
Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out – The Startup Genome Project - TristanKromer
http://steveblank.com/2011/05/29/tune-in-turn-on-drop-out-the-startup-genome-project/
======
ced
I don't mean to be too harsh on a well-intended project, but the startup
genome reminds me of Feynman's _Cargo Cult Science_ :

 _In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen
now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the
sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two
wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like
antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land.
They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way
it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these
things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and
forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential,
because the planes don't land._

[http://www.gasresources.net/Cargo%20Cult%20Science%20-%20by%...](http://www.gasresources.net/Cargo%20Cult%20Science%20-%20by%20Richard%20Feynman.htm)

There's a reason why scientists use controlled studies to disentangle causal
effects from mere correlation. I'm sure there is some value in the startup
genome for people with the right mental framework, but I would be careful
about interpreting the data as "guidelines for success".

~~~
todayiamme
If you think about it isn't the success of YC and other venture firms
predicated upon doing something roughly the same?

~~~
ced
In as much as you're trying to predict which startup will succeed, the data
from the genome project is perfectly acceptable. The problem comes when you
decide "I will do X because that's what successful startups do." If you don't
understand _why_ they do it, then it's a cargo-cult. But maybe... Maybe
imitating successful people is the best you can do when you don't know what
you're doing?

You have a point, and I softened up the language in my post.

~~~
Alex3917
"Maybe imitating successful people is the best you can do when you don't know
what you're doing?"

I've done this before with good results. I think the ideal strategy is to pick
someone better than you, imitate them, and then once you surpass them to pick
a new person to imitate, and so on. It's only after imitating five or six
different people that you're able to develop your own theories, which is
ultimately necessary if you want to reach true mastery.

~~~
davidw
I don't know... I've been walking around in a polo shirt and shorts and my
millions still haven't materialized :-)

------
michaelpinto
I think if you look at their findings as a cookbook recipe for success you
won't do well — but if you take what they're saying as advice to be applied if
it makes sense then it has some value. Some of their findings I've also heard
echoed before (like doing it full time, having a technical co-founder) so
there's also a bit of a confirmation value there. Although on the flip side
you should keep in mind that "scientific research into success" can be flawed
— I keep thinking about reading about Freddie Mac in "Good to Great".

~~~
andrewtbham
Yeh Good to Great has levered it's validity to the success of those companies.
When I was reading it Merck was being eclipsed by Pfizer as the market leader.

------
speleding
This is a very interesting conjecture:

 _...the world’s biggest problem isn’t poverty or disease or any oft-stated
major problem, but that we don’t have enough people engaged in trying to solve
these problems._

I'm not sure if there is any way to prove or disprove it but if it's true then
we should be looking at those problems very differently. Great concept to
discuss on a lazy Sunday.

~~~
T-R
This also meshes well with this article from the other day:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2591367> ("The problem is that we don't
understand the problem")

Perhaps we need to iterate over potential solutions faster.

------
MatthewB
With regards to startups with tech cofounders having more change for success -

One thing I've been wondering lately is how a "technical cofounder" is
defined?

I graduated from my college with a degree in economics. My career thus far (in
Internet startups and companies) has mostly been on the biz dev and marketing
side. However, I have always created and managed websites on the side. I have
a deep passion for hacking (more than biz dev & marketing) and I'm pretty good
at it.

So my question is - at what skill level can you be considered a technical
cofounder? Do you have to be an expert-level coder on the cutting-edge of
technology? Is there a cutoff point with skill level to where you would need a
tech cofounder?

I know when I create my first startup I will want a technical cofounder. It's
not so much that I don't think I could get good enough to code a large-scale
website, it's more that the biz dev and marketing stuff comes easily to me so
why would I need someone else to do that?

~~~
drusenko
I think "technical cofounder" is usually defined as someone who has the
capabilities to create the entire product vision themselves.

If you feel confident that you can code almost anything you can dream up, then
you are probably a technical founder with business skills. If you feel like
you would need help in accomplishing your vision (like hiring a programer or
outsourcing the development) then you are probably not a technical founder.

~~~
MatthewB
I would think product vision and actually implementing that vision could be
considered separate things, right?

~~~
drusenko
Absolutely. But a technical founder is someone with the capabilities to
implement product vision themselves.

~~~
MatthewB
That's a good definition.

------
wladimir
Why do they use the word "Genome"? I expected an article about startups in
biotechnology, but was disappointed.

------
vertr
I find the title of this article to be completely irrelevant to its contents.
Dropping out of school and starting a business does not relate to Timothy
Leary's famous tagline which was about opening your mind via drugs and
dropping out of society at large.

