Why you should fail early and fail often - the numbers | Hacker News Reader

Why you should fail early and fail often - the numbers

maximise.dk

21 pointsmixmax18 comments

Currently I'm considering ideas and want to choose one to work on in the following 6 months. And I found that even though I know ideas don't cost a thing, it's crucial to choose a good and promising one, not just start working on a random idea saying "implementation only matters". It seems to me now, that you can almost never know if your project is a success, but you can often tell, if it's a fail. Thus, increasing your chances.

The bottom line is that posts like that create an illusion that no matter what you do, math will make you rich. This is especially untrue, because with each new random project, I assume, your motivation and desire go level down.

You should always, obviously, pick the idea that you believe in the most. Both because it's probably the best (assuming you have good judgement) and because it's the one you will be most motivated to work on.

The reason I wrote the post is that I've seen people hanging on to a project long after it was apparent to everyone else that it wouldn't fly. I've made that mistake myself. I don't want others to make the same mistakes I did if it can be avoided.

And math won't necessarily make you rich - but it might improve your chances :-)

your post here is better rational than the other stuff (although it was all well written).

I think it would be very useful to define processes by which entrepreneurs can better determine if they are hanging on too long. Processes that have more depth than just playing with numbers. Perhaps its simply soliciting more critical feedback from others at key points along the path?

It's a very interesting thought. The problem may be that there aren't really anyone in the vicinity of entrepreneurs that have an interest in saying that it probably won't work out: Investors lose their money, partners lose their partnerships, etc. And friends often tell you you're doing great in an attempt to spur you on.

It might be possible to set up some system that you can judge yourself by. Maybe a quiz that you can take every month that is developed by psychologists, entrepreneurs, and VC's with questions on your progress, motivation, financials, etc. Your score reflects your chances of success, and you can track it from month to month. That way you will see more clearly whether things are going well or to hell. It would be like with small children: If they are your own you don't notice how quickly they grow because you see them every day. People that only see them every month notice right away.

Maybe a simple approach would be an evolution of what people already do with "Ask HN: Rate my startup". But do it later in the game not just when you first launch?

There is certainly enough "distance" between many of the participants here to get open feedback.

one such process is asking the big Q: If I was offered this company for free would I take it?

How about taking the approach of Steve Blanks 'Customer development' about which, there was a thread a few days ago to figure out where one stands?

From the great book "Founders at Work", I had the impression that a common point of success is to persue an idea to a very end, to fully understand its potential, to not accept failure too early, but to accept to modify and even transform it. The model that suggests "Restart with another idea until one works" may therefore lead to abandon projects as failures that are on the way to success.

The people that were so wildly successful that they were featured in founders at work are the ones that made it through the funnel that starts with an guy in a garage and an idea.

If you look at the funnel from the other side you have maybe 10.000 people with a project they think will become the next Apple, yet there's only one Steve Wozniack.

Founders at work is a great book, but it's not a direct recipe for success. The funnel is a one-way street: If you read the book and do exactly like Joe Kraus you won't necessarily end up like Joe Kraus.

Besides a lot of rich and famous people have had many failures before they succeeded. Did you know that Seth Godin did Internet White pages (as a book no less...), the first fax board for the mac, A nationwide game show using 900 numbers, a fundraising company that offered lightbulbs for sale to high school bands among others. According to himself he has had at least 20 serious career-ending failures. (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/10/failure-as-a...)

But it's a fine line...

I agree with your argument that only looking at successful examples without taking into account the failed examples might lead to distorted information and wrong conclusions.

But I critize the simplicity of your model that ignores crucial yet tricky questions like: How long does it take to detect a failure? How can I detect it, which criteria should I use? How to avoid "false positives"? A simple "try and repeat every year"-scheme will most probably lead to 10 failures in 10 years...

I agree with your criticism - it is a simplified model, and models only give a simpified view of the world. As you point out, ideally there are lots and lots of criteria that should be considered, and that probably have a measurable effect.

The big problem is getting the data to do so: You'd have to take some statistically significant amount of projects from the very start (which is where the most interesting part happens in relation to living or dying) and follow them closely until they either die or become successful. It would be an extremely interesting project though.

Keep in mind that most of the stories that FOW relates involve a lot of re-starts. Flickr was originally a game, PayPal was originally a Palm app, etc. The key to persistence is to keep trying for the big-picture goal (becoming a successful entrepreneur); you don't want to keep flogging on an idea that isn't working out.

Of course, knowing when to quit is a skill that takes time and experience (with failure) to cultivate. In some ways, then, it's intriguing that setting an expiration date on your project might be the best strategy for overall success. Try everything for a year, and if it isn't working, try something else.

I've calculated this too (the same round numbers too: 10%, 10 years).

He doesn't mention that you might learn something from each attempt (if you stay in the same industry).

I think your success is (virtually) inevitable - unless there's something that you must learn that you won't learn.

Implying that 10 year's work on a project doesn't increase your odds in the slightest over 1 year's work seems implausible, and it's easy to draw the obvious conclusion - why spend a year on anything? Why not a month, or even a day? Then you get 3650 (+ a couple more for leap years) ideas to try.

Of course spending ten years on a project increases your chances of success, but that's missing the point. What is interesting is that it has to increase by 1000% in relation to starting ten projects in ten years.

I don't think it's missing the point. I brought up the extreme example of switching every day to show that the math is specious.

I think the math works, but the difficult part is what the minimum amount of time needed to know if you're going to succeed or fail. If you knew that, or even in the ballpark you'd have something you could apply. Otherwise it's hard to say if a day or a year is a better measure.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000017.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com