2 ms·

Yes, the article was lengthy and a bit all over the place -- but the general negativity towards it in these comments is a bit much. My assumption is that the a

Yes, the article was lengthy and a bit all over the place -- but the general negativity towards it in these comments is a bit much. My assumption is that the author is not a hardcore engineer by trade, but it's apparent that he's got a decent understanding on the inner-workings of an industry we're all a part of (or trying to be a part of). Engineers need to pair with thinkers like Francis. To me, he seems like an amazing compliment to a conservative engineer. Lengthy read? yes. A bit incoherent? Maybe. "A Broscience article targeted at Startups instead of bodybuilders"? No. That's plain "'ignant".

phr4ts 13y ago
"Yes, the article was lengthy and a bit all over the place" - Very true. "author is not a hardcore engineer by trade" - you don't have to be an engineer to value objective reasoning. The lean system is simply the application of basic scientific principles to business. The principles are: 1. Formulate Hypothesis 2. Test Hypothesis 3. Pivot In the book adapt - why success begins from failure, you would get why the word "lean" was chosen. It's because of survival. If you bet the whole farm and your bet is wrong. It's game over. That's why the lean system admonishes that start-ups try small experiments.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
parasubvert 13y ago
Francis claimed he knew the three reasons why Startups really fail and claimed that Startups almost never fail due to "not building something people want". Thats rejecting product/market fit. This contradicts years of advice from people who have been there: Blank, pmarca, Ries, even pg, etc. This requires a heck of a lot more evidence than an incoherent essay for a magazine. Hence, broscience. I also spoke as someone who helped lead a startup past Series B prior to an epic crater. Product/market fit was mistake #1. I could argue Francis' reason #2 played a role in not keeping the corpse animated - we had serious company-building problems, for example. I don't know Francis and don't mean to be cruel, but I had to tell it like it is: I had a flashback to my days reading long screeds on bodybuilding.com. The article was well-intended and had some glimmers of good writing. It just felt like a let down for such a provocative headline, length (time commitment), and that someone with clearly good observational skills seems to miss key gaps in his world view. As Orwell would say, "To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." We all have that struggle, But not all of us write for online magazines :-)

phr4ts 13y ago

"Yes, the article was lengthy and a bit all over the place" - Very true. "author is not a hardcore engineer by trade" - you don't have to be an engineer to value objective reasoning. The lean system is simply the application of basic scientific principles to business. The principles are: 1. Formulate Hypothesis 2. Test Hypothesis 3. Pivot In the book adapt - why success begins from failure, you would get why the word "lean" was chosen. It's because of survival. If you bet the whole farm and your bet is wrong. It's game over. That's why the lean system admonishes that start-ups try small experiments.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

parasubvert 13y ago

Francis claimed he knew the three reasons why Startups really fail and claimed that Startups almost never fail due to "not building something people want". Thats rejecting product/market fit. This contradicts years of advice from people who have been there: Blank, pmarca, Ries, even pg, etc. This requires a heck of a lot more evidence than an incoherent essay for a magazine. Hence, broscience. I also spoke as someone who helped lead a startup past Series B prior to an epic crater. Product/market fit was mistake #1. I could argue Francis' reason #2 played a role in not keeping the corpse animated - we had serious company-building problems, for example. I don't know Francis and don't mean to be cruel, but I had to tell it like it is: I had a flashback to my days reading long screeds on bodybuilding.com. The article was well-intended and had some glimmers of good writing. It just felt like a let down for such a provocative headline, length (time commitment), and that someone with clearly good observational skills seems to miss key gaps in his world view. As Orwell would say, "To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." We all have that struggle, But not all of us write for online magazines :-)