Traditional user stories like ‘As a user, I want [this] so I can [that]’ often let users pitch their fix instead of their problem. As professional designers, we understand that using this approach usually results in solutions limited by what users already know. Consider the famous Henry Ford anecdote: if he’d asked users what they wanted, we might still have faster horses, not cars.
Is there a hack to uncover genuine user needs and ditch the solution-first mindset?
I’ve been experimenting with a twist: ‘As a [role], I’m struggling with [problem], which stops me from [goal].’ Think ‘As a student, I’m struggling with messy notes that stop me from staying organized’ instead of ‘I want a note app.’ It’s lean, focused, and keeps attention on the user’s struggle, giving designers room to innovate.
This approach isn’t entirely new — it has roots. Clayton Christensen’s Jobs to be Done framework pushes us to uncover what users are really trying to achieve and what’s in their way, although it dives deeper into context. Alan Klement builds on Jobs by emphasizing user progress, not just tasks. Even Jakob Nielsen’s usability principles direct us first toward pain points.
My take? It’s a distilled, jargon-free spin — simpler than Jobs, sharper than a problem statement, and stickier for non-designers. Why is it better? It highlights the raw need, creating space for designers to innovate rather than building only what users think they want. It’s not reinventing the wheel but tightening existing ideas. Try it with your next user session — you’ll dig up gold.
Comparison with Existing Frameworks
This approach shares similarities with established UX frameworks but offers a distinct, user-friendly format:
- User Stories: Typically, “As a [user], I want [this] so that [I can do that],” focusing on desired solutions, potentially missing the root issue.
- Jobs to Be Done (JTBD): Centers on what users aim to achieve and their struggles but can be broader, e.g., “I need to manage finances effectively to reduce stress.”
To clarify differences between the Struggle-Focused Approach (SFA), JTBD, and traditional user stories, let’s review three examples highlighting how each captures user needs.
Example 1: Staying Connected with Friends
- Traditional User Story:
“As a user, I want a messaging app with group chat features so I can stay connected with friends.”
Captures: A specific solution. - Jobs to be Done (JTBD):
“I need to stay connected with friends to maintain strong relationships despite my busy schedule.”
Captures: Broader goal and context. - Struggle-Focused Approach (SFA):
“As a remote worker, I’m struggling to find time to connect with friends, which stops me from maintaining strong relationships.”
Captures: Specific struggle and blocked goal, tied to root cause.
Example 2: Managing Personal Finances
- Traditional User Story:
“As a user, I want a budgeting app with expense tracking so I can manage my money better.”
Captures: Preferred tool solution. - Jobs to be Done (JTBD):
“I need to manage my finances effectively to reduce stress and save for the future.”
Captures: High-level job and outcomes. - Struggle-Focused Approach (SFA):
“As a recent graduate, I’m struggling to track my spending, which stops me from saving for the future.”
Captures: Exact struggle and blocked goal.
Example 3: Learning a New Skill
- Traditional User Story:
“As a user, I want an online course platform with video tutorials so I can learn coding.”
Captures: Specific presumed solution. - Jobs to be Done (JTBD):
“I need to learn coding efficiently to switch careers and improve job prospects.”
Captures: Job and motivation. - Struggle-Focused Approach (SFA):
“As a career changer, I’m struggling with finding time to practice coding, which stops me from gaining the skills needed for a new career.”
Captures: Precise struggle and blocked goal.
Why the Struggle-Focused Approach is Better
Here’s why SFA excels at identifying real user pain points:
- User Stories Jump to Solutions Too Fast
User stories often assume the user knows the best fix, potentially missing deeper issues. - JTBD is Broader but Can Lack Precision
JTBD explains user motivations but can remain vague, leaving immediate issues unclear. - SFA Pinpoints Exact Struggle and Goal
SFA clearly identifies the friction, avoiding premature solutions and focusing on genuine pain.
The Advantage in Action
Using SFA clarifies real user issues, inspiring targeted, innovative solutions. In finance, addressing overspending might prompt real-time alerts rather than just tracking features. In learning, tackling time constraints could suggest bite-sized lessons instead of lengthy courses. This clarity ensures solutions directly address genuine user pain points.
In short, SFA cuts through superficial solutions (user stories) and broad objectives (JTBD) to expose specific user struggles, making it ideal for genuinely user-centered innovation.
Implications for UX Design
The “Struggle-First Approach” enhances user-centric design by preventing premature solution-building, ensuring designers address root causes and fostering innovative outcomes. It refines established UX practices (problem statements, JTBD), providing a concise, accessible framing of user needs beneficial to both designers and stakeholders.