|
|
|
|
|
|
by vinceguidry
3857 days ago
|
|
|
OK, that doesn't answer my question. You're taking different executions of the same idea. Obviously anybody that's been paying attention during the last twenty years or so knows that execution is more important. But how do you vet the idea itself against other ideas? How do you know whether spending your time reinventing search is going to be better than building a new productivity app? You're going to execute the best you can, assuming, again, that you're aware that execution is the biggest factor. How much, if any, effort and validation should go into choosing your idea? |
|
|
Apologies for missing the essence of your question (4 am here...)
I don't have a foolproof algorithm for evaluating single ideas but when I look at a number of ideas side-by-side I go through a number of exercises to figure out which one I'll devote my time to. Some of these are formalized, SWOT analysis for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis which can be useful if not taken religiously, trying to sell others on the idea, simply trying the idea in a limited setting to see if it gains momentum or if I have to push it forward all the time. The better ones tend to stand out.
A really good idea tends to have the 'I can't believe this doesn't exist yet' feel to it, coupled with a word-of-mouth element once it does get implemented, even in the most basic version.