

Ask HN: How to evaluate potential non-technical co-founders ? - ig1

There seems to have been a spurt of recent posts of non-tech co-founders asking how to find tech co-founders, but I'd like the pose the question from the other side.<p>As a tech person how do you evaluate a non-tech person as a potential co-founder ?<p>I recently met someone with a marketing background at a startup weekend style event, and we chatted a bit about cofounding, but I'm at bit of a loss as how to decide if it's a good idea or not.<p>On one side they're clearly smart and get things done, our skill sets seem to be quite complementary and we get on.<p>On the other hand from what I've seen on HN people generally seem to have a negative attitude towards non-tech cofounders, is it justified ? - what should I be looking out for and taking into consideration ?
======
aditya
From my years on the NY scene which is filled with non-technical
"entrepreneur"-types

5 points: Has been in executive team at a startup before

5 points: Has been involved in raising capital at a startup before, or is
1-degree from a VC or a few angels (real 1-degree not Twitter/LinkedIn
1-degree)

5 points: Has been in product marketing, biz dev, ad sales at a startup before

5 points: can and will write code

4 points: can get shit done, is well-organized and understands the software
development process as opposed to say, selling and shipping widgets

2 points: Has been in product management at a startup before

2 points: Has worked in any biz role at a large tech company and rose to some
form of executive post

-5 points: Has an MBA and has only worked at Hedge fund, Consulting company, or iBank

-5 points: Is an idea person and has never shipped a real product.

Your ideal person will score above 10 and close to 20 points on this test.

~~~
anmol
support the -10 for consulting + ibank + hedge fund. they're all smart guys,
but watch out for the ones who have never built a product OR don't like
getting hands dirty. although there are always exceptions, jeff bezos came
from de shaw.

if this sounds strange to west coast people, at startup networking events in
the east coast it is pretty likely you'll run into the 'i've done my gig at
mcK/harvard mba and the next step of my career is a CEO position so let me
find my awesome tech cofounder' type of person.

~~~
ig1
Joshua (of delicious) and Jimbo (of Wikipedia) both have ibanking backgrounds
as well I believe.

------
pageup
I've been through the process of finding non-technical co-founders, growing
companies, and raising money. Along the way, there have been a lot of lessons
learned about non-technical co-founders.

First, remember that as a technical co-founder, you will likely be the
CTO/lead engineer. Your non-tech founder will probably be the CEO. The CEO has
to manage early customers, investors, and partners. Most of their time is
spent communicating the vision to these people, and hence they naturally end
up directing the vision more.

On the flip side, you will spend a lot more time heads down coding. This
relationship often makes it feel like you are "working" for the CEO, and you
kind of are. Such is the nature of CEO/CTO dynamics, and I think this is why a
lot of technical people resent non-technical co-founders. So ask yourself, are
you comfortable working for this person who will probably be your CEO?

As a corollary to the previous question, have they managed or worked with
engineers before? Have they ever been in a technical role? If not, you will
run into typical Maker vs Manager problems. It's hard to work with non-
technical co-founders who don't understand the mindset of technical founders.

As mentioned, watch out for consultant/banking types who have no real
experience running companies or in startups.

Also watch out for people who are divorced from the product/passion and don't
really get the pain point. This is the guy who has a friend who has a buddy
who made money in a startup, and now he wants to do one. All they see is
dollar signs. They might as well be pushing another hedge fund, "strategic
partnership", or snake oil. They don't really care, and they suck the life out
of startup.

My favorite non-technical co-founders are people who were engineers in a
previous life, but have since found their strengths in product or customer
development. They are well connected from having worked in startups before
(which probably means access to talent) and possibly have an MBA (which often
produces connections to funding).

------
myoung8
You want to ask yourself: is this the kind of person I wouldn't mind being
stuck in a foxhole with? (metaphorically, of course)

At the end of the day, you need to figure out if they are self-motivated, can
take the initiative, and most importantly, can get shit done.

Unfortunately, there aren't really good substitutes for figuring those things
out other than experience working together.

A "trial period" where both of you collaborate on a project has worked well
for me in the past.

~~~
mikeleeorg
Oh, I just noticed the "trial period" suggestion here. Great idea. Wish I had
thought of that.

I had worked with a co-founder who I thought was going to be fantastic. And in
the beginning, he was. However, after our business started getting rough, he
pretty much bailed. I'm glad I hadn't sunk too much time or money into that
venture, but it was a great trial run with that guy.

------
iworkforthem
One question I would ask myself is that "Does he/she share the same passion as
me on what the startup is trying to accomplish?" If he share your passion as
well, it is all good. Plus it is important not to have too many technical
people on board, having a marketing guy would be useful to help you translate
what the startup is trying to do to its potential users.

------
puredemo
If you get along give it a shot. No one else can really tell you who you will
connect and work best with (despite the point rank system comments here).

------
napierzaza
Oh please hash out the splite before hand though. I did a small startup for
gaming and at the end my co-designer/graphics partner tried to make me believe
he deserved a mysterious extra cut of the profits outside of actual hours-
committed.

