4 ms·

> In contrast with that, in IT most disasters are man made and easily protected against. And yet, few companies do. If I'm competing in a high growth industry

> In contrast with that, in IT most disasters are man made and easily protected against. And yet, few companies do. If I'm competing in a high growth industry against somebody who is busy planning for the worst, I'll move twice as fast and put them out of business before their plan can matter.

snovv_crash 9y ago
Only if it is a winner takes all industry, and only if nothing bad happens before they go out of business. Lots of industries have clients that actually care about the robustness of their service providers as well; if in the future, once something invariably does go wrong, you have effectively just signed your own death warrant if you can't recover quickly enough.
jacquesm 9y ago
> I'll move twice as fast and put them out of business before their plan can matter. Yes, maybe. Or you'll be put out of business because you did not have a plan. You could attempt to justify your stance by saying that in the growth phase of the company nothing else matters but the reality is that you can't really retro-fit the attitude and set-up that your future company will require once you get there if you didn't do this from the beginning. See, you can overdo anything, including security and contingency planning. But that isn't what this is about. It's about knowing that you are taking a conscious risk, knowing what the consequences could be and knowing that if those risks do materialize what you will do. If some of those paths end with 'game over' then so be it. But there is no excuse for not knowing and it is exactly those things that you did not know about that will kill you. So much good luck with moving twice as fast, headlong into a wall that you could have seen coming.
- thesmallestcat 9y ago
  I could attempt to justify my stance? Thanks, jacquesm, you are truly magnanimous. To be clear, I'm saying that no risk outweighs slow growth in a high growth industry. Nothing is more likely to kill your business than standing still. So I'll enjoy hurtling towards walls, and shoot for nine nines after securing funding over my competitor, etc.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > I could attempt to justify my stance? Thanks, jacquesm, you are truly magnanimous. No need for personal attacks, this is exactly the attitude that you displayed two comments up thread. > To be clear, I'm saying that no risk outweighs slow growth in a high growth industry. Very very few of us will ever be in a position where this is the reality and for those of us who are the decision still has to be a conscious one. > Nothing is more likely to kill your business than standing still. That just isn't true. I've seen tons of businesses fail, the majority of the causes of death can be attributed to: - founder conflicts - product / market fit issues - wishful thinking - bad financial planning - wrong investors - sloppy execution - existential IT issues I've yet to come across a single business that was killed by 'slow growth' in isolation, usually slow growth is an indicator something else is amiss. > So I'll enjoy hurtling towards walls, and shoot for nine nines after securing funding over my competitor, etc. Why would you change your stance after securing funding? After all, growth matters even more after securing funding than it does before.
    - thesmallestcat 9y ago
      You went quote-for-quote, per sentence, bravo, you are truly in fine form today. I await the next political thread eagerly. I'll let you enjoy your reductionism in private, what a waste of time.
      - sctb 9y ago
        I don't think this is up to the standard of civil discourse here. Can we please try not to be so rude to one another?
        3298293 9y ago
        Strange that always jm is involved and not flagged, isn't it?
    - MBCook 9y ago
      How many businesses are one back-up failure away from losing all their customers? So many people don't even TEST them until it's needed, and just hope they've done it correctly.
stephengillie 9y ago
Contingencies are a type of Plan B. And when you put energy into your Plan B, you rob energy from your Plan A.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  What if the plan b is needed? How are tech companies with data in the hurricane doing right this second? That really depends on their planning doesn't it? Or put another way, a good Plan B puts makes your Plan A possible in some situation that would otherwise mean failure.
Applejinx 9y ago
And this is why Silicon Valley isn't always trusted. Yes, you probably can, and more often than not your gamble will work. You'll move fast and disrupt and break stuff and odds are you can even say, up front, 'I'm moving fast to give you more without that boring planning stuff!' and may still be able to put the other guys out of business: depends on how well they handle it, and how hard you can push. And then the natural disaster strikes and you're moving fast again, to make an insurance claim (or get out of town!) and the people who in turn gambled on you, are boned. Perhaps very catastrophically boned. And it's their fault, because let's say they were told up front that it was a gamble. But people are dumb. And you can put a lot of more responsible community oriented business-operators out of business before their planning matters, because people are dumb. Depending on what you do (taco stands? Hospitals? Building dams and bridges?), your very Silicon Valley approach could be anything from colorful to criminal. I will hope the bridges I drive on are 'planned for the worst'. But there's only the inertia of social expectation, and whatever exists in terms of enforceable legislation and policing, to ensure that. And you can always violate legislation as part of your 'move faster' strategy, and expect to just deal with it somehow later. So that leaves only the inertia of social expectation.
- FooHentai 9y ago
  DM;SV Didn't matter; Still vested.
bsder 9y ago
On the receiving end, unbelievably successful and unmitigated disaster look pretty much the same. :)

snovv_crash 9y ago

Only if it is a winner takes all industry, and only if nothing bad happens before they go out of business. Lots of industries have clients that actually care about the robustness of their service providers as well; if in the future, once something invariably does go wrong, you have effectively just signed your own death warrant if you can't recover quickly enough.

jacquesm 9y ago

> I'll move twice as fast and put them out of business before their plan can matter. Yes, maybe. Or you'll be put out of business because you did not have a plan. You could attempt to justify your stance by saying that in the growth phase of the company nothing else matters but the reality is that you can't really retro-fit the attitude and set-up that your future company will require once you get there if you didn't do this from the beginning. See, you can overdo anything, including security and contingency planning. But that isn't what this is about. It's about knowing that you are taking a conscious risk, knowing what the consequences could be and knowing that if those risks do materialize what you will do. If some of those paths end with 'game over' then so be it. But there is no excuse for not knowing and it is exactly those things that you did not know about that will kill you. So much good luck with moving twice as fast, headlong into a wall that you could have seen coming.

thesmallestcat 9y ago
I could attempt to justify my stance? Thanks, jacquesm, you are truly magnanimous. To be clear, I'm saying that no risk outweighs slow growth in a high growth industry. Nothing is more likely to kill your business than standing still. So I'll enjoy hurtling towards walls, and shoot for nine nines after securing funding over my competitor, etc.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > I could attempt to justify my stance? Thanks, jacquesm, you are truly magnanimous. No need for personal attacks, this is exactly the attitude that you displayed two comments up thread. > To be clear, I'm saying that no risk outweighs slow growth in a high growth industry. Very very few of us will ever be in a position where this is the reality and for those of us who are the decision still has to be a conscious one. > Nothing is more likely to kill your business than standing still. That just isn't true. I've seen tons of businesses fail, the majority of the causes of death can be attributed to: - founder conflicts - product / market fit issues - wishful thinking - bad financial planning - wrong investors - sloppy execution - existential IT issues I've yet to come across a single business that was killed by 'slow growth' in isolation, usually slow growth is an indicator something else is amiss. > So I'll enjoy hurtling towards walls, and shoot for nine nines after securing funding over my competitor, etc. Why would you change your stance after securing funding? After all, growth matters even more after securing funding than it does before.
  - thesmallestcat 9y ago
    You went quote-for-quote, per sentence, bravo, you are truly in fine form today. I await the next political thread eagerly. I'll let you enjoy your reductionism in private, what a waste of time.
    - sctb 9y ago
      I don't think this is up to the standard of civil discourse here. Can we please try not to be so rude to one another?
      - 3298293 9y ago
        Strange that always jm is involved and not flagged, isn't it?
  - MBCook 9y ago
    How many businesses are one back-up failure away from losing all their customers? So many people don't even TEST them until it's needed, and just hope they've done it correctly.

stephengillie 9y ago

Contingencies are a type of Plan B. And when you put energy into your Plan B, you rob energy from your Plan A.

sqeaky 9y ago
What if the plan b is needed? How are tech companies with data in the hurricane doing right this second? That really depends on their planning doesn't it? Or put another way, a good Plan B puts makes your Plan A possible in some situation that would otherwise mean failure.

Applejinx 9y ago

And this is why Silicon Valley isn't always trusted. Yes, you probably can, and more often than not your gamble will work. You'll move fast and disrupt and break stuff and odds are you can even say, up front, 'I'm moving fast to give you more without that boring planning stuff!' and may still be able to put the other guys out of business: depends on how well they handle it, and how hard you can push. And then the natural disaster strikes and you're moving fast again, to make an insurance claim (or get out of town!) and the people who in turn gambled on you, are boned. Perhaps very catastrophically boned. And it's their fault, because let's say they were told up front that it was a gamble. But people are dumb. And you can put a lot of more responsible community oriented business-operators out of business before their planning matters, because people are dumb. Depending on what you do (taco stands? Hospitals? Building dams and bridges?), your very Silicon Valley approach could be anything from colorful to criminal. I will hope the bridges I drive on are 'planned for the worst'. But there's only the inertia of social expectation, and whatever exists in terms of enforceable legislation and policing, to ensure that. And you can always violate legislation as part of your 'move faster' strategy, and expect to just deal with it somehow later. So that leaves only the inertia of social expectation.

FooHentai 9y ago
DM;SV Didn't matter; Still vested.

bsder 9y ago

On the receiving end, unbelievably successful and unmitigated disaster look pretty much the same. :)