Problems › We Do Not Know What to Build Next
What to build next is a jobs question, not a brainstorm. Find the job customers already hire someone else to do around your offer, price the complexity of adding it, and kill backlog items that cannot carry their cost. Jobs-to-be-Done Innovation Strategy (T15) is the engagement. It is not a sprint plan and not a design studio.
What to build next is a jobs question, not a brainstorm. Find the job customers already hire someone else to do around your offer, price the complexity of adding it, and kill backlog items that cannot carry their cost. Jobs-to-be-Done Innovation Strategy (T15) is the engagement. It is not a sprint plan and not a design studio.
Most roadmaps are a polite queue of internal requests. Sales wants the feature that lost last quarter’s deal. A board member wants a platform. Engineering wants to finish the rewrite. None of those is evidence that a customer will pay, or that the addition will earn more than the complexity it adds to selling, serving and stocking the line.
The productive question is: what job is the customer already paying someone else to do immediately before or after they use you? That adjacent job has demand you do not have to invent. It also has a competitor you can name. Jobs-to-be-Done Innovation Strategy (catalog id T15) starts there, then tests whether you have a right to win it and whether the new SKU will pay for the operational drag.
This is the parent of “what should I sell next” on the landing pages. That landing is a door. This page is the analysis: jobs, not adjacency-for-its-own-sake, and a kill rule for launches that never cover complexity. Matrix Strategy still decides which existing lines to milk or kill; it does not invent the next one.
Pre-revenue ventures asking “what should the product be” belong in Startup Genius, not here. This page is for operating companies with customers and a backlog.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ The roadmap is a list of stakeholder requests with no jobs research behind it
✓ The last two launches added SKUs and did not add contribution
✓ Customers keep paying a third party for the work that sits around your product
The move that usually makes it worse. Adding the feature that lost the last deal, which optimises for the customer you already failed to win on terms they dictated.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Industry pages at {problem}-in-{industry} ship only with an unedited run excerpt. This canonical has none yet, so there is no eleven-cell grid and no -in-saas door. Home-services operators (HVAC, plumbing, electrical, landscaping, cleaning) hit the same binds as other owner-operated trades: crews fully booked, contribution unknown by job type, and growth that still depends on the owner answering the phone. Percision can analyse that shape of business. There is no /strategy-for-home-services hub yet — industry pages ship only with a named profile and an unedited run excerpt, so this language lives on the operator pages rather than as a twelfth grid.
Related live hubs: strategy by industry. Unedited excerpts, when they exist for this question, will be attached here — we do not reprint another problem’s sample run as if it were this one.
It routes to Jobs-to-be-Done Innovation Strategy (catalog id T15), one of 29 engagements. The output is a sequence with a stopping rule — which move first, what it funds next, and the observation that would say it is not working — rather than a list of things you could consider.
Read a complete report before deciding whether it is worth your time.
Same family of question. The landing page is the short door. This canonical is the engagement path — jobs, complexity cost, and a named Percision analysis rather than a list of adjacent offers.
Ask what job they are trying to get done and what they currently pay to get it done. Asking them to spec your roadmap produces a committee product.
When you already know the job and the constraint is capacity, packaging, or a portfolio of SKUs that should be cut. Then you want Ops, Pricing, or Matrix Strategy — not another innovation pass.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.