szoloth/odi-outcome-generator

ODI Outcome Generator

Overview

Transform JTBD interview insights, qualitative research, or job map analysis into properly structured ODI desired outcome statements. Create measurable, controllable, solution-agnostic statements that can be quantified for importance and satisfaction.

When to Use

• Converting JTBD four forces into outcome statements
• Transforming pain points into measurable outcomes
• Creating outcome statements from job map steps
• Preparing outcomes for quantitative research/prioritization
• Building opportunity landscapes for product strategy

ODI Outcome Syntax

Every desired outcome follows this structure:

[Direction] + [Metric] + [Object] + [Context]

Direction: Minimize, Reduce, Increase, Maximize Metric: time, likelihood, number of, probability that Object: What is being controlled/measured Context: When/where this matters (optional clarifier)

Examples:

• "Minimize time to locate the correct asset version during turnover"
• "Reduce likelihood that integration fails on first attempt"
• "Increase probability that updates propagate across all shot instances"

Converting JTBD Forces to Outcomes

Push (Pain) → Minimize/Reduce

Pain: "Can't find the right asset version during turnover" Outcome: "Minimize time to locate correct asset version during handoff"

Pain: "Tool crashes with large files" Outcome: "Reduce likelihood of application failure when handling files >5GB"

Pain: "Manual steps take 2 hours per shot" Outcome: "Minimize time to complete [job step] per shot"

Pull (Desire) → Increase/Maximize

Desire: "One-click propagation of updates" Outcome: "Increase reliability of propagating updates across shot instances"

Desire: "See what's approved vs in-progress" Outcome: "Increase visibility of asset approval status at any given time"

Desire: "Automatic version tracking" Outcome: "Reduce manual effort to track version lineage across handoffs"

Anxiety (Fear) → Reduce Risk/Uncertainty

Anxiety: "Worried about show pipeline integration" Outcome: "Reduce integration complexity for show-specific pipelines"

Anxiety: "Concerns about learning curve during crunch" Outcome: "Minimize time to achieve proficiency with new workflow"

Anxiety: "No rollback plan if it breaks" Outcome: "Increase reliability of reverting to previous workflow state"

Habit (Inertia) → Increase Compatibility/Preserve

Habit: "Scripts built around old format" Outcome: "Increase compatibility with existing automation scripts"

Habit: "Templates in legacy format" Outcome: "Reduce effort to migrate existing templates to new format"

Habit: "Team conventions assume old workflow" Outcome: "Minimize disruption to established team conventions"

Job Map to Outcomes

For each job step, generate 5-10 desired outcomes:

Job Step: Locate asset

Outcomes:

• Minimize time to locate the target asset
• Reduce likelihood of selecting wrong asset version
• Increase confidence that located asset meets requirements
• Minimize steps required to initiate asset search
• Reduce ambiguity in asset naming/metadata
• Increase relevance of search results
• Minimize false positive results in search
• Reduce time to verify asset is correct version

Quality Criteria for Outcomes

Good outcomes are:

• Measurable: Can be quantified (time, likelihood, number)
• Controllable: Can be influenced by solution design
• Solution-agnostic: No mention of specific tools or features
• Stable: Doesn't change with technology
• Specific: Clear object and context
• Actionable: Suggests what to improve

Avoid:

• Vague metrics ("better," "easier," "faster" without units)
• Solution-embedded ("using the new tool...")
• Feature descriptions ("have a button that...")
• Unmeasurable desires ("feel confident")
• Multiple outcomes in one statement

Outcome Quality Checklist

• [ ] Starts with direction (Minimize/Reduce/Increase/Maximize)
• [ ] Includes measurable metric (time/likelihood/number/probability)
• [ ] Clear object of control specified
• [ ] Context clarifies when/where (if needed)
• [ ] No solutions mentioned
• [ ] Actionable for solution design
• [ ] Unique (not duplicate of another outcome)

From Outcomes to Prioritization

Once outcomes are generated:

1. Quantify importance: Survey users rating 1-5 importance
2. Quantify satisfaction: Rate how well current solution satisfies
3. Calculate opportunity: Importance + (Importance - Satisfaction)
4. Rank outcomes: Higher opportunity = higher priority

Outcome opportunity score formula:

Opportunity = Importance + max(Importance - Satisfaction, 0)

Scores >12 are typically underserved (high opportunity).

Examples from DWA Context

Story Department:

• Minimize time to find correct sequence/panel across shows
• Increase preservation of dialogue metadata across handoffs
• Reduce manual steps to export boards for downstream departments

Previz Department:

• Minimize time to first assembled scene with correct versions
• Reduce rework from wrong version selection
• Minimize search time to first confident asset selection

Final Layout:

• Minimize time to install correct, approved assets for shot
• Reduce cognitive load during mode switching (assembly ↔ dressing)
• Increase persistence of collections across sessions

Animation:

• Minimize time to create reference playlists
• Reduce redundant work by surfacing available cycles
• Increase confidence in reference quality via context indicators

Resources

references/

• outcome-syntax-guide.md - Detailed syntax rules and examples
• job-map-framework.md - Universal job map for generating outcomes

assets/

• outcome-template.md - Template for documenting outcomes with metadata
• odi-examples-by-department.md - DWA-specific outcome examples