Archive for December, 2007

21 Great Questions for Developing New Products

Add comment December 5th, 2007

Taken from “Breakthrough Thinking From Inside the Box” by Kevin Coyne, Patricia Gorman Clifford, and Renee Dye in the December 2007 Harvard Business Review. You can actually skip the article if you are looking for additional insights or elaborations on these very useful questions, it’s actually an attack on the brainstorming process as practiced by large corporations and not relevant for startups. I have numbered the questions to make reference easier.

1. Which customers use or purchase our product in the most unusual way?

Understand that “unusual” is from your perspective not theirs, from their perspective they are using it in a very natural way. Resist the temptation to tell them “you’re using my product wrong!” or attempt to snatch it back out of their hands and instead explore how you might make it even more fit for this “unusual use.”

2. Do any customers need vastly more or less sales and service attention than most.

Alas it’s typically visionary customers who need vastly less sales and service attention (in fact with visionaries it’s frequently the case that the product is bought not sold). One of the key characteristics of visionary customers is their scarcity. Customers who need more sales and service support are typically normal, it’s your sales process, marketing message, product documentation and training materials that are frequently in need of improvement. I’ve met a number of startups over the years who in effect administer an IQ test to prospects (“Let’s see if you can figure out what this is good for and how to use it”) and console themselves with the thought that “our product is not for everyone” or “we need to find smarter prospects.”

3. For which customers are our support costs (e.g. order entry, tracking, customer specific design) either unusually high or low?

Winston Churchill observed that “we shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us.” The same can be true of a startup’s systems. What you are really uncovering with this question, especially if you look at the trend over time of when they were acquired, is how suitable for current and likely customers are our current assumptions about our engagement model.

4. Could we still meet the needs of a significant subset of customers if we stripped 25% of the hard or soft costs out of our products?

For software this is primarily what features can be deleted. And for a startup that has built a “Swiss Army Chainsaw” figuring out the key two or three blades to focus on can be a source of great success as is it can increase quality (much less unnecessary functionality to debug and maintain) and lower barriers to adoption by virtue of a simpler interface.

5. Who spends at least 50% of what our product costs to adapt it to their specific needs?

If you can figure out what features to add or delete, or what customer facing processes to change, you have an opportunity either to increase price (since you are lowering their effective cost) or see a large increase in usage. Adding more end user programmability into interfaces and functionality can also have the effect of lowering the cost to adapt.

6. Who uses our product in ways that we never expected or intended?

This is a variation on #1

7. Who uses our product in surprisingly large quantities?

I think there is a missing element to this question related to ratio of use to headcount or other typically usage drivers. You may have uncovered a new usage driver if your current sales and engagement model predicts a demand of that’s only half or two-thirds of use. This also assumes you have your software instrumented to measure transactions or logins, or other meaningful indicators of use. It may also be that this customer has found a way to get a very high degree of adoption that it would behoove you to understand.

8. What other firms are dealing with the same generic problem as we are but for an entirely different reason? How have they addressed it?

This systematic lateral exploration will often help you spot incipient or emerging competitors as well as potential partners or suppliers.

9. What major breakthroughs in efficiency or effectiveness have we made in our business that could be applied in another industry?

I would be a little cautious on this unless you have folks on your team from that industry or customers with operating experience in the industry. This can easily become unfounded speculation. It’s very possible to achieve a strategic advantage by moving laterally into another industry once your technology is proven, but a lack of knowledge of the details of that industry can also blind you to the unsuitability of your offering.

10. What information about customers and product use is created as a by-product of our business that could be the key to radically improving the economics of another business.

I think this is a dangerous one if it involves sharing customer information without permission. But if your customer intimacy allows you to recommend relevant solutions from other firms that your customers would welcome, then it’s clearly a basis for partnering.

11. What is the biggest hassle of purchasing or using or product?

One that’s frequently overlooked is time to become operational. If you are competing against larger firms that measure installation and bring-up in seasons (i.e. all new purchases have bring up schedules that are at least 90 days) see if you can get a customer functional in less than five working days. Hassle is actually included in your effective price, so if they have to allocate several of their best folks for two months to getting your product deployed and operational, they mentally add the opportunity cost (which is typically a multiple of the salary) of that talent to your price. I can remember walking through the bring-up history at several customers of a complex product with a startup and telling them you have a product you can charge $250K for. Needless to say they didn’t believe me, but when you factored in the opportunity of the talent that their customers had assigned for months to get the product operational they realized they could charge a lot more if they could dramatically reduce the time and effort it took a new customer to become fully operational.

12. What are some examples of ad hoc modifications that customers have made with our product.

This is actually a very good probe question to discern latent or unspoken feature requests.

13. For which current customers is our product least suited and why?

This is a variation on #11 and #12.

14. For what particular occasions is our product least suited?

This is a reframing of #11 and #12.

15. Which customers does our industry prefer not to serve and why?

The two defaults are the least skilled and the ones who pay the least. Clayton Christensen advises in the Innovator’s Dilemma that these two groups are the most likely foothold for a disruptive competitor in your market.

16. Which customers could be major users, if only we could remove one specific barrier that we’ve never previously considered?

You should be able to find example cases in or indicators in your answers to #6, #11, #12, and #13. If you have no customers of that type who are minor users it’s unlikely the category would go from non-users to major users.

17. How would we do things differently if we had perfect information about our buyers, usage, distribution channels, etc..

The other question you always have to ask when considering “perfect information” is “what is the value of perfect information?” There is an upper bound on how much extra customers will pay and how much unmet demand actually exists. Typically the more thoroughly you solve one problem for a customer the more you promote the next constraint as the one they become more willing to pay to solve.

18. How would our product change if we tailored it for every customer?

This is a variant on #17What Component Technologies in Our Products and Process are Most Likely To Be Obsolete?

19. Which technologies embedded in our product have changed the most since the product was last redesigned?

For software this would include assumptions about available memory, processor power, disk space and access, how the customer will interact and access outputs (e.g. moving beyond printouts to web pages to mobile devices). What key assumptions are built into your architectural trade-off analysis that may need to be revisited?

20. Which technologies underlying our production process have changed the most since we last rebuilt our manufacturing and distribution systems.

Another way to frame this is what key assumptions are built into your development processes.

21. Which customers’ needs are shifting more rapidly? What will they be in five years?

Not only needs but demographics. What trends can be discerned in the economic forces acting on your customers and the ecology of your partner and supplier ecosystem?

The checklist is helpful. The main thing to take away is that customer intimacy, and therefore those who are closest to your customers, is a significant source of innovative insight. Looking to adjacent industries for component technologies and methodologies to apply to your current market is another good source of inspiration. Third, assessing the total cost to acquire and own your solution, and any attendant delays and/or risks you impose on your customers, is a good place to hunt for opportunities to add value to your product.

Entrepreneurial Innovation Comes More From Borrowing & Combining Than Invention

Add comment December 4th, 2007

I came across a good quote on innovation and invention in a  2004 article in Fortune Magazine by Harold Evans called “What Drives America’s Greatest Innovators“ (emphasis added)

[The] defining characteristic of the innovator: a determination to bring a brainwave into the bustle of the marketplace. […]

More innovations come from borrowing and combining than simple invention. “I invented nothing new,” Henry Ford said, “I simply assembled into a car discoveries of other men behind whom were centuries of work.” It sounds easy, but it emphasizes another quality more significant than originality: imagination as manifest in the ability to see relationships.

Harold Evans is the author of “They Made America” which was also made into a four hour PBS special.

Finding And Adding People Successfully to Your Startup Team

1 comment December 3rd, 2007

“People” includes finding the following types of team members:

  • co-founders
  • advisors
  • contractors
  • early employees (not co-founders but next 6-12)
  • employees (“real employees”)
  • consultants

The temptation is to get co-founders and early employees who are all coders and then get a contractor or “real employee” who does test/QA but as John Steuart, a partner in the VC firm Claremont Creek pointed out in a recent panel at Startup Epicenter on “Scaling up Your Product Development” the real risk comes from not hiring/attracting two kinds of people:

  1. Prior experience working in a startup that successfully scaled up rapidly.
    You need someone who has successfully negotiated the rapids of high growth and know s how to spot problems very early. You have to consider your infrastructure not to be a robust wooden structure that will creak and groan and flex under stress but more like a glass sculpture that will give very little warning before it shatters under load. You have to have someone listening for the barely perceptible high pitched screech of too much stress before current systems, processes, methodologies collapse.
  2. Marketing & Business Development expertise.
    Size of market, share of market, and price points that the market will support for your offering are typically 10-100X the risk of any development challenge that you face in a new or emerging market.

The key to successfully adding a new person to the team in the early days is to recruit people you already know, have worked with before and had prior shared success with. Or people that other current team members can vouch for based on direct prior work experience.

Why? There is a model of team developed called “Forming Storming Norming Performing” that was originally proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965. Essentially with folks you have already worked with you can either skip the forming/storming phases or move through them (and not get stuck) quickly whereas a new team finds it very hard to avoid a period of poor performance as they learn to work together. And not all teams progress beyond Storming/Norming to actually perform which accounts for a reasonable amount of “infant mortality” in new businesses.

You should prioritize the management hires first. Not absolutely, in the sense that you should hire strong people, against a plan, whenever you find them. But in general it’s a better idea for a couple of reasons

  • They give you more bandwidth for the hiring process.
  • It’s harder to hire folks to work for a manager who is yet to be hired.
  • It’s normally better to let a manager build their team, and they may be able to bring folks with them from prior successful teams. This is not to say that other strong players won’t refer good people as well.

A few bright high energy folks go a long way. A few can energize a team and help you to challenge some basic assumptions (if you will listen to them). But you also need folks with relevant work experience who understand what the company will become if you succeed.

Fred Brooks has noted “adding people to a late software project makes it later.” There are a number of reasons for this, and it’s not always true, but in general you have to budget for new hire orientation and acclimation to the team, as well as the ongoing communication overhead of more people on the team (“many hands make light work” does not always apply to software development). This not only means that they are not as productive during their first few weeks to months but that they also take cycles from other team members in getting oriented. To the extent that you can plan for this by assigning a “buddy” (or having a manager on board first as well) or investing some effort in documenting existing development processes and practices (and maintaining a repository of past decisions, whether it’s a simple e-mail archive or a wiki for specs or a content management system) you will cut the amount of calendar time and “other people” time needed to ensure a new hire is a productive member of the team.

I think you have to plan for a “probationary period” of 3 months where you make sure that a new hire is fit and able to satisfy the minimum requirements for the job (this should be in your offer letter and be reflected in a minimum vesting period for any options). Be more concerned about a misfit around values than a lack of knowledge (unless the person actively mis-represented their experience). The first is not likely to change, the second can be easily remedied if the person is motivated and you and your team are able to invest the time.

Finally, “trust is built over time” and across a series of interactions. Nothing should make the hair stand up on the back of your neck faster than someone you’ve just met saying “trust me.” And vice versa: if you find yourself saying “you’ll just have to trust us” you should consider how to substantiate that you will do what you are committing to. if you don’t have a work history with some shared successes with your potential team member(s) you need to take things one step at a time: create some small shared successes before you take larger risks. Unless you both know someone who can vouch for each of you to the other, and will help you spin up the firm, take things one step at a time and be clear on what you are asking for and what’s in it for the other person.

We Added a Second Idea to Revenue Workshop on January 19, 2008

Add comment December 2nd, 2007

To keep our workshops interactive we limit them to a dozen people. We’ve got two seats left in our Thursday December 6th “Idea to Revenue workshop” so we have added a second one Saturday January 19, 2008. This one will be held at the Moorpark Hotel in San Jose.

We got a number of requests for a Saturday workshop so we’ve obliged. Fenwick is a great venue that we plan to return to in 2008, but we’ve also really enjoyed the ambiance and staff at the Moorpark Hotel and had great experiences there. It’s a little further south but it’s just off 280 at Saratoga and on a Saturday the traffic should be much easier to manage.

These are real workshops for entrepreneurs who want to spend four hours developing a one page plan for 2008. Here is a partial list of the topics we cover:

  • Where Are You, What’s Going On – What’s the Situation
  • Guided Assessment on Software Startup Maturity: we’ve identified about four dozen key milestones that a software startup has to reach to be able to hit not just break even but growth. (Note: raising venture capital is not on the list but customer testimonials and a scalable sales process are).
  • How Did You Get Here? You Have You Done – Core Competencies (it’s not about “latent talents” but “have done, can do.”)
  • What are Your Key Assumptions About Your Startup
  • Turning What You “Intend to Do” next year into “Goals, Strategies, and Metrics”
  • Identifying Your Budget Constraints: Time and Money (in particular managing the tensions between consulting and developing a product).
  • Integrating Situation, Competencies, Goals, Strategies, and Metrics into a one page plan

Update December 3: the December 6 event is now SOLD OUT, no walk-ins will be accepted, there are still seats available for the Saturday January 19, 2008 “Idea to Revenue” workshop.

Three Points About Seeking Investment

2 comments December 1st, 2007

  1. Whenever you are planning to take an investment from someone the calculation you have to make–and that they should agree with–is will you be able to satisfy their return on investment requirements. So, maintaining a certain level of ownership, while very important to you, will matter less to them than how much and when you plan to pay them back.
  2. You also need to be very clear as to why you need the money. In particular, your need to keep the business operating or to be paid a salary are not compelling. It’s best if you can present a plan for accelerating an existing business based on proven success and a clear understanding of the market.
  3. Take careful notice that the terms and conditions that come with a financing (in particular liquidity preferences) and have your own attorney review them. They can often have a much larger impact on how much money you put in your pocket when your (former) business (goes public or) is acquired than the percentage of common stock you own after the first round of financing.

Our focus is on helping teams that are bootstrapping find early customers and early revenue, enabling the possibility that they build a business that deserves investment. So we bring a set of biases to fund raising questions. Four other sources of good information you should consult–in addition to your own attorney–would be

Next Posts


Search

Latest Twitter

"Every guy who has done a successful start-up somehow feels he's therefore become the philosopher-king of business” Jim Manzi

Latest Posts

Calendar

December 2007
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Posts by Month


Most Recent Posts

Posts by Category

Posts by Authors

Syndication