3 ms·

And to reply to your question, the first two projects mostly failed because my partners did not believe in the projects enough and weren't ready to invest the r

And to reply to your question, the first two projects mostly failed because my partners did not believe in the projects enough and weren't ready to invest the required time/energy; maybe it was more envy than profound motivation; idk, cannot speak for them. But I abandoned those too, so they're not the only ones to blame I guess ;-)

JamesBarney 6y ago
My point is only that with those first two projects if you guys had stripped it down then you would have gotten feedback much faster. And if that feedback was negative then you would have been able to move on to the next thing sooner. And if that feedback had been positive it would have provided a lot of motivation for your co-founders.
PeterisP 6y ago
The lack of belief and investment is not the root cause but a symptom - you had a limited budget of motivation and belief, and you ran out of it before getting a MVP. If you had "spent" that very limited motivation-time-runway more sparingly on a more-minimal-MVP, perhaps it would have been sufficient. I.e. I'd suggest looking at the constraints the entirely opposite way around than "weren't ready to invest the required time/energy" - in this equation, you can (and must) change the "requirements" for time/energy, as the time/energy available for the project is your core limitation that you should treat (in the short run) as out of your control, especially as it concerns the time/energy of others before funding. From the classic project management tradeoffs, this is a "limited budget - adjust scope to match" scenario, not "fixed scope - let's see what the budget will be" one.