This is a great reminder, if you are impulsive, and want to achieve goals quickly. There is another type of developer however: the "perfectionist". Some people, who claim to be "perfectionists" tend to miss deadlines, because the product is not good enough yet. "Perfectionists" (as myself) need another reminder: Don't work on something for too long. It might take 5 years to get it right, but try keeping those deadlines. Release things, even when they are not perfect (whatever that means). [moral: being a perfectionist is just another way of procrastination]
"One’s creation, quite simply, did not exist as art if it was not out there, available for consumption, doing well… to make a difference in the world and a dent in the universe, you had to ship."
Reminds me also of the themes in pg's 'How Not to Die' essay[1]. There will be deadlines missed, mistakes and blind alleys, but if you can 'not die' for five years then you've probably built a solid company.
Right on. Our startup, Wikispaces, will be five in two weeks. I finally have the feeling we've got the flywheel spinning at a good clip: millions of users, thousands of customers, a stable and scalable infrastructure, and actively hiring to grow the business. But it took years and years of hard work to get there.
Everything in a bootstrapped startup takes longer than you want. This for me was and is a constant frustration. It's another reason that having a cofounder is mandatory in my mind. It's a rare person who has the wherewithal to go it alone.
Oh wow, I didn't think I'd stumble across a cofounder of Wikispaces here. We just got Wikispaces 100% up and running at UMass Boston and we've had it for a couple years at UMass Boston's Healey Library. Great product and definitely well improved with time.
I am working on at least 10 different "startups" right now. People think it's too many. It's not focused. But I think the world moves slower than I do, so I work on lots of projects simultaneously. If I hit a wall on one project, I procrastinate with another one.
A lot of people dedicate themselves to one project, but I liken it to putting all one's eggs in one basket. It doesn't take much to build something quick and see if anyone is interested. If they aren't, move on to something else.
You never know when someone might come along who is the missing piece in one of your projects.
I don't know how you get over the fear of being last on everything. I'm working on 3 VERY VERY simple projects right now; calling the 'projects' is almost a stretch, and while I genuinely don't expect any of them to make much (if any) money, I'm trying to get through the 'start everything, complete nothing' mantra that I've apparently been plagued with since relocating to the DC area.
I honestly can't imagine a worse scenario for me, with the particular type of brain plague that I have, so I'd love to hear about them as they are completed (or even as they near completion.)
Indeed. There are lots of things about building a site that require Calendar Time to elapse to see results. SEO results, A/B results, AdWords performance, word-of-mouth spreading.
A lot of that stuff can happen in parallel with development on the site, but it's always nice to have a few other projects to work on to make that Calendar Time tick by a little faster.
That's how I see it too. Right now, I'm waiting on other people on most of the projects and I'm thinking about better interfaces or architectures for some. It helps me to have other things to work on that are productive to distract me from the angst that builds up when I'm waiting on someone else or calendar time like you said.
Something I read a while back said "sleeping on it helps." If you're only working on one thing, then you may be spinning wheels that your brain can do itself when given the right amount of time to evaluate or even discover all the options.
Another reason I can do this is a lack of demands from a timeline. A lot of project die simply because there wasn't enough time to let them evolve or find a market or they were "ahead of their time." That's fine, just be patient and work on something else. If it's a VC backed idea, that's not an option. You can't tell investors, "Hey we're just going to wait right here and see what happens..." But often times that's really the best route to success.
how does this play with the thought that if an idea doesn't find enough traction in 3 months you should move on? i get the impression from investors and startup bootcamps that they want fast results seemingly more than commitment. how many times have we been reminded that startups completely change their ideas? how do we balance flightiness with steadfastness?
"how does this play with the thought that if an idea doesn't find enough traction in 3 months you should move on?"
Depends entirely of your definition of "enough". If anyone pays you only 1$ within 3 months of putting up a "Buy Now" button somewhere, you're onto something --- now grow it if and only if that "something" is what you can bear doing for the next few years to come.
I would say that you need startup metrics from day one. How do you define success?
I feel that most great ideas revolve around a very simple idea. If this simple idea proves itself in a microcosm and this microcosm is a good example of what goes on all around the world, then that's a good sign.
On the other hand, if you're building feature after feature after feature and just not seeing the core idea catch on, then perhaps it's time to pivot.
I think the other thing that entrepreneurs should keep in mind is that while you will need to work hard to succeed, don't neglect your family/friends/health. Success will take time and if you neglect these things, you'll either crash before you succeed or end up in a bad spot.
I've never spent 10 years at a startup, and several were successful. In fact, after 5 years any startup is unrecognizably different from how it started.
Yeah, I have a faint memory of reading about that before Gladwell came out with his book (which I haven't read).
Anyway, putting a number on expertise is purely an academic exercise. The important thing is that it clearly will take a huge effort and "talent" is only a small part of it. The rest is inspiration and transpiration.
If I'm not mistaken, Gladwell uses the term "Expert" when referring to specific skills. I like to think of Entrepreneurship as a conglomerate of opportunity and many skills. Perhaps if a startup was solely dependent on a single(ish) skill like Web Application Development then this would be more applicable but that's obviously not the case.
I agree with persistence but it seems to me that versatility, self awareness and team Chemistry would be more beneficial that attempting to "become an expert"
This idea is really more of a tautology. It takes of-order 10 years time to become an expert at something because this is of-order a human lifetime. There is no objective "Expert" level. "Experts" are just the people who have spent the most time at something (modulo effort and intrinsic skill). Since (1) you can't spend much more than 50 years on something and (2) there are always diminishing returns for time invested, 10 years will get you 90% of the maximum possible skill at almost any pursuit.
The exceptions are, of course, those areas where there are aren't strong diminishing returns (rare...maybe memorization?) or where there is a ceiling on skill (e.g. tic-tac-toe). In those cases, expertise comes with more and less time, respectively.
