3 ms·

I think the author is being a tad pedantic here. You can't possibly find your "who" unless you already know your "why." In fact, they go hand in hand really. I

I think the author is being a tad pedantic here. You can't possibly find your "who" unless you already know your "why." In fact, they go hand in hand really. It should also be noted that your "why" might be as easy as "because I feel like it." Take Jim Carrey for example. Did he sit around thinking "Hmm, what kind of audience will like this weird face? Maybe if I stick my teeth out this way and make this sound, I'll have found my niche." Most of the successful businesses I've been a part of just started because someone felt called to create something, or perform some service for some reason that just sorta popped up. Others caught wind, and asked for more. Then more customers showed up, and a business was born. Rarely can you arrive in this place through pure analysis. Just live, serve, and share with your community. Whatever your gifts are will be reflected in how you choose to move through the world.

davidivadavid 6y ago
See, that's the reason why I dislike this whole "Start with the Why" charade. The term is just too ambiguous. The way you use it is about the motivation for the founder/company. That motivation is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to the nature and success of the company. Steve Jobs could have started Apple because he thought it was a good way to make a boatload of money. Who cares? Certainly not the customers. What causes the company to exist isn't the point. The other way to understand the "why" is more about the purpose or meaning or even vision for the company. These are also, to a large extent, arbitrary, but they make more sense. The purpose of the company, in the broadest sense, is to offer people a worldview they may or may not subscribe to, and in which the products they sell play a justified role. Personally, I think before "who", you need to define "where" (to). You need to paint a picture of your vision, so that people who will subscribe to it can identify with it, and hopefully with your products. It's a more vision-centric way of doing things. "Who"-first is your run-of-the-mill "customer-centric" approach. The customer is always right, adapt to their needs and just give them what they ask for. It works to an extent, but suffers from "People would have said faster horses" problem.
- karmakaze 6y ago
  > Who cares? At a point what made Apple able to print money was that customers identified with Apple as 'caring about the same things'--shared deep values. So technically doesn't matter if Steve Jobs actually had these values--if he could convincingly pull it off anyway--but it does make it a whole lot easier if you don't have to fake it. I don't think this required a specific vision in any product roadmap, just the belief that the product will be different, beautiful, etc made for people like 'us'.
  - davidivadavid 6y ago
    Of course. A vision goes far beyond having a product roadmap. Apple's vision (presumably) is about projecting a world where consumer electronics are well designed, better integrated in people's lives, beautiful, enjoyable, allow more creativity (bicycle for the mind), and so on.
doonesbury 6y ago
Agree. I also prioritize why then usually how with what dead last. I focus on why because it helps simplify and clarify requirements. However the who is our current customer set, which we knew already. Customer's will balk at a great why if it doesn't align with their sense of value for the money they pay. So in fact after the first cut of why there will be refinement as business people check through as customer proxies and how much effort it takes. So why in the absolute sense is neither independent nor so superlative that it stands on its own. Why helps with strategy and the long game (right requirements now means less labor redo later) but we will always have a primary dependence on who -- customers who assess what we do.

davidivadavid 6y ago

See, that's the reason why I dislike this whole "Start with the Why" charade. The term is just too ambiguous. The way you use it is about the motivation for the founder/company. That motivation is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to the nature and success of the company. Steve Jobs could have started Apple because he thought it was a good way to make a boatload of money. Who cares? Certainly not the customers. What causes the company to exist isn't the point. The other way to understand the "why" is more about the purpose or meaning or even vision for the company. These are also, to a large extent, arbitrary, but they make more sense. The purpose of the company, in the broadest sense, is to offer people a worldview they may or may not subscribe to, and in which the products they sell play a justified role. Personally, I think before "who", you need to define "where" (to). You need to paint a picture of your vision, so that people who will subscribe to it can identify with it, and hopefully with your products. It's a more vision-centric way of doing things. "Who"-first is your run-of-the-mill "customer-centric" approach. The customer is always right, adapt to their needs and just give them what they ask for. It works to an extent, but suffers from "People would have said faster horses" problem.

karmakaze 6y ago
> Who cares? At a point what made Apple able to print money was that customers identified with Apple as 'caring about the same things'--shared deep values. So technically doesn't matter if Steve Jobs actually had these values--if he could convincingly pull it off anyway--but it does make it a whole lot easier if you don't have to fake it. I don't think this required a specific vision in any product roadmap, just the belief that the product will be different, beautiful, etc made for people like 'us'.
- davidivadavid 6y ago
  Of course. A vision goes far beyond having a product roadmap. Apple's vision (presumably) is about projecting a world where consumer electronics are well designed, better integrated in people's lives, beautiful, enjoyable, allow more creativity (bicycle for the mind), and so on.

doonesbury 6y ago

Agree. I also prioritize why then usually how with what dead last. I focus on why because it helps simplify and clarify requirements. However the who is our current customer set, which we knew already. Customer's will balk at a great why if it doesn't align with their sense of value for the money they pay. So in fact after the first cut of why there will be refinement as business people check through as customer proxies and how much effort it takes. So why in the absolute sense is neither independent nor so superlative that it stands on its own. Why helps with strategy and the long game (right requirements now means less labor redo later) but we will always have a primary dependence on who -- customers who assess what we do.