I started Great Not Big to share what I’ve learned over 10 years about building and running a custom software development company. I figure there are on the order of 100,000 people in the US who care deeply about this topic.* A question that arose early in the thinking behind GNB was whether people in other types of business might be interested or could benefit from this effort. It was an important question to consider since it determined my audience; the narrower the audience the more context you can safely assume when writing. (By way of example, what I was doing, in software design terms, was considering how I might generalize from a particular instance to a class abstraction. This nerdy aside tells you how I ultimately answered the question.) The thinking about audience ultimately led to a small breakthrough on an issue that had bothered me for a long time.
One of my motivations for Great Not Big was the lack of respect that service firms receive in comparison to product firms. I’ve always felt that companies like Atomic Object are more important to the economy than the mildly pejorative phrase used to describe them — “lifestyle businesses” — suggests. I understand the basic economics behind the phrase: service firms scale linearly, their ultimate size is capped and small, they don’t have life-changing exits for their founders; in short, they provide a nice lifestyle while you’re working and that’s about it. I think this misses an important point about their significance, but I couldn’t articulate this very well until we wrestled with the question of audience for GNB.
Great Not Big is better for not being a solo effort. Marissa Christy helps structure and refine posts, takes care of WordPress, measures impact, suggests topics, thinks about the audience, and generally provides a pair when I need one. Mary O’Neill proofreads posts, improves clarity, and tells me when she thinks I sound like a twit. (If typos, obscurity, and twit-ness make it through occasionally it’s my fault, not Mary’s.) Wrestling with the questions of audience and significance was definitely pair work. Marissa and I came up with the following qualities that Great Not Big companies share:
- sell services to their clients
- makers of the end product, not just advisors or consultants
- work in teams
- work collaboratively with their clients on the client’s products
- constantly alert to client’s needs to remain relevant
At first I referred to firms that share these attributes as “creative consultancies”. Later we decided that the business relationship between these firms and their clients was a better way of collectively naming them. These companies provide outsourced innovation to their clients. More than telling people how to do things, these firms take responsibility for collaboratively creating the product of innovation with their client. They are therefore “innovation services” firms. Daniel Pink has written about some research that supports my belief and observation that innovation services firms have some inherent advantages in what they do and can offer their clients a strong and clear value proposition. The question of significance is answered by the term we chose since no one disputes the importance of innovation. The economic impact of innovation services firms is hidden by the fact that their work is brought to market by their clients.
To answer the question of audience for GNB we took the list of shared qualities and combed through the NAICS taxonomy. We found firms in several industries that seem to fit the definition of innovation services.
- Design consultants (like IDEO and Cooper)
- Software development (Atomic Object and Pivotal Labs).
- Product management consultants (Enthiosys)
- Product development (Disher Design)
- Innovation consultants (Doblin and Systematic Innovative Thinking)
- Special effects (Eden FX)
- Environment design (Illuminating Concepts)
- Entertainment design (42 Entertainment).
While I ultimately ended up deciding to write to and for the founders and leaders of software development companies, the exercise of considering the audience for GNB was quite productive. I have a name for the type of service firm that I believe are strategically important, I can better articulate the value that innovation services firms provide, and I know who might be really interesting outside software development to swap stories with someday.
*Data indicates approximately 40,000 companies in our industry; I guessed at an average of 2.5 founders/leaders per firm.
- Attention: Spending Your Most Valuable Currency - February 10, 2022
- Slicing the Revenue Pie in a Multi-Stakeholder Company - July 30, 2021
- Commercial versus Existential Purpose - July 19, 2021
- How I Misunderstood Mentorship and Benefited Anyway - June 16, 2021
- Sabbath Sundays and Slow Mondays - June 4, 2021
Comparing art history to software design | Atomic Spin
November 15, 2011[…] lies the meaningful hinge: both grand paintings and software applications (at Atomic and other innovation services firms, anyway) are built for clients.Building on this, we can further say that both applications and […]
Innovation services and craftsmanship – a natural fit | Great Not Big
November 20, 2011[…] a talk on Saturday morning entitled Companies for Craftsmen. I briefly described my idea of the innovation services firm, the common traits of such firms, and how important they are to the economy. I see innovation […]
Incubating talent in innovations services firms | Great Not Big
December 21, 2011[…] talent in innovations services firmsBy Carl | December 21, 2011One of the reasons that I believe innovation services firms are so important to our economy is that they are incubators of talent. Whether a firm retains […]
How Atomic Object helped Priority Health build HealthInSite | Atomic Spin
January 13, 2012[…] have all the in-house expertise needed to build a killer app, but they don’t specialize in product development and innovation. Their core business is insurance and so their in-house technical expertise are organized and […]
Some Additional Benefits of Blogging | Atomic Spin
January 19, 2012[…] Blogging about the great things we do is just one of the ways that we act as good citizens in the innovation services […]
Mining our passions for the "why" | Atomic Spin
January 25, 2012[…] first step was to read through several of Carl’s other posts about AO as an innovation services firm and how that affects how we define ourselves. And then I got distracted by posts about employee […]
Atomic Object is expanding to Detroit | Atomic Spin
March 10, 2012[…] wealth, I feel we have a moral obligation to do so. On the other hand, because Atomic is an innovation services firm, our capacity to help clients is strictly limited by how many people we employ. Our culture, […]
Growth without growing: opening a second office | Great Not Big
March 29, 2012[…] however. I like the way Atomic is, and operates, in the range of 30-35 people.Because Atomic is an innovation services firm, our capacity to help clients is strictly limited by how many people we employ. Our culture, […]
Organizational departments aren't aligned with innovation | Atomic Spin
April 20, 2012[…] Innovation services firms offer a significant advantage if time to market is important and your company doesn’t have a mature project-centric organizational structure. […]
The "why" of innovation services firms is harder to define | Great Not Big
August 5, 2012[…] believe innovation services firms have a more difficult job identifying their “why” for two reasons. First, they focus on […]
Don't use compensation for motivation | Great Not Big
August 5, 2012[…] hurts the company in the long-term. Given the complexity of even relatively simple businesses like innovation services firms, your chances of designing a perfect game seem small, and therefore the most likely outcome is […]
What's in a name? | Great Not Big
November 29, 2012[…] Innovation services firms that build software for their clients are critical elements of a competitive national economy. It seems strange that we don’t have a consistent name for them. […]