Musings on Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Saturday, September 30, 2006Hack Something Together
Somehow I missed Paul Graham's essay, The Power of the Marginal, so thanks to the Innovation Weblog for pointing it out. In particular, I appreciate Graham's observations on the importance of hacking:
If I had to condense the power of the marginal into one sentence it would be: just try hacking something together...the result won't be pretty, because it will be made quickly out of inadequate materials. It may work, but it won't be the sort of thing the eminent would want to put their name on. Something hacked together means something that barely solves the problem, or maybe doesn't solve the problem at all, but another you discovered en route. But that's ok, because the main value that initial version is not the thing itself, but what it leads to. Insiders who daren't walk through the mud in their nice clothes will never make it to the solid ground on the other side...[spend] less time worrying and more time building. If you're not sure what to do, make something.
Many, possibly most, of us desire acknowledgement of our competence by the eminent. In other words, being an insider is appealing. But, Graham notes the advantages of the outsider:
Even in a field with honest tests, there are still advantages of being an outsider. The most obvious is that outsiders have nothing to lose. They can do risky things, and if they fail, so what? Few will even notice...Being able to take risks is hugely valuable...No one wants to look like a fool. But it's very useful to be able to. If most of your ideas aren't stupid, you're probably being too conservative. You're not bracketing the problem.
He goes on to observe:
The really juicy new approaches are not the ones insiders reject as impossible, but those they ignore as undignified. For example, after [Steve] Wozniak designed the Apple II he offered it first to his employer, HP. They passed. One of the reasons was that, to save money, he'd designed the Apple II to use a TV as a monitor, and HP felt they couldn't produce anything so declasse.
We at EIP love to hear stories from consumers that have the following plot line: "I have been doing ___ for years, and I've been frustrated with my inability to do _____. So, I hacked together this works-like prototype out of materials purchased at Home Depot and I tried it out. Then I showed it to ___ others I thought may be able to use it. They told me ____ was great - it really represents a big improvement, but _____ and _____ really needed some work. How might you guys be able to help?"
Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, our answer will be "We can't help." And, for every 10 projects that we take on, we expect a majority to fail as commercial products*. But, a little failure doesn't scare us (too much), and our sense of dignity isn't easily offended. After all, our days as insiders have passed (though we remain connected with insiders), and our business is all about taking medium-to-long jumps across the fitness landscape in order to share the benefit of rare but potentially large market rewards. Nevertheless, we're more likely to take the plunge when we think we're partnering with an inventor who cherishes her role as an outside source of divergent thinking, appreciates and accepts the market's role as a selection mechanism, and acknowledges the critical role of the insider and investors in marshalling the resources necessary to replicate the product to the degree necessary for commercial success.
*Of course, we expect each and every project in which we invest to succeed. Otherwise, we wouldn't bother. But, we know that the necessary convergence of product performance and cost, value proposition, IP, and business model requires a healthy dose of luck, no matter how well we and our collaborators execute our roles.
