

Are Co-Founders in the Same City Really an Advantage to a Start-Up? - shbrown

Most founders will tell you (and it's the stance that Y Combinator takes) that being in the same physical location as your co-founders is critical to success.<p>My co-founder and I seem to work very well at a distance. Frankly, I don't see the advantage to being in the same place.<p>Sure, very occasionally there are things that would go faster if I could draw them on an actual whiteboard instead of a virtual one. But these moments are rare.<p>Basically, I think virtual communication is something you learn how to do. Since we're not in the same location, we're very used to using tools and communication styles that provide the same advantage as being in a room together.<p>And there are many, many advantages for us to start an entirely virtual company. Primarily, when we do have to grow our company we're going to be able to hire the best people in the world (as long as they have a good Internet connection.) This seems like a huge advantage over Google, who can only hire the best people within an hour's drive of Mountain View. It opens up an entire new pool of talent for us.<p>Other advantages:<p>1. No rent for office space and no commute. 
2. We can hone our communications techniques so that we're ready to scale when we inevitably need to have people in multiple cities working together.
3. People get to work in an environment where they're most productive. 
4. We cover more of the world so one of us is usually close to an investor or customer that wants to have an in-person meeting with. 
5. Since we cover more of the world the company as a whole has more perspective.<p>As to arguments on the other side, the only one I can think of is:<p>1. It's easier to communicate, and thus easier to get things done. (But with modern communications devices, e.g. a screen recorder to capture exactly what's going on my system so that the programmer can how I produce the bug, I remain unconvinced that in-person speed of communication is anything more than a slight advantage that is greatly outweighed by the disadvantages of not being an entirely virtual company.)<p>Are there other advantages to in-person interactions that I'm not thinking of?
======
tptacek
YES THIS IS HUGE TRY TO BE IN THE SAME CITY.

Context: I started my company in 2005 from Ann Arbor (which quickly became
Chicago) with 2 partners in NYC. Here's what we learned:

* It is very hard to get funded if you're not all in one place. Also, my previous startup, from '99-'01, relocated everyone as soon as the A round closed.

* All-hands company meetings are very hard to do, because they take the form of interminable phone calls instead of lively back-and-forths.

* Software design debates rapidly turn into a game of telephone.

* It's much harder to guage the mood of the team; we lost 2 people because they were unhappy about stuff that might have been resolved had we caught it earlier.

* Solo founders in far-flung branch offices quickly feel out of the loop, which sets up a bunch of vicious cycles involving security, assertiveness, style, and communication.

We've made it work by growing through it, painfully; we now have so many
people in just two offices that there's a cameraderie and common purpose (I'm
dignifying it, yes). It's still more painful than it would be if we were all
in one place. I haven't said this anywhere but here, but we'd have shipped 9
months ago (as opposed to weeks ago) if we were all together.

The company I worked for between startups --- Arbor Networks (a startup, but I
didn't start it, and I was employee #40something) --- has a business office in
Boston and engineering in A2. This, too, was a debacle. Engineering and
management are "us vs. them" in the best of circumstances.

More points:

* No rent for office space is not necessarily a win. We could all work from home in Chicago. But having an office is great, partly for the same reason some people _like_ wearing suits in NYC --- act the part, be the part, etc.

* People are often wrong about where they're most productive. If people are unproductive in an office culture, you may just have the wrong office culture. In Peopleware, Tom DeMarco lays out a great strategy for a skunkworks-style office to house a product team. Peopleware is excellent, read it!

* You're also missing out on the social aspect. How often can you all go out for dinners? When you have a shitty day and you're all pissed at each other, can you go out for a beer? (A teammate I yelled at once brought in a six pack at 2 in the afternoon, killing the work day and resolving the problem). Yesterday was my block party; everyone in my office showed up. How much cooler would it have been if the NYC crew was there too?

* Some really excellent players simply get lonely working from their home or in a tiny branch office. Some of them know it already and won't consider you. Some of them find out after they join and quit in the middle of a cycle. Obviously lots don't, but why cut your chances at all?

~~~
midnightmonster
For the last few months I've been part of a distributed team of 4-5 members.
First time for me--all my client work has been remote, but It's usually just
me and at most one other person.

I haven't had much trouble working with one other person, like the first
poster modern communication tech does it fine for me. People complain that
physically meeting only scales to as many people as can fit comfortably in a
small conference room, but I'd say meeting electronically doesn't really scale
past 2 or 3.

Even with just a 4-5 member team, all hands meetings are indeed phone calls
that drag on (we're getting a bit better at keeping them brief).

And "software design debates rapidly turn into a game of telephone"--oh yes. I
may be wrong, but I fancy I have an excellent memory for the points and
outcomes of such discussions, and it's endlessly frustrating to me to recap
over and over when the same thing comes up next week, and the week after,
etc.. Actually I don't know if that would be improved by being closer--besides
this, the largest software team I've been on was 3 in person, years ago.

On the other hand, the other four or so members of the team all are on the
west coast and have met--I'm the only one on the east coast. That's a problem
for scheduling meetings sometimes, but I don't feel out of the loop or
insecure. Part of that, no doubt, is that I'm not a founder--just a
contractor. I care about the product as something I've put substantial work
into, but it's not my baby and I'm not worried about someone stealing my baby
away. There are four of us contractors building the product for the two not-
very-technical founders. I guess that's another hot topic.

------
jasonfried
FWIW, David and I worked together 7 time zones apart for 4 years or so before
he finally came to Chicago in 2006.

David wrote the code for Basecamp in Copenhagen and I designed the interface
in Chicago.

The distance was a big advantage to us. It helped us each focus on what we
were good at without too much meddling. When you're close it's real easy to
spend time worrying about stuff that doesn't matter. When you're further apart
you tend to actually focus on the work since that's the only thing you can do.

Your mileage may vary, of course, but that was our experience.

~~~
rantfoil
I would echo these sentiments. Sachin and I worked on Posterous.com remotely
(I was in Mountain View and he was in NYC) for the months before we applied
and were accepted to YC Summer 2008. We could work independently for long
stretches and get large pieces of functionality done fast just over IM.

In fact, we've found this summer in Cambridge that the times we've been really
able to crank out code are the weekends when one of us is traveling and one of
us hangs back at the ranch. Complete control over distractions = gigantic
productivity boost.

------
jimgreer
As the company grows, the extra friction on communications between the two
locations becomes more of a problem. My company, Kongregate, has 10 people in
San Francisco and 5 in Portland, Oregon. We make it work through all the
methods you describe, but the couple of weeks a year when we all gather in the
same place are definitely easier.

~~~
curiousgeorge
I love you guys. Thanks for finding a business model that helps support
independent game developers like whoever wrote that Desktop Tower Defense
game.

------
richesh
You make a good case, but what I fear is that you have not really experienced
working in the same location to really know the "advantages". Its one thing to
hear or read the advantages, but its a whole another thing to actually
experience it.

My co-founder and I tried working remotely, and although productive it is
nothing compare to being in the same room. I finally decided to move to where
he is for 3 months.

(Your Point #1): I sub-leased an apartment and setup shop in the living room
of a 1 bedroom apartment. It's closer to his house so the commute isn't that
bad, since I live here I only pay rent and not a lease on an office.

(#2): Communication techniques for remote work won't come in handy once you
get funding and are asked by the VCs to move to one city. Knowing how well you
work with your co-founder(s) in the same space before funding is very
valuable.

(#3): Working in a productive environment is definitely key, but you have to
make it productive no matter where you are since you are a startup. It could
be a coffee shop if it HAS to be.

(#4): Investors want to meet the entire team, they will be concerned if you
mention "we work remotely."

(#5): No one starts a global company, they start a company that goes global.

It is a strain on finances but its good to do it for 3 months at a time,
specially in summer time because in big cities you can get sub-leases for
short period (furnished).

Good luck!

------
swombat
_1\. It's easier to communicate, and thus easier to get things done. (But with
modern communications devices, e.g. a screen recorder to capture exactly
what's going on my system so that the programmer can how I produce the bug, I
remain unconvinced that in-person speed of communication is anything more than
a slight advantage that is greatly outweighed by the disadvantages of not
being an entirely virtual company.)_

That's easy to under-estimate. The best way I've seen this explained is the
following: imagine that each time you have a question, there's a ten minute
delay to getting an answer. In a start-up, things are constantly shifting, and
the product design will need to shift with them, so chances are you'll have a
lot of questions. If you have, say, 15 (serial) questions a day, that's 2.5
hours of extra waiting time a day, so more than 25% extra time added to the
critical path, roughly. That could make the difference between delivering
within your tight budget and failing to do so.

Even worse is the questions you choose not to ask because it's too much
overhead. Those can cost you abortive work, or cause you to miss out on a cool
idea because you didn't discuss it with your cofounders.

I started my first start-up with a friend in Leicester while I was in London,
and while it's definitely possible, that friend is basically my best friend
that I've known for ten years, and I took trips up to Leicester regularly, and
still we struggled somewhat. Obviously it can be done, but it is an extra
hurdle, and you should be aware of it and spend extra effort to make up for
the downsides.

For my current start-up, I work from home, and we have one developer in
Kansas, but our CEO/product guy is in London too, and I spend a day a week
with him, and that's working alright. We don't have offices, but at least we
have strong communications between the business and tech sides.

Overall, I support the idea of a completely virtual company, and that's the
direction we're trying to take this company in - but you should be fully aware
of the challenges of it. It seems you are, so go for it! Good luck! :-)

------
vaksel
There are always exceptions, if it works for you, more power to ya. Just make
sure it really is best, and not just you making the excuses to yourself to
justify it

------
Mystalic
You're going to have to be together at some point, and if you aren't 100% sure
that will work EARLY, you could be doomed. You need the brainstorming back-
and-forth for new ideas and to see new market challenges. You also aren't
considering the time when you need to hire more employees, all of which you
want corresponding with you and giving you new ideas.

It's also easier if you all are together when times gets tough and motivation
wains.

------
smalter
fundraising is easier if everyone's in the same spot, because raising money
has to do with building relationships and that's best done (perhaps?) with
people local to the team. investors get to know the team, etc, then invest in
them. in the least, this is an obstacle we've faced.

------
morbidkk
for someone who is thinking of what tools available. Here is small list of
webapps for collaboration <http://blog.proto.in/2008/05/28/the-startup-kit-
part-i/>

