

Stay in the Building - nate
http://ninjasandrobots.com/what-people-really-want/

======
mindcrime
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".

~~~
gruseom
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.

~~~
mindcrime
_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"?

------
jmduke
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6020969))

~~~
gruseom
_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.

------
alxbrun
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.

~~~
majc2
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?

------
Spearchucker
It's as mindcrime says.

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.

------
unoti
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

------
samd
"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.

------
jacalata
This is how silicon valley ends up working entirely on problems faced by young
single tech-savvy american college graduates with disposable income.

~~~
kunle
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."

~~~
stevewilhelm
But I suspect the "writers" market is a relatively small and spends very
little on tools and services.

------
6d0debc071
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.

------
darkhorn
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.

