There’s one “benefit” from running experiments quickly to find out what DOES NOT work:
we remove things from our list of work to do.
In other words, the more (quick) experiments we run, the faster we will narrow down the list of ideas - which makes it both faster and cheaper to actually produce the right product.
The BIG problem is when we don’t INvalidate, but rather focus on VALIDATING, which leads to more work: slower and more expensive…
Oh, there’s the whole another essay on how founders’ love of their ideas incentivize them to play the (ineffective) game of validation.
We can always justify that the next attempt will make the cut. Except the playing field is not level.
And you’re absolutely right, in a big scheme of things it’s slower and more expensive. If we are in the realm of early-stage startups, it’s also deadly, as their runway (and thus, life) is counted in available funds.
While rapid invalidation is statistically smart, founders need rose-colored glasses to maintain momentum. The constant "no's" from validation experiments can shatter those glasses and deplete the vital energy needed for perseverance.
Perhaps the best approach is reframing validation as a creative discovery tool - not just testing if you're right, but uncovering what's truly valid about your perception of the problem you're passionate about solving.
There is, in fact, a delicate balance between feeding oneself from the conviction the idea is a good one and will eventually work and avoiding overconfidence.
I’d say that overconfidence is rather a norm, so a healthy dose of bringing founders back to planet Earth is typically a safe tactic.
You’re right, though, that we want to feed off of founders (or product sponsors) enthusiasm, especially when they aim to solve a problem, and not just find a good problem for a solution that they’re in love with.
Oh, and I’m of course with labeling it creative discovery, or something equally neutral. Teresa Torres’ Continuous Discovery is an established process to do just that. One important bit: we need founders to brace themselves for uncovering paths that don’t work.
There’s one “benefit” from running experiments quickly to find out what DOES NOT work:
we remove things from our list of work to do.
In other words, the more (quick) experiments we run, the faster we will narrow down the list of ideas - which makes it both faster and cheaper to actually produce the right product.
The BIG problem is when we don’t INvalidate, but rather focus on VALIDATING, which leads to more work: slower and more expensive…
Oh, there’s the whole another essay on how founders’ love of their ideas incentivize them to play the (ineffective) game of validation.
We can always justify that the next attempt will make the cut. Except the playing field is not level.
And you’re absolutely right, in a big scheme of things it’s slower and more expensive. If we are in the realm of early-stage startups, it’s also deadly, as their runway (and thus, life) is counted in available funds.
While rapid invalidation is statistically smart, founders need rose-colored glasses to maintain momentum. The constant "no's" from validation experiments can shatter those glasses and deplete the vital energy needed for perseverance.
Perhaps the best approach is reframing validation as a creative discovery tool - not just testing if you're right, but uncovering what's truly valid about your perception of the problem you're passionate about solving.
There is, in fact, a delicate balance between feeding oneself from the conviction the idea is a good one and will eventually work and avoiding overconfidence.
I’d say that overconfidence is rather a norm, so a healthy dose of bringing founders back to planet Earth is typically a safe tactic.
You’re right, though, that we want to feed off of founders (or product sponsors) enthusiasm, especially when they aim to solve a problem, and not just find a good problem for a solution that they’re in love with.
Oh, and I’m of course with labeling it creative discovery, or something equally neutral. Teresa Torres’ Continuous Discovery is an established process to do just that. One important bit: we need founders to brace themselves for uncovering paths that don’t work.
Otherwise they will reduce the odds of making it.
You had me at validation.