3 ms·

It seems like Daniel is critiquing the tendency to advise entrepreneurial novices to "dive in" and start something. He seems to me to be saying that the just-d

• AznHisoka 15y ago
  I agree. And the skills he listed? Well, they're great and all, but they are implementation skills. Implementation skills alone in a vacuum is useless. You first need to know how to think critically and apply a high level solution to a problem. Things like domain expertise, and exposure to hard problems are what we need first: not the ability to code, design, sell, and definitely not the ability to manage and hire (that's so trivial compared to other things). Learning all those skills will make you great at designing cool things, but not at designing cool things that solve problems people will pay for.
  • swombat 15y ago
    My point is, jumping in with vision and method but zero skills results in pretty much guaranteed failure. On the other hand, if you can acquire the skills while, say, at university, or working for someone else, and then jump in with the method/vision, you'll have a much better chance. The manner in which you decide to implement your vision will necessarily depend on the skills you have. If you're a programmer, you will tend to dive into implementation first. If you're a salesperson, you'll tend to dive into sales first... etc. To maximise your chance, you need a reasonable level of skill in each of those core areas, so that you don't avoid obvious shortcuts just because you don't know anything. Some obvious shortcuts that are often missed by people with limited skills: - building a product for 6 months instead of making a few phone calls and preliminary paper-based demos to validate the demand; - hiring an outsourcing firm to "build your prototype" instead of rolling up your sleeves and doing it yourself; - building an unusable or ugly product instead of using a baseline competence in design to create something reasonably ok... Etc. Reductio ad absurdum: by itself, with no skills, the lean startup method cannot achieve anything. It assumes some skills. The more skills you have that fit into whatever method you've picked, the higher your chances of success. If you don't mind needlessly failing over and over again for years, though, feel free to jump right in with no clue what you're doing.
    • fedd 15y ago
      so, that's why first time entrepreneurs need interested advisors / investors! they will provide some lacking experience / skills. the article is really not that pessimistic! :)
    • danhodgins 15y ago
      The core entrepreneurial skills mentioned in Daniel's article do need to be present in some combination on the founding team. This team could include various blends of founders, advisors, employees, contractors, and directors. Some core skills are orders of magnitude more valuable than others. For instance, raising $100,000 of capital in 1,000 hours is worth exactly $100/hour. Doing entry level marketing coordinator work is worth approximately $18/hour. The higher-impact activity in this context is obvious, especially if getting deals done is the driving force in a founder or co-founder's DNA. Daniel's article is on the money when it comes to creating a list of the core entrepreneurial skills that CAN and should be learned in order to increase the odds of startup success, so let's continue this discussion over the coming weeks.
• evilduck 15y ago
  The only way to practice entrepreneurship, on the other hand, is to start a company. Correct me if I'm totally missing your point, but there are different types of businesses and companies, some of which lend themselves to "entrepreneurial practice" more than others. Sole-proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, S Corps, C Corps, whatever, they get progressively more complex and risky.