

Start-ups? We need more finish-ups - skbohra123
http://venturefizz.com/blog/start-ups-we-need-more-finish-ups

======
ChuckMcM
The other quote one should keep in mind is 'The last 10% of getting it done
takes 90% of the effort.' One of the systemic problems in open source is that
the last 10% is both no fun, and not well regarded in the community (this was
a cultural challenge at Google as well when I was there)

In the start-up world you can think of those companies that had a good idea,
but couldn't get themselves to finish it, as the primary food source for
patent trolls. One need only look at patents assigned to your favorite 'non-
practicing entity' vs for whom they were originally filed to see a long list
of start ups the flamed out before achieving orbit.

This is also why there are only a limited number of deals available for
'untested' entrepreneurs, sort of the VC/Angel equivalent of 'frequent flyer
seats'. Extra risk don't want to over weight the portfolio with them.

So perhaps a good way to start is to think about how you're going to finish
and work backwards from there. If you define 'finish' as 'make a lot of money'
and you're one of the principals in the start up, correlation suggests you are
less likely to reach that goal. If you're the type that can stay focused on
the delivery and not the results of the delivery (financially at least) it
seems you will be more likely to succeed.

------
zach
"We need more finish-ups" is a nice turn of phrase but it seems more like a
37signals message than a Google message. Is failure okay or do you want to
prioritize survival -- "finishing up" into a mature company?

We all know the startup model that Google has influenced and nurtured, and
it's not about finishing up. That's clear from the "60% of the impossible"
quote. To oversimplify, it's about ignoring revenue and giving away value in
order to build huge amounts of usage. I am not criticizing that, and it has a
lot to recommend it. But start-ups with that model are not going to finish up
very often, just because they're risky.

So I'm a little confused. Are start-ups failing because they're trying to do
the ordinary, and instead they need to aim for the impossible? Maybe this is
the zen of Google.

------
swGooF
"achieving 60% of the impossible is better than 100% of the ordinary"

A great quote!

~~~
zach
I prefer the 37signals advice, "build a kick-ass half, not a half-assed
whole." As I've mentioned, they seem like better advocates for "finish-ups."

------
robinwarren
I've been toying recently with the idea of a fail-up, Ie a failed start up
which ultimately gets you closer to finishing your next startup. Or perhaps
fail-ups are every start up you failed at until you hit success, each one
getting you incrementally closer to that success.

~~~
htp
For some reason, I've got it in my head that everything I show the world
_must_ succeed.

A project where failure is the goal sounds liberating.

~~~
BenSS
Then why would you care if you work on it at all? There needs to be some
motivation factor.

