Nw Jtbd Bdd Integration

JTBD to BDD Integration

Use when translating JTBD discoveries (job stories, forces, job map) into testable BDD scenarios. Job stories map naturally to Given-When-Then because both emphasize context (situation/given), action (motivation/when), and outcome (result/then).

Job Story to Given-When-Then Translation

The Pattern

Job Story:
  When [situation],
  I want to [motivation],
  so I can [outcome].

BDD Scenario:
  Given [the situation from the job story]
  When [user takes action aligned with the motivation]
  Then [the outcome is achieved and measurable]

Worked Example

Job Story: "When I receive an alert that a production service is degraded, I want to see the most likely root cause with supporting evidence, so I can begin remediation within minutes instead of hours."

Scenario: Root cause surfaced from degradation alert
  Given the monitoring system has detected degraded response times on the payment service
  And the degradation started 5 minutes ago
  When the operator opens the incident dashboard
  Then the system displays the top 3 probable root causes ranked by likelihood
  And each root cause includes supporting metrics and log evidence
  And the most likely root cause is displayed within 10 seconds

Scenario: Remediation guidance from identified root cause
  Given the operator has identified the root cause as database connection pool exhaustion
  When the operator selects the recommended remediation action
  Then the system presents a runbook with step-by-step instructions
  And the estimated time to remediate is displayed
  And the operator can execute the first step directly from the dashboard

Translation Rules

1. Given = situation from job story, made concrete with specific data
2. When = user action fulfilling the motivation
3. Then = measurable outcome, including quality attributes (time, confidence, completeness)

Multi-Scenario Expansion

One job story typically produces 3-5 BDD scenarios:

• Happy path: Outcome achieved as described
• Anxiety path: User's fear about new solution addressed
• Habit path: User transitioning from old workflow supported
• Edge cases: Derived from job map steps (see below)

Forces-Based Test Discovery

Use Four Forces to discover test scenarios that feature-driven thinking misses.

Force-to-Scenario Mapping

Worked Example: Automated Deployment Tool

Forces analysis:

• Push: Manual deployments cause errors and take hours
• Pull: One-command deployment with automatic rollback
• Anxiety: "What if the automated rollback breaks worse than the original deploy?"
• Habit: Team SSH-es into servers and runs scripts manually

Derived scenarios:

# Push scenario: validates the frustration is resolved
Scenario: Deployment completes without manual intervention
  Given the operator has configured deployment for the payment service
  And the previous manual deployment took 3 hours with 2 errors
  When the operator runs the automated deployment command
  Then deployment completes within 15 minutes
  And zero manual steps are required

# Pull scenario: validates the promised outcome
Scenario: Automatic rollback on health check failure
  Given the deployment has completed and health checks are running
  When the payment endpoint returns 500 errors for 30 seconds
  Then the system automatically rolls back to the previous version
  And the operator receives a notification with rollback details

# Anxiety scenario: addresses the specific fear
Scenario: Rollback preserves database state
  Given the deployment included a database migration
  And the health check has triggered an automatic rollback
  When the rollback completes
  Then the database schema matches the previous stable version
  And no data is lost during the rollback process
  And the operator can verify data integrity from the dashboard

# Habit scenario: eases the transition
Scenario: Manual override available during automated deployment
  Given the operator is accustomed to SSH-based manual deployments
  When the automated deployment is in progress
  Then the operator can view real-time logs (familiar output format)
  And the operator can pause or cancel the deployment at any stage
  And manual SSH access remains available as a fallback

Job-Map-Based Test Discovery

Walk each of the 8 job map steps and generate at least one test scenario per step. Surfaces edge cases that happy-path thinking misses.

Application Process

1. List the 8 job map steps for the feature
2. For each step, ask: "What could go wrong here that we have not tested?"
3. Write one scenario per step minimum
4. Steps 1-4 (Define through Confirm) and 7-8 (Modify, Conclude) produce most overlooked scenarios

The @property Tag for Property-Shaped Criteria

Some AC describe system properties rather than discrete scenarios -- ongoing qualities, not one-time events.

When to Use @property

Use when criterion: describes quality holding continuously (not one scenario) | cannot be captured by finite Given-When-Then set | relates to performance, consistency, or invariants

Format

@property
Scenario: Response time consistency under load
  Given the system is handling 100 concurrent requests
  Then all API responses complete within 200ms at the 95th percentile
  And no response exceeds 1000ms

@property
Scenario: Data consistency across replicas
  Given writes have been committed to the primary database
  Then all read replicas reflect the write within 5 seconds
  And no stale reads occur after the consistency window

Property Criteria from JTBD

Outcome statements often translate to property-shaped criteria (ongoing qualities):

JTBD-to-BDD Translation Template

Use when translating a complete job story into a BDD scenario set:

## JTBD-to-BDD Translation: [Feature Name]

### Source Job Story
When [situation],
I want to [motivation],
so I can [outcome].

### Forces
- Push: [frustration]
- Pull: [attraction]
- Anxiety: [fear]
- Habit: [inertia]

### Scenarios

#### Happy Path (from job story)
Scenario: [outcome achieved]
  Given [situation]
  When [action aligned with motivation]
  Then [outcome measurable]

#### Anxiety Path (from forces)
Scenario: [fear addressed]
  Given [anxiety-triggering context]
  When [fear event occurs]
  Then [safety net / reassurance]

#### Habit Path (from forces)
Scenario: [transition supported]
  Given [user accustomed to old way]
  When [new approach encountered]
  Then [familiar patterns preserved]

#### Job Map Edge Cases
Scenario: [Define step gap]
  Given [insufficient information]
  When [user attempts to start]
  Then [system guides to missing info]

Scenario: [Monitor step gap]
  Given [misleading success indicators]
  When [user checks results]
  Then [system surfaces hidden issues]

#### Properties (from outcome statements)
@property
Scenario: [ongoing quality]
  Given [system under normal operation]
  Then [quality metric holds within threshold]

Integration Checklist

Before handing scenarios to acceptance-designer (DISTILL wave), verify:

• Happy path scenario derived from job story
• Anxiety scenario addresses strongest demand-reducing force
• Habit scenario supports users transitioning from current workflow
• At least 4 of 8 job map steps have dedicated edge case scenarios
• Property-shaped criteria tagged with @property
• All scenarios use concrete data (real names, real values)
• Scenarios are solution-neutral where possible (describe outcomes, not implementation)

Cross-References

• For core JTBD theory and the 8-step job map: load jtbd-core skill
• For interview techniques to discover forces: load jtbd-interviews skill
• For outcome statements feeding @property criteria: load jtbd-opportunity-scoring skill
• For BDD methodology (Example Mapping, Three Amigos): load bdd-requirements skill

Source: nWave-ai/nWave → nWave/skills/nw-jtbd-bdd-integration/SKILL.md

Also appears in: nWave-ai/nWave/plugins/nw/skills/nw-jtbd-bdd-integration/SKILL.md