I really, really, really hate to be "that guy", but, but...
I think the author of TFA is misunderstanding the idea behind Lean Startup and Customer Development if he thinks "get out of the building" means "go out and find an idea for a startup". Steve Blank states very specifically in The Four Steps To The Epiphany that you start from the idea that the founder has in his head. The "get out of the building" bit means to get out and validate that there is actually a market for the thing you are building, and - if you can't find a market for it - then (and only then) modify the idea or change ideas.
It's totally fine to have your own idea about something new that you think the world needs, and to start building it without any external validation. The mistake that the "lean startup" movement is warning against, is to waste years of time, and millions of dollars, building something that nobody wants. This is why "customer development" runs in parallel with "product development".
So yeah, stay in the building long enough to come up with an idea, build a prototype if you feel the need, then "get out of the building" and show people the alternative to "a faster horse" that you've developed.
This really isn't a binary situation anyway... any successful businesses is going to involve a mix of your own "inside the building" ideas and "outside the building" validation. The goal is to find the right balance. I think Steve Blank and his peers would argue that, in the past, there was too much emphasis on the "inside the building" part and that people waited far too late to "get outside the building". But don't over-interpet that to mean that everything happens "outside the building".
I find the article more subtle, and rooted in much more experience, than you're giving it credit for.
When people talk about the lean theory they often leap from "Don't make something no one wants", which is a truism, to "this theory tells you how to validate what you're building and thus how to make something people want", which is an enormous claim, and they never seem to address the abyss between the two. (It's a bit like the "?" step of the underpants gnomes, or that old physics cartoon where "Then a miracle occurs" appears on a blackboard amidst the equations.) Nate's post does address it. That's why it's interesting. It's a mistake to respond by saying that he must not understand the theory.
It's a mistake to respond by saying that he must not understand the theory.
And I'm not saying he must misunderstand the theory. I'm saying it's a mistake IF "he thinks 'get out of the building' means 'go out and find an idea for a startup'" which is what TFA seems to be saying on at least some level. But I'll allow that I may have interpreted it differently than what the author intended.
Still, when you read this:
I cold emailed the guy to get a meeting to chat about his business. I was hoping I’d discover a problem I could create a new product around.
If you’ve read any of the dozens of books about running a Lean Startup (I’ve read them all), you’d probably call this “getting out of the building”.
... it sure seems to be saying that "get out of the building" directly corresponds to "go out and look for a problem to solve" as opposed to "go out and validate an existing idea".
But there could be some hyperbole in there that I missed on my first read, and it's entirely possible that I took that part too literally.
Edit: I should also say - the author of TFA is showing a transition over time, in his approach, and his learning based on experience (as you note). It might be more accurate for me to say that he may have misunderstood the theory previously, rather than to say that he currently misunderstands it. Certainly I largely agree with the position he takes nearer the end of the article, which is somewhat different than where he started.
I think the big open question, for which there is no easy answer, is something like "how far do you go based solely on scratching your own itch before you do go out and look for external validation"?
The analogy I would have is with one's relationship to body image.
If you are saying to others constantly, "am I pretty?" not only is their feedback never going to be satisfying, it's not accurate because you aren't sure what might actually be wrong with your appearance, and they, being caught in a mix of politeness and low interest, are most likely to say something vague and positive like "you're fine, you look great."
On the other hand, if "looking better" is an internally driven problem, you already have some conceptions of how to proceed and the feedback is just one of several yardsticks - the actions you take being the primary means of tracking progress. But you have to come up with your own strategy to quell your anxiety and find some internal drive. And that's where balance as a person comes in - it stops you from obsessing over the wrong things.
And there's a sort of progression of maturity in understanding how to deal with feedback, too: At first you are too naive to pay attention to feedback. Then you become hyper-aware of it like a teenager. Finally, you've developed your internal systems, so you can use it as a complementary mechanism.
The huge assumption that Nathan makes here is that "problems I have" can always be extended to "problems that a profitable target market has."
You can spend 24 hours a day researching a given topic, sure, but it's still going to take a lot of research to catch up to someone who's been living engrossed in that topic for years and years. I'm reminded of the great comment thread for Storage for Photographers, where the most valuable insights were given by actual photographers saying "Hey, this is what we would absolutely pay money for."(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6020969)
The huge assumption that Nathan makes here is that "problems I have" can always be extended to "problems that a profitable target market has."
You're surely right that that assumption is invalid, but I don't think he is making it. He's saying that if you operate from "problems I have", you're in a much stronger position than if you rely on external feedback alone. Both your point and his can be true. Of course, the two add up to a big problem—but that's because this stuff is hard. There's no system for making it easier.
It's true that the excessive need for external validation kills many startups.
A pattern I've seen over and over (and I fell myself in that trap once) is:
A startup wants to disrupt an industry by making a self-served, SMB targeted product (think Zendesk). But they want external validation. Actually you can understand that: their bank account, their family, their ego want external validation. So they start reaching out to large enterprises. A few of these enterprises become customers and start to dictate the product roadmap. Soon enough, the startup has forgotten its self-served, SMB, disrupting vision and joined the ranks of the old-school vendors it wanted to disrupt.
I might be misunderstanding, but are you implying there is something wrong with that pattern? To me, it's a founders choice, and in my book there is nothing wrong with changing from the original disruptive idea - and selling something else that clients want to buy (enterprise or otherwise). Is it not a better fate than trucking along with a product that doesn't have enough customers to meet its cost base?
When I hear/read people asking for ideas (or bemoaning the lack of one) I get a bit sad. I get sad because ideas come from experience. Not technical experience (although that's a good source too), but life experience. Snowboarding. Working a part time job. Doing Krav Maga. Working for a huge, ugly corporate. Each of these is the source of an awesome idea I have (I have seven that have legs).
Here's one of them. Go talk to a !good! DTP guy at a media company like Ogilvy[1]. Ask him or her about the conflict of interest between the sales guy, the artist, and the DTP guy. And then think about a SaaS job-card workflow system for media houses that uses labels for tagging jobs, tracks changes to EVERYTHING, including hours spent on a job per person and job stage, provides an audit trail, and approvals process. These guys have serious pain. I've got a conceptual architecture I'm happy to share.
[1] I choose Ogilvy in particular for two reasons - first obviously, because I know a good DTP guy at Ogilvy. Second, because they're one of the largest media houses in the world, and still have problems with something as simple as getting a print ad campaign out the door for say, British Airways.
Before I clicked on this article, I had just been thinking about some game design ideas. I figured they weren't worth writing down, that I'd think them up again later if I needed them. Then I read that awesome Mitch Hedberg quote, which is clearly applicable to more than just jokes:
"I sit at my hotel at night, I think of something that’s funny, then I go get a pen and I write it down. Or if the pen’s too far away, I have to convince myself that what I thought of ain’t funny." - Mitch Hedberg
"This weekend I was in front of a TV and people were watching Randy To The Rescue."
Funny use of language there, especially given he goes on to explain the episode and quote from it. I think that means you were watching television. Which is ok! Don't worry! You're allowed to watch television, even shows like Randy to the Rescue. I won't think less of you for it.
Draft is a product that helps you write better. I use it, and it's excellent. There are writers everywhere, and have been throughout history. I'd hardly call that
"problems faced by young single tech-savvy american college graduates with disposable income."
I agree, and see this as a big argument for "getting out of the building" not to look for ideas, and not even to validate existing ideas, but just to live more life.
If you're really skilled at using tech to solve problems, pretty soon you won't have any problems that have much overlap with the vast majority of the human population. It's like a mini-superpower.
So, make an artificial constraint to open your mind a bit, like writers & poets do. Work for free, start from scratch; get out of the building/city/state/country. Do things that are hard for you; you have a better safety net than most people do.
Your problems will still be different from most people's, but you'll pick up new passions, new interests, and you'll find new problems that interest you (which you can develop in the new building for a while, if you like).
Why so many writers do not write a real introduction. Why I should read all the text in order to understand the message? Just write an intro, it is not hard.
If you're going to go from a personal problems position, then it makes sense to try to make personal problems resemble the problems of the system you're trying to approach. Getting a temporary job in the industry you're interested in is a great way to find out what problems it has, IME.
I think the author of TFA is misunderstanding the idea behind Lean Startup and Customer Development if he thinks "get out of the building" means "go out and find an idea for a startup". Steve Blank states very specifically in The Four Steps To The Epiphany that you start from the idea that the founder has in his head. The "get out of the building" bit means to get out and validate that there is actually a market for the thing you are building, and - if you can't find a market for it - then (and only then) modify the idea or change ideas.
It's totally fine to have your own idea about something new that you think the world needs, and to start building it without any external validation. The mistake that the "lean startup" movement is warning against, is to waste years of time, and millions of dollars, building something that nobody wants. This is why "customer development" runs in parallel with "product development".
So yeah, stay in the building long enough to come up with an idea, build a prototype if you feel the need, then "get out of the building" and show people the alternative to "a faster horse" that you've developed.
This really isn't a binary situation anyway... any successful businesses is going to involve a mix of your own "inside the building" ideas and "outside the building" validation. The goal is to find the right balance. I think Steve Blank and his peers would argue that, in the past, there was too much emphasis on the "inside the building" part and that people waited far too late to "get outside the building". But don't over-interpet that to mean that everything happens "outside the building".