Two differences I can see… not sure if they are important or subtle…

1. I find the word “occasions” useful since it focuses attention on the extrinsic motivations for the jobs-to-done, as opposed to the so-called intrinsic ones. (Many organizations have long histories using traditional demographic and psychographic profiling — the switch in perspectives that shakes things up is to look at context as opposed to personas.)

2. The Christensen article on segmentation talks about research-driven insights, whereas mine talks about generating new strategic hypothesis. To keep things simple, I didn’t go into this in my original post, but clearly both activities are essential… an organization needs hypotheses to test about its segmentation, and then a way to test those hypotheses. The two activities fuel each other, but they are quite different, each with its own tools, processes, and critical questions.