4 ms·
I assume you’re referring to particular kinds of knowledge and particular kinds of attitude, but you do leave this ambiguous. Most “know-how” technical knowled
by zamfi 4y ago
I assume you’re referring to particular kinds of knowledge and particular kinds of attitude, but you do leave this ambiguous.
Most “know-how” technical knowledge—what I assume you’re referring to—is like having a set of solid well-known tools in a toolbox. Useful, but you still need to figure out what to use those tools to do.
Many highly-educated people believe they can think their way into a business, in the style of “build it and they will come” — not a useful attitude.
Instead, try “how can I figure out what people’s real problems are, problems they’re willing to pay to have solved” — a more useful attitude. It requires you to talk to people, find problems, and only then bring your existing technical toolbox to bear in prototyping, etc.
Credentials and a network can get you in the door, to reach those people with problems and enough money to pay someone to solve them. Having your own money gives you more retries.
Money and a network also let you hire people with their own toolboxes, changing what tools your personal toolbox needs to contain.
A toolbox alone, without the knowledge of what to build, is just a box full of junk — or worse, full of shiny toys that distract you from creating value.
Attitude and knowledge are complementary.
- kjellsbells 4y agoI think this should be required reading for people at so called "engineering led" companies. When I hear that phrase, my experience tells me that products come out of neat insights or tech work in engineering, and not because of an identification of unmet need in the market. Ive seen too many cases where leaders took some really cool stuff that engineering came up with, built a product around it, and then were scratching their heads when it painfully ground its way to a distant 2nd or 3rd place in the market.