

R: Yeah.
I: What is the role of your customer in this innovation process?

R: What we see is that we do a lot of sessions with leading customers, customers who are
also in the front row of innovation and we keep an open mind for their feedback. And we
start showing a minimum valuable product as we call that and say, this is what we make at
the moment what do you think of this? Then we get their feedback and from then we can go
to the next step.
I: In what way do you get feedback?

R: Mostly it is very traditional, that we sit together in a room and we show the new things and
they give feedback. Sometimes we use video conference.
I: Is it a specific amount of customers were you get feedback from?

R: It differs per subject. We have clients that are good in recruitment or clients that are very
good in contract or in matching so we try to fit the group with the product we are going to
launch.
I: How would you describe the relation between customer innovation and success?
R: There is definitely a relation because when you have the possibility to listen to the client
and you can turn it into a product that is definitely an enhancer of success.
I: Does the input come from the customers themselves or do you initiate something first?
R: It’s both. Sometimes we first start showing something and they say no we need this. And
we are always that agile so we know they don’t want this but we can make this product.
I: Do you know the causation behind the buying process of your customers?
R: No not always. It differs from the different solutions we have within the Hello Flex Group.
Sometimes they are just looking for very stable software, sometimes they are at top of
innovation, sometimes they are only looking for out scouring.
I: Do you know the disruptive innovation theory?

R: Yes.

I: Do you think that when non disrupters apply a customer based innovation that they could
win from a disrupter?
R: Mm. For sure yeah. What you see is that some markets need a disrupter before something
happens mostly you see it within closed markets where margins are very high. When your
business model is already earning a lot of money you get fat and ugly and you are not moving
anymore. So if you look at certain markets you have to be very strong. It also depends on
what type of person you are. I like to make new things, constantly improving and constantly
improving like a formula one team, I want to go faster. How can I do it?
I: Are you aware of applying innovation theories in practice?

R: No. We are more farmers that look outside and think yeah let’s do that. And later on we
discover there was already a theory behind it.
I: Is your organization applying qualitative or quantitative research in order to understand

your customer?
R: Both. Because we have clients that are more in the area when they only want to do things
when it is very well done and other are more in the area just give me the numbers.
I: How do apply the customer circumstances into your innovation process? (functional,
emotion and social).
R: Uhm. The last one is more and more. From origin we are more tech guys, so we are zero
and ones. We are looking at let’s make a very technical high end product and that is our root.
But what we see is that sometimes the most innovative product is never going to fly. Because
it does not look right, doesn’t have the right user experience, it is not bringing the emotion
somebody wants to have and what you see is when we started the company software was in
its early age so it was ok when you did some kind of deployment and nothing worked. When
you look at this moment Facebook is always there, Google is always there it’s very rarely that
they have some kind of hike up and you don’t pay anything. That also changed our company.
Everything is in the cloud now, and we have to be very careful with new innovations because
you are as good as your last release. There is a lot of emotion. And you also have to adapt
that everything is on the street at the moment when somebody doesn’t have a clue about your
product but he posts something on Twitter or Facebook that you are a really good company.
Your quality is an instant topic, that is where we look more at emotion. Software is more and
more becoming productised. Software is becoming more and more industrial design.

R: I think it is key, because if the experience is not good nobody is going to adapt it or use it.
I: How do you know you offer the right experience?

R: We have a lot of tooling. We use maps or other tooling to know what kinds of the software
people use, how often they use it. We very often ask feedback from our clients and what we
also see is a lot of messaging between the staffer and the agency on the platform. So if you
can attract from the big data information you know how satisfied people are.
I: Does your idea start from the technical perspective and then you improve it with help of the
customer?
R: Yes, constantly improving.

I: How do you integrate your customer experience into your internal processes within
organization?
R: I think the culture is also asking the way question. Why are you using it? Why are you not
using it? Why are you happy? Why are you dissatisfied? And then you get a lot of feedback
and then you know you are on the right track. And everybody is allowed to ask that feedback.
And that is also how we manage the company, it is as flat as a pancake, because everybody
can give their feedback. It is not that we will always listen but we will take it into account.

R: Business theories as I said I’m not that theoretical. We are more practical guys, we just
start moving and when we walk a bit faster, we come to the conclusion that it is called
running. We are not stupid we are all reading business magazines, we go to seminars so we
try to keep up, but we are also always keeping a clear mind.
I: How would you describe the relation between a business theory, innovation and success?
R: I think the relation is that you listen to somebody. There is more and more information
available about anything. So you have more and more information about a new product, a
solution or whatever the market needs.
I: Do you do active market research to understand an individual customer?

R: No. What we do is we look at each solution that there is in the market. If we can make it or
make it better, we integrate it into the platform. We are platform guys. Based on a fundament
you can put in new things. For example, in the market you have small post and you can send
it to more platforms. But we already have everything on the platform. So we can make the
same small tool and give it for free, to get the clients happy. What you see is that they will
start buying more products.
I: Do you think that it would mind if you are a start-up or a mature organization?
R: What you see is that a start-up is more a point solution. Somebody is making a glass;
somebody is not making a lot of different glasses. They are looking for the unicorn. What is
the most valuable thing that I can create? We are platform guys, so we are thinking about the
big picture. We are not looking for the best small innovative solution but we are looking for
the integrated solution.
I: What factors are main important in this finding the solutions?

R: It is just looking around at successful point solutions and then you can build it yourself or
the company. Or give the start-up the possibility to develop on your platform. So we can give
smaller start-ups an opportunity to develop something on our platform, so we co-create.
I: Is there anything I forgot?

R: The most important thing is that innovation needs to be in your genes. So it is not some
kind of trick you can learn. You can challenge people to select the right idea but I am
absolutely confident that when you are not a free mind, having your genes that you can make
mistakes and you are not scared then you can do innovation.

AnylinQ - Dennis Kuipers – CEO
I: Can you tell me about your organization?

R: The organization has changed last week; we acquired a new company NRC, so now we
are the biggest specialized IT structured company in the Netherlands. We have 200 specialists
work here. And IT infrastructure is just the IT to make sure that a company can work with
their data. If you like to talk about big data for example or data availability, then it’s all
arranged in de IT infrastructure, so in the cloud or in applications or in your mobile. It’s all
about the IT infrastructure where all the nerds are to make sure that it looks simple to the
users.
I: It’s for the B2B clients then, or also for the consumers?
R: Yes, for the business to business. It’s for the larger SNB customers and the enterprise
customers. So we are managing the date for example for banks or the hospitals, the large
corporations.
I: What is your role within the organization?

R: Well I’m the founder and the CEO of the company, so it’s my company. I hired the first
employee the first of September in 2010.
I: Why did you start this organization?

R: That’s a funny question. I was working at ‘Ordina infrastructure solutions’, I did a lot of
big projects in the IT infrastructure. And mainly the customers do deal with some solution,
but it was never the right solution. So I thought really simple; I should be the partner of the
customer. Not only fulfil their demand, but also solve their problem. I think on their behalf
what will be the right solution. If we then make sure they are happy with what we are doing.
I: So you listened to the customer and you found the market gap?
R: Yeah, but everybody will tell you I’m listening to customers and I have happy customers,
but actually we deal. It’s like Pieter Zwart is doing with ‘Coolblue’: what can we do to bring
the perfect customer experience. That’s not where we are, but we are trying.
I: Ok, I’ll ask you more about that in the next questions. But first, how do you define
success?
R: Happy people, happy colleagues and happy customers. And therefore you have to create
the right environment. That’s quite fun to do.
I: How would you describe that environment?

R: Yeah, I think it’s more based on soft points than on measurements.
I: So it’s not measurable?

R: Well, if you want to attract young people you have to make sure that the way of your
management style, the company culture, will met their requirements. We are now in our
location in Den Bosch which is a nice place with a lot of light, nice coffee a pinball machine
and on friday we have lunch over here with everybody, also with customers or vendors. We
don’t look into the hours you make for customers.
I: You measure it with the soft points and how happy your people are?

R: Yes, it’s about interactions. There is a lot of freedom and a lot of responsibility and you
have to be able to work with it. For example, the really senior specialized engineers at
consultants will only work for customers for four days in a week, then they have one day left
to do other things, to do some test developing or help colleagues with problems or sharing
knowledge so we can make more money to put them at customers for five days.

R: I don’t.
I: You don’t?
R: No, well I have a lot of contact and interaction with the colleagues and also with
customers each and every day.
I: What is the role of innovations in your success?

R: It’s quite important to have a process in place for it. Everybody can be part of it. We are
defining some rules in the market, because we have a lot of experience and a lot of
knowledge.
I: Is that also your competitive advantage?

R: I think so too. I cannot name our competitor.
I: There is no competitor?
R: There are competitors, but it’s all based on tight relationships with other parties and other
vendors and technology. I cannot point to another company that is doing the same.
I: So you are the only one in the market in the Netherlands or worldwide?
R: I don’t research it, but I think in the Netherlands we are.

R: Well, I’m not responsible for the process itself, but I think it’s important if you listen to
the questions of the customers and the problems they have. And the thoughts for example
from ‘Gartner’ as the authority based on the future of IT. We think from the technology part,
what is or what should be available in the next couple of years.
I: So because of him (Gartner) you know the trends for the future?
R: Yes, it’s only the highlights and I don’t think is actually right, but it’s just the horizon to
look at.
I: Do you think you’re able to predict innovation in that sense?

R: Well, maybe it’s good to tell that we only measure the failure in innovation.
I: The failure?
R: Yes, so we want to make sure that there are at least seven introductions in account to fail.
I: I have never heard of that concept. Is it a special concept or did you came up with it?
R: It’s just my idea. If you only measure failure and you think it’s important to fail, you make
sure that you create an environment for people where failure is ok. Otherwise you will, if you
measure success, you will talk to each other that it is successful.

I: Is that your vision?
R: I think so, I just thought that it was a good idea actually, because uh, you have to fail
several times a year and you are very focussed on is this really a success or not, is not really
successful, because you do a try-out or do some prove of concept with a couple of
twenty/thirty customers.
I: Do you test it then?

R: Yes.
I: How do you test it?

R: Well actually we do a lot of interaction with the customers from our company in Spain, by
phone. Or when it is highly technical, which is often the case, the technical people will
interact with the technical people of the customers. So then we can know if it’s important and
if it’s helping us.
I: And then you are going to ask the questions for the consumer if it’s really working and why
they use it?
R: Yes.
I: And you also look at the causation process of your customer, so the reason why they use it?
R: We have mainly contact with the IT people and they have their own customer. So for
example we have several global customers. I think we are managing data in approximately
100 countries in the world. And if you manage their data you have several issues and if we
solve those issues for a couple of customers it will be really helpful for other customers.
I: Ok, do you only look at the data or do you also qualitative research?
R: Uh… not yet.
I: So it’s quantitative?
R: Yes, you have to make sure that if you want to manage all data, you have to manage the
data in the applications but also in the IT infrastructure. So for example your data, it’s on
your mobile phone, on your laptop, on your tablet and it is also in some cloud, there will be
data in a drop box, there will be data on your computer at home, there will be data in some
Gmail account, so if you want to make sure you will meet all the requirements for privacy or
other stuff you have to be able to answer my question how many data do you have. And
where you archive all your data and can you find all your data and can you guarantee from
the governance’ perspective that my data of any link you are writing down or taping on your
mobile is safe and what about or privacy. Will it be in a drop box tomorrow or even in half an
hour. If you are a big hospital working with a lot of private information of customers than it’s
a really big issue.
I: Can you tell me more about how your organization is innovating?

R: We had a simple concept because we work with a small company, but at night we grow to
two hundred people. They have a much better innovation structure, then we are having today.
But we are starting to integrate it.
I: Do you have an idea on how they innovate? Is the source of innovation the customer? or
the technical idea?
R: Well it is a two-way street. We interact with customers from our engineers and consultants
and they are telling the problems they face. For example, your personal life you talk about

apps that are not there yet and functionality you would like to have. A long time ago when
Henry Ford invented his first car everybody wanted a faster horse, nobody demands a car.
The customers are on one side and technology on the other side, so we work with a lot of
technology companies. We work with companies that work a lot on innovation. For example,
they have 8.000 people employed only in research and development. They do a lot of
innovation in the IT infrastructure, we work closely with them. We have a lot of vendors and
research.
I: Do you innovate on a radical, incremental or disruptive way?

R: Well, mainly incremental and we think about disruptive models. The reason why it is just
incremental is that our customers are not used to being disrupt yet. So, from the IT
infrastructure part it is now incremental because you have to calculate the innovation change
rate of the customer and we make more disruptive models to help them to be disruptive in
their market. We are talking about how to become a data driven company because I will say
that all the disrupters are data driven companies. A lot of companies are talking about data
driven and how to become it. But it is all based on a small part of the data. Make a connection
between different data and their relation. What will happen when you are a real data driven
organization is that you need all the data. If you want to have more inside in your financials
you can use your financial application in combination with other applications. What will
happen if you can interact with all of your data? This gives companies a very clear picture on
how to influence you. We have a lot of customers in the online retail business.
I: What do you think that is more important innovating with help of data or qualitative
research?
R: I think it will be a combination. We can make sure you can use all the data and if you want
to be predictive we can only base things on the history. If you have more historical data than
you can predict better.
I: How would you describe the relation between customer based innovation and success?
R: That is a nice question. But I think in the end the customer will decide If you are
successful or not. So, we can predict. But I think you have to try a lot to walk into success. I
don’t think you can really predict it.
I: Do you think that applying customer innovation would be an opportunity to win from a
disrupter?
R: I think those companies are really simple and not really successful, because they thought
about one thing to disrupt a market but it is not really a successful business model. Selling is
the dream to be successful. They add a low on value. For example, booking.com it is helpful
if you don’t have to look at hotels individual. But if you use booking.com and they ask a lot
of money they have a high demand. What is happening is that a lot of hotels won’t work with
booking.com. People can reach out to the hotels directly and maybe get a discount because
otherwise that money would go to booking.com. It is disruptive at the moment but it is not a
sustainable business model.
I: Do you think that disrupters are using a customer based innovation?

R: It is all about how fast will the adoption be. I use Uber sometimes, not really a lot because
the adoption is there in the bigger cities but the drivers are not always really happy to be a
driver and there are a lot of problems as well. For me convenience is really important I will
jump in a gap and pay the difference. I don’t think my parents are using Uber, so there is a
business model. But the real signal is that people want to pay less for a certain quality. For

example, a business flight in Europe I go for a good time, and don’t care if it is KLM or
Ryanair. Ryanair is fine by me, but maybe not if I want to flight to China. Then I want to pay
more to have a direct flight. So, disruptive is also a signal to the old market to adopt.
I: I have few more questions about the components of the jobs theory and after that two other
questions. Is your organization applying innovation theories?
R: No.
I: What are the steps your organization is taking in order to understand the customer?
R: Just talk and interact with them, organize or just drink some beers. Because it is human
interaction I don’t really believe in models and theories.
I: Do you focus on individuals or target groups?

R: Target groups. Because if it is a group it is also they are talking about problems that are
scalable to other customers. So we talk with twenty customers and generalize it to hundred
customers. Like healthcare, local government and financing.
I: How do you apply the customer circumstances into your innovation? (Functional,
emotional and social).
R: It is functional because we are really technical and we facilitate them to be more innovate
on the social part. For example, the government has a lot of interaction. We help them to be
more social but not only that we innovate on the technical part to deliver a data driven inside
so they can be more social. Do you also take the emotions into account? Not in our
organization.

R: Not really important. It is an experience to work with us. I think that what we are doing is
the new normal. But it need to be fun to work with us.
I: Do you integrate the customer experience into your internal organization processes?
R: Yeah. I can say yes, we have a lot of interaction, we invite them and do projects. It is a
people business.
I: If you are really good in connecting with your relations, you will be successful?
R: Yes.
I: What is your opinion about business theories in practice?

R: I don’t know any theory; we are just trying a lot. It is all based on our own experience. I
don’t believe in people on university knowing how to world works, it is really irritating me. It
is just theoretical. You need to ask data scientist, what do you need. And they need a nice
environment and a lot of knowledge and experience developing and sharing. You do need a
cool project. It is not in a theory.
I: Do you think the Jobs theory would offer an organization a possibility to over win a
disrupter?
R: I don’t know.
I: How would you describe the relation between a bustiness theory and innovation?
R: I don’t know.

I: How would you describe the role the type of organization has in theories, success and
innovation?
R: I think that a start-up or a scall up has something in it that is successful. The world is
turning faster. I think a big corporate is not innovative enough to adopt. So, you have to make
sure that your innovation process is there. If I was a corporate I would have a lot of start-ups
and scall ups with many freedom to interact and co-operate. But you have to make sure you
are open to it. When you grow bigger you don’t have to turn lazy and satisfied with yourself.
It all starts with a lot of ambition.
I: Is there anything else that you would like to tell me?

R: I don’t know.

Stork - Jack Doomernik – Principal Consultant

R: Uhm. We are two organizations. Stork is for management solutions which is the
consultancy group within Stork. So Stork manly employees people who work in the industry
in maintenance activities, working on installations, do reparations and overall activities. The
consultancy group works on a more abstract level looking at opportunities in organizational
issues and technology development and process improvement. It is all business to business.
We work for the bigger industries in different sectors, oil and gas, power generation but also
in feed and food industry.
I: Can you tell me something about your roll in the organization?

R: Yeah. In this management solution group which is about 80 people, I work as a principal
consultant. A principal consultant is responsible for developing one of the technologies or
marketing combinations. I work as a part-time consultant. Stork is a good brand but is not
really well recognized for the activities they do in the industry. We try to improve that by
stepping in the outside world. Organizing events with customers and tell about our
experiences. In the end to get a stronger brand and generate new leads.
I: How would you define success within Stork?

R: That is a difficult one. It is a commercial organization so success is normally rated in
numbers financially, revenues and margins and growth. We as a consultant group are also
responsible, so we have to deliver new projects and deliver to the customer and get a profit
out of that. Success for the group itself is financially driven, for Stork the solution group has
a specific task and that is to develop the market.
I: How is the success being measured?

R: We defined it in a frame work, we call that must win battles that is the core. In these
battles we identified four value propositions and four of two market segments where we want
to make a difference. Each much win battle has a team with a project leader with consultants
who are developing these propositions and are trying to get more grip on the market. That is a
structured approach which started from an analysis. What are the movements in the market?
What are the things that Stork is good at? Where can we make the difference? Four are based
on developing new services and two are focusing on market segments: transport and the feed
and food market.
I: What is the role of innovation in your success?

R: Depends on how you define innovation. This can be technology driven, new products, new
things that come to the market, sensor technology. The second one is more process
innovation. Can you redefine your processes that with less effort the same results can be
produced? The third one is the market innovation, to develop the market and bring new things
to the market to contribute to the end goal of Stork.

R: Innovation is about doing things differently. Normally it is combining existing knowledge
and existing experiences in a new combination for example a new market. For example, an
activity we do for thirty years in the oil and gas market can be interesting for the feed and
food. That is market innovation you can look for. Process innovation we have a must win

battle on lean maintenance for example. We introduce lean as a way of thinking to the
industry to get better results.
I: Do you think you are able to predict innovation?

R: On short term I think you can do some prediction. On the long term I think you have to
have a very close eye on what is happening in the world. Uhm. Geopolitical development but
also economics and markets and with environments. It is quite a broad spectrum. You look at
trends that are happing and then you think what might be important for the future. I think that
should be your guidance for your business development and your marketing.
I: How do you think that you can predict innovation on the short term?
R: It comes quite close to the talks we have with clients. Trying to find out what their issue is
and what their problems are they dealing with. And combining the experiences we have with
the problems that are raises by a client. That can be innovative for that client, but can that
already for twenty years it worked for another client. It is shifting the knowledge from one to
another.
I: Can you tell me more about how you are innovating within the market innovation?
R: Yeah. The structured approach is with the must win battles. That is where the innovation is
taking place. A strong one is asset performing management, this one is changing rapidly.
That has to do with the influence of information technology. What you see happing is that the
whole society but also industry is digitizing. Using IT, Big data in all the applications. We try
to do that for specific industries now. With all that data you try to make something out of it,
do the analyses, do some mathematics, do some modelling and try to predict if certain
installations might fail in the near future. Because when an installation breaks down that will
have an effect on the productivity. If you can prevent failures that might happen then you
have a strong proposition in the market. We are not the only company who is doing that. We
try to co-operate with partners and try to team up to make a better proposition, because we
don’t have all the knowledge, all the things that we need.
I: So it is better to make less mistakes in order to be successful?

R: Yeah. It takes also much time if you want to develop all the knowledge yourself. Takes
years to get grip on big data for example. That is why it is important to team up. Now we
team up with mathematics and they help us with that data analyses. But we also have close
contact with ABN and SAP for example. Because they target the same clients, but they don’t
have the practical experience we have in the industry.
I: In what way are you innovating? Incremental?

R: It think so. It would not say it is disruptive or things like that. Maybe when you look at it
from a difference we are behind, we are not the frontrunners so I think we are more in the
second leak, in the early adopters or followers. We see that success in proven in a few cases
and then we see a big market for that, and then we get inspired by others ideas.
I: Would you like to be the first one who implements an innovation?

R: That has to do with your own company culture. Stork is an Apple or Tesla who is
technology driven. It is about the culture and what we are aiming for. So it is more
traditional, it is more focused on existing relationships. But helping these existing clients with
new technology. What can you do today and what can you do tomorrow not in five years.
Think was it realizable.

I: What is the influence on the type of organization on the innovation and success?
R: I think that is a big difference. It has to do with the goal setting of the organization itself of
course. When you look at Tesla for example they go or the disruptive technologies, the look
for traveling to mars or solar roofs, electric cars all these type of things. Uhm. They look for
shifting the edge the frontier and that is their purpose, I don’t think Stork has that same
purpose. So we want to learn from these type of industries, if it is interesting technology for
our clients then we make the step.
I: Do you see Apple and Tesla as competitor?

R: I don’t think they are competitors but they are changing the competitive landscape of
course. To stay with Tesla for example if you look at the car industry Tesla was not known a
while ago. Now they are prominent in electric cars. When electric cars come popular they
will keep their prominent position. There are now not competing products at the moment,
they are all lacking behind now. They stay traditional, while disruption comes from
companies who are taking a new road to the future.
I: What is the role of customer in the innovation process?

R: What do you mean with customer innovation?
I: That you use qualitative or quantitative research in order to understand the causation of
your customer.
R: Yeah. We try to find out of course what is in the mind of our customers. A lot of our
relationship with customers are based on long year relationships and on trust. We keep close
to our customers a talk to then on regular base. And try to find out what is on top of their
agenda and then try to oppose things that might solve their problems and issues.
I: How do you do this?

R: Normally with one to one conversation, but also with client events. The last six months we
almost weekly did a client event on specific topics which we think are important for the
industry. And they come in with their experts and then we go in discussion. And it is a broad
spectrum of activities. Last one was on corrosion on isolation. We have a discussion with ten
to twenty clients from different industries which are all dealing with the same type of issues,
which we are trying to help and built a network. That does not really bring directly new
products, but it gives the position as a professional partner in these types of discussions.
I: Where does the innovation come from? What is the source of innovation?
R: Our innovation mainly come from analysing the market so looking at trends and how our
customers are moving. And we try to adopt.
I: Can you tell me how you analyse the market?

R: We have a separate market department. They do more the analytics on the market they see
what is happening on different segments. And they look at numbers, how big is that market,
how fast will it grow, who are our competitors and then they come with different conclusions.
They came up with three different market segments who are for Stork might be important.
Energy, is an upcoming industry, we are not really well connected yet to the players who are
developing this industry but we have the basic knowledge to develop it. So that is one. The
second one is big infrastructure projects, roads, airports, that is more less connected to our
mother organization Fluor, on which they are working on. They bought Stork a year ago.
They do the development of a project. And when it is delivered to the client they back of. It is
an interesting combination Stork and Fluor. Why only build the structure and not maintain?

The third one is the feed and food industry. We do some work on feed and food but it is a big
sector in the Netherlands. We think we have knowledge they can us to make some
improvements.
I: What is food and feed?

R: That has to do with digitization.
I: How would you describe the relation between customer innovation and the type of
organization?
R: Uhm. I think we generally spoken we work for the industry. That are more less industries
who are capital intensive, a lot of money invested and risky. When you look at oil and gas for
example. As far as I can see at this moment we work for the middle management, the
operational managers, not really the board room discussions. We are not involved in that, in
comparison with Fluor, they do that already, so we have to learn that.
I: Do you cooperate with start-ups?

R: No, not really but it can be interesting. I do that for my other role. I work with a lot of
students who have an idea during their study and then they try to develop that idea. It is a
completely different world. The practical world has different acquirements then the research
world.
I: Do you think that disrupters innovate from customer based innovation? Or that they are
successful for another reason?
R: I think… What Tesla does is it continues looking for shifting frontiers and making the
unthinkable possible. Uhm. I don’t know if they really have the customer in mind by that.
What could be done from technology development and the availability of the technology and
if it is not there can we develop the technology to get there? So it is more technology driven
than customer driven I think. When you develop a travel to Mars it is not really customer
driven I think. In the end it is important to make a connection to the market and customer
otherwise you have an interesting technology which does not find any ground.
I: Do you think that if you only innovate from the customer that you will be successful?
R: That is a difficult one. What Tesla does is interesting in that sense that they take the
technology driven approach but then you see things happing that catch the customers and
specifically the early adopters. I don’t think they really listen to customers but they have to in
the future I think. If you have sold more than thousand, customers will be more important and
will come with their demands. They have to move from a technology approach to more
listening and then giving attention to customers.
I: Is your organization applying innovation theories?

R: I have not come across them, maybe they are very well hidden. Innovation is always
difficult in that sense that is has got many different associations and ideas behind it. What we
do with innovation is the must win battles, a structured approach, looking at the market.
I: Can you tell me more about the must win battles?

R: It is in fact coordinating an activity with a team. Trying to develop a new market segment
or a new service line. That has to do with innovation of course. You have to deal with new
customer groups and new technology. Where do you get knowledge on markets, you don’t
have it. We now look for partners or collaborations that do have this knowledge. But it is
going slowly. As I mentioned we are not a front runner, maybe a follower or slow follower.

I: How do you try to understand the customers? Qualitative? Quantitative?
R: We do some surveys. From the events for example we always do an evaluation, then we
ask what do you think about the event and ask for suggestions for improvement. Is there any
improvement that we can make, then we will do that?

R: Target groups, but at the end it comes to one to one conversations with clients of course.
For example, for next Friday we have an event and then we have ten different companies in
the room and they are all interested in a specific type but they will come from different
industries. So, we make a presentation about the content. And in the breaks we discuss one to
one to see what their issues are and that will be followed up as well.
I: Do you apply the customer circumstances in the innovation process? (Functional, social
and emotional)
R: We know what is happing in the industry. So when a big accident happens than all the
attention will go to that incidence, then we try to do our best to help in that circumstances. So
after we take the social into account but also in front we take the risk management into
account. One of our market propositions is about risk management. So do you stay with you
license to operate and do you deal with risk on structured way. So you know what could
happen in the industry.
I: How important is the experience you offer to your customer?

R: That is valuable. Because customers want to have experienced consultants. We know
about other industries as well, and we can combine all that information to give an
experienced advice.
I: Do you integrate the customer experience into your internal processes?

R: We use agile and scrum and lean, these type of working methods. If we have a
consultancy project and these types are important for the client, then we apply them of
course. So we look at what the client needs.
I: How do you know what your client need?

R: That is about talking. One to one relationships. Staying close to your customer, not what is
one their agenda and trying to help from that perspective with things that we know.
I: What is your opinion about business innovation theories?

R: I use them but more to get my own thought organized. I am called the model men because
I always use models to clarify how situations are and that can go on innovation but also on
business innovation or marketing or client communication. There are a lot of models who can
be useful to pin point the problems. Structure thoughts and get a good discussion with your
clients.
I: If organization search for the causation of their customers would this create the opportunity
to win from the competitor?
R: That is about market positioning. What I have learned, there are three positions you can
take, it is about the customer, it is about being the cheapest, being the best performer you
have to choose. We focus on the last decision direction. We don’t want to go for the lowest
price, we want to add value with close contact with our clients.

I: Do you think that if you use a business model or theory that it could improve your success
or innovation?
R: I think so. Yeah. And it can help internally as well. Because what I found out is that not all
people I work with are familiar with these theories. So you help them by clarifying the issue
we are talking about, then if offers them to opportunity to start a conversation.
I: Is there a difference between start-ups and corporates when applying these models?
R: Yeah. Definitely. I think corporates are the people who go to the business school and get
all the business theories, so it is a common ground for them to work on, sometimes they have
zero experience but have not a clue about marketing or communication. Start-ups just start
and define their own rules and own business processes. They don’t have quality certificates.
I: Do you think I forgot something?

R: I don’t know.

Interview 10 - 10/05/17
Stork - Martijn Glass – Innovation and knowledge transfer

R: Stork is a company based out of 19.000 people around the world. All perform maintenance
task. We are part of the Flour, who has 60.000 employees. We are one third of the company.
Fluor designs and constructs and Stork maintains.
I: Can you tell me more about your job function?

R: My function is to stimulate innovate and when we have new things make sure that that
knowledge gets shared and transferred to all other Stork entities who could potentially
provide that information to our clients. Stimulate innovation and knowledge transfer in
general.

R: I define success if more clients come to us, we generate more revenue and more profits.
That means everything that I can do to differentiate Stork so that those objectives are met.
And I also should not forget safety. That we execute more save and that we execute more
work and more margin.
I: How do you measure the success?

R: We measure success and safety. So more safety and less incidents. Less incidents per
worked hours. And that our revenue increase and that the margin increases.
I: So, it is about the quantitative results?

R: Yes. Uhm. Of course there are other things that I measure. That has a lot to do with
culture, acceptance and the way people reach out to each other. This is all that we
automatically do to get more revenues and more profit. More revenues, more profit, save and
you can also add attract and retain talent. That smart people want to work for us, because they
know we are innovative and do something with their ideas and we know that they will stay.
But that is not something we measure but this is what I personal passion.
I: What factors do influence your success?

R: A conservative industry, a conservative workforce, slim margins means little money to
invest in innovation. That is enough.

R: Uhm. Yeah it is my target. I have to stimulate innovation so it is simply my role. If there is
no innovation and there is no knowledge transfer, I am not successful. The idea is that is
more save to work, that we win more work. Because clients say you are smart, you add value
to me and I am willing to pay you money and a big margin. And that smart people say I want
to work here because they do something with my smart ideas. My success is very much tight
to the success of the company. But is being pulled down by the conservative client. They say,
you can do that next time but now I want you to do it in the traditional way. Because our own
workforce is working with these conservative clients for many many many many years, they
get conservative as well.
I: Is that a struggle?
R: Of course. What we need to do is a much more agile, questioning connected work. Test,
prototype, try to do things differently not big programs but just do things differently and more

connected. Because what is normal in one area is not normal in another area and both think
they are normal. So the more they are connected, the more they see that the world is different.
They can be inspired by oh they are doing it and then they can point to that.
I: What is the reason why they are so traditional?

R: Because it is a traditional industry, lots of laws and regulations. If a client tells you ten
times how to do it, then why would you question that?
I: What factors influence having more success than your competitors?

R: Focus. This role is created two years ago; other companies don’t have this role. Focus on
leadership and invest in it.

R: Doing something different that adds value to our clients.

R: Yes. I think by looking at the same industries or looking at total other industries. You can
definitely see trends. The question is more when then if. But the when makes the prediction
so interesting. Because you can invest millions now but if it does not give a return in a few
years than it is wasted money. Invention can be planned. But the innovation, the application
of innovation you got it but then the clients have to pay for it, that can be a problem. Clients
can resist, that is why we need to engage clients in this whole journey. Because when we
come up with something is does not come as a surprise. But that they are looking forward to
the results. We need to make the customers ready for it.
I: Do you think you see trends on long term or short term?

R: You need to look at both. Really short term means that you have a problem right now.
Long term is to develop and proto type and test and make it available for the market. You
need to do both.
I: Where do you look at when searching for trends?

R: I look very broad I like the Doblin model of innovation which specifies ten different assets
of innovation. I look at commercial innovation, supply chain innovation, product innovation,
service innovation, branding innovation, marketing innovation, customer innovation etc. I try
to look at all the aspects and I try not to only focus on a new product or a new service or a
new process, but look at the whole. Because the most powerful innovation comes from the
branding and commercial around it. But I would say data and drones is a trend and other
robotics are trends. If you don’t go a long with this, you will miss the boat.
I: What are the innovation focus points of the organization?

R: For example, data and robotics. It is easy to explain they are things but they need a
different marketing, they need a different technology, different branding, different
commercial models behind them so that is why they are so interesting.
I: Can you tell me more about how you innovate?

R: Finally, it will be radical but it is achieved through many small steps incremental. Uhm.
So, we have some radical innovations but they are on a small applicability. If you look at
data, it will be a lot of small steps but in the end it will be radical for everything.

I: Do you use product, process or service innovation?
R: All. If you look at Doblin, you see commercial and branding and in the middle product
and services. What I like about Doblin is that innovation is often in products but here they
focus is also on other parts. Because other models focus very little on the branding and
commercial side. If you look where you make the money, product and service is a tool, but
branding and commercial are the ones that are going to give you the biggest money. So it is
funny that the investment is in the product and service. I try to move the focus equally
everywhere. Because often there is a tool at the heart. Supply chain you do with a small
group of people. The supply chain is narrow.
I: How would you describe the relation between innovation and success?
R: What you are trying to create is a delta. Then the clients will notice you and will give you
more work. And this equals more revenues and differentiation they are willing to pay more
margin, so more profit. We like both.
I: Do you think there is a difference between type of organization and being successful and
more innovative?
R: Yes, I think a start-up has one focus on one specific area and can recruit for that and is
positioned about that and is motivated towards that. The problem within an existing
organization is that people are in various stages of their life, different clients, they have an
expertise and they are very happy, there is a focus. From that point of view, a start-up has a
totality different mentality then we do. The downside of a start-up is that if they don’t get it
right they are out of business. And secondly what they miss is client contact, that is what we
have. We can focus on what a client really wants. Not what they think they want. We try to
create little start-up in our company but it is difficult.
I: Do you cooperate with start-ups?

R: Not enough. We work together with suppliers.
I: What is the role of the customer in the innovation process?

R: Hugh because they got to buy it. They must be willing to except it.
I: How much risk do you take when you are innovating?

R: You always take risk, if it was simple everybody would do it. Innovating can be huge. For
example, if I use a new material and for example it does not work as we said it would and the
equipment causes an explosion and people die. It is about taking risks and being allowed to
make risks. At the end we do not own the facility. We cannot force an innovation for a client
if he does not want it. Ultimately the client has to approve.
I: How would you describe the relation between customer based innovation and your
success?
R: I think it is big. One of the things we do together with Fluor is called innovation
unwrapped. This is where finance will come with a challenge this challenge is divided in
teams. We ask a client what would you like to see resolved? On projects itself we challenge
people to look in the industry and to really find out what those challenges are. Because if you
innovate of the sake of innovating clients are not going to buy it. We got the money for that
creativity. We stick to our business and our business is sustaining facilities. So is has to be in
that area.

I: If you would innovate from the customer’s perspective could you then win from the
competitor?
R: Yeah. Without a shadow of doubt. If you create something that your customers want if
they desire it then they will want it. If you will push then to something, they will not want it.
I: How do you know what your customers want?

R: No substitute than to talk to clients. So, we challenge our sales guys to go out and talk to
clients. Recently we had a big company and we discuss their key problems and what keeps
them awake at night.
I: Is it only qualitative or also quantitative?

R: I would say that you get the best result when you talk with your customer. Because
numbers do tell you something. It are indicators, so the cause is somewhere out there. What is
wrong there? If you are forced to innovate then it will be spot innovation. Stork is really good
at ad hoc innovation. But the challenge is of course sustaining innovation. Come up with
innovation that you can re-use. What are the big challenges we want to solve? What are you
trying to solve? What is the solution? What problem are you solving? Force you to write it
down. This is a headache for technical people.
I: What is the source of innovation?

R: Innovation can come from anywhere.
I: Do you think that disrupters apply a customer based innovation?

R: I think they listen extremely well to customers, set up a grand vision and made it happen.
The listen to customers, but they did not listen to customer solutions. I like what Henry Ford
said; I did not listen what my customers want because they said a faster horse. If you take of
the horse part, then it is about the faster. You need to come up with something that people
like immediately like Tesla did. What Tesla did with electrical was not new, why where they
successful? They listened a little bit better to customers. They put the product expensive in
the market for a reason. So that people were like, you need a lot of money to get that car and
they make it look stylish.
I: If their competitors would apply a more customer based approach could they then win from
Tesla?
R: Again what Tesla did really smart, they have a new product, new services, new branding
and new commercials. If you have a combination of all those, just coming up with a new
product will not help you, so they done it really well.
I: Is your organization applying innovation theory?

R: Not really. You need to be agile, if someone comes up with a great idea their need to be a
place in the organization where they do something with the idea. I am more than open if you
know a success formula.
I: Do you focus on individuals or target groups?

R: I look at target groups. I stimulate people to celebrate to find a solution for one client that
is fine because you help the client and the client says you guys solve my problem you are
great. The problem is with all these ad hoc innovations that I cannot re apply that. But the
good part is that client will say our business is going down and I have to let a lot of people go

except you. Because I am creative, innovative and provide value. If you only focus on spot
innovation the company is not going to make it. In the whole we need an innovate culture on
the longer term.
I: How do you stimulate the creativity and looking at the bigger solutions?
R: Push, pull praise, award, stimulate, publish, inspire. What I just did before I came here was
a spot light call on a topic. In that topic I explain what we are doing and what is unique at
Stork. Everyone in the company can listen to the talk. And then we get our people confident
by bringing things to the customer. First, you have to create awareness, then desire, then they
need to practice and then you need reinforcement. You got to take them along in the story,
make them aware. You need to follow the steps.
I: Do you take the customer circumstances into account? (Functional, social and emotional)
R: We try to. In the offshore business and you have something that needs to be repaired ten
meters up, how do you do it? You can use two types. One of them the clients know and the
other they don’t but is easy, safe, faster and cheaper. But nobody on shore wants to do it. I
think it is just interesting that the clients emotionally say it cannot be done. A product cannot
sell itself, you need to make sure they first desire it and follow the steps. Emotion is huge.
That is why I am wanting to bring our clients to the offshore. One of the other things I am
going to do this year is make a handbook, how do you engage clients. It is not that we do not
do it. Being innovative in open days.
I: Do you take the customer circumstances into account in the internal processes?
R: You try to but you need to watch out that you don’t take a to specific customer into
account, and this makes it less easy to leverage it across the industry. Luckily, there is a lot of
similarity between technical clients in a certain region.
R: Where do you think it is more easy to innovate here or in Colombia?

I: Depends.
R: Often it is easier to do it their because here you have clients like Shell who do it and books
of rules. Innovating sometimes far away is sometimes easier.

R: They are good to know, but if you go blind on them you shut of your brain. I think they
are helpful and heathy to keep in the back of your mind. I believe in them and I think it is
good that people get educated on them but you should not go blind on them. If there was on
excellent way to do it everyone was doing it and will be successful.
I: How would you describe the relation between success innovation and business theories?
R: Business theories are just a tool.
I: Do you think there is a difference between start-ups and corporates in the previous
question?
R: I think it can, because a start-up is only looking for one solution, therefor they can apply
one theory. So yes, for a start-up who spend all their money, all their resources, all their
money on one topic, if they do that extremely well I think it is possible. For a big company
which is been build up over 119 years, different groups, different regions, different
everything and existing happy customer who don’t want you to change and are scared if you
change. That is a different game. There is no theory could change the organization overnight.

R: I think is about focus. It is about co-location. A start-up has a common vision; they are
willing to stake their whole future on that one idea. They have no existing customers to keep
happy with things. Then I come along I will help you but I have a day job and build for the
next coming months, it keeps me busy for nine hours a day. When do you want me to
innovate? I am helping that customer, I am getting money, so when do you want me to
innovate? A start-up does not have existing customers to please, they don’t need to. There is a
huge difference between start-ups and corporates. They have focus. If we try to innovate
within Stork. I try to get the innovation managers together, that means the experts from the
Netherlands, Australia etc. I could also say I am only going to innovate in the Netherlands,
but you need to involve everyone, until you know it is slowing you down. Start-ups have a
big advantage. The only thing you can do is let start-ups be start-ups. Another point is
cannibalization. You need to blow your own organization to bits if you are innovating. The
question is why do you cannibalize your own company? Well otherwise someone else will do
it.

Interview 11 + 12 - 10/05/17
Stork - Mark Geerars – Maintenance director
- Hans Minnaard – Principal Consultant
I = Interviewee
R1 = Mark Geerars
R2 = Hans Minnaard

R1: We are a consultancy organization and we are specialized in the asset management in the
physical asset management not the financial asset management. We are dedicated to the
industry. The chemical oil and gas industry is our main objective. We are part of the Stork
company, who is an operational company what delivers the work. We are the thinking part,
we do innovation for them in their products and in the propositions.
I: Can you tell me something about your roll in the organization?

R1: I am the director of the consultancy services within Stork, and Hans.
R2: I am a principal consultant and do all kind of things. One of the things is defining
innovation and defining new propositions for consultancy and also for Stork, that is a new
task we get from the company. It is not only building propositions but also for Stork.
R1: Than it is more disruptive, that is the difference.
R2: Yeah. We have two tracks more less. So that is often a difficulty. Because we have to
make a distinction between the two.

R2: Success of an innovation?
I: No, just success only.
R2: That we sell solutions to the customer, in which he pays for and that the customer is
satisfied with it.
R1: And that the customer has a better performance than before.
R2: And that we earn money on it of course.
R1: Yeah, we earn money and the client is more successful than he was before. The service
of Stork becomes the profit.
I: How do you measure success?

R2: Uhm yeah we have internal procedures. In our project management for the consultancy
group we do a project definition and at the end a project evaluation. And in the project
evaluation there is a part on customer satisfaction. Uhm. And that is about how the perception
of the customer is and of course internal we measure it financially. In terms of how much
money we earn and more or less repeatability you could do. We have many customers and
have long term relations with them. It would be good if we could repeat this, so first we have
success and then we build on the relation. We have customers where we do one project but
the big part of it is the repeatability.
R1: When they come back then we have done a good job.
I: So you build on a trust relation with your customers.

R1: Yeah. We call ourselves trusted advisors. We are trained in that field. Everybody gets a
training when they start with us to act as a trusted advisor. Our main objective is not our own
profitability but we want to make a profit because we are delivering success to the customer.

I: What factors influence the success?
R2: It is based on capability of course, our capability to match the customer demand. Uhm. If
not we have a problem. It is basically about knowledge what we deliver. Our capability is
basically knowledge and application of the knowledge in the situation of the customer.
R1: One of the big measurements is that the customer can use the knowledge and can do the
work itself. Sometimes you get a question, they were really satisfied of the quality, but if you
come back a year later and they don’t use any of it than he it’s not satisfied anymore. So the
implementation by the customer that makes it really successful.
I: So when they understand your knowledge which you transferred then it is successful.
R1: Yeah. Then they not only understand but they can apply it in their work. They have to
perform the work themselves in the long run.

R1: The role of innovation is that when you don’t innovate you become a commonalty, the
margin and the competition is getting bigger that is for our own organization. We would lose
our position in the market but also the client. They also get a decline service, their
profitability on the long run will decline. That is a shame for us. So it is really important to
keep on top of the market and be innovative.
R2: What we see is that you have something new, a new development on which your
competitors are running behind, you are early in the market. But they will catch up as well, so
once they are on the same level as you are then you become more in a commonality type of
servicing. So you will be challenges on rates and not just on added value, then you need
something else. Otherwise you will be pushed back. Innovation is also to have a market niche
with high margin profit. That is what we are looking for.
R1: For the bigger picture, for Stork what is not 100% new for us is new for the market
segment of Stork. Then they also have an advantage. Companies like Stork they are not
winning on price level so you have to win your cases on added value and not on the price.
Innovation is the most important things to get our clients and add that value, because we are
not the cheapest.

R2: Defining new solutions I would call it in terms of service offerings which bring the
customer more benefit than he can buy from others. That is one thing. Innovation is not
purely development itself but it is also application of developments which are done
somewhere else. So we combine things, we use partners for that our start-ups or that type of
thinking. We don’t develop all our things our self, we combine things.
I: Are you able to predict innovation?

R1: That is always the challenge for companies like Stork. We see that the competitors like
start-ups have vision and belief in a product and our challenge is to make a kind of business
case before you know it. We try to make it predictable but it is not. So that is a challenge for
us. The room we get is that the profit we make we can invest in innovation. We have the
problem that we have to make a business case which is not a business case at that moment.
Global and companies like us are business case driven and innovation is not always a
business case is more a solution but it is not always a business case, so that is a difficult
thing.

I: How do you try to predict?
R2: We try to keep up with all the developments and new things in our area. Coming from
start-ups are competitors, like manufactures. What you see is that more less disruptive
innovation comes from start-ups, people from the academic world. For us it is really
important to follow these developments and then our innovations should be aiming for how
can we apply that solution for our customers. How can we make our innovation from all the
developments and of course we also develop some things ourselves?
I: How do you innovate? You said you innovate from two phases can you explain this?
R2: For the disruptive type of innovation what you see is that for example, big data is a big
theme everybody is looking for some kind of development. Uhm. What we see is that other
companies which are not service providers are also getting in our market place with offerings
which are more less the same as we offer. So if we do not get on that wagon we will pushed
back and maybe they take over our market and then you also have the start-ups who are also
going to our customers and telling what they can do. So innovative customer of us adopt
these ideas and will develop together with start-ups. So we need to be aware of that and need
to be able to follow that up as well. We are pushed out by the market.
I: So you mainly focus on incremental innovation?

R2: Mainly yeah.
R1: For Stork as a whole 99%, for ourselves we can do smaller innovations that are more
radical or disruptive.
R2: Yeah.
R1: But there is also a difference between that, because you can have innovation on a method
or a way of working, for Stork is that we have to be a service and connected to a physical
service. Than the innovation is from another type of character.
R2: What we see internally, for us disruptive has a meaning in terms of when we have to
change or competences and when we need other competences, then what we have. Then we
have to change our business model, how we sell and how we earn money, then it already is
disruptive for us.
R1: In the old way you were paid for mechanic and now you are going to deliver a
performance and the performance is measured. You get paid for the performance not for the
result of the work. That is for a contractor a disruptive change. It is very difficult to let go the
old model.
R2: An example is drone expecting. We have to think a lot of time if we are going to offer
this service as well. We are doing it very limited. We have to invest in something which we
don’t know what it will bring. The business case is always difficult to predict, that is a
challenge.
I: What is the role of your customer in the innovation process?

R1: In this business you always need a launching customer. You can have an idea, but when
you want to make it profitable you need a customer with the same vision. Because all the
solutions are integrated and the more innovative they are, the more the integration is, so you
need a good co-operation. You always need a client to get the data our make the
improvements measurable. And that is also difficult because then you give away your idea.
Classily you don’t do that.
R2: When you get into the discussion of IP who has developed something and who is the
owner. Uhm. For instance, when we work together in partnerships we can cover it for a short
time but is always a discussion. We are also part of an open innovation platform so you bring

knowledge and you expect to get something back. But sometimes we think we bring more in
than we get back from it.
R1: Innovation is also the relation between the people you have. For example, the data field,
it is also about a relation with a company you trust them and then you can be open. And then
you also need to find a client who you can trust. We get a lot of requests, give me your
knowledge and then I know they will copy it and I will not benefit from it, then I cannot
innovate.
R2: That is a major challenge for us with working together. Bringing in one partner, without
too much business case thinking a front. We will invest but how much we will get back we
have to learn from. That learning cycle is difficult many times, how long will it take, how
much time can we spend on it before we say it does not bring anything. How much money
can you spend before you say, that you have to stop it. Service companies is general have a
limited budget on innovation.
R1: Therefore, believing in your innovation is the driver.
R2: Our innovation is based on vision. It is not purely based on the business case itself
otherwise it will not work.
organization?
R2: Of course. General we innovate based on customer requirements. So that the customers
start asking can you deliver that or do you have that. That is basically the starting point. We
are not like start-ups who have a good idea and bring that to the market.
R1: It is more based on what a client needs and then you need a launching customer, and
when you have that you can also sell it to other clients. It is important that we follow the
customers’ business case and that we know his problems. And it helps that you are a trusted
advisor because then he tells you his problems and then you can think for them and help them
solve it. That is the starting point of the innovation.
I: How do you know what your customers want or need?

R2: That is bases on contact with the customers. Specifically, in sales and during conferences
and public events. We also organize events like master classes. We invite customers to get in
about a discussion on a specific topic.
I: Is it in that way only quantitative or also qualitative research?

R2: It is more qualitative.
R1: When the service is there we do assessments to make it quantitative but for the
innovation it is not quantitative based. That makes the business case a little bit more difficult.
R1: Sometimes we need some information from market surveys we try to get some
companies to that surveys but they ask a lot of money for it of course.
R2: Then your innovation budget is gone from only buying information about the market. We
use someone who has to do a master study for instance. We do that as much from their side as
possible.
R1: And we have consultants working for clients who see a lot of problems from clients or
challenges. So they have also the data about what is happening and that delivers also a lot of
knowledge and we work not only in the Netherlands but also global and therefore we see the
trends in the market more. You can make it more innovative.
R2: There is also a market difference of course. The customer and the market itself drive our
innovation.
R1: And we are member of some platforms like WCM. What you see there is that they look
for a chain in the market and then you have a supplier and then you have an engineer and you

have the customer that they don’t want to share with their competitor and their innovation
stops, it is a limiting factor.
R2: We try to make innovation budgets which are funded by government or EU things which
usually are clustered. For example, world class maintenance construction which is there for
open innovation, they are good to get subsidies. This is spent on open innovation but what we
experience is that participating in that type of innovation takes a lot of time and of course you
can get some funding but then you have to share.
R1: Sharing is difficult because you then give it to your competitor and they for example did
not invest. And there they go with your ideas.
I: Do you share your knowledge on innovation with competitors?

R2: Uhm. What we do yes. How we do it depends on. What is the solution what will it bring
to the customer, we promote that very much but the how behind it we don’t want to share it.
R1: We did it with the hot app, which we did with real competitors, the biggest competitor
we have in our field. We did it together, but it was difficult.
I: What is the source of the innovation? Technical? Source of the customer? Idea?
R2: Uhm. Many of it is technological.
R1: And then you see where you can use it.
R2: But what we also see is that it also is driven from knowledge intention is a big issue. So,
a lot of people who have knowledge about plans or whatever they are getting more and more
scared and then they go on a pension. And the young people get it, but they are educated
different and they work on a different way. So it is also about a connection between the
people who run the technology. For instance, in the data area. There is a difference between
the younger and older generation.
R1: What helped us is that we get a lot of new people in our company again. The threat in the
Dutch economy is that we have a lot of old people especially in this market they don’t hire
young people anymore because it is a declining market. And then you stop innovating.
R2: For instance, the customers don’t hire young people anymore because they will
disappear, innovation here is not really fast. For us are new market segments also innovative.
The become a service provider in the wind industry is for us also innovation.
R1: Transfer from the one business to another, what you do is not new but for us it is new.
I: Do you think that a disrupter applies customer based innovation?

R2: What we see is that traditional product manufactures are becoming service providers that
challenge or threat. The knowledge they have from their assets is an advantage over us.
Because the whole thing about maintaining is also about knowledge how the facility behaves
in terms of failures and production and these things. Traditionally it is with the operator and
maintainer and owner but in the future a lot of these knowledge will stay at the manufacturer.
So another way of thinking is should we come also an operator instead of maintainer only.
Then you think like Uber.
R1: The client is now making it and we help them making it but in the future it can be that
they are more the sellers and that we can make them. That is the biggest thing we are thinking
about in the long run.
R2: So that we own it and produce it.
R1: Then you get an Uber model that Shell does not has.
R2: I will give you some examples, our mother company has for instance invested and
maintained a rail way in Denver. So then they use the system but the whole thing around it is
more or less the principal but the whole thing behind it is uberized.
R1: Just changing the industry.

I: Is your organization applying innovation theories?
R2: Not explicitly.
R1: No. We do it by heart.
I: Do you focus on individuals or on target groups?

R2: I think on target groups in terms of customers. And market segments and within these
segments we focus on customers.
R1: We look at what they need and what their problems are. You cannot do it for one but you
have to do it for a group because it costs money and time.
I: How do you divide these target groups?

R2: We follow the money.
R1: We have divided our customers in groups and geographical in industry types. It is more
or less that we make comparable services.
R2: The problem in our customer based is always in segments which do economically well
innovate because they have money. Segments who do not innovate need the innovation but
they do not have the money for it.
R1: We learn in the real sector and use it in a different industry.
I: How do you apply the customer circumstances in the organization? (functional, emotional
and social).
R2: Yeah we also look at the organizational cultural part. We have some examples in
concepts we did with the customer and he want to adopt the whole idea of our solution but he
has limitations in his organization. So we take that into account as well.
R1: But it can limit your innovations. We lost a big opportunity because of the interface of
the user was not most optimum. You can have the best solution but social it was not accepted.
So social is an important factor but it is not the objective when you start but when you want
to apply your innovation you need a lot of attention to it.
R2: What we see is, but that is so easy to influence is when you think about developments in
industries you see more than employees are sometimes not necessary any more on the plants.
R1: You cannot take everything into account because then you cannot innovate. The biggest
mistake is that you only look at the human side and then you will not innovate.
I: How important is the experience you offer to you customers?

R2: Experience is very important.
R1: It is our insurance that it will work because it is new and you don’t have experience the
classic industries buy on experience more or less. Therefor start-ups need us because the
client ask for all kind of things that is not important for the innovation but is important for the
organization and then you need preference, you need experience and you need people.
I: How do you apply customer innovation into the internal processes?

R2: What we see is we have new young people and sometimes they still work the way we
worked for many years but we also need a few who are the front runners in it, we take that in
the development as well. To do the work we have to train them and also multiply the
knowledge form a small group to a bigger group but that is mainly driven by the amount of
projects we have. When you have a fast growing volume in a new development we need to go
fast and develop our people. But sometimes there are some disrupters.
R1: Innovation is not really plannable. So you can be too fast or on the wrong spot it is not a
continuous process. So it is difficult to get organised and shared sometimes.

R2: But also for customers it is a reason why they choose for us because they do not have to
make all these learning circles themselves. For instance, we are evaluating all kind of tools
and we say for your application this would be the best one. They don’t have to do it for
themselves.
R1: We have proven it for them. That is also in the experience they want, it saves them time.
R2: Most of them are limited in resources, most of them have two people who could do it but
they are very busy with their daily business.
I: What is your opinion about business theories on innovation?
R2: In general business theories are of course a capturing of genetic things in to other specific
thing into generic theories. So application of theories in your situation need adaptation. You
cannot say this is the Jobs Theory and that is the way we will work.
R1: You always have to adapt. You have to train you people to do it but also the method is
not, you have to make it your own.
R2: How you apply it in your organization.
R1: For instance, in the knowledge areas we have fundamentals and we have the best
practices for your client. The main way of working, the fundament, but when you use it you
make a best practice out of it. It is not one size fits all. You always have to adopt into the
circumstances and who is using it.
I: Do you think that is customer apply the jobs theory that they could win from their
competitor or a disrupter?
R2: Yeah. It depends on how innovative your customer is.
R1: We are lucky that our customers are not that innovative. We are in an old fashioned
market segment. It is very strict. There for we have more chances.
R2: There is a connection with the risk profile of a company. High risk companies like oil
and gas are less innovative then lower risk companies. Or they are on a pressure that they
need to innovate.
R1: It is more surviving then believing.
I: How would you describe the roll of the type of organization (corporate or a start-up) in
relation to using business theories and having success and being innovative?
R1: I think that start-ups use less business theories if their idea is getting successful they are
going to get serious on their management because when they don’t do that they cannot earn
money, so at that moment they have to switch over. The corporate is more in the business
models.
R2: What I see also. We talk to a lot of type of starts-up companies and many of them
basically come to use to get funding to develop their ideas or bring it to the market.
R1: They have to think different when they grow.
R2: So the start-up with a good idea and a good response from the market need funding.
R1: Then you get more in the business models because that is the way corporates operate and
therefor you have to do it in order to survive. But a business model can also make the
innovation more difficult. With too much business models you cannot innovate. It is always a
tension, therefor you always need kind of start-ups our people with a believe.
R2: There are big companies who have a policy and the business buys sometimes start-ups.
R1: For example, Spie they buy start-ups when they are one level higher. They first have to
be successful than Spie buys them. You have to prove it and then they buy you.
R2: Until now we don’t have that type of policy yet. Maybe in the future. All the companies,
the big one buy start-ups. Sometimes that is a pity because we see some developments we
like to co-operate with, but then they are already bought. Then it becomes difficult to partner
with them.

R1: They don’t share their knowledge anymore, so that is difficult.
R2: We have some experience in that.
R1: In a negative way. You also have big corporates that buy start-ups to kill their idea and
keeping the market conservative in that way. When you are really disruptive they buy you,
because you are a danger for their business model. It this way a lot of innovation disappears.
If they don’t want to stop the innovation by buying the start-up they will only use the
innovation for themselves.
R2: Because many start-ups are bought by a big one, some of the people stay their but the
real entrepreneur goes away and starts again with a new idea. You need to follow these
persons, because they are the most innovative. We have to follow developments but also
where the people are. Because specific people in the world thrive these innovations. When
they change jobs, something’s can change.
R1: Making something big and good is not always good for the innovation, it is a difficult
market.
I: Is there anything important I forgot?

R1: The main important is what is innovation and what is re-use or share? What is your
definition of innovation? Is also copying a good idea from one industry to another, is that also
innovative? Or not? That is something difficult. It has some advantage to copy ideas because
you know it can work and you have the technology so you can use it.
R2: Besides more and more high profile innovators warn for their own invention, like Elon
Musk.
R1: Ideas have also bad sides.
R2: Something that Einstein said, oeh what am I doing I created a monster.
R1: That is something I notice within Stork, we have good ideas, and if we get good support
from Stork it can be very threatening for the classic people. People can lose a lot of work.

Interview 13 - 24/05/17
Spie - Eugene de Roodt – Director
I: Kunt u mij wat meer vertellen over uw bedrijf?

R: Spie is een installatiebedrijf, wij doen multi technisch onderhoud en projecten werk. Op de
markt van de industrie en infra als in gebouw en omgeving. We hebben 4000 medewerkers.
Spie is een beursgenoteerde onderneming. Spie is totaal groot 45.000 medewerkers en 6.5
miljard euro omzet. Nederland is 10% van het geheel.
I: Kunt u mij meer vertellen over uw functie?

R: Ik ben verantwoordelijk voor alles wat er in de industrie in Nederland gebeurd. We hebben
in de industrie 2000 mensen werken in 10 vestigingen. We werken voor de chemie, staal,
food en maak industrie.
I: Hoe zou u succes definiëren?

R: Succes heeft een aantal factoren. Belangrijkste bij Spie is dat we heel financiën gedreven
zijn, resultaat gerichtheid op financiën. Het tweede wat daarbij komt is generatie van de cash.
Dat is dat je wel kan zeggen dat je winst maakt, en dat het geld eind van het jaar op je
rekening staat anders is het gebakken lucht. Wat wij doen is investeren om andere bedrijven
op te kopen zodat die samen met ons meer voor onze klanten kunnen betekenen. Een ander
deel van het succes is dat we een mensen bedrijf zijn. We hebben geen assets. Wat wij
hebben is mensen en know how. Voor ons is het heel succesvol als wij mensen aantrekken en
weten te behouden om in deze competitieve markt succesvol te zijn.
I: Is dit een onderscheidende factor om competitief succesvol te zijn?

R: De afgelopen 10 jaar zijn we hard gegroeid, de mensen die voor ons werken hebben geen
last van crisis gehad. Mensen houden van continuïteit en uitdagending, dat moeten we
continue creëren.
I: Hoe meet u uw succes?

R: Financieel is dat heel makkelijk natuurlijk. HR meten we ook een aantal zaken als,
medewerkers tevredenheid, klant tevredenheid. We kijken naar ziektebeeld om te kijken hoe
gelukkig zijn onze mensen als ze bij ons werken. Klant tevredenheid is natuurlijk ook heel
belangrijk.
I: Hoe meet u uw klant tevredenheid?

R: We hebben daar internet tools voor, we hebben software gekocht om continue onze klant
tevredenheid te meten. Dat is kwalitatief en kwantitatief, we hebben zelfs tools om perceptie
management te doen bij klanten. Het is heel belangrijk om te weten wat het verhaal achter de
vraag van de klant is, om te weten of we de klant goed begrepen hebben.
I: Kunt u er iets meer over vertellen?

R: Wat wij doen is dat vanuit degene die de opdracht heeft binnen gehaald, er een vragenlijst
naar de klant wordt gestuurd. Waar de klant drie dingen moet aangeven om het project
succesvol te maken. En die geven we mee aan ons projectmanagement. Klanten merken dat
we er gehoor aangeven. Het is heel opvallend dat het meestal hele andere dingen zijn dan die
je zou verwachten als je een technische opdracht kijkt. Je hebt met veel stakeholders te
maken, kosten derving voorkomen. We hebben continue klant tevredenheid meting om ook te
kunnen terugkoppelen aan onze mensen. Wij vertellen aan onze mensen dat je je alleen kan
onderscheiden door de manier waarop je het doet en niet de inhoudt. Het gaat niet om de

techniek maar op de manier waarop, die bepaald op je terug mag komen en of de klant het als
prettig heeft ervaren. Dat vinden we veel belangrijker en dat meten we. We meten dus
eigenlijk cultuur, en gedrag en houding. Wij vinden de mens erg belangrijk. We hebben een
systematiek om cultuur te meten en gedrag en houding te meten. Wij zijn grotendeels een
servicebedrijf, dus mensen moeten goed overkomen.
I: Wat is de rol van innovatie in het succes?

R: Innovatie wordt steeds belangrijker. Dat heeft alles te maken met het steeds smarter maken
van de oplossing. Je krijgt steeds meer sensor techniek, data, data-analyse. Uiteindelijk omdat
wij een servicebedrijf zijn willen we uiteindelijk heel graag naar voorspellend onderhoud. Je
wilt naar voorspelbaar gaan. Naar mate je steeds meer gaat meten en verzamelen en
digitaliseren, wordt kennis minder belangrijk en wordt data belangrijker. Hiermee kan je
modellen maken om uiteindelijk naar voorspelbaarheid te gaan.
I: Denkt u dat het mogelijk is om innovatie te voorspellen?

R: Wij doen heel veel aan innovatie, met name digitalisering wat we alleen niet kunnen
voorspellen is hoe snel toeleveranciers met smart oplossingen komen. Uiteindelijk gaat deze
hele trend onze business en bedrijfsmodel veranderen, de vraag is wanneer? Wat je moet
voorkomen is dat je de juiste mix van mensen hebt om dat business model ook te kunnen
veranderen en te volgen om je klanten te kunnen bedienen.
I: Flexibiliteit hierin is dus heel belangrijk?

R: Ja dat is hartstikke belangrijk, zeker in de toekomst.
I: Is hierin een verschil tussen start-ups en corporates?

R: Ja, hoe kleiner het bedrijf hoe flexibeler het is. Hoewel wij wel een bedrijf zijn dat plat
georganiseerds is, en in verhouding weinig management heeft. Waardoor we heel snel
flexibel kunnen wijzigen.
I: Jullie werken ook veel samen met start-ups toch?

R: Ja, we hebben heel veel jongen gasten in dienst genomen, die softwareontwikkeling doen
samen met start-ups. Voor ons is dat ook nieuw.
I: Wat is het doel van die samenwerking?

R: Dat is twee ledig, heel belangrijk is een stukje imago. Als je innovatie uitstraalt is dat
automatisch mensen met nieuwe ideeën naar je toe komen. Het zuigt aan. Het tweede is dat
we uiteindelijk aan het stuur hoe de innovatie gaat lopen en wat het tijdsbestek is. We kunnen
hiermee beter voorspellen hoe snel de ontwikkelingen gaan omdat we daar onderdeel van
zijn. Als je een klein bedrijf hebt ben je wel flexibel, maar als je inzet op een innovatie en die
lukt niet dan kan je heel snel omvallen. De wet van de grote getallen is dat wij makkelijker
tien, twintig mensen kunnen laten werken aan innovatie. Tuurlijk moeten wij ook de juiste
keuzes maken want voor ons is moet het ook succesvol zijn. Maar een vertraging in tijd
oplopen is voor ons minder erg dan voor een start-up bedrijf.
I: Hoe zou u innovatie definiëren?

R: Mmm. Generen van ideeën en visie die in de toekomst verwezenlijkt moeten worden.
I: Op welke innovatie punten focussen jullie?
R: Met name digitaliseren en onderhoud van assets.

I: Hoe komen jullie op deze trends?
R: Wij hebben gekeken naar andere markten wat die gedaan hebben om uiteindelijk een
volgende stap ik flexibilisering en verlagen van de kosten te maken.
I: Kunt u mij vertellen welke stappen jullie nemen om te innoveren?

R: Uhm. We hebben daar een afdeling voor. Alle initiatieven die er in het bedrijf waren
hebben we verzameld. Daar hebben we een netwerk of groep van gemaakt, wat door mij
wordt aangestuurd. Wij laten mensen vrij om te brainstormen en vervolgens kijken we welke
klanten daar in geïnteresseerd zouden zijn. Ons werk bestaat uit elektrotechniek, wat je ziet is
dat het zich verplaatst naar ICT. Wij hebben veel software developers in dienst genomen en
data analisten.
I: Innoveren jullie op een incrementele manier?

R: Ja, stapsgewijs. Wij hebben sommige ontwikkelen die lopen al bijna tien jaar en nu zie je
pas dat klanten geïnteresseerd raken omdat zij zich ook moeten aanpassen. Nu zie je dat alles
in een stroomversnelling komt. Heeft ook te maken met dat al onze klanten gaan begrijpen
dat je toch met nieuwe dingen moet komen om uiteindelijk weer een doorbraak te creëren om
kosten te verlagen om sneller aan informatie te komen.
I: Wat is de oorsprong van jullie innovatie?

R: Spie is in 2007 heel snel gegroeid, omdat twee bedrijven bij elkaar kwamen. Toen zeiden
we geld verdienen is belangrijk maar innoveren is nog veel belangrijker. Toen hebben we
alles bij elkaar gelegd en zijn we begonnen. Die ideeën ontstaan vanuit de techniek. Dat
mensen zeggen joh waarom lopen we nog met papier etc. Er is een enorme druk om altijd
maar de kosten te verlagen en dan kan je wel nog harder gaan lopen maar dat is niet de
oplossing. De oplossing is om het anders te gaan doen. Dat heeft ook te maken met wat we op
andere vlakken gedaan hebben. Het wordt interessant om alle informatie te digitaliseren en
visualiseren. Er komen generaties aan die worden opgevoed met een iPad en plaatjes en
filmpjes. Onze zaak moet veranderen in plaatjes en filmpjes om mensen in onze business te
krijgen en dus het aantrekkelijk te maken voor jonge mensen om bij ons te werken en om zo
dus continuïteit te creëren. Daar moeten wij ons op gaan voorbereiden.
I: Wat is de rol van de klant in het innovatieproces?

R: Wij doen het samen met klanten om de business case rond te krijgen en te kijken wat de
besparingen kunnen zijn. Wij kunnen heel goed aangegeven wat werkwijzen zijn, de grootste
besparing zit bij de klant. Die business modellen zijn we aan het maken zodat zij het kunnen
toepassen. Hoe snel heb je revue van bepaalde aanpassingen.
I: Hoe zou u de relatie beschrijven tussen customer innovatie en jullie succes?

R: Wij laten het succes aan de klant. Laat de klant maar vertellen wat succes is. Dat heeft ook
te maken met dat de klant veel beter kan vertellen wat de besparing potentiëlen zijn. Wij zijn
maar een onderdeel in de keten. Als het gaat om voorkomen van faalkosten, veiligheid issues.
Het gaat om het maken van minder fouten en de voorspelbaarheid groter maken.
I: Hoe zou de customer innovatie zijn bij een start-up of een corporate?
R: Een start-up is 100% afhankelijk van de klant. Beleving en emotie is heel anders dan bij
een corporate, wij leven niet van klanten alleen. Het non-verbale gedrag is heel belangrijk
heb ik geleerd. Bij ons zeggen mensen een werk week is een werk week maar bij een start-up
gaat het 24 uur per dag door. Daarom maken we ook een mix. In innovatie willen we ook
absoluut niet alles zelf doen. Wij hebben allemaal mensen met goede ideeën. Eerst kijken we

wat andere aan het doen zijn om mogelijke samenwerkingen te ontdekken om de innovatie te
versnellen. Als je alles zelf doet ben je traag, wij doen aan open innovatie. Wij geloven ook
niet in IP beschermen dan wordt je vertraagd. Er valt altijd wat van het succes te delen
uiteindelijk.
I: Als innovatie alleen op de klant gericht is zou dit dan een competitief voordeel kunnen
opleveren?
R: Eén als je innoveert kan je in de keuken van de klant kijken. Uiteindelijk innoveert die
klant ook op een open manier dus je krijgt een openheid van zaken om uiteindelijke
succesvol te zijn, dus je wordt heel snel partner van je klant. Uiteindelijk wat je zoekt is een
partnership om een doorbraak vorm te verwezenlijken en die continuïteit te bevorderen. Je
kan uiteindelijk makkelijker een klant behouden dan winnen.
I: Denkt u dat disruptieve bedrijven, customer based innovatie toepassen?

R: Wij hebben disruptieve bedrijven geanalyseerd en gekeken wanneer ze succesvol zijn.
Wat je heel veel ziet is dat de bedrijven goed zijn in een software platform. Dat zijn wij ook
aan het doen. Wij creëren een software platform waarbij de service via het platform gaat. Wij
hebben ons gerealiseerd dat als je in de toekomst succesvol wilt zijn dat je een goed software
platform moet hebben. Waar de service vraag door je software platform heen gaat lopen. Als
wij dat platform hebben draaien kan je overal zien wat de behoeftes zijn, zo zouden we onze
voorspelbaarheid van onze bedrijfsvoering groter kunnen maken. Het wordt interessant om
doormiddel van data onze voorspelbaarheid en betrouwbaarheid te vergroten. Op deze manier
doet de data het werk.
I: Gebruiken jullie innovatie theorieën?

R: Wij gebruiken onze boerenslimheid. Wat we wel doen is dat we veel lezen en dat we op
bedrijven af gaan die heel succesvol zijn en de verliezers van innovatie. Dus we kijken heel
veel terug ook naar de geschiedenis en hoe die trajecten zijn gelopen. Wat heeft er plaats
gevonden en wat zou dat betekenen voor onze markt en hoe ontwikkelt zich dat? Om te
voorkomen dat je de slag mist.
I: Op wat voor een manier proberen jullie je klant beter te begrijpen om te kijken wat de
oorzaak is van hun behoefte?
R: Uhm. Wij hebben een aantal jaar geleden een sales traject laten lopen voor ons
middenmanagement om onze techneuten te leren te kunnen voorspelen wat de klant in de
toekomst nodig heeft. Dus wij leren techneuten voorspellen. Onze mensen moeten veel meer
kunnen aangeven hoe dingen gaan bij klanten. Ze vragen aan een klant heb ik het goed
gedaan, waarom niet wel? Dan kunnen zij beter innoveren vanuit de klant. Dus in gesprek
gaan is erg belangrijk. Er is enorme behoefte aan visualiseren van data en gegevens.
I: Focussen jullie op individuele klanten of op target groepen?

R: Uhm. Wij focussen op die klanten die een lange termijnvisie hebben en dezelfde visie als
wij hebben. Uiteindelijk moet je bereid zijn om pilots te doen en om te investeren en bereid te
zijn dat het een keer fout gaat. Dat je misschien een keer 10 of 20 duizend euro hebt
uitgegeven die niks heeft opgeleverd maar waar je wel veel van geleerd hebt. Wij doen heel
veel dingen met drones om klanten te enthousiasmeren. Wij doen heel veel pilot trajecten om
feedback van klanten te krijgen.
I: Op welke elementen van de klant focussen jullie; functioneel, emotioneel of sociaal?

R: De enige manier waarop wij ons kunnen onderscheiden is gedrag/houding dus sociaal. De
technische innovatie is niet zo belangrijk, de sociale innovatie is veel belangrijker. Wij
bedoelen daarmee dat we dusdanig met de klant communiceren dat hij bereid is te partneren
met je. Het versnellen van innovatie wordt bepaald door de sociale integratie.
I: Hoe denkt u over het emotionele vlak?

R: Ik denk dat het heel belangrijk is dat je dingen prettig doet met een open mind, dan krijg je
een versnelling omdat de andere dat dan ook gaan doen.
I: Wat voor een rol speelt de experience die jullie de klant bieden?
R: We laten het succes aan de klant. Ik zie nu dat de klant verteld wat hij heeft weten te
realiseren, het is belangrijk dat de klant verteld.
I: Verwerken jullie de experience die je aan de klant biedt in het interne organisatie proces?
R: Wij zijn heel open en transparant. Een klant kan door ons bedrijf lopen en feedback geven
of mensen aansturen. Formele barrières vertragen alleen maar. Een klant vindt het ook heel
fijn om rechtstreeks te communiceren.
I: Wat is uw mening over innovatie theorieën?

R: Ik ben zelf ook acadeem, theorieën zijn belangrijk om een soort houvast te hebben hoe
dingen projectmatig of stapsgewijs zich zouden moeten ontwikkelen. Wat je wel in dit soort
trajecten ziet is dat heel veel multidisciplinaire activiteiten dat de theorie beschrijft hoe de
historie is geweest, de toekomst zal altijd net iets anders zijn. Je moet de basis begrijpen maar
je daardoor niet in hokjes laten duwen.
I: Hoe zou u de relatie omschrijven tussen de theorieën, succes en innovatie?

R: Ik denk dat degene die het meest onderlegd is van de historie, besluitvaardig is onderweg
om zo de juiste keuzes te maken en succesvol te zijn in plaats van heel veel faalkosten te
hebben. Het meeste succes gaat verloren als er veel faalkosten zijn. Maak je de juiste keuzes
en zit je op het juiste pad? Je kan veel leren van anderen.
I: Hoe zou u de rol van een startup en corporate omschrijven in het gebruik van theorieën,
succes en innovatie?
R: Ik denk dat veel startups heilig geloven in het idee dat ze hebben en managen vanuit hun
onderbuik. Heel simpel, die mensen hebben een droom hier krijg je een hele andere beleving
door. Maar die mensen zijn ook weleens blind voor commentaar. Ik denk ook dat heel veel
startups bij ons willen aansluiten omdat wij zoveel klanten hebben en de uitrol te kunnen
verwezenlijken en te zien om de startups succesvol zullen zijn of niet.
I: Denkt u dat corporates meer gebruik maken van theorieën?

R: Ik denk dat wij veel meer toegang hebben tot theorieën. Wij kunnen heel snel aan onze
klanten vragen of ons idee succesvol zal zijn of niet.

8.3 Appendix 3: Cross-case analysis


Mommers Esmee 11355921 MSC BA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mommers Esmee 11355921 MSC BA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory

Innovation, success and competitive advantage

Master Thesis Entrepreneurship and Innovation

results in regard to this research.

no organization is known with the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory. Organizations apply elements of

success of an organization. Organizations do think that the theory could provide a

research in order to understand the causation process of their customer.

Keywords: Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory, innovation, success and competitive advantage.

Statement of originality p.1

Figure 1: Conceptual framework p.40

Figure 2: Additional conceptual framework p.41

Figure 3: Word cloud p.47

Figure 4: Venn diagram, match between cases and theory p.49

Table 1: Overview reflection theories p.38

Table 2: Cases (organizations) from the Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory p.43

Table 3: Overview of the case studies and interviews p.45

Table 4: General overview cross-case analysis p.48

Table 5: Overview Jobs-to-Be-Done elements start-up and corporate p.57

Table 6: Overview success start-ups and corporates p.65

Table 7: Overview innovation start-up and corporate p.70

These unexpected opportunities can lead to innovation for an organization. Schumpeter

already believed that innovation is considered as an essential driver of competitiveness,

innovative solutions to emerging problems’’ Australian government website (Bessant &

In today’s economy, innovation is seen as an important factor in order to be successful. The

importance of innovation is also increasing among the executives within organizations.

important role in the success of an organization. Besides the successfulness of an

organization, innovation can be regarded as a source of a competitive sustaining advantage

(Baregheh et al., 2009) in an increasingly changing environment (Tushman & O’Reilly,

through the adoption of an innovation mind-set and dedication to breakthrough innovation

result in innovation that is leading to success and a competitive advantage?

different type of organizations (start-ups and corporates) in the Netherlands.

innovation, success and type of organizations will be discussed.

2.1.1 Innovation success

in regard to innovation? According to Heunks (1998) success out of innovation can be

organizations in the Netherlands (ICT, kennis en economie, 2016). According to Peters

on innovation’’ (Heunks, 1998). If small firms innovate it will lead to an increase in

wired to comprehend exponential changes in the environment (Weiblen & Chesbourgh,

current ecosystem is supporting a growing number of start-ups (Weiblen & Chesbourgh,

relationship between innovation success and the type of an organization?

challenges of innovation is a lack of a common definition and understanding of innovation.

‘entrepreneur’ who comes up with a ‘new combination’. Innovation would be essential to

innovation a few examples of definitions of innovation will be given. Schumpeter (1934)

defines innovation as ‘’Process of industrial mutation, that incessantly revolutionizes the

economist Joseph Schumpeter observed to be primary engine of economic progress more

different dimensions of innovation. Crossan & Apaydin (2010) define innovation as

‘’Innovation is production or adoption, assimilation and exploitation of a value added novelty

development of new methods of production and the establishment of new management

systems, it is both a process and an outcome’’.

radical innovation types, followed by customer based innovation methods.

2.1.3 Innovation dimensions

focus will be on product, process, service and open innovation.

perceived as satisfying customer needs (Slater et al., 2014).

human and organizational dimensions’’ (Davenport, 2013). The motives of process

quality, service levels or other business objectives.

enriching the organizations knowledge through integration of suppliers, customers and

Jobs-to-Be-Done Theory a type of co-creation with the customers? Co-creation will be

further explained in chapter 2.1.5.

Christensen et al. (2016)?

2.1.4 Innovation types

Innovation is variating between incremental and radical innovation. Incremental innovation is

characterized as disruptive or destroying. According to Markides (2006) ‘’Radical

radical innovation is whether the innovation is perceived as a continuous modification of