|
|
|
|
|
by 9oliYQjP
5380 days ago
|
|
The jury is still out on whether Lean is a model that "works", that term being defined by most entrepreneurs as letting them succeed. I have absolutely no doubt that Lean works as a model for revealing "truth" as Eric Ries claims. Here's the alarming thing that the book suggests: that we are all scientists trying to reveal market insights. Some of us manage to find out that our hypothesis was true and we are rewarded. Some of us disprove a hypothesis, which is a perfectly scientifically admirable thing to do, but we are penalized for it. 100 years from now, will people laugh at how our society was naive enough to let entrepreneurs who fail go personally bankrupt in some cases? Will they even consider revealing market truths to be failure? I'm guessing that 100 years from now we'll have reached a point where these things are true: 1. We won't see so many half-baked products get to market (e.g., Blackberry Playbook) because conventional wisdom by then will have prevented those kinds of products from getting as far along in the product development stage as they do now without having fundamental assumptions about them get validated earlier on. 2. There will be a market that rewards entrepreneurs for revealing insight into their "failures" because these failures provide truths about the market and are just as equally applicable as truths about the market that validate assumptions. |
|
If your startup operates on the assumption that your vision is flawless, you're not causing your vision to be less uncertain by refusing to notice the risk.
You're shooting the messenger. You've conflated trying to measure whether a strategy is flawed with causing it to be flawed. Pull your head out of the sand. It is not the fault of the book that people who have flawed ideas won't get rich without fixing their ideas.