3 ms·

My problem with this argument is that it positions an "idea" person as static and fixed in time rather than dynamic and evolving. Over the life time of a startu

My problem with this argument is that it positions an "idea" person as static and fixed in time rather than dynamic and evolving. Over the life time of a startup, the idea becomes less about the initial spark and more about the way things evolve. Data can drive lots of that, for sure, which is why things like lean startup are so valuable. But what about the big decisions about where to go next? What's your next product? What's the behavior that's not working? What have you fundamentally misunderstood about your users? A ton of that comes back to judgement and prioritization of ideas. Lots of great developers have that, but it is a fundamentally different skill.

j_baker 16y ago
I agree with you 100%. Maybe it's better to call them a "concept person" rather than "idea person". Ideas are fleeting. Concepts need to be refined and fleshed out.
apriori 16y ago
I agree with this, and sense some conflation between the terms 'concept' and 'idea' in this argument -- at least so far as it applies to the execution vs. ideas debate. Some seem to believe that the role of ideas in the process of a start-up is limited to the initial concept. But this is like saying that the ideas in a screenplay are limited to those contained in the two sentence 'high concept' that spurred the project, with the execution being the writer's typing and grammar. However, it's not altogether clear just what execution means if it is necessarily divorced from ideas. Aren't all new features, enhancements and marketing campaigns driven by ideas and then carried out by technicians? Or can successful execution be attributed simply to coders writing code? By this view (which, granted, is an exaggeration) success can be achieved by simply filling a room full of contractors and assuming they will work something out. Rather than being at odds, ideas and execution seem more like mutual components of the division of labor: one cannot work without the other, and both are participants of every stage of the process. However, it doesn't follow from this fact that ideas and execution are equally responsible for success. I view a venture's success primarily as a function of consistently applied creativity, imagination and discipline. Luck is a necessary too, but certainly cannot be executed. While I recognize the importance of ideas and technical execution, I would argue that vision and imagination are scarcer, more valuable resources than technical proficiency and practical know how. After all, development needs can be fulfilled by contractors in a pinch, but the same cannot be said for the role of a visionary -- a fact may explain why Apple continues to compensate Jonathan Ives so handsomely when his pay could be used alternatively to hire dozens of young hacker savants and electrical engineers.
- tgflynn 16y ago
  How many highly successful startups have outsourced their development to contractors ? My guess is practically none. I agree with you that ideas are needed throughout the process. In fact one of the points that certain people here seem unable to grasp is that software development is itself a creative activity that requires not only linear logical thinking but also continuous inspiration to find a good path through the solution space. It is not the equivalent of hammering nails to carry out someone else's grand design.

j_baker 16y ago

I agree with you 100%. Maybe it's better to call them a "concept person" rather than "idea person". Ideas are fleeting. Concepts need to be refined and fleshed out.

apriori 16y ago

I agree with this, and sense some conflation between the terms 'concept' and 'idea' in this argument -- at least so far as it applies to the execution vs. ideas debate. Some seem to believe that the role of ideas in the process of a start-up is limited to the initial concept. But this is like saying that the ideas in a screenplay are limited to those contained in the two sentence 'high concept' that spurred the project, with the execution being the writer's typing and grammar. However, it's not altogether clear just what execution means if it is necessarily divorced from ideas. Aren't all new features, enhancements and marketing campaigns driven by ideas and then carried out by technicians? Or can successful execution be attributed simply to coders writing code? By this view (which, granted, is an exaggeration) success can be achieved by simply filling a room full of contractors and assuming they will work something out. Rather than being at odds, ideas and execution seem more like mutual components of the division of labor: one cannot work without the other, and both are participants of every stage of the process. However, it doesn't follow from this fact that ideas and execution are equally responsible for success. I view a venture's success primarily as a function of consistently applied creativity, imagination and discipline. Luck is a necessary too, but certainly cannot be executed. While I recognize the importance of ideas and technical execution, I would argue that vision and imagination are scarcer, more valuable resources than technical proficiency and practical know how. After all, development needs can be fulfilled by contractors in a pinch, but the same cannot be said for the role of a visionary -- a fact may explain why Apple continues to compensate Jonathan Ives so handsomely when his pay could be used alternatively to hire dozens of young hacker savants and electrical engineers.

tgflynn 16y ago
How many highly successful startups have outsourced their development to contractors ? My guess is practically none. I agree with you that ideas are needed throughout the process. In fact one of the points that certain people here seem unable to grasp is that software development is itself a creative activity that requires not only linear logical thinking but also continuous inspiration to find a good path through the solution space. It is not the equivalent of hammering nails to carry out someone else's grand design.