Comments (3)

By brantcooper, September 12, 2011 9:12 pm

As an early believer in Lean Startup movement, I can perhaps be excused for my unbridled enthusiasm for the release of Eric Ries’ new book, The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. Not however, for the reasons you might expect.

In fact, some early adopters of Lean Startups — those who have already bought into the framework to the extent that they’ve applied its practices into their high tech startup — might be a tad disappointed.  They might have to look a little deeper; there’s no vanity steps to success herein.

Why? In the end, this book is not written for them. But rather, like any good entrepreneur, Eric is aiming at the Mainstream market.  According to Geoffrey Moore in Crossing the Chasm, you can’t address the Mainstream market the same way you learned to do in the early adopter market.  (Hence the chasm.)

In my opinion, for example, early smartphone adopters diss’ the iphone, because Apple targeted the Mainstream, not them.

Eric’s intentions are easily discerned from his definition of Startup:

“A human institution designed to create new products and services under conditions of extreme uncertainty.”

This is clearly not intended to speak (only) to high technology startups, but rather to anywhere uncertainty exists. In my opinion, this is the strength of Ries’ book: it is a call to action to anyone inclined to take action to make things better despite facing severe uncertainty.  There is no boundaries to where you can exercise your entrepreneurship.  And though Eric doesn’t state so explicitly, true entrepreneurs are those willing to admit to the uncertainly within the institutions they inhabit AND to develop solutions that solve problems in the face of that uncertainty.

This definition applies to social entrepreneurship, non-profits, education, government, large successful businesses, and any business with technology risk or market risk, including yes, high tech startups.

Think about this for a second.  If true, the problem with the failure to innovate facing many hugely successful businesses is not that they don’t “act like a startup,” but rather that they don’t understand their own uncertainty.  Most people recognize that many governmental institutions face extreme inefficiencies and could benefit from new products and services designed and implemented in new ways.  The roadblock is, perhaps, that in a society overly dependent upon the advice of “experts,” we are unable to admit to the uncertainties we confront and therefore fail to unleash the creativity necessary to build new systems to solve big problems.

Conversely, those who claim to know everything, in other words face no uncertainty, are either not part of a “startup” or simply not truly entrepreneurial.  The arrogance of certainty leads to doing things the way they’ve always been done.

Make no mistake:  there is much here for high tech startups. Entrepreneurs who are still figuring out how to apply the principles to their businesses have much to learn here, but Eric describes less how to do it and more how to think about doing it. (Teach a man to fish and all that.) Personally, I have found that there are multiple layers of understanding to be had in the Lean Startup world and most of us are just scratching the surface. While some will look for more specific action items, Ries’ approach is honest, since there is no such thing as a startup blueprint.  While “Build, Measure, Learn” is easy to grok, the actual practices one has to put into place to create a learning environment that induces change, that produces products that people care about is hard.  No, It’s really hard.  And it’s one thing to do it in a high-tech startup of a couple of people and it’s another thing entirely do to it in a startup environment of 10 people and it’s another universe to do it in static, change-averse cultures that are in the most dire need of disruption.

Eric’s “stuffing the envelope” analogy, for example, is illuminating and one I hadn’t encountered before.  It turns out that stuffing envelopes one at a time is faster than differentiating the tasks and doing them in batch mode.

“What if it turns out that the customer doesn’t want the product we’re building? Working in small batches ensures that a startup can minimize the expenditure of time, money, and effort that ultimately turns out to be wasted.”

When in execution mode — i.e., when uncertainty has been eliminated — you can optimize processes for speed or cost.  When in learning mode, however, crippling inefficiencies can occur if you’ve optimized execution on the wrong parameters and then learn your assumptions were wrong.

Eric offers stories that run against the grain, which lead you to think differently about how to solve problems, such as increasing efficiency through less specialization and the fastidious elimination of metrics that enforce false certainty (vanity metrics).

There’s more to come. Eric briefly tackles the quest to bring disruptive innovation to the enterprise. At this point, I’m not sold on the methods prescribed.  Ries says he aims to “protect the parent organization from the startup” thereby turning the conventional model “on its head.” The premise seems to be that senior management “springs innovation” onto existing managers.

I’m not sure this is the case.  I think it more likely that senior managers are more distrustful of low margin, small market experiments run by kooky internal entrepreneurs then they are of managers who continue to execute on current products.  Futhermore, there is no real head flipping here since these are really two sides of the same coin. Maybe big company departments need protection from fast moving startup people, but startups need “protection” from the problem of being measured by the same criteria (e.g. profit margin) as existing product.  Big company R&D centers are rife with products that never see the light of day.

My take is that big companies are going to look more to startups to solve the problem of disruptive and even sustaining innovation.  An economy bustling with 1000s of Lean Startups is conducive to enterprises waiting for small entrepreneurs to prove the market before the big guys move in.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Dark Side The book is perhaps a bit heavy on the development side of the house, but for anyone envisioning innovation, this is the right place to start.  Eric’s discussion of applying the “5 Why’s” is instrumental to understanding the implementation of fail-safe processes.  It would be interesting to see  these principles applied to the dark art of sales and marketing.  Instead of traditional loss reports, what would a no-blame-game 5 Why’s look like to dissect a failed sale?  Poor Customer Support?

But this only means that new ideas of how to apply Lean Startup principles need to be tested, validated and shared.  When discussing my book, the Enterpreneur’s Guide to Customer Development, with Steve Blank, he remarked how the school of thought he pioneered “is what it preaches.” Eric’s book demonstrates that.  Not only because Customer Development is an important aspect of Lean Startups, but because Eric’s own vision and elucidation of Lean Startups has evolved tremendously from when I first heard him present his ideas in June of 2009 in China.

The Lean Startup movement is a framework entrepreneurs of all stripes can use to innovate in their industries. All those who adapt and practice it – who make it their own – will continue to advance the Lean Startup framework.

Comments (3)

By brantcooper, August 29, 2011 11:59 am

Here’s what I submitted to Eric Ries as an idea for the cover of his upcoming book:

For some reason, it didn’t get chosen.  : )  Actually, it’s a just slide from my You are (not) a Visionary deck I presented at last week’s Wisconsin’s Forward Technology Conference.

Comments (8)

By brantcooper, June 8, 2011 12:27 pm

I just did.

A couple of weeks ago, I tweeted:

f***ing hard telling clients maybe their “baby is ugly.” #lsmSF#leanstartupMI#EntrepreneurDownDays

The pause that followed was a deep void.  It was emotional.

During the next week of reflection, a non-early adopter, but loyal user of the product called the founder to  announce that he would not after all, pay for the product. Not at the proposed price, not at the price they had argued for, not at any price.

So he fired himself as Founder and CEO of his company.  And then he fired me.  (“I no longer need your services.  But in the future…”)

We talked briefly about his future, including possible pivots and leaps, but essentially, the gig was up.  I admire his self-awareness and the honesty with which he evaluated his situation.

Can you do that?

Yes, it’s difficult to know when to kill your idea.  Yes, you should be knocking down walls to work.  But the market is the final arbiter, not your hustle.

There’s a whole slice of our society based on non-transparency, on not being totally truthful. It’s necessary for polite society.  You don’t always need to hear your haircut sucks or you look fat in that outfit.  But this is a problem, too, when you really need to hear the straight dope.  As a startup founder, you need to surround yourself with people who are willing to speak the truth.

You need to talk to investors who won’t grinfuck you, e.g., those who makes intros to a bunch of other investors, instead of telling you why he thinks you’re not fundable. You need advisors like Dan Martell, who challenge whether you got the stuff, or Patrick Vlaskovits, who will kick your ass because you’re spending more time documenting your business canvas then actually outside the building testing your business model.  Truth-telling is why I admire Eric Ries, who is willing to challenge the most fundamental media myths surrounding startups and “visionaries.”

Gravity’s Zipper

You will be exposed.  If your idea isn’t what you’ve built it up to be in your mind, it will eventually fail.  Believe in  yourself, be skeptical of your idea.  Surround yourself with truth tellers.

Comments (15)

By brantcooper, April 28, 2011 11:57 am

Despite Dave McClure’s imploring to “kill a feature” and Eric Ries‘ urging to “cut your product in half, then halve it again,” most startup founders I encounter are trying to work their way toward Product-Market fit by planning and building new features. The analytical mind of an entrepreneur, both engineer and business-side, naturally tends toward solving problems and ostensibly, features solve problems. But it’s the wrong approach for most startups.

Solution-centralism starts in Customer Discovery.

More often than not I encounter surveys that pay scant homage to the problem, usually has a means of filtering respondents. For example, a typical survey asks “do you have this problem” and if so, how appealing do these solutions sound?  Tweaks to the problem description involve messaging more than understanding.  In other words, the startup team focuses on understanding what words resonate with respect to the problem, as if  the problem itself is fully understood.  Interestingly, the problem continues all the way through to asking pricing questions that evoke dubious responses like “would you be willing to pay?” or “how much would you be willing to pay?”  There is no direct connection to value in these questions.

You hear this in elevator pitches all the time, too.  Egocentric pitches assume the features (and even the benefits) make the problem compelling.

In fact, the opposite is true. The willingness to pay depends on the depth of pain (or passion).

One of my favorite Eric Ries quotes:

If you can’t sell magic, you can’t sell your solution.

Nobody cares about your solution.  They care about solving their problems.

Solution-centralism continues in Customer Validation.

Your product is out the door and you have some market signal, but are still searching for Product-Market Shanggri La.  And you have the feature list and engineering spec that is going to get you there.  Everyone does.  You’re one feature away.  Always.  Your iteration loop has an invisible exit gate.

This is the chasm before The Chasm.  This is where you become the anti-Dropbox, a shattered “tip of the spear.” This is where you become unable to answer who you are:

• too many features;
• features people don’t use;
• features across too many market segments;
• features to keep up w/ Jones’ Widget Co.

Stop.  Please.

Problem-centralism Wins

Be a problem expert. In this age of fast development and no IP protection, whoever “owns” the customer, wins.  You own the customer by understanding and solving their problem better than anyone else.  This is why Customer Development, when properly done, is critical to your success.

• When surveying users early on, focus on problem statements before solution.  (FYI, I am working on an application to help with that.)
• Interviews are critical toward establishing empathy.  Emotion indicates resonance and cues you when to dive deeper, rather than going shallow and broad (like surveys).
• Product demonstrations are not for “show and tell,” but rather is this solving the problem (exercising the passion).
• Messaging/positioning around problem lures the unsuspecting and suspicious alike.
• While iterating product toward what resonates, kill features.

Ultimately your addressable market size depends on amount of pain (passion) in the market, i.e., the size of and number of market segments that share a “big enough” pain (or passion).