Takeaways from a workshop

Here at the Accelerator, last week we had a workshop by Merrick Furst , a professor and the man behind Flashpoint, an accelerator at Georgia Tech. It was a week long workshop with a mix of lectures, one-one sessions and discussions. Essentially at the end of the week, the workshop attendees (myself included) felt like we had been taken through a journey of product building. I still can't put a label to this workshop and define it.

My notion of building a software product was essentially shattered. Here's how I had gone about product building in the past

Step 1 - Get an idea about building something that you relate to. When me and Gaurav started beetroute, both of us related to the traffic pain point and wanted to do something about it. There was no product in Bangalore that gave us real time traffic updates when we needed. So we said to ourselves we'll build one.

Step 2 - Customer validation and start building. We started telling people about what we are building. Almost everyone instantly resonated with the problem and said they'd use it. Ok, so now we thought we had a market for the product and we started going about building a product and a few months later released an early version. Got a pretty decent response.

Step 3 -  Continue validation and iterate building. We didn't end up doing this but this is the logical next step. Figure out how people are using the product, iterate and build new features that people ask for. Figure out any loopholes and continue iteration. 

So this should be the magic formula for success. Right ? Almost every startupper who's serious about making their startup successful follows this mantra. But then not all startups are successful. The failure rate is alarming. We've all pondered about this and tried to understand why startups fail. Merrick comes at it from a different perspective. What he showed us was quite an eye-opener.

Going back to step 2 - When we start going about customer validation - we start by telling the customer what we are about to do. At this juncture, the customer, gets influenced by what we are saying. So in our case -the statement -  'Hey we are trying to build this traffic application  that'll give you real time traffic updates' , immediately puts the customer in a mode of  'oh that day I felt terrible waiting in the traffic jam. If I had a tool like this, I could've avoided that damn traffic jam'.  This is response no 1.

We talk to 10 such people and almost all of them will give more or less the same response. Then we get excited about the opportunity and start building stuff, release a beta and here's what typically happens. 8 out of those 10 guys use the product once or twice. These are the guys who use the product perhaps because it has come from a friend and their motive is to make the friend feel good, more than determining the usability or the need for the product. Often, we mistake this for customer proof that the product needs. This effect is not just related to friends, the effect multiplies as it hits more friends, friends of friends etc. We then mistake this for the viral effect. The product has gone viral true, but has it gone viral in the intended use ? This is perhaps the reason , many products do not hit or cross the mass adoption tipping point. At this juncture, we founders wonder as to what happened - where did we go wrong. We then start tweaking product features, trying to fix bugs that we think are stopping users from mass adoption and the like.

If we tell a customer or user in advance as to what we are building, it might cloud the user/customer's actual need for the product. The sad part is, even the customer/user is unaware that their actual problem is not surfacing. They are instead excited by the possibility of them using something new and cool, and not by how the product can solve their problem.

So to summarize,  the customer is excited that he gets to try something new and cool, the startup founder is excited to build something new and cool, founder builds this cool new toy, customer uses this cool new toy, only to realize it's not exactly solving his problem, after a few days he either dumps the product or reduces usage. Then the startup founder wonders what the heck happened.

Job at an early stage startup.

I get into conversations with people who have had it with their corporate cushy jobs, and want to venture into some risky areas, aka startups. These are very accomplished people, both technically and otherwise.  Somewhere in their late 20s or early 30s, financially secure and willing to take risks. So they want to join a early stage startup in order to test the waters. Should they ? Let's see.

What's the upside in joining a early stage startup (angel funded/bootsrapped) as an early stage employee

Equity - Doesn't matter for this persona, unless equity >=  5%. Typically early stage employees get around 0.5 - 5% of the employee pool. Assuming a $10 million exit for the startup in 3 years, any equity < 5% is an insignificant chunk.

Other startup perks - Don't really matter. Foosball table, vacations, free lunch etc etc - this persona has already experienced all of this in his/her previous job. Not alluring enough.

Ability to grow quickly and less managerial interference - Possibly, this could be a big draw. Mostly in large organizations, this is a bottleneck that bogs down engineers.

Quality of work - Some technology that is poised to take off very wildly, the so called 'rocket ship' in Eric Schmit's jargon.  This in my opinion is perhaps the most attractive option, possibly trumping everything else. If the technology/product is technically extremely challenging and is poised for a breakthrough in the next 3-5 years, engineers will be drawn like honey bees.

So given these factors, unless a startup offers the quality of work stated above, it's perhaps not worth plunging into this startup as an employee. My argument is that, when you have made up your mind to take risks, why not start a company, instead of joining another startup. The common feedback is that 'No, I don't have ideas'. Quite frankly, this 'idea' concept is a bit overrated. Given enough time to think creatively and brainstorm, ideas will emerge. Given, your technical abilities and the pedigree, angel funding won't be such a big challenge. But look at the upside. The upside is phenomenal.

Let's assume that the startup fails and there is no exit. The upside is still far greater than the upside you'd have had joining an early stage startup. The failed startup experience is a lot more valuable than the early stage startup employee experience. Be it to do another startup, or to go back to the previous employer or to find another job.

What someone's car driving style tells us

Like all men, I'm interested in cars. Not just on the surface, but deep down as well. I was a regular listener to the popular PBS radio program 'Car Talk', so I know the basics about most cars. I also happen to have come across different types of drivers, from the maniacal to the smoothest drivers (you can't even make out when the gear fell into 3rd). We were just having a conversation the other day about hiring people and someone brought up the topic of driving, and how you can assess someone's general qualities by observing their driving style. So I thought of putting some of the correlations here. Again, these are not scientifically proven facts - just my observations.

The obvious:

• Constant honking - The driver lacks patience and doesn't give a shit about others on the road. 
• Keeps hitting the brake at the nth moment - This driver lacks control and can't judge distances. Also thinks that disc brakes are some god given power, so I might as well abuse them to the fullest.
• Can't change gears smoothly - This driver is bad at multitasking. 

The not so obvious:

• Grips the steering wheel like their life depends on it - This show absolute lack of confidence. 
• Doesn't look back completely while reversing - I dont know how to describe this - overconfidence ? Arrogance ?
• Sudden swivels during lane changes - Last minute decision making.
• Right foot constantly moves between Throttle and brake - Can't judge distances and can't maintain uniformity.
• Constantly brakes on winding roads at the curves especially - Too ambitious but doesn't believe in learning and also doesn't believe in keeping the car healthy.

For me, some personalities who possess a majority of these characteristics, are very hard to get along with and it's really really difficult to sit in a car with such personalities behind the wheel. I can't help but think about the Bangalore airport cabbies at this juncture. If there exists an award for the driver with most of the above mentioned qualities they will win it hands down :).

What are you passionate about

This is a question that often comes up during brainstorming or when you are introspecting. What is my passion ? Am I really living life to the fullest ? Am I just wasting my life .. so on and so forth. I have been in similar situations and quite frankly I still haven't been able to answer this question convincingly. I'll be crossing over to the dark side of 'mid 30s' soon and I sometimes think 'damn, will I ever figure out this passion thing'.

While I continue to look for that passion, I have been able to knock of at least a dozen activities/career paths that I'm not passionate about. That's valuable. If I look at my life as a startup, then this is the process of invalidating several hypotheses until I find that one hypothesis that sticks, the one that truly is my passion. During the course of this invalidation process, I have tried out several career options, doing a startup was one of them. I even tried photography. So far, I have invalidated all of them. This was my invalidation process.

Let's say I take up a job/project. There is always an initial high and productivity is at its highest. This typically lasts for 3 - 4 months. After that, at some point in time, procrastination hits. There's some bug that you just don't want to fix. There's a customer who you just don't feel like talking to. This phase, no matter how long it lasts, is perhaps the real test of passion. Do you feel terrible about not fixing the bug. Does it pain you to not take that customer's call. Do you feel bad about not waking up at 6 AM for that golden hour of photography.  Do you take immediate remedial action ? What I've come to understand is this - if you pull off this phase in stride, without actually feeling stressed then you are perhaps passionate about what you are doing.

On the other hand, if you really struggle to wake up knowing that you 'have' to fix the bug, or that your boss might be watching over you, or because of any other external 'fear factors' then perhaps you are not passionate about what you do.

This information is by no means a 'magic bullet' to find the passion in you. I'm just sharing what seemed to work for me.

Startups - technical co-founders

I often get a lot of flak for my bias towards technical founders, while evaluating startups. Most of the times I cannot come up with a convincing answer to this question 'why are you biased towards technical founders'.

Here's my view point - Technical founders (engineers), who are either self taught or college educated, typically have a logical bent of mind. This strong logical and mathematical foundation gives them the ability to tackle almost all aspects of running a startup. What they lack in their fundamentals, they can easily learn and keep learning. This is what makes them very attractive to graduate business schools as well. The very fact that engineers can be very successful MBAs is a testament of this viewpoint.

On the contrary, you don't often find someone with a non-engineering background being able to tackle engineering problems around a startup. Agreed that the rise of web frameworks and the mobile OS ecosystem has blurred the need for such deep rooted logical thinking. That doesn't mean the non-engineers can be very successful in 'building products'.

If I were given a choice to put my odds on two marketing guys starting up a company or two computer science guys starting up the same company, I'd bet my odds on the CS guys - simply because the CS guys can learn the marketing and sales chops much faster than the sales guys can learn the CS chops. While this is debatable, there have to be some really strong points to support that the marketing guys can learn programming and build a product :). I just haven't seen many of them do that. My knowledge is also limited and am still learning.

I've seen my friends who were once engineers build completely unrelated companies - Darter.in and Tapprs.com come to my mind. I haven't seen any photographers who have built software companies :).
So next time, if I come across as strongly opinionated towards tech co-founders, please don't get me wrong.

Startups, mid size and large companies - a comparison

This is a thought reflection on the technology/computer software industry, specifically in Bangalore, India.

Quite often, software engineers ponder as to how to take their careers to the 'next level', either within the same company or by taking up a job in another company. It's a tricky question to answer and most of the times, money/salary becomes a measurable decision factor. However, after making that decision, some of us realize that money in itself is not enough. Company culture, hiring manager qualities - all of these come into play. Unfortunately, there is no generic way of measuring up all of these upfront before joining a company. No matter, how much research we do upfront, some of us end up in shitty jobs. So here's a baseline comparison of the industry to some everyday elements that we Bangloreans can relate to. This is just a parody and nothing else .. no offense meant to any company as such :).

Working in a large services industry is like traveling in a BMTC ordinary city bus. One of those ugly looking beasts on the city roads that chug at 20 kmph. You'll not find a workstation to sit on your date of joining. You'll have to stand in a mile long line for lunch. The organization moves at a snail's pace and you feel uncomfortable all the time. 4 guys are crammed into a cubicle where 2 guys can sit comfortably. You can't maneuver as per your will and wish and have to tread a safe path, always. 

On the plus side, large services companies have the same benefits as these buses - mass movers at a low price. It's a low risk game where in you sacrifice maneuverability for stability and job security.

Working at a good technology startup is like riding a good dual sport motorcycle, something like the BMW F800 GS. You feel great riding the bike, can pretty much travel anywhere on this planet - except for mountains, lakes etc. The organization is like the sport bike - very nimble, agile and super fast. One day you can be traveling on a smooth road, the next day the patch might get so rough and you'll be just wanting to get off the bike and throw it into a deep chasm. Startup life is more or less like this. The group or the 'biker gang' is just so tight knit. To say that the group is ready to die for one another wouldn't be an exaggeration. However this type of a career is not for every one. There's a lot of risk and there's absolutely no such thing as 'stability'. 

Working at a shitty startup - one of those companies which doesn't even want to provide coffee is like traveling on a TVS 50 moped and loading it with a 50kg sack of potatoes. The moped can hardly move, you feel terrible riding this piece of machinery but hey it get's the job done. Do this for a few years and you'll have a broken back. Same analogy applies to the shitty startups. 

Working at a medium size software product company ($500 mil - $10 bln market value) is like cruising in a nice car. You still have the comforts of weather protection and a good group to work with, can cruise at a good speed, can maneuver a bit here and there. Yet there are some limitations - you can't just zip off on a single lane dirt road up a hill. You don't get the whiff of wind on your face as you cruise along, etc. Working at a med size product company is also quite similar - there are some processes that are put in place to keep the checks and balances, there's some bureaucracy to work with - but all in all you are still comfortable and can go a long way.

Working at a large software product company (> $10billion market value) is like traveling in a volvo bus. You have all the comforts that you can ask for- you can drive at a very high speed with a lot of safety net around you. You feel like a king. A good bunch of people to work with, you can form your own little sub groups etc. The comforts are unmatched and so is the pay. Yet, there are limitations - you can't maneuver into difficult terrain easily. You can't make sudden and swift turns. However, you can still mount a dirt bike on the roof or in the back, and take off  where ever you want to - and come back and join the bus later. 

So depending on your nature and your comfort zone you pick the type of company you want to work for. Not everyone is happy in a volvo bus, there are some guys who can live with the limitations of the crappy BMTC city bus or the TVS 50 moped. There are others who would only want a sport bike. There's no harm in experimenting with all of these careers and never settle for one but taking reality into consideration, as we turn old and become the dinosaurs of the industry, we'd all want a volvo bus to travel comfortably.