Skip to main content

Outsourcing

Part of this is from an email I sent this weekend to first-time founders, who are so far down the path toward outsourcing I doubt they'll turn around.


It's hard to watch. Something like $200,000 over 4 months.

There's a huge risk in outsourcing, and huge value you absolutely will not get in doing that: 


  1. institutional knowledge in the form of your key developer, and 
  2. the discovery process along the way. 

It's hard to explain the second if you've never developed software before, but a lot of innovation occurs at the source of problems encountered on the project and there's deep value in being present for that. 

What happens after the first release? Do you think it will be perfect? "No plan survives contact with the customer". 

Well, you'll invest even more money in someone outside the company developing expertise around your platform.

This is not a lean approach at all. 


What happens when their employee--your key guy--gets a job elsewhere? Your institutional knowledge is really lost now. 

I can see outsourcing for supplemental work (import/export of data, porting work, internal analytics/reports/data handling), but not for the core app. 

I'm almost certain I could find a great lead dev to join you as CTO/co-founder. The more I think about it, the more I think you're making a massive mistake, where you'll find yourself in January with something that 

1) doesn't quite hit the mark and 
2) needs more work, while 
3) you're out of money, have no or little traction. 

Then you'll decide to learn to code it yourself, because you'll still believe in it but can't afford to pay anyone. Maybe you get to raise a bit more money, but by that time it's not enough to hold down a dev for any length of time. 

Investors want exits, right? So what's the exit possibility when your team isn't yours, besides the guys with the idea? Acquirers look for team, and especially technical talent. 

Mint's founder made the calculation that each developer is worth $500k in a sale (2 years ago; it's more like a million now), so if he simply raised $1 million he could hire 10 guys, sell the company for $5 million and walk with $3.5 or something after preferences. Not bad. 

You'd be better off spending 3 months in intensive programming training, using your project as your homework. But the best path--if you're paranoid about time--is to find and hire that programmer, the one who can make something happen top to bottom without a lot of other hands on it. 

I know of 2 right now. 

But, you've got a contract, you've spent money on a lawyer to review the contract, and you've got money in the bank, burning a hole in your pocket--you feel you're almost there. Just need someone to code it up. Right? 

Wrong. It's a bad choice. Bad, bad, bad choice. Did I say it's bad? Really bad choice. 

So, startup founders out there--what do you think?
(
Read these from Fred Wilson's blog, especially the comments: 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Beta Signup

I've been working for quite a while on a new search concept, though the further in I get, the closer the rest of the world gets to what we're doing. So today I'm inviting you to sign up for the rather modest beta, which will be ready soon if we can nail down a few difficult  details. Jawaya is a way of navigating the web and getting better results. And that's as much as I can say right now, because we're not a funded startup, and things are moving really fast in this space--it's going to be very competitive. I predict there will be about 10 funded startups in the next 6 months doing something similar. One of them will be mine, and we aim to make it the best. We're raising a round of capital to fund the team, and are shooting for early sustainability. This is my fifth company; my fourth in the tech space, and my third software company. I think it will be the biggest and can possibly have a positive impact on the world by reducing the amount of time it takes

Where Innovation Happens

As I get closer to a go/no-go decision on a project, I've been thinking about the difference about my vision for the project and the supportive innovations to enable the core innovations The vision combines (in unequal parts) product, core innovation as I imagine it, the application of that core innovation, design, marketing,  developer ecosystem, and business development. The core innovation enables everything else, but it's the application of the innovation that makes it meaningful, useful, and in this case, fun. This week we're testing initial approaches to the implementation for our specific application, and that's where we'll develop the enabling innovations, which is basically where the rubber meets the road. The difference is that the enabling innovation happens at the source of real problems only encountered in the making of something, and in a project like this just getting the essence of it right isn't enough; it also has to be safe, the compone

The Real Jobs Problem

It's the economy, stupid.  Well, yes, it always has been, if you're in the distortion field of politics.  But whose economy? The pundits, the White House, the Republican candidates all miss the mark. They keep talking about debt, taxes, and monetary policy. None of those things tell the real story behind today's economy.  The Old Economy Keynes was right--in the old economy. Economy gets weak, pump some money into the economy through public works projects, which  1) puts people to work, which  2) boosts the economy and  3) generates new tax revenue, while  4) leaving us with another generation of reliable infrastructure to support  5) more growth (for growth's sake, which is another post).  The Beach Ball Imagine a beach ball, partially deflated to represent a recession. Got it? Now imagine the govt pumping that beach ball back up through sensible public investment (which we haven't seen for decades). The New Economy Same beach ball, same pum