4 ms·

Solutions in search of a problem (SISP) are not necessarily tied to low interest rates. What might be tied to them is that companies with such solutions live l

Solutions in search of a problem (SISP) are not necessarily tied to low interest rates. What might be tied to them is that companies with such solutions live longer because money is cheap. However, if you never make money, noone will give you money either. I think SISPs are a typical problem for tech-savy founders who think some kind of solution is really cool, because it solves them a problem. The problem however was never real. Engineers just tend to automate things that they have to do once a year and takes them about 1h. Automating it, is just more fun than actually doing it. Even worse with university spin off. They almost always start with a technology that solves problem thought of in research proposals.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> takes them about 1h. Automating it, is just more fun than actually doing it. Spot on. The joy of technological skill, being a programmer and engineer is that you can customise, reconfigure and shape the world in front of you. Other people see you playing and having fun, and say; "Hey, can you do that for me?" What was just scratching an itch becomes something others want to universalise. And that doesn't always work. > almost always start with a technology that solves problem thought of > in research proposals. Such proposals are often desperately scraping the barrel for ideas. Anything that combines grant-worthy buzzwords in a barely coherent way is fit for the game. > The problem however was never real. The tragedy is that the problems become real. Otherwise intelligent people see a bunch of PhDs frobicating widgets, and a bunch of wealthy investors throwing money at them. They read the self-affirming press reports on the research and the marketing hype about how Widgifrob PLC are the hottest new thing. Suddenly everyone has a widget that needs frobnicating. Low interest + easy capital + bloated academic research machine = new problems. It's a problem creation machine.
- Shinmon 4y ago
  Research proposals are not supposed to necessarily solve current real-life problems so there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But given the amount of startups coming out of universities, the mindset is crazily wrong. So many people coming with a technology. If it's software you can at least pivot easily but if you got some kind of hardware technology, it becomes much less simple to do that. > Low interest + easy capital + bloated academic research machine = new problems. It's a problem creation machine. Not sure if I understand you correctly, but academy seems to be more of a solution creation machine without real problem solving. Problem solving as in someone will pay to get rid of the problem because it happens frequently and costs a lot of money each time.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    > > It's a problem creation machine. > Not sure if I understand you correctly It is hopefully not an obtuse point but allow me to explain it with a story; Teenage girl has a beauty spot. Her parents tell her it's a princess spot. Boys think its cute. She's happy. Some mean bitches tell her it's ugly and probably skin cancer. Now it's a problem. Nothing in reality had changed of course. And that's how solutions looking for problems go about the world creating new problems. It's in their interest to.
    - Shinmon 4y ago
      Ah ok, I see. I did not understand you correctly and I fully agree with you. Thanks for clarifying.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> takes them about 1h. Automating it, is just more fun than actually doing it. Spot on. The joy of technological skill, being a programmer and engineer is that you can customise, reconfigure and shape the world in front of you. Other people see you playing and having fun, and say; "Hey, can you do that for me?" What was just scratching an itch becomes something others want to universalise. And that doesn't always work. > almost always start with a technology that solves problem thought of > in research proposals. Such proposals are often desperately scraping the barrel for ideas. Anything that combines grant-worthy buzzwords in a barely coherent way is fit for the game. > The problem however was never real. The tragedy is that the problems become real. Otherwise intelligent people see a bunch of PhDs frobicating widgets, and a bunch of wealthy investors throwing money at them. They read the self-affirming press reports on the research and the marketing hype about how Widgifrob PLC are the hottest new thing. Suddenly everyone has a widget that needs frobnicating. Low interest + easy capital + bloated academic research machine = new problems. It's a problem creation machine.

Shinmon 4y ago
Research proposals are not supposed to necessarily solve current real-life problems so there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But given the amount of startups coming out of universities, the mindset is crazily wrong. So many people coming with a technology. If it's software you can at least pivot easily but if you got some kind of hardware technology, it becomes much less simple to do that. > Low interest + easy capital + bloated academic research machine = new problems. It's a problem creation machine. Not sure if I understand you correctly, but academy seems to be more of a solution creation machine without real problem solving. Problem solving as in someone will pay to get rid of the problem because it happens frequently and costs a lot of money each time.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > > It's a problem creation machine. > Not sure if I understand you correctly It is hopefully not an obtuse point but allow me to explain it with a story; Teenage girl has a beauty spot. Her parents tell her it's a princess spot. Boys think its cute. She's happy. Some mean bitches tell her it's ugly and probably skin cancer. Now it's a problem. Nothing in reality had changed of course. And that's how solutions looking for problems go about the world creating new problems. It's in their interest to.
  - Shinmon 4y ago
    Ah ok, I see. I did not understand you correctly and I fully agree with you. Thanks for clarifying.