Comments on: Identifying the “why” of Atomic Object

By: Trial By Pair – Vetting Job Candidates with Pair Programming | Atomic Spin

Trial By Pair – Vetting Job Candidates with Pair Programming | Atomic Spin — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 13:00:30 +0000

[...] experiment with the order and manner in which we conduct each step. Just as we strive to build great software and find better ways of doing it, we also strive to hire great software craftspeople and find better ways to identifying and [...]

By: Our 5 value mantras define our culture | Great Not Big

Our 5 value mantras define our culture | Great Not Big — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:04:48 +0000

[...] makers share a common “why”: We exist to create great software and get better at doing it. It’s more than just a [...]

By: Crying in the office | Great Not Big

Crying in the office | Great Not Big — Thu, 24 May 2012 15:59:06 +0000

[...] the years until retirement. A small company with employees who care about their work, who have a common purpose, and important social connections at work, sounds an awful lot like a big, extended family. Should [...]

By: Passion for the Work | Atomic Spin

Passion for the Work | Atomic Spin — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:18:48 +0000

[...] has written about identifying the “why” of Atomic Object and Jason’s follow-up blog post captures his perspective on Atomic’s raison d’être: Everyone [...]

By: Mining our passions for the "why" | Atomic Spin

Mining our passions for the "why" | Atomic Spin — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:25:08 +0000

[...] talk “How great leaders inspire action”, Carl discussed his evolving thoughts about identifying the why of Atomic Object. I ran across his post again a few weeks ago while catching up on some reading. It hasn’t [...]

By: Carl Erickson

Carl Erickson — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:08:00 +0000

True, but I like it Chadrick. It touches on something to me that’s important: if you know how it can be done better, you have an obligation to do it and show the way.

By: Chadrick Mahaffey

Chadrick Mahaffey — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:03:00 +0000

I loved your talk at GRDevDay (Happy Makers Make Happy Customers) where you brought this up a bit. I have kind of a Tongue-in-cheek answer which may or may not have anything to do with your why, but it is why I’ve been an evangelist for agile and openness for a long time. “Because so many others are doing it wrong.” That does not make for a very good positive phrase though.

By: Carl Erickson

Carl Erickson — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:18:00 +0000

Ok, Mel, I had more time to think about this. I think you’re snagging on what I wrote about earlier, namely, that innovation services firm’s “whys” are inherently about what they do and how they do it.

This is very confusing, and took me quite a while to straighten out in my head. Please read my previous post on this subject again and I think you’ll see what I’m getting at.

Innovation services firms are symbiotic with their clients. We in effect align with or co-opt a bit of our client’s “why” for each project.

By: Carl Erickson

Carl Erickson — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:14:00 +0000

Very interesting point, Greg. I have thought about whether or not “build” disenfranchises designers. Ultimately I decided it did not. But I find your point that “build” is too plebeian and mundane for both developers and designers insightful.

By: Greg Williams

Greg Williams — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:53:00 +0000

I was thinking along the similar lines of where Mel is pushing you, because I think there is an oversight by using the word ‘build’. I firmly believe Atomic is MUCH more about ‘crafting’ than ‘building’.

‘Building’ seems to really a mechanical ‘turn-the-crank’ approach which is where any company starts to perish, because there is no inherit magic in nor long-term motivation in just ‘building’.

‘Crafting’ gives a very strong innovative and creative twist on the ‘why’, and much more fully captures the heart of Atomic.