Start-ups done bad
The new dogma for an entrepreneurial start-up is:
- get it up quickly
- close enough is good enough
- test
- feedback
- iterate
- pivot, or - prove the concept (Even VC is going that way - ala 500 Startups)
Is this really how entrepreneurship should work? Just because it can?
Most writing about start-ups references the Valley and equivalent places where the focus is on tech- and web start-ups. Of course these are not the only types of start-up.
It seems as if the philosophy that underpins the ‘do the quick and dirty and figure out as you go along’ works well in the digital space - because it can be done without great time penalty.
There are two problems with this.
It does not work for all types of start-up. E.g. in the B2B space it could spell disaster. Or imagine if a hardware start-up, selling say smoke detectors, decided to suck-and-see?
The UNINTENDED consequences of this approach is not (the desired) creation of a culture of rapid innovation, but rather one where risk is not considered and thoughtful planning and great execution are sacrificed at the alter of expediency.
Just because it works - or has worked - for so many of the current crop of start-ups, does not mean it is the right thing. If that is the way they all do it then cause (suck-and-see) and effect (success) do not necessarily follow because there is nothing to compare it too.
Hunting start-up success with a shotgun is one approach. I am just not sure if it is the one I prefer.