

Why you should fail early and fail often - the numbers - mixmax
http://www.maximise.dk/blog/2009/01/why-you-should-fail-early-and-fail.html

======
snitko
Currently I'm considering ideas and want to choose one to work on in the
following 6 months. And I found that even though I know ideas don't cost a
thing, it's crucial to choose a good and promising one, not just start working
on a random idea saying "implementation only matters". It seems to me now,
that you can almost never know if your project is a success, but you can often
tell, if it's a fail. Thus, increasing your chances.

The bottom line is that posts like that create an illusion that no matter what
you do, math will make you rich. This is especially untrue, because with each
new random project, I assume, your motivation and desire go level down.

~~~
mixmax
You should always, obviously, pick the idea that you believe in the most. Both
because it's probably the best (assuming you have good judgement) and because
it's the one you will be most motivated to work on.

The reason I wrote the post is that I've seen people hanging on to a project
long after it was apparent to everyone else that it wouldn't fly. I've made
that mistake myself. I don't want others to make the same mistakes I did if it
can be avoided.

And math won't necessarily make you rich - but it might improve your chances
:-)

~~~
jhancock
your post here is better rational than the other stuff (although it was all
well written).

I think it would be very useful to define processes by which entrepreneurs can
better determine if they are hanging on too long. Processes that have more
depth than just playing with numbers. Perhaps its simply soliciting more
critical feedback from others at key points along the path?

~~~
mixmax
It's a very interesting thought. The problem may be that there aren't really
anyone in the vicinity of entrepreneurs that have an interest in saying that
it probably won't work out: Investors lose their money, partners lose their
partnerships, etc. And friends often tell you you're doing great in an attempt
to spur you on.

It might be possible to set up some system that you can judge yourself by.
Maybe a quiz that you can take every month that is developed by psychologists,
entrepreneurs, and VC's with questions on your progress, motivation,
financials, etc. Your score reflects your chances of success, and you can
track it from month to month. That way you will see more clearly whether
things are going well or to hell. It would be like with small children: If
they are your own you don't notice how quickly they grow because you see them
every day. People that only see them every month notice right away.

~~~
jhancock
Maybe a simple approach would be an evolution of what people already do with
"Ask HN: Rate my startup". But do it later in the game not just when you first
launch?

There is certainly enough "distance" between many of the participants here to
get open feedback.

------
mattjung
From the great book "Founders at Work", I had the impression that a common
point of success is to persue an idea to a very end, to fully understand its
potential, to not accept failure too early, but to accept to modify and even
transform it. The model that suggests "Restart with another idea until one
works" may therefore lead to abandon projects as failures that are on the way
to success.

~~~
mixmax
The people that were so wildly successful that they were featured in founders
at work are the ones that made it through the funnel that starts with an guy
in a garage and an idea.

If you look at the funnel from the other side you have maybe 10.000 people
with a project they think will become the next Apple, yet there's only one
Steve Wozniack.

Founders at work is a great book, but it's not a direct recipe for success.
The funnel is a one-way street: If you read the book and do exactly like Joe
Kraus you won't necessarily end up like Joe Kraus.

Besides a lot of rich and famous people have had many failures before they
succeeded. Did you know that Seth Godin did Internet White pages (as a book no
less...), the first fax board for the mac, A nationwide game show using 900
numbers, a fundraising company that offered lightbulbs for sale to high school
bands among others. According to himself he has had at least 20 serious
career-ending failures.
([http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/10/failure-
as-a...](http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/10/failure-as-
an-e.html))

But it's a fine line...

~~~
mattjung
I agree with your argument that only looking at successful examples without
taking into account the failed examples might lead to distorted information
and wrong conclusions.

But I critize the simplicity of your model that ignores crucial yet tricky
questions like: How long does it take to detect a failure? How can I detect
it, which criteria should I use? How to avoid "false positives"? A simple "try
and repeat every year"-scheme will most probably lead to 10 failures in 10
years...

~~~
mixmax
I agree with your criticism - it is a simplified model, and models only give a
simpified view of the world. As you point out, ideally there are lots and lots
of criteria that should be considered, and that probably have a measurable
effect.

The big problem is getting the data to do so: You'd have to take some
statistically significant amount of projects from the very start (which is
where the most interesting part happens in relation to living or dying) and
follow them closely until they either die or become successful. It would be an
extremely interesting project though.

------
11ren
I've calculated this too (the same round numbers too: 10%, 10 years).

He doesn't mention that you might learn something from each attempt (if you
stay in the same industry).

I think your success is (virtually) inevitable - unless there's something that
you must learn that you won't learn.

------
ojbyrne
Implying that 10 year's work on a project doesn't increase your odds in the
slightest over 1 year's work seems implausible, and it's easy to draw the
obvious conclusion - why spend a year on anything? Why not a month, or even a
day? Then you get 3650 (+ a couple more for leap years) ideas to try.

~~~
mixmax
Of course spending ten years on a project increases your chances of success,
but that's missing the point. What is interesting is that it has to increase
by 1000% in relation to starting ten projects in ten years.

~~~
ojbyrne
I don't think it's missing the point. I brought up the extreme example of
switching every day to show that the math is specious.

~~~
cjenkins
I think the math works, but the difficult part is what the minimum amount of
time needed to know if you're going to succeed or fail. If you knew that, or
even in the ballpark you'd have something you could apply. Otherwise it's hard
to say if a day or a year is a better measure.

~~~
ojbyrne
<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000017.html>

