5 ms·

I still build out everything required to realise the vision, and that usually takes at least months to build. There's an analogy in startups that you should bu

I still build out everything required to realise the vision, and that usually takes at least months to build. There's an analogy in startups that you should build a great skateboard first if your vision is to build a better car, but I just don't agree. If you have a vision for a better car then you need to deliver a better car, not a skateboard, because, well a skateboard just isn't a car. https://blog.crisp.se/2016/01/25/henrikkniberg/making-sense-of-mvp https://blog.crisp.se/2016/01/25/henrikkniberg/making-sense-... If my idea is to create a business for sharing cars, but it's cheaper and quicker to build a business where local kids drive you around on their pushbikes, I just don't see that as being the same. Those who argue for skateboards versus cars would say "well you are solving the problem of rental transport and starting in a practical way". Meh. The other thing I think is important is not to waste the initial attention for your product on something that is not in fact the true vision of what you had in mind. But so far I haven't succeeded so my philosophy can't be given much credence.

heavenlyblue 7y ago
>> They had tried to build similar systems in the past and failed miserably, mainly because of Big Bang thinking. They told me that one of their previous attempts took 7 years from inception to first release. SEVEN YEARS! By then of course everything had changed and the project was a total failure. So this time they wanted to do it differently. Or well... Maybe it's just that they have failed to build a system because the IT industry had been changing incredibly fast at the time. So they built their skateboard, but the government closed the skateboard parks, and everyone jumped ship to rollerblades. And that's how they've spent the full 7 years.
- celticninja 7y ago
  At least agile, whatever it may be to people, has worked well in government/public sector IT projects. If ever a project was going to require many changes in its development lifecycle it's government. No more 7 year projects with no working product at the end. It was common practice to underbid the price to win the contract and rinse it on the change requests.
  - james_s_tayler 7y ago
    It makes perfect sense Agile works a lot better for Government projects. Also probably for agencies too. I'm not 100% on SaaS. Need something more fine-tuned. Call it SaaSGile.
nostrademons 7y ago
In practical startup terms, if your idea is to deliver either a better car or a better skateboard, you've already failed. Both these industries have a century of optimization behind them; even if you did manage to catch up, any useful innovations would be copied by incumbents. Successful startups usually come out of new markets: areas where the environment has changed such that existing product categories or delivery channels no longer match what consumers want to do. You can't really define these as "better" except in the sense of users adopting them rather than existing alternatives: if you could, the existing companies would've done it. Rather than designing a great skateboard or a better car, your goal might be to design the Schweeb, or OneWheel, or Segway, or HyperLoop, or rideshare or scooter rental company. There're still plenty of ways to fail with these, but at least you have a chance of success.
- andrewstuart 7y ago
  The real question is "what, exactly is an MVP?" Some people interpret an MVP almost literally as almost nothing - just a web page that describes the idea and asks for email addresses. Others interpret the MVP as almost nothing, but a "workable" almost nothing - i.e. some code that users can find. After users have found it, the code will be iterated upon until the original vision is realised. The skateboard people interpret an MVP as making a series of easier-to-build similar, broadly analagous products on a path to eventually building the full product that you envision. I interpret the MVP as being the minimum system that completely realises the vision. That might takes months to build. but the point is that when any user sees it, they should understand completely what this thing is meant to be. It doesn't mean the software is complete in every possible way, but it does mean that everything needed to make original vision working and obvious. Speaking to the original post, this takes time and it might take alot of time.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    The vision is irrelevant to the customer. There's an easy way to tell in hindsight whether something was an MVP. Did it get beaten to market by someone who came out with something worse? Then it's not Minimal. Does nobody use it? Then it's not Viable. Do they get bored and move on? Then it's not a Product. Doing this with foresight, so you're the one who actually puts out the MVP for the market and captures it, is significantly harder. Whoever manages to do that ends up rich, so if it were easy, we'd all be rich. But a general rule of thumb is that if the world is moving on and other people are getting rich while you sit there refining your idea, your idea of "Minimal" isn't actually minimal, while if you're continually pumping out ideas that nobody likes, your idea of "Viable" isn't actually viable.
nicklasss 7y ago
I think you are just using the wrong analogy, because the vision is not usually to build something but to achieve something. So the analogy should be something like: If you have a vision for getting people to move from one place to another in a better way, you should build whatever achieve moving people from one place to another in that better way. Getting rid of everything that is not necessary for you to test if you are really getting people from one place to another in a better way. update: typo

heavenlyblue 7y ago

>> They had tried to build similar systems in the past and failed miserably, mainly because of Big Bang thinking. They told me that one of their previous attempts took 7 years from inception to first release. SEVEN YEARS! By then of course everything had changed and the project was a total failure. So this time they wanted to do it differently. Or well... Maybe it's just that they have failed to build a system because the IT industry had been changing incredibly fast at the time. So they built their skateboard, but the government closed the skateboard parks, and everyone jumped ship to rollerblades. And that's how they've spent the full 7 years.

celticninja 7y ago
At least agile, whatever it may be to people, has worked well in government/public sector IT projects. If ever a project was going to require many changes in its development lifecycle it's government. No more 7 year projects with no working product at the end. It was common practice to underbid the price to win the contract and rinse it on the change requests.
- james_s_tayler 7y ago
  It makes perfect sense Agile works a lot better for Government projects. Also probably for agencies too. I'm not 100% on SaaS. Need something more fine-tuned. Call it SaaSGile.

nostrademons 7y ago

In practical startup terms, if your idea is to deliver either a better car or a better skateboard, you've already failed. Both these industries have a century of optimization behind them; even if you did manage to catch up, any useful innovations would be copied by incumbents. Successful startups usually come out of new markets: areas where the environment has changed such that existing product categories or delivery channels no longer match what consumers want to do. You can't really define these as "better" except in the sense of users adopting them rather than existing alternatives: if you could, the existing companies would've done it. Rather than designing a great skateboard or a better car, your goal might be to design the Schweeb, or OneWheel, or Segway, or HyperLoop, or rideshare or scooter rental company. There're still plenty of ways to fail with these, but at least you have a chance of success.

andrewstuart 7y ago
The real question is "what, exactly is an MVP?" Some people interpret an MVP almost literally as almost nothing - just a web page that describes the idea and asks for email addresses. Others interpret the MVP as almost nothing, but a "workable" almost nothing - i.e. some code that users can find. After users have found it, the code will be iterated upon until the original vision is realised. The skateboard people interpret an MVP as making a series of easier-to-build similar, broadly analagous products on a path to eventually building the full product that you envision. I interpret the MVP as being the minimum system that completely realises the vision. That might takes months to build. but the point is that when any user sees it, they should understand completely what this thing is meant to be. It doesn't mean the software is complete in every possible way, but it does mean that everything needed to make original vision working and obvious. Speaking to the original post, this takes time and it might take alot of time.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  The vision is irrelevant to the customer. There's an easy way to tell in hindsight whether something was an MVP. Did it get beaten to market by someone who came out with something worse? Then it's not Minimal. Does nobody use it? Then it's not Viable. Do they get bored and move on? Then it's not a Product. Doing this with foresight, so you're the one who actually puts out the MVP for the market and captures it, is significantly harder. Whoever manages to do that ends up rich, so if it were easy, we'd all be rich. But a general rule of thumb is that if the world is moving on and other people are getting rich while you sit there refining your idea, your idea of "Minimal" isn't actually minimal, while if you're continually pumping out ideas that nobody likes, your idea of "Viable" isn't actually viable.

nicklasss 7y ago

I think you are just using the wrong analogy, because the vision is not usually to build something but to achieve something. So the analogy should be something like: If you have a vision for getting people to move from one place to another in a better way, you should build whatever achieve moving people from one place to another in that better way. Getting rid of everything that is not necessary for you to test if you are really getting people from one place to another in a better way. update: typo