

Can software start-ups succeed with non-programmer founder(s)? - NoMoreSnow

Can non-programmers have success at raising money for a software start-up?<p>Also, do you know of any success stories(received more than angel funding) where the founder(s) were not programmers?<p>Thanks,
NoMoreSnow
======
bootload
_"... Can software start-ups succeed with non-programmer founder(s)? ..."_

Well lots of startups succeed already with non-dev founders. But they also
most likely have hackers on the founder team. Could a software startup be
successful with _all_ founders not being programmers, hackers or without the
ability to write code? I imagine not many.

I can't think of any startups without a single programmer/hacker founder,
anyone else?

~~~
NoMoreSnow
I'm not sure whether the effectiveness of the federal contracting model can be
accurately compared against a start-up, but here goes.

My paying job is that of a systems engineer and it is my responsibility to
keep track of meeting customer needs against cost and schedule. This being
said, part of my work is to correctly capture customer needs and then make
sure that the development and environment teams are able to architect and
design according to specs. From a business standpoint, this dual team
environment is effective in that the company for whom I work continues to win
contracts because the customer's needs are met.

I think the arrangement where the founders are not currently developers would
be equally effective as a team of developers as long as they are able to
accurately capture and understand their customer's needs prior to the start of
coding.

~~~
bootload
_"... I think the arrangement where the founders are not currently developers
would be equally effective as a team of developers as long as they are able to
accurately capture and understand their customer's needs prior to the start of
coding. ..."_

I wish all or some customer needs could be fixed at the start of coding but
it's not likely to happen. For a start, exactly "who is a startups customers?"
You can ask them, but you need a demo first. If you build _new products_
(stuff that by definition has not been built before) a constant dialog with
users is required _'at'_ the time of coding and development not before.

 _"... If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for a
better horse. ..."_ ~ <http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Ford>

There is one other problem I can think of. Sometimes the customer is not in
the position to know what is possible. So it's up to the developer(s) to build
something not specified directly by customers. Zenter is an example. In a talk
with Crosby & Walker
([http://www.grid7.com/podpress_trac/feed/178/0/vCast070807_Ze...](http://www.grid7.com/podpress_trac/feed/178/0/vCast070807_Zenter.mp3)
Podcast #24 - Founders of Zenter, 46Mb ) it becomes apparent that in
developing Zenter it was not merely just a copy of MS Powerpoint. It required
knowledge of what existing users require. Then extend it to the Web.
Exploiting the Webs unique properties.

The gap of knowing what customers need (upfront or close to upfront) and
taking a guess where users need now and in the future is what makes startups
"late binding" in needs requirements.

------
rickcecil
I don't know of any examples of successful startups who didn't have at least
one hacker founder, though I hope that changes in the near future.

Neither my partner nor I are programmers--we're both researchers/designers
(certainly not managers!). We're both willing to bootstrap an initial
prototype--and maybe even up through the first phase. We'd like to take on a
tech lead partner, though still wouldn't expect him to do all of the
programming--would want someone to contribute financially and serve as a Tech
Lead.

If there's anything I've learned in all my startup research, it's that if
people tell you something can't be done, it probably can.

As far as VCs finding other programmers to do your project: VC's are in the
investment business, they aren't entrepreneurs themselves. Otherwise, they'd
just be taking all the ideas and implementing them themselves: why share
ownership with anyone when you can pay programmers to build it for you?

Ultimately, I realize that I did not answer your question, but I say go for
it. What have you got to lose?

~~~
NoMoreSnow
I agree with everyone who've said that at least one founder needs to be a
programmer/developer.

The initial technical assessment on the feasibility of an idea or feature is
within the domain of a programmer/developer, but I think it would require a
non-developer to help do the cost/benefit trade-off. The reason for this is
I've worked with so many developers who are excited by a technical solution,
when the cost of it is prohibitive. It may have been the "best" solution, but
it would have been very costly.

I intend to submit my startup idea as part of the YC winter funding event,
even though I do not have a developer on-board yet. It's been hard finding a
developer who is able to take the plunge and sacrifice the security of a
cubicle farm. I have advisors/friends who are developers, but they don't want
to take the risk, despite agreeing with the idea.

Thank you to everyone who have shared their thoughts.

------
omouse
I would say no because the founders would be managers who would have to direct
things. The programmers they hire probably will not be 100% behind the
project.

Non-programmer founders for a software startup can be seen as middlemen. Why
should VCs pay a middleman when they can find any old programmer themselves to
implement the idea?

~~~
jamongkad
I agree with you, but I think you can curve the difficulty level a bit if a
non-hacker founder will devote some of his time to learn how to hack himself.
Then he can have the choice of choosing the technologies he wants for his
startup.

~~~
german
I don't know if all founders must be hackers, I've knew a few hackers with a
lot of experience in programing but with no idea of web design. I really think
Usability and Design matters. Also a startup needs to be changing fast in code
and design, so maybe you need both of them.

~~~
jamongkad
I guess so, what I really want to say is that at least the founder in question
should at least give some effort to try to understand what we the hackers know
so that they can have some sort of common point to agree || disagree on. :-)

------
morselsrule
Constant Contact and Intuit are examples that come to mind. Intuit is
debatable since the programmer was the first hire and was working partly for
equity. For both companies, the founder came out of Bain Consulting. MySpace
might be another example - I don't think their founders were really technical.

------
mikesabat
I'm not sure what you mean by a software business, but I am not a programmer
and I'm starting an Internet company. We are definitely software based and web
2.0.

There is no way that I could start this business without a programmer on
board, but if this company was started solely by hackers it would not be
nearly as good.

~~~
SwellJoe
"but if this company was started solely by hackers it would not be nearly as
good"

Interesting bit of prejudice here. What makes a hacker less capable of doing
whatever it is that non-hackers do? Is it the thick held-together-with-tape
glasses? Maybe the caffeine addiction addled brain?

The neat thing about an all-hacker startup is that hackers can choose NOT to
hack part or all of their time when the job calls for it. A non-hacker doesn't
have the ability to shift gears during the early days of the product to just
work on shipping the damned thing.

I'm a hacker, and have code running on millions of machines world-wide in
numerous Open Source projects, but in our startup today, I predominantly do
not hack. I still spend about 25% of my time hacking, but it's becoming less
every month, as other aspects of the company become more pressing
(marketing/evangelism, money management, support, hiring contractors, design,
etc.). I happen to have a lot of business experience, as well, and I don't
think that J Random Hacker would step right into this kind of position without
some study and work, but to imagine that being an all-hacker company would
lead to it being "not nearly as good" is funny. Hackers are people, generally
smarter than average. Many happen to have other skills and experience outside
of hacking.

I'm just picking on you, of course. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that
there are magical skills that disappear when one becomes a hacker, or that the
hacker mentality is a form of retardation that dramatically negatively impacts
other skills.

~~~
ahsonwardak
SwellJoe - To give the argument a different twist, it's hard for most people
to hold different perspectives beyond their best core ability. For many
hackers, they're so engrossed in it, and for good reason. As you say, they are
smarter than average, and programming affords them the opportunity to execute
their ideas easily. Once you get so good at anything, including hacking or,
more specifically, software development, it becomes hard to think about
usability, design, business development, etc. Then, there arises a need for
systems thinking or other thinkers with different areas of expertise. Would
you agree?

~~~
geebee
<Once you get so good at anything, including hacking or, more specifically,
software development, it becomes hard to think about usability, design,
business development, etc.>

Wow, I really disagree. While some programmers aren't especially good at those
things, I don't think that there's any reason a top hacker couldn't be good at
them. Actually, a good hackers have such a drive to create that they are
forced to deal wth design and usability. They may not like business
development, but if the drive is there, they'll do it.

I will admit to having poor aesthetic ability, though. I do need a designer to
make my interfaces look good. But that's quite different from fundamental
issues in usability and design.

~~~
ahsonwardak
Don't take it just in the context of a hacker/programmer. Think about all
those other professions/occupations/specializations. We tend to zoom in one
specific aspect of accomplishing something. I'm simply hypothesizing that
comes at the expense of seeing the big picture. The best of us are those that
see it from multiple angles and gain multiple specializations. Then again,
they become "jack of all trades, master of none". That's another discussion.
Is that useful?

