AskCraft / AUDIENCE RESEARCH REPORT
The article explains the problem. The buying decision stalls later.
Connect educational content with the questions a buying team needs to answer.
Company blog
AC-COMPANY-EN · 15 September 2026 · Version 2.0
Teaching example. All accounts and findings are fictional.
Contents
Help people hand over and evaluate a decision. More introductory articles will not replace implementation answers.
03 Decision and research design
08 From quotation to interpretation
11 Questions for further research
12 Limits and using the material
AC-COMPANY-EN · 15 September 2026 · Version 2.0
Decision and research design
The company must choose between more introductory articles and implementation material. Question: what role does content play as a proposal moves from an initiator to managers and other participants?
JTBD examines the progress a person seeks in a specific situation. Questions about a past choice reconstruct circumstances, alternatives and decision criteria. A job statement is a researcher’s interpretation to be checked against the material [1].
Who to recruit in a real project
• A recent evaluation or selection of a business solution.
• Separate episodes from initiators, managers, technical evaluators and users.
• Include rejection for incompatibility and decisions without multi-step approval.
• Do not reconstruct every stakeholder’s view from the initiator alone.
Collection and analysis
Agree the decision and eligibility criteria first. Use a short screener to check specific experience. Reconstruct the sequence of choice in interviews. Record observations separately, compare patterns and examine exceptions. Keep links from recommendations to the source accounts [2, 3].
Example size is not a sample recommendation |
Six accounts were written to illustrate differences. They cannot establish prevalence, saturation or expected impact. Real scope depends on the diversity of situations and the decision risk. |
Jobs and their basis
People in related roles do not constitute one buying journey. These six accounts belong to separate fictional companies. They illustrate different questions, not a measured sales funnel.
J01 · C01, C02
Approve a feasible change
When someone proposes a new process, explain resources and responsibilities so the team can make an informed choice.
J02 · C03, C04
Check the fit with real conditions
Once the benefits are understood, examine compatibility and exceptions before discovering a critical constraint after implementation.
J03 · C05
Check procurement conditions
With a shortlist already prepared, compare conditions and documents with company requirements to complete procurement checks.
J04 · C06
Start implementation independently
When one person chooses and implements, find a feasible first-step sequence without unnecessary approval work.
A difference that must remain visible |
C05 does not read the blog; C06 combines roles and needs no approval. We therefore do not propose one compulsory funnel for every company. Examine the material’s role in the particular choice. |
J identifies a job hypothesis; R/E/C identifies a fictional account. A reference makes the reasoning traceable, but does not turn fictional material into empirical evidence.
Evidence: accounts 01–02
C01 / J01
A marketer is looking to improve enquiry handling.
“I understood the article. My manager asked who would own it internally.”
Shared the article, received a question about team resources and searched for an implementation plan.
Interpretation | An article may initiate discussion without preparing a resource decision. |
Alternative explanation | No internal owner may exist regardless of the material’s quality. |
Next question | Who could own the process, and what prevented agreement? |
C02 / J01
A manager is evaluating an employee’s proposal.
“I need to know what work stops and what new work the team takes on.”
Asked for responsibilities rather than another account of the approach’s benefits.
Interpretation | The decision needs an account of redistributed work, not benefits alone. |
Alternative explanation | The change itself may have insufficient priority. |
Next question | Which existing work would stop, and who agreed to change it? |
Evidence: accounts 03–04
C03 / J02
A technical participant is checking compatibility.
“The article looks straightforward, but our data source is not mentioned.”
Requested integration confirmation; the supplier did not support it, so the option was rejected.
Interpretation | Content should expose constraints even if this reduces unsuitable enquiries. |
Alternative explanation | It is unknown whether another integration route was considered or acceptable. |
Next question | Which integration was essential, and what alternatives were examined? |
C04 / J02
An operations employee will use the resulting process.
“It works in the demo. What if someone enters the data incorrectly?”
Looked for exceptions and support arrangements to assess everyday use.
Interpretation | Usefulness is assessed through deviations, not only the ideal path. |
Alternative explanation | Support documentation cannot compensate for an unusable workflow. |
Next question | Recall the last error of this kind: who fixed it and what happened? |
Evidence: accounts 05–06
C05 / J03
Procurement receives a shortlist selected by others.
“I did not read the articles. I received requirements and was asked to check terms.”
Worked with documents and clarifications rather than the educational blog.
Interpretation | Terms should be available at evaluation time without an educational funnel. |
Alternative explanation | Some requirements may already have been screened by another role. |
Next question | Which conditions could still rule out a supplier at your stage? |
C06 / J04
A small company whose owner both chooses and implements.
“I do not need anyone’s approval. I want to see the first workable step.”
Chose a getting-started sequence; an approval document was unnecessary.
Interpretation | A complex approval journey should not be imposed on an owner-operator. |
Alternative explanation | A simplified solution may not fit a growing team. |
Next question | Which first step did you actually complete, and where was help needed? |
From quotation to interpretation
One fragment and the limits of inference
Interviewer
What happened after you shared the article?
C01
My manager asked who would maintain the process.
Interviewer
What did you do with that question?
C01
Checked the supplier’s site. It covered benefits, but not our part of the work.
Interviewer
How did you continue the search?
C01
Another supplier had a table showing what we do and what they do. I shared it.
What the follow-up changes |
We can connect the manager’s question with the search for another resource. We cannot attribute a sale to the table: the final choice and other influences are absent from the fragment. |
Reading the analysis chain
Source | C01: Forwarding triggered an execution question |
Hypothesis | An article may initiate discussion without preparing a resource decision. |
Competing explanation | No internal owner may exist regardless of the material’s quality. |
Missing evidence | Who could own the process, and what prevented agreement? |
In a real study, the excerpt would reference a recording or transcript location. No such recordings exist here; timestamps have not been invented.
What to change
These are specifications for small prototypes, proposed for testing rather than changes already implemented.
D01 / First · J01
Implementation discussion sheet
After the article, provide the task, workflow changes, owner, team contribution, dependencies and unknown conditions.
Usefulness criterion: The initiator can pass a proposal to a manager and identify what still needs investigation.
Suggested owner: Editor / product owner
D02 / Next · J02
Compatibility check
Show supported conditions, limitations and exceptions. Do not conceal an unsupported integration behind a promise of custom help.
Usefulness criterion: The technical evaluator identifies both suitable and unsuitable options before a sales meeting.
Suggested owner: Product / technical specialist
D03 / By situation · J03, J04
Role-specific material
Give procurement terms and documents; give an owner-operator a first working step. These are different branches, not a compulsory sequence.
Usefulness criterion: People select useful material without traversing other roles’ stages; combined roles do not create extra steps.
Suggested owner: Marketing / operations
What to defer |
Do not scale before checking the mechanism. Start with one piece and one scenario, comparing with the current approach. The order reflects dependencies, not a calculated return on investment. |
How to test the changes
Test behaviour, not approval of the idea
Use comparable tasks for the current version and prototype, varying presentation order. Do not lead the answer. Record actions, errors and explanations separately. Recruit for the situation, not simply follower status.
T01 / D01
Ask an initiator to prepare an explanation for a manager and identify unanswered questions.
Record: Manager questions answered; unresolved dependencies; owner identified.
Reason to reconsider: If no internal owner exists, text alone does not make implementation feasible.
T02 / D02
Give a concrete constraint and ask the person to assess fit.
Record: Correct compatibility judgement; exceptions found; unsuitable options incorrectly accepted.
Reason to reconsider: If a required capability is absent, rule out the option honestly rather than intensify persuasion.
T03 / D03
Test the next resource selected for a specific role and situation.
Record: Role-appropriate resource selection; first-step completion; unnecessary transitions.
Reason to reconsider: Where roles are combined, an elaborate approval journey may create friction.
Decision rule before testing |
Continue when the person independently completes the intended action and correctly explains its limits. Revise when prompting is required or a critical error occurs. If the task is irrelevant or resources are the constraint, revisit recruitment and the offer. Quantitative thresholds and test scope require a separate agreement; no results exist yet. |
Questions for further research
Screening before invitation
Ask for a specific recent episode, the person’s role and the outcome. Check eligibility against page 2. Record recruitment source and missing perspectives. Do not require a positive opinion of the brand [2].
Core interview questions
01. What event started the search?
02. Whom did you send the material to, and what came back?
03. Which conditions did each person need to check?
04. When did a constraint emerge, and what happened next?
05. Which documents replaced or accompanied the article?
06. Who would implement the solution, and what has been agreed with them?
Follow-ups for any episode
What happened immediately before this? What did you do next? Which options did you actually consider? Can you show material you used? How did the situation end?
Avoid substituting speculation for evidence |
Replace “Would this feature help?” with a reconstruction of past choice and observation of prototype use. Future intention, praise and willingness to leave contact details are not usage or purchase. |
Limits and using the material
There are no measured completed deals, sales-cycle lengths or revenue effects. The accounts belong to different fictional companies; they must not be stitched into one supposedly real purchase.
Teaching example. All accounts, quotations and interpretations are fictional. No field study or prototype tests were conducted.
What accompanies this report
The Excel workbook contains six sheets: orientation, source material, interpretations, decisions, tests and questions. Account, job, decision and test identifiers match this report. CSV remains available as a simple exchange format for the source material.
How to use it in your work
First define your own decision and recruitment criteria. Copy the structure and replace all fictional material with real data under agreed access rules. Do not transfer these hypotheses to another audience. Preserve the distinction between quotation, interpretation and proposed action.
Method references
[1] Christensen Institute — Jobs to Be Done
https://www.christenseninstitute.org/theory/jobs-to-be-done/
[2] GOV.UK — Finding participants
https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/find-user-research-participants
[3] GOV.UK — Analyse a research session
https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/analyse-a-research-session
These sources explain the approach; they do not validate the fictional accounts or findings in this example.