"If you’re an Idea Person, lock yourself in a room for a couple of months and teach yourself the basics of the relevant technologies. For example, if you’re doing a web app, learn Ruby on Rails. Build something."
Alas, I learned this after my first failed venture. Now I'm a developer and love it.
Note to all awesome business people that think they can kill it if only they had a developer... Go learn to code. At the very least you will learn something to throw under your project management belt. An even better outcome will be that you figure out if the venture is actually worth the trouble- It will happen a lot quicker than if you are trying to manage the idea with another person.
Nine times out of ten, if you find yourself thinking in this pattern, you're making excuses not to start.
Find a way to get started anyway. Do something. Make a mockup out of pieces of paper. Find and talk to potential customers.
There are things you can do now, and they're usually things you really should do before bringing on a developer, or taking investment, or whatever you're blocking yourself with.
If you get to "if only" and stop, you may be in love with the idea of being a successful startup founder, but you're finding excuses to avoid what it means to actually become a startup founder.
You do really get that in every single human pursuit though.
I could be so sucessful with girls only if I had a better pad/ more charisma/ more money / more hair in places it belongs.
99 out of 100 of these things will be just phony excuses, you could frankly do without.
For example with hair, look at this guy:
http://www.absoluteability.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ne...
Hair was really not his problem, and he realized that.
The nightclub analogy is appropriate. The truth is that the idea person isn't even necessary. It's easy enough for two technical co-founders to play that role, the rare exception being an idea person with unique experience in a niche industry.
The idea person who invests a few months in learning a language is infinitely more attractive to a technical type. Nobody wants to be in a partnership, knowing that someone is depending on them 100% to accomplish the overwhelming majority of the work involved.
I don't think two devs can always do what a biz guy and a dev could do.
There are often things that "Business People" will do better by specializing. For example, developing a direct, high-touch sales model. Most devs have little interest in that. So, a business guy is often good to have on the team there.
My personal opinion is that by the time you have a business you want to build, you should already be close to several people who you'd like to work with. The feeling should be mutual. That means building a relationship -- trust, rapport, history, etc. -- before there is any extrinsically motivated need to find and know someone, whether they are technical or otherwise.
I'm sure some people can make things work with a team that is in essence a group of mutually hired guns [1]. I don't think I can succeed in that kind of relationship, and so I actively shun it.
[1] admittedly, I can see how such an arrangement can at times be valuable.
I would sum all of these good thoughts up into one bundle:
A developer will be expected to work their ass off turning ideas into awesome software. If you're not a developer, you must be prepared to bring an equal amount of energy and expertise to the table.
If you can communicate that commitment to your potential developer (technical co-founder), I suspect you'll have a much easier time getting them interested.
The best advice I ever got about how to hire people and fill gaps in your team is to do the job yourself first - this applies to everything, not just tech.
The advantages of this approach are enormous - it helps you understand what you're looking for, helps you evaluate candidates and helps you understand the needs of your own company better than anything else ever could. And you're no longer desperate - you can afford to wait until you've found the best person to work with. It means that when you do start talking to people, they will respect you more because you took the time and effort to work out exactly what it is they do and how valuable they are.
It might even turn out that you don't even need that person, that the company is doing just fine because you worked out you can do it yourself more cost effectively than bringing on someone else.
Develop your skills so you can be the tech co-founder until you can get someone better than you.
The advantages of this approach are enormous - it helps you understand what you're looking for..
That's true, but keep in mind that the disadvantages are relevant too: you lose maybe 10x time doing something you were not supposed/skilled to do, so your time-to-market is way longer AND you're not doing other stuff that are needed (customer/product validation - marketing - fundraising etc..)
What is worse are idea people whose pitch to technical people is "I have this great idea that will revolutionize industry X" and/or "I will take on megacorps X, Y and Z with this idea", and then continue immediately with: "But I cannot tell you anything until you commit and sign an NDA." That's very poor salesmanship, which is the exact opposite of what I need from a non-technical co-founder.
It also tells me straight away that the idea has never left the idea person's head. He hasn't talked with technical people to understand if it's feasible, he hasn't talked with potential customers to understand if his idea is attractive to them and if they're willing to pay for it, and he hasn't pitched to anyone for funding. In fact, he is probably guarding his idea so tightly because he knows that idea alone is all he has to contribute. I have drawers full of those kinds of ideas I could build, I don't need an idea person for that.
If all the idea person brings to the table are things I could do myself with a trivial effort, then they have no value at all. The real value comes from things that are difficult to achieve and take hard work. Like relationships with customers, deep understanding of what is the simplest possible technical solution that will satisfy those customer's needs, and the ability to bring in highly skilled employees, partners and funding.
"I have drawers full of those kinds of ideas I could build, I don't need an idea person for that."
"I could do myself with a trivial effort"
This is ridiculous, you know that?I'm a programmer too but I can't say I have a drawer full of super-mega-awesome ideas.If that were true you would be a billionaire by now.
So how about we stop bragging about it?Because in reality most of us don't have those revolutionary ideas.You know why?Because we overthink it too much.Sometimes an outside mind can see things clearer even if it's not technical.
There are two types of "awesome idea"
1) a truly awesome idea, which if executed properly will lead to me becoming a billionaire
2) a sucky idea that will make me work on a project for two years for pretty much no financial return.
The problem is that nobody knows the way to tell the difference between the two without actually trying to execute. The GP apparently understands this, that's why he only has a drawful of ideas rather than Google. The GP is right to say that creating type 2 ideas is relatively trivial.
Which is not to say that the "ideas" guy might not have a type 1 idea in his pocket, but nobody (including the ideas guy) can actually tell, and the odds are that he has more of a type 2 idea than a type 1 idea.
I agree with you in some points.What I was trying to say is, we should stop the thinking that we, as technical people, have the best ideas and the best thinking and we are the ultimate SELECTORS when it comes to building a team and creating a startup.
Now, I don't know how everyone sees an "idea guy".For example, for me an "idea guy" = someone who is not involved in the startup/business world at all and suddenly comes up with a "brilliant idea" in a domain he does not understand at all.Now, of course I wouldn't work with him.But if a non-tech guy comes to me with a clear idea and he knows his stuff around the product and his familiar with the startup/tech scene, of course I would work with him.What I want from him is not really programming but insane passion, creativity, dedication, hungry to learn anything relevant to his product etc. And let me tell you, I rarely fail with this strategy.But who asks these questions nowadays?Nobody.Everyone is interested if the non-technical guy is a technical guy...No wonder there is so much terror when it comes to these people.
Nice reply Cardeck, echoes my sentiments exactly, in my reply to MGirdleys post.I should have asked you if your interested in being a co-founder lol!! I dont understand why there is so much hostility between tech and idea/biz folk, whose got the bigger b*lls etc
I think being an "idea" person is about knowing the market your going in, understanding your application and development in that market, the sales, finance etc
Remember often what you go onto develop will not be used by tech guys so you also perhaps need an outside looking in perspective...but maybe I'm just saying that as the "idea" person
Most of the time its not the idea which is very unique or world changing, it the execution of the idea which makes it a success. so yes I have drawer full of ideas, and I see them being executed by other in nice ways and becoming successful, but If I would try to do the same idea, I am sure I won't be successful.
Agree++. Want to recruit a technical co-founder? Go vet your precious idea with 100 potential customers, make three pivots and then approach me with what you learned. Then we can have a useful conversation.
What is worse are idea people whose pitch to technical people is "I have this great idea that will revolutionize industry X" and/or "I will take on megacorps X, Y and Z with this idea", and then continue immediately with: "But I cannot tell you anything until you commit and sign an NDA." That's very poor salesmanship, which is the exact opposite of what I need from a non-technical co-founder.
It also tells me straight away that the idea has never left the idea person's head. He hasn't talked with technical people to understand if it's feasible, he hasn't talked with potential customers to understand if his idea is attractive to them and if they're willing to pay for it, and he hasn't pitched to anyone for funding. In fact, he is probably guarding his idea so tightly because he knows that idea alone is all he has to contribute. I have drawers full of those kinds of ideas I could build, I don't need an idea person for that.
If all the idea person brings to the table are things I could do myself with a trivial effort, then they have no value at all. The real value comes from things that are difficult to achieve and take hard work. Like relationships with customers, deep understanding of what is the simplest possible technical solution that will satisfy those customer's needs, and the ability to bring in highly skilled employees, partners and funding.
I've seen this question before, and it always seems to be phrased in a way that implies a) that tech people aren't ideas people, and that b) tech people are just a 'resource' that the 'idea man' (aka. the 'real' founder) owns. As in 'Oh yeah, look at my awesome software. Oh that guy? He's just the one that, you know, wrote it all'.
I think we as techies owe it to ourselves to be flipping this on its head, and asking questions on business sites like "How to find a business cofounder?"
I recently started working in a coworking space full of startups. I occasionally overhear ludicrous conversations where an 'idea' person, with a lame idea, is trying to find a 'tech' person for some piddling share of the equity.
I definitely think there's a huge advantage to being two instead of one, but I also think it should be a balanced one, where both people contribute to expanding an idea, and both truly own the idea, despite who initially started out with it.
Funny that you are in San Antonio. I had the pleasure to work with Richard Ortega @ PickGrapevine. We meet in college and he always had these crazy ideas. While we were building PickGrapevine he would take time to do his own research about the tech stack we choose to use and seem genuinely interested into learning more about development. I wasn't able to say on become one of the founders but Richard went on to become a great CTO in the process ,he picked up some ruby and to my knowledge is doing great with it and the company seems to be doing good.
25 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 57.5 ms ] threadAlas, I learned this after my first failed venture. Now I'm a developer and love it.
Note to all awesome business people that think they can kill it if only they had a developer... Go learn to code. At the very least you will learn something to throw under your project management belt. An even better outcome will be that you figure out if the venture is actually worth the trouble- It will happen a lot quicker than if you are trying to manage the idea with another person.
Nine times out of ten, if you find yourself thinking in this pattern, you're making excuses not to start.
Find a way to get started anyway. Do something. Make a mockup out of pieces of paper. Find and talk to potential customers.
There are things you can do now, and they're usually things you really should do before bringing on a developer, or taking investment, or whatever you're blocking yourself with.
If you get to "if only" and stop, you may be in love with the idea of being a successful startup founder, but you're finding excuses to avoid what it means to actually become a startup founder.
Or a jazz musician. Novelist. Whatever.
this made me laugh!
The idea person who invests a few months in learning a language is infinitely more attractive to a technical type. Nobody wants to be in a partnership, knowing that someone is depending on them 100% to accomplish the overwhelming majority of the work involved.
PS- What's up, Michael. :) ~CJS
There are often things that "Business People" will do better by specializing. For example, developing a direct, high-touch sales model. Most devs have little interest in that. So, a business guy is often good to have on the team there.
(Hey Joey!)
I'm sure some people can make things work with a team that is in essence a group of mutually hired guns [1]. I don't think I can succeed in that kind of relationship, and so I actively shun it.
[1] admittedly, I can see how such an arrangement can at times be valuable.
I think a platform which allows you to work on smaller projects to build up your credibility could be useful.
A developer will be expected to work their ass off turning ideas into awesome software. If you're not a developer, you must be prepared to bring an equal amount of energy and expertise to the table.
If you can communicate that commitment to your potential developer (technical co-founder), I suspect you'll have a much easier time getting them interested.
The advantages of this approach are enormous - it helps you understand what you're looking for, helps you evaluate candidates and helps you understand the needs of your own company better than anything else ever could. And you're no longer desperate - you can afford to wait until you've found the best person to work with. It means that when you do start talking to people, they will respect you more because you took the time and effort to work out exactly what it is they do and how valuable they are.
It might even turn out that you don't even need that person, that the company is doing just fine because you worked out you can do it yourself more cost effectively than bringing on someone else.
Develop your skills so you can be the tech co-founder until you can get someone better than you.
That's true, but keep in mind that the disadvantages are relevant too: you lose maybe 10x time doing something you were not supposed/skilled to do, so your time-to-market is way longer AND you're not doing other stuff that are needed (customer/product validation - marketing - fundraising etc..)
It also tells me straight away that the idea has never left the idea person's head. He hasn't talked with technical people to understand if it's feasible, he hasn't talked with potential customers to understand if his idea is attractive to them and if they're willing to pay for it, and he hasn't pitched to anyone for funding. In fact, he is probably guarding his idea so tightly because he knows that idea alone is all he has to contribute. I have drawers full of those kinds of ideas I could build, I don't need an idea person for that.
If all the idea person brings to the table are things I could do myself with a trivial effort, then they have no value at all. The real value comes from things that are difficult to achieve and take hard work. Like relationships with customers, deep understanding of what is the simplest possible technical solution that will satisfy those customer's needs, and the ability to bring in highly skilled employees, partners and funding.
"I could do myself with a trivial effort"
This is ridiculous, you know that?I'm a programmer too but I can't say I have a drawer full of super-mega-awesome ideas.If that were true you would be a billionaire by now.
So how about we stop bragging about it?Because in reality most of us don't have those revolutionary ideas.You know why?Because we overthink it too much.Sometimes an outside mind can see things clearer even if it's not technical.
Arrogance kills innovation all the time.
The problem is that nobody knows the way to tell the difference between the two without actually trying to execute. The GP apparently understands this, that's why he only has a drawful of ideas rather than Google. The GP is right to say that creating type 2 ideas is relatively trivial.
Which is not to say that the "ideas" guy might not have a type 1 idea in his pocket, but nobody (including the ideas guy) can actually tell, and the odds are that he has more of a type 2 idea than a type 1 idea.
Now, I don't know how everyone sees an "idea guy".For example, for me an "idea guy" = someone who is not involved in the startup/business world at all and suddenly comes up with a "brilliant idea" in a domain he does not understand at all.Now, of course I wouldn't work with him.But if a non-tech guy comes to me with a clear idea and he knows his stuff around the product and his familiar with the startup/tech scene, of course I would work with him.What I want from him is not really programming but insane passion, creativity, dedication, hungry to learn anything relevant to his product etc. And let me tell you, I rarely fail with this strategy.But who asks these questions nowadays?Nobody.Everyone is interested if the non-technical guy is a technical guy...No wonder there is so much terror when it comes to these people.
I think being an "idea" person is about knowing the market your going in, understanding your application and development in that market, the sales, finance etc Remember often what you go onto develop will not be used by tech guys so you also perhaps need an outside looking in perspective...but maybe I'm just saying that as the "idea" person
It also tells me straight away that the idea has never left the idea person's head. He hasn't talked with technical people to understand if it's feasible, he hasn't talked with potential customers to understand if his idea is attractive to them and if they're willing to pay for it, and he hasn't pitched to anyone for funding. In fact, he is probably guarding his idea so tightly because he knows that idea alone is all he has to contribute. I have drawers full of those kinds of ideas I could build, I don't need an idea person for that.
If all the idea person brings to the table are things I could do myself with a trivial effort, then they have no value at all. The real value comes from things that are difficult to achieve and take hard work. Like relationships with customers, deep understanding of what is the simplest possible technical solution that will satisfy those customer's needs, and the ability to bring in highly skilled employees, partners and funding.