Anthony W. Ulwick

DESIRED OUTCOME STATEMENT

Minimize the likelihood that debris flies up in the air when guiding the blade along the cut line, e.g., into the users face, eyes, etc.

IMP SAT ^OP
DeWalt
Makit

Minimize the likelihood of inadvertently moving off the cut line/path when the cut path/line gets covered with dust

Minimize the time it takes to set the angle of the blade, e.g., make a bevel adjustment, etc.

Minimize the likelihood of snagging the cord on the material when making a long cut

Minimize the time it takes to place a saw back in service when the power cord is cut

Minimize the likelihood that the cut goes of track when finishing the cut

Minimize the time it takes to secure the saw from falling when it is not in use, e.g., from a ladder, rafter, etc.

Minimize the likelihood of dropping the saw when lowering it from a ladder/roof

		P	SAT	a SAT
8.9	3.2	14.5	3.1	3.3
8.7	3.8	13.5	4.2	3.4
8.6	4.1	13.0	5.0	3.6
8.2	3.7	12.7	3.8	3.6
7.0	2.5	11.5	2.5	2.5
7.8	4.2	11.4	3.6	4.8
6.7	2.7	10.7	3.0	2.6
7.8	5.1	10.5	5.0	4.8

First, we defined the customer and the Job-to-be-Done: tradesmen who are trying to “cut wood in a straight line.” Then we captured 75 desired-outcome statements through customer interviews. Next, we surveyed 270 users of circular

saws, including users of the two best-selling brands, DeWalt and Makita. We asked the users of those brands to rate the importance of each of the 75 outcomes and their level of satisfaction with the circular saw they used.

The table shows the results of that survey for eight of the outcome statements. It lists the outcome statement, the average importance of the outcome, the average satisfaction with the outcome, the opportunity score calculation, and the satisfaction scores of DeWalt and Makita circular-saw users.

With this type of quantitative data on each of the 75 outcome statements, Bosch was able to draw some solid conclusions:

• 
  Bosch could determine which of the 75 desired outcomes were “table stakes,” which are desired outcomes that were very important and very satisfied, but could not be ignored by a new Bosch entrant into the market.
  
• 
  Bosch could see which outcomes were better satisfied by DeWalt and which were better satisfied by Makita. This not only revealed the strengths and weaknesses of each competitor, but enabled Bosch to determine the technical reasons for their success, thus setting the direction for ideation.
  
• 
  Because 14 of the 75 outcomes had an opportunity score greater than 10, Bosch could safely conclude that these 14 outcomes were underserved outcomes
  

(unmet needs). Eight of these 14 outcomes are shown in the table above.

• 
  Bosch knew that satisfying the 14 unmet outcomes significantly better than DeWalt and Makita would enable Bosch to occupy a unique and valued competitive position: it would be satisfying unmet needs that no other competitor had been able to satisfy. This is the essence of strategy and the reason for competitive analysis.
  
• 
  Bosch could see whether and where DeWalt or Makita had strengths that were adding cost but not value, as represented by outcomes with strong satisfaction values, but low importance scores. With this insight, Bosch was able to avoid adding features that were unnecessary and costly.
  

ODI-based competitive analysis reveals customer insights that are not ordinarily available to an organization. Knowing how customers measure value and how competing offerings stack up enables an organization to create products and services that get the job done better and/or more cheaply, which is the ultimate goal of any innovation process.

7.