Finding Technical Co-Founders: How do we help people do this better?

[Roger Kermode]

Dear Si Beachers

I'm chatting with a lot of folks these days through my various activities and I'm finding a common theme: People who have a great idea they want to validate and pursue, but are stumped for the want of a technical co-founder. Some of these folks are highly experienced execs, some are just starting our, but the need is the same and it also appears to be pervasive. I'm wondering what people who have overcome this hurdle did to find someone, and if there's something more that we can do to help accelerate the process for people new to this situation to find a competent, trustworthy tech guru to get something going.

thoughts?

Roger

[Aegist]

For every need like that, I always wonder if there is a business solution. I feel like there is scope for organising a group of young programmers, and instead of finding clients, you just find good startups that need technical co-founders, and offer your teams services in exchange for equity.

You would definitely have plenty of work available, and you would be able to pick the best of the lot to work on.

PS. If anyone wants to organise themselves in to this business, please talk to me and let me use your service.

Shane


-------------------------
http://www.sportsarbitrageguide.com
http://www.surebetbookies.com/
http://www.comparebookmakers.com
http://www.shanegreenup.com
http://www.tdmskp.com.au

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list.
 
Guidelines on discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e1303508d?hl=en%3Fhl%3Den
 
No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
 
To post to this group, send email to
silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

[Nick HaC]

Interesting problem.

Seems more and more non-technical founders are looking to start tech
startups which is great news and should be encouraged

With the increased demand for technical founders now stronger than the
supply, it makes sense that technical co-founders (especially the good
ones) are aware of this and are becoming a fair amount pickier on what
to work on.

From the few technical founders i know - they regularily have
non-technical people coming to them with all sorts of questionable
(even valueless) ideas and wanting them to build hundreds of hours of
work for free for a small piece of a pie that has speculative value at
best. This creates an environment where many technical founders arnt
really even interested in finding out about startups from
non-technical founders and just prefer to work on their own problems

There was recently an interesting set of questions on hacker news
effectively asking, "do you actually have the chops as a non-technical
founder for me to actually want to join you as a technical co-founder"

Worth a read
http://bit.ly/eHVfD3

IMHO the solution is.

1. If you are a non-technical founder, be sure to clearly articulate
and express your value proposition as an indivigual to potential
technical co-founders.
- Why would i want to work on your problem rather than my own?
- What traction do you have
(marketing/network/audience/capital/customers/partners)? --=--- What
actual deep experience or personal offering do you bring to the table
that i cant get elsewhere?
- Why do i need you more than you need me?

2. Find more developers who are not otherwise entrepreneurial, and
somehow get them into the startup space and train them (books by guy
kawasaki, paul graham, eric reis, steve blank) - thereby converting
pure tech guys into technical co-founders.

3. Raise money on your concept alone (if you can) then hire a
Technical Project Manager, a UX guy and a programmer or 2 and hope for
the best.

4. Work with http://PushStart.com.au and find a mentor who can help

Hope this is useful

Also i found this interesting: Paul Graham: What we look for in
founders http://paulgraham.com/founders.html

[Brendan Quinn]

Excellent post Nick! As a some-time techy guy I can sympathise with a lot of those points. Someone thinks their idea is so amazing that developers should be falling over themselves to work for months for free. That just proves that they haven't read the copious literature on startups which shows that ideas are a dime a dozen, it's the execution that counts.

Using the techniques of the lean startup world, you can actually do a lot to test your idea in "customer development" before you've written your first line of code -- or you could commission someone on rentacoder etc to build a prototype, which tests your idea, shows people that you have enough commitment to your idea to put real money into it, and hopefully teaches you whether the idea is any good which can help

The only thing that's even worse than "hey I have an idea, come build it for me and I'll give you 20% equity after you do all the work!" is "hey I have this world beating idea but I can't tell you about it, you'll need to sign this NDA!"

The interesting thing is that while you (as a non-tech founder) need the tech person more in the early days, they still need a marketing and/or sales guru to actually turn the product into something successful. (Unless they're good marketers themselves which is quite unusual for tech people). So you do need each other equally in the long term!

Brendan.

[Silvia Pfeiffer]

Great post!

Just an additional thought...

I actually think watching the movie "The Social Network" will tell you
why a technical co-founder may not be prepared to waste their time on
your idea and your features when you are a non-technical founder.
Admittedly, Mark Zuckerberg in that movie is not behaving with much
empathy towards the non-tech people (or anyone for that matter of
fact), but would he have wasted time on developing the technology as
proposed by the rich brothers, he would have likely failed. There are
many lessons to learn from that ... on both sides of the equation...

Cheers,
Silvia.

[Chris Were]

+1

Great post Nick. As a technical founder this paragraph hits the nail on head.

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:51 PM, Nick HaC <nic...@gmail.com> wrote:

From the few technical founders i know - they regularily have
non-technical people coming to them with all sorts of questionable
(even valueless) ideas and wanting them to build hundreds of hours of
work for free for a small piece of a pie that has speculative value at
best. This creates an environment where many technical founders arnt
really even interested in finding out about startups from
non-technical founders and just prefer to work on their own problems

I guess that's why networking is so important, to ensure you get introductions to the right people.

[Rob James]

This is a brilliant thread!

Nick's post encapsulates many of the issues facing both tech and not-tech entrepreneurs. Times are quite interesting, as the tech startup market has really exploded again, even here in Australian, that every second day someone speaks to me about their "next big thing" idea in the tech space. It is critical for a non-tech founder to find an entrepreneurial tech co-founder, and not just a bunch of devs. This is seen with many startups. But you then get many of the issues that is raised by Nick, in particular, non experienced non-tech founders make the terrible mistake of thinking "as long as the technology solution is right, we are home and hosed!". But what about the commercials, deals, marketing etc etc

Brendan's point on NDAs is interesting too. The only time they mean anything is if the idea is legitimately stolen, and THEN you need the money and appetite to fight it in court because you have a vague piece of paper that MIGHT indicate there was shared knowledge. ho hum!!

Re equity share; It is still quite boring to be part of the conversations where an entrepreneur comes out with an idea and believes that the value they bring to the table is the idea..... I was hoping those days are gone (unfortunately not). The value is the proof that you can execute, as a team. Execution is everything - especially in these vibrant times.

Keep this thread going!!

Regards

Rob James

--

[Geoff McQueen - Hiive Systems]

And to add to the comments about equity – make sure all founders are on a clear vesting program, with a mechanism to handle a divorce (say, you get $X per week/month if this doesn’t work out); of course, the trigger for “not working out” is a whole other problem.

 

You don’t want a “we’ll go 50%/50%” arrangement and then realise that the co-founder is dead weight or has lost the passion 3 months in and you don’t have a prenup.

[Aegist]

As someone who has an idea, has had a trial version of the idea running for a few years with plenty of good information gathered from that process, has a solid business plan, has a proven track record of success in internet marketing, and has the right sorts of skills needed to bring my project to a raging success - where all I need is a good coder or two to bring about my vision - my experience of trying to find this so far is that it is hard enough to even find someone who can do the work and isn't busy on other projects.

It seems like all coders I have met are employed or are working on their own projects. Having all of the boxes ticked from my end is useless if I can't even find a coder who is willing to listen to the complete business plan.

Shane

-------------------------
http://www.sportsarbitrageguide.com
http://www.surebetbookies.com/
http://www.comparebookmakers.com
http://www.shanegreenup.com
http://www.tdmskp.com.au

[Elias Bizannes]

It seems like all coders I have met are employed or are working on their own projects. Having all of the boxes ticked from my end is useless if I can't even find a coder who is willing to listen to the complete business plan.

Here's an obvious question: why don't you learn to code? Bardia Housman who has started and sold two businesses, actually taught himself .net (despite not being a coder) and consequently has seen one of the biggest exits in the last few years with Business Catalyst to Adobe. Bardia's part of the current batch of Aussies living in Silicon Valley, and despite keeping a low profile, I think he's one of Australia's best tech entrepreneurs.

Another solution: get some money and pay someone to further build out your product. If people don't want to be a co-founder, then so be it -- approach them as employees which most people are best suited for. 

The problem may have less to do with the fact that there are "not enough" technical co-founders and more the fact that technical people don't make great founders (unless supported by a strong co-founder who's good at people management, marketing, etc). Look up Aussies in Silicon Valley like Gower Smith the kiwi/Aussie of Zoom Systems and Leigh Jasper of Acconex -- who along with Atlassian, are my bet for companies that in the next 5-10 years will likely IPO for a billion dollars. Gower and Leigh can sell, heavily doubt they can code. 

Their businesses not web cool enough?  How about Silicon Valley based Aussie Andrew Lacy who just sold Tapulous for a mint to Disney, in mobile gaming -- which is one of the hottest trends in tech right now.  He actually hired a crazy creative developer that came up with the idea and ended up firing him because he wasn't good as anything else but ideas. And used that as the basis of building his business -- paying developers to build it out.

There has been an over-glorification of "founders" in Silicon Valley and consequently in tech culture around world, but the truth of the matter is is that it takes a certain breed of person to be a founder. I'm still trying to clarify this in my own head as its a recent realisation of mine, but it's someone that can do a bit of everything -- like teaching themselves to code so they can get a MVP out and bootstrap their business with some initial paying customers...

Elias Bizannes
http://eliasbizannes.com

Coming to a freeway near you: http://startupbus.com

 

[ondro baco]

True, there is so much information, tutorials and help that learning to code is just a matter of allocating time  to learn it. 

Every new project changes and needs to be adopted to whatever new realizations about the business come up. This is very difficult when there is another person coding. I had such problem in the past where I had to painfully explain and convince technical co-founder about every little change that needed to be made. Many programmers often like to stick with whatever is planned at the beginning of the project. You don't have to create super-efficient piece of software, you just need to create something that validates your assumptions about business model. Once you know what works, hire a coder, you can tell them very precisely what needs to be built. Anyway, it helps to understand the technology behind the business at least to some degree. Then you will not overpay/underpay on whatever changes you need to make. 

--

[Stephen Young]

I'm in SF at the moment, and I'm gob-smacked at the number I've times
I've heard this "shortage of tech people" story in the week since I've
been here. I haven't seen anything like it since I was here in 2000
just before the crash - not saying that's coming, but we're certainly
in a bubble.

These things go in cycles - in 3-5 years tech partners will no doubt
be much easier to find. But I'm going to rephrase this thread in a
way that I hope illustrates the dynamic that non-tech founders are
going to have to work with in this climate.

"I need a technical co-founder for *MY* idea - but they're all out
there doing *THEIR* own thing"

As a tech person, what excites me is bleeding-edge technology and
difficult technical challenges. If you really want to partner-up with
a technical entrepreneur, go help them with *their* vision for a while
to build a relationship.

The other suggestion I've also been making lately is to take on a tech
person in a less "boots and all" role. You'd be surprised how much
work you can get done out of (say) the Ukraine for your dollar. You
do need someone pretty skilled on your side to make the architectural
decisions and keep the development on the rails - but you don't need
that person for 60 hours a week.

My 2c

Steve

--
Stephen Young
CEO @ factnexus.com
Architect @ wik.me
Founding member @ knowledgerights.org

[Ryan Henderson]

I have been in this situation before. Whilst it was good to explore some technologies the sweat just wasn't worth it.
+1 to execution is everything.
+1 to 20% share is bullshit.

At some stage I will be looking for another tech founder... And to be honest I am not looking forward to the process.

First of they have to be awesome, finding a great technical person is hard... I have interviewed a bunch of people before for tech roles and it's not easy to find someone with the right skills and personality. If you're not from a tech background, it's even harder. How to sift through the bull$hit...?? There certainly is a market for advising/interviewing candidates and thus helping start-ups (And I am not talking about tech-recruiters, most are a waste of time, no offence).

Secondly it's all about personality. Are they willing to take a pay cut (long term??), work their arse off, and have the vision of long term goals. Or stay in their day job earning nice $$. The other thing you have to consider is, those people that do live on the riskier side of employment, aka short contracts, get paid large amounts of money for doing so... balancing risk with the pay off. Start-ups are different again. There is no gaurantee and a whole lot of hard work. Take your 20% and jam it. I would rather be on a $1000/day working for a bank in Europe somewhere :)

So for me I see problems on both sides.
How to convince the great people to take the risk (So you have an idea.. great. I have 10 in my head right now)?
How to make sure you find the great people?

And with all the great ideas out at the moment, it's only going to get harder ;)

My advice. Find someone you trust to advise you with regards to skills and personality! Secondly if you're building a tech company show respect with equity, and if you're not, just pay someone to do it (put your money where your mouth is).

[Silvia Pfeiffer]

If you are a non-tech founder, please also compare your situation to
somebody who is trying to build a new business in another area, say a
new type of printer or a new type of washing machine. If you are
looking for a tech co-founder in that space, what is it you are really
trying to find? An engineer to realize your ideas or a inventor to
make sense of your idea and turn it into a technical specification?
The first is easier to do - the second is a big ask. Just having the
statement "I will create the best printer (or washing machine) in the
world" is not going to find you a technical co-founder. Thinking about
it in this way may help you understand why you are not able to find a
technical co-founder.

Cheers,
Silvia.

[Jonathan Clarke]

One of the easier ways is to go to the startup camps. Meet a few tech people from different teams, work with them in a high pressure situation and see if you can gel with them.

Often the projects fall apart after the weekend, sometimes it does not.  But you'll certainly meet a lot of talented tech people who are not busy doing their own thing, rather looking for a new opportunity.

Jonathan. 

[Dylan Jay]

On 05/04/2011, at 10:34 PM, Aegist wrote:

> For every need like that, I always wonder if there is a business
> solution. I feel like there is scope for organising a group of young
> programmers, and instead of finding clients, you just find good
> startups that need technical co-founders, and offer your teams
> services in exchange for equity.

That's pretty similar to what Pollinizer does?... well they help you
get a tech done to prototype stage, in exchange for equity.

[Rogers Andrew]

I also feel this is a particularly relevant/useful thread for this community and there's a huge amount of collective wisdom in the posts so far. A few thoughts...

How many of the requests for technical co-founders are real? Is it something they'd liked to do but aren't really prepared to quit their day job over and so the lack of a technical co-founder is a comfort pill for their inaction? 

Is the problem a shortage of technical co-founders for bright ideas or a need entrepreneurship training/mentoring for the technical people themselves as is the focus of many of the initiatives which dominate this community of the likes of startup camp, startmate, pushstart, syd start, startup bus etc.

With so much public information available these days I suspect it would be possible (but time consuming) to generate figures on the percentage of successful startups in a given sample that had purely technical founders vs technical-non technical or non-technical - non technical combinations.

In fairness I've not tried it, but I don't think it's something you can go shopping for. In a successful startup the founders are going to spend an enormous number of the available waking hours with each other, you need to know this person very well, you need to share a common dream and you'll need an large amount of mutual respect. To me such features would be difficult to develop in a relationship which is formed for that sole reason.

Andrew

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list.
 
Guidelines on discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e1303508d?hl=en%3Fhl%3Den
 
No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
 
To post to this group, send email to
silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

--
Andrew Rogers - Managing Director

Hosting ruminations : http://anchor.com.au/blog
We did the thinking for you : http://anchor.com.au/wiki

Anchor Systems Pty Ltd - Hosting Heavyweights
Level 1, 230 Clarence Street, Sydney NSW 2000
andrew...@anchor.com.au - http://www.anchor.com.au
Phone: 1300 883 979 - Direct: 02 8296 5100 - Fax: 8296 5199

[Roger Kermode]

Yup this is what Pollenizer does. The challenge is that Pollenzier can't service everyone, in fact many people need help to even get themselves prepared before talking to Pollenizer, and that as a result there are many folks out there who miss out for the want of tiny amount of focus. What I'm wondering is how we can provide that little insight / nudge to help people get a better grip on where their focus needs to be before the get into structured situations such as Pollenizer, Startmate, Pushstart, or even MEGA  (I'm seeing a lot of individual applications so far).

There's a market failure / opportunity here in my opinion that could lead to significantly improved deal flow for everyone. We need to find a way to help make things a bit more efficient for folks to get their ducks in a row. There's some great responses earlier in this thread and it's clear that

1. non-tech founders need to be clued up when courting a tech founder
2. both need to be able to see the value in each other
3. the best and strongest partnerships don't happen over night

Peter Cooper's recent SydStart event was a fantastic event that helped many folks connect and highlighted how may great startups there are popping up right now. What we need is something that helps raise the collective clue without requiring a huge commitment or cost and is aimed at individuals, not existing teams / companies.

Here's an idea..... what if we were to run a semi-regular "How to find a co-founder" event?

It would be a little more structured than a meetup or an unconference and would provide some focused content for both potential technical and non-technical co-founders on how they need to present themselves / their idea as well as what they need to look for in a co-founder. It could be a good way to help people improve they way the approach each other and also provide a natural point of aggregation for people to test the waters?

thoughts?

Roger

[Mathew French]

There are many different variables. Including luck. There is no way I was ever going to learn to code and build a saas app. I have no where near enough money to pay one as an employee. So when the idea fisrt came about in my head, I immediately kept a look out for Talent. Luckily, my co-founder (TECH) is better than an employee, but still, there are many issues that need to be dealth with and managed in this relationship. And there are always stages when this is tested, like any relationship. But when someone has enough skin in the game to keep them interested, the rest should take care of itself. I would find it hard to go through this processes again and thinking about having to find another co-founder with good skills and enough get up and go to take the business forward.

Now, 3 years later. we have the best e-recruitment / e-hr system on the market (SME). It seems my Co-Founder decision was the right one.

Regards,

Mathew French

[Geoff Langdale]

Some points, some of which have been partly or mostly made in the
thread:

1. A potential technical cofounder might be the first person besides
you being asked to put serious skin in the game. Maybe your idea is no
good or you're not convincing enough that you're going to add value.
The putative tech cofounder might be the first person to tell you to
go away, but that might be because no-one is going to like your idea.

2. 95% of the ideas I see attached to 'looking for technical cofounder
to do X' are at best decent business ideas with no real tech interest.
At worst they are derivative and/or stupid.

3. There's no technical prestige associated in having worked for a
technically dull failed business startup. The vast majority of
startups are going to fail. If you're a tech guy and you're realistic
about this, go figure out whether you're going to want to work for a
startup that's going to fail that (a) is boring and has no technical
kudos or (b) is technically interesting. Someone who works on a
technical startup that's a 'noble failure' is going to have improved
their position; someone who works for a 'plug web front end into
database backend' type role has at best stayed in the same place
career-wise.

Possibly #3 is the point touched on the least. A lot of ideas, whether
good or bad as business, are just boring technically and that's all
there is to it.

When it comes right down to it this isn't a 'market failure'. The
market is working fine, it's just delivering technical people to
places willing to pay for their services, give them interesting work,
or both. Chasing after them and bludgeoning them with the collected
works of Messr. Kawasaki, Graham, et al. isn't going to help.

Nor, for that matter is the attitude that 'we really want a technical
co-founder but if it comes right down to it we think we can learn to
code this up in our spare time and/or outsource it to Ukrainians'.
This doesn't sit enormously well with the idea that you value a
technical co-founder's potential continuing contribution. Ask
yourself, here: do I want a technical co-founder or do I want a great
big pile of work done for free?

Geoff.

[Brendan Quinn]

On 6 April 2011 07:49, Geoff Langdale <geoff.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

3. There's no technical prestige associated in having worked for a
technically dull failed business startup. The vast majority of
startups are going to fail. If you're a tech guy and you're realistic
about this, go figure out whether you're going to want to work for a
startup that's going to fail that (a) is boring and has no technical
kudos or (b) is technically interesting. Someone who works on a
technical startup that's a 'noble failure' is going to have improved
their position; someone who works for a 'plug web front end into
database backend' type role has at best stayed in the same place
career-wise.

Possibly #3 is the point touched on the least. A lot of ideas, whether
good or bad as business, are just boring technically and that's all
there is to it.

Of course the converse is true as well: a lot of tech-focussed teams don't care about the business side enough, and end up spending all their time building something "cool" in node.js or Scala or some other of-the-moment technology, forgetting that they have to find users and revenue and traction etc etc.

So maybe we need some more give-and-take and respect for both the tech and the marketing sides: "okay I'll let you build the DB backend in Redis/Membase/MongoDB rather than MySQL so you can boast to your friends at the ruby meetup, but only if you help me to make the SEO work and create a good viral invite system so we can get traction"

In the end it's more important to build a successful business than a sexy one... well that's my opinion anyway!

Brendan.

[pcol...@cpan.org]

I'm finding this thread quite amusing and for some reason it is annoying me. I haven't put my finger on why that is yet. I think perhaps it is the tendency for many people on this list to put "programmers" on a pedestal. As if everybody could one day be Mark Zuckerberg. (OK this part was maybe a bit harsh, but I think this bubble we're in is creating this holier than thou attitude again).

Instead of thinking about it in terms of a "coder". Think about a good technical co-founder who is actually an experienced CTO with a business mind, not just a coder. The CTO should have enough skills to do some initial prototyping. Probably has enough experience to assess the risks and rewards of the startup. Can attract great coding talent quickly (or if not lead the remote Ukrainian team). If your idea can't attract an experienced startup CTO with a good stomach for risk, then you're probably riding the wrong horse or in the wrong direction. If you can't assess a good CTO from a great coder, then you probably can't run a startup either.

In my experience other than having watched the social network, most coders don't actually get the risk/reward tradeoff of a startup and aren't sufficiently rounded to carry their half of a demanding startup partnership. Coders are just regular smart people with some coding chops, that doesn't make them anymore qualified to join the partnership of a startup than my accountant except that they have the skills I need to help get it off the ground on day 1 when I have little cash.

Patrick.

--

[Geoff Langdale]

Getting to build a database back-end using alternate technologies, is
not quite what I meant by 'interesting', but different strokes for
different folks.

On Apr 7, 2:20 am, pcoll...@cpan.org wrote:
> I'm finding this thread quite amusing and for some reason it is annoying me.

That's a shame; amused Olympian detachment and peevishness are hard to
juggle. :-)

> I haven't put my finger on why that is yet. I think perhaps it is the
> tendency for many people on this list to put "programmers" on a pedestal.

Programmers aren't the only ones on a pedestal here. It's true that
most tech people won't one day be Mark Zuckerberg*. But most of these
lovelorn ("desperately seeking technical cofounder to build 'It's X,
only for Y!' startup") non-tech cofounders aren't going to wake up one
day as Steve Jobs either, so I guess it comes out even.

But you do make some valid points, and I think that people are
conflating two different things here - one is a legitimate need for a
technical cofounder (who would fit your CTO-type description very
well) and the other is the desire to get someone to do a 'pile of work
for free'. Thus the rather confused emphasis on programmers.

Personally, I think just as "Every Marine is a rifleman", everyone in
the technical side of a small computing tech startup hierarchy should
be able to write code (or otherwise do what the startup is about, ie.
a hardware startup would want hardware-capable people), and I can
think of a lot more Really Big Startups with detail-oriented CEO or
CTO types who could do the work themselves than I can think of ones
where the CEO/CTO had a 'sorta kinda' passing familiarity with what
the company did: to wit, Intel, Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft,
Oracle, Sun, MIPS, etc. Those looking to flip a "It's X for Y" startup
at the top of the hype cycle might not be very interested in these
kind of companies, of course.

Geoff.

* Or perhaps more germanely for those not forced to choose role models
from 'The Social Network', Gates/Ellison/Brin/Woz/Thompson/Knuth/
Dijkstra/..., depending on your aspirations.

[Jax]

Rogers Andrew <andrew.rog...@anchor.com.au> wrote:
> In a successful startup the founders are going to spend an enormous number of the available waking hours with each other, you need to know this person very well, you need to share a common dream and you'll need an large amount of mutual respect. To me such features would be difficult to develop in a relationship which is formed for that sole reason.

This sentence nails it.
For all the talk about skills and roles and trying to "box" people
into a specified Formula For StartUp Success, what it really boils
down to is finding the missing piece to YOUR jigsaw puzzle.

I've got the world's best technical co-founder (been in close
partnership for 10 years now) but for the life of me can't find a non-
tech partner who gels.
We don't need a mentor or an advisor, we need someone who will
actually do the work. Someone who thinks the paperwork is sexy and
likes to devise and execute business plans with long term goals, then
stick around to make it work.
The biggest problem we have found with trying to locate this "jigsaw
piece" is that most can't get past their own ego because it's not
their idea we have developed.

There is no "mould" and no formula to follow... but just like
marriage, you'll just "know" when it gels.

Jacqui

[Ryan Henderson]

Great points. Programmers (collectively) on pedestals is a fair point. I have worked with some great ones though, and the business knows it! I have also worked with many programmers, some that you would never put in front of the business (internal), your customers (external), let alone form a company with them.

Your point about CTO is a good one, though I would say not all start-ups need an experienced CTO. Depends on your business really. A tech co-founder should demonstrate more than just coding skills though.

And to be clear, developing software, or in the bigger picture systems, is much more than just churning code... so don't get coder and programmer mixed up with a good software/systems developer. In some businesses you will see, coders, team leaders, business analysts, project managers, software architects, testers and various other people. A good SOFTWARE DEVELOPER should have all those traits in some form, maybe they are not CTO material but they are the type of person that understands more than just code (Though they should be a master of code first). Maybe this is the types of person you need as a tech co-founder (again depends on your business). In my opinion there are lots of programmers, fewer developers, and even less CTOs.

Ryan

[pcol...@cpan.org]

Yes i agree that there is a range of seniority between junior programmer and CTO and hopefully you could get a senior engineer with star power qualities and growth capabilities. However, I do still think that if you're going to form a company with high growth aspirations you want the founders to be at the helm of the company through all of that growth as much as possible. And for that to happen you need well rounded and experienced folks, preferably one with a sales angle and one with an ops/engineering angle. 

Patrick.

[Clifford Heath]

Folk,

So many good thoughts here. However, to return to a idea expressed
in the OP:

On 05/04/2011, at 10:11 PM, Roger Kermode wrote:
> People who have a great idea they want to validate and pursue, but
> are stumped for the want of a technical co-founder.

It occurs to me that Roger is assuming that the same tech person who
is the right "to pursue" an idea has to be the same one to "validate"
the idea.

> if there's something more that we can do to help accelerate the
> process for people new to this situation to find a competent,
> trustworthy
> tech guru to get something going.

Do people think there is value in offering a technical service akin to a
business mentor, providing opinions on technical feasibility, cost and
risks? It seems that to an experienced business person looking for
technical validation of an idea, a one-hour chat (possibly followed by
a 1-3 day investigation and write-up) with an broadly-experienced
technical person could offer great value; even if only to suppress
excessive enthusiasm. I'm assuming that some compensation would
be available, and that the NDA/non-compete situation can be covered.

I've found myself on occasion offering such advice, and would consider
doing it again. I think my experience puts me in a good position to be
able
to offer value in this way. I've been involved in lean startups for
28+ years,
and have a technical breadth that few can equal. Not sure how I'd
structure
it, but though I'm not very likely to want to be a co-founder, I'd
like to help.

Hopefully I'll meet some of you at SB Melbourne drinks tonight.

Clifford Heath, Data Constellation, http://dataconstellation.com
Agile Information Management and Design
Skype: cjheath, Ph: (+61/0)401-533-540

[Roger Kermode]

Hi Cliff,

no assumption here about division of pursuing and validating ideas between tech and non-tech. I find it interesting how the conversation in t his thread has focused on this particular division of skills.

What I'm interested in how people get to the form that initial core team where they can test their ideas out.

A lot can be done without building / coding but ultimately to get real traction the startup needs the ability to build / create / code an offering iteratively with multiple cycles of learning with the customer(s). A little bit of outsourcing can help get things started but without some technical nouse in the house the startup will run into trouble because they simply don't know what's going on under the hood. There's also a big risk of an Us v Them culture developing (typically marketing vs engineering) and as a result opportunities will get missed.

Perhaps, the real issue at hand is more along the lines of "I'm a founder, I have and idea and deep deep expertise in X, but in order to get the start up moving it needs additional expertise in Y. So how do I get the best expertise in Y involved in an appropriate aligned way so that the startup can achieve its full potential." This means that while the founder doesn't necessarily have to be an expert in Y, he or she needs to have enough appreciation and understanding of Y to know enough to talk with people with Expertise in Y.

Founders who do this well create teams with diverse capabilities that can respond to external changes quickly, those that can't either kiss a lot of frogs and wonder why no-one wants to join them, or engage people in a manner that ultimately leads into a dysfunctional team that blows up at some point.

Just my 2c,

cheers,

Roger

[Robert Yearsley]

Hi all - brilliant thread. Have buit several tech startups, and
advised / nudged many more. This has always been a persistent issue,
no matter the state of supply and demand - here's my observations of
those that I have seen work and the many that fail:

Cavet - This is advice for both the CEO and CTO of prospective
INNOVATIVE MARKET SMASHING tech startup (if you dont have that - just
pay for devs and reduce the signal to noise ratio for the rest of us;)
just kidding.

1. This is a marriage - Business needs to be interested in tech
(doable with practice) and tech needs to be interested in business
(extremely rare and much harder) this is 9/10ths of the problem right
there - remember we are not talking about hiring a sw dev (big
difference), we are talking a cofounder in a business - it seems by
nature most SW devs make terrible business partners. The exception to
this is no 2.

2. Both parties must trust the hell out of each other. Sometimes in
rare cases a complementary relationship can work in a protector (CEO)
and creator (CTO) arrangement. ie Jobs and Woz. - probably the most
famous startup duo of SV like this. Those who know their Apple history
here will understand the pros and cons of such a relationship.

3. Completely dependent relationships fail - A technically clueless
Founder CEO that depends on a CTO do deal with 'that half' of the
business will guarantee failure before market entry, while the
majority of techies who fancy themselves a CTO who think business
ain't their problem will fail to pivot (fuck up, fail, and change
direction) when needed. The funny thing about these kinds of dependent
relationships is that both parties think they are independent of the
other.

4. For the tech flavored business startup what I've found it's about
finding two people - the mum and the dad (in terms of behavior towards
the venture), if these two people are the CEO and CTO - then beautiful
children does a startup make. (Sorry channeling Yoda).

Closing comment to my fellow Beacher business founders, to re-iterate:
A dev does not a CTO make. As CEO If you are worth your salt, your
idea or early stage venture should be appealing to most people you
meet, including those with strong technical chops. A CTO must value
the business, not simply think they will be showered with roses for
being technically brilliant (seen it many times).

I know I'm swimming against the thread on this one, but a tech CEO
should be tech savvy, and a CTO MUST be business savvy. its when the
perception that there is a short supply of CTOs (amongst the SW dev
community) that a tough situation gets much worse, and sw engineers
demand what sw engineers think is important and quickly form the
opinion that they are CTOs becuase veyone is asking them to be one, as
apposed to a CTO who has taken something to market themselves). Yes -
Yes - CEO's ideas are only worth her ability to execute them, but an
aspiring dev CTO is only worth his ability to wrap his head around a
future business and understand it's value, and frankly most of them
simply cant as their too focused on their own value - not their value
as a critical but smaller component of a larger beast.

Cheers,

Rob.

On Apr 5, 10:11 pm, Roger Kermode <roger.kerm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Si Beachers
>
> I'm chatting with a lot of folks these days through my various activities

> and I'm finding a common theme: People who have a great idea they want to

> validate and pursue, but are stumped for the want of a technical co-founder.

> Some of these folks are highly experienced execs, some are just starting
> our, but the need is the same and it also appears to be pervasive. I'm
> wondering what people who have overcome this hurdle did to find someone, and

> if there's something more that we can do to help accelerate the process for
> people new to this situation to find a competent, trustworthy tech guru to
> get something going.
>

> thoughts?
>
> Roger

[Kate Kendall]

Couple of links to add:

• Founder Dating (something similar could be done here) = http://founderdating.com/
• What to look for in a business cofounder (great, succinct article) = http://jasonlbaptiste.com/startups/what-to-look-for-in-a-business-co-founder/

My own experience is the converse i.e. that I've been quite fortunate as a potential business cofounder. I'm lucky to have a handful of people keen to work on projects and often get approached. I never bothered selling ideas (often redundant) – rather what I could offer.

I think if you have an audience (e.g. a solid network), good understanding of product and design (start to tinker with code yourself), knowledge about the market (it's amazing how few people research), energy and flexibility (can you drop everything to do a sprint or move if needed), finance source (savings to pay your own way), areas of specialisation (e.g. Marketing/PR with media contacts) and are not afraid of commercialisation – you'll have no problem finding someone. 

And obviously, you need to know technical people – there's no point repeatedly going to 'entrepreneur' meetups when you really should be at a dev user group. 

Surround yourself with technical people and you'll realise how silly some propositions sound. :)

[Gareth Rose]

Both great points Ryan and Patrick. Interesting topic Roger, it's
something I've been thinking alot about recently and had an indepth
discussion about it at open coffee this morning.

If you're a business (skilled) founder with an idea and trying to
start a business involving significant tech, then you want to be able
to focus on the business (strategy, marketing, sales etc) and get a
technical (skilled) co-founder to focus on tech. Whether the technical
founder is coding themselves or managing a tech team in Australia or
offshore they still handle the tech.

The point that Patrick made about getting a CTO with a business mind,
not just a coder as your tech-cofounder was a great one. I don't
however believe you necessarily need an experienced CTO, but you do
want a tech guy with a business mind who can grow into the experienced
CTO as the business grows.

I also believe the skills and experience of the founders are likely to
be reasonably evenly matched. If you’re an experienced business
skilled entrepreneur (who plays in the tech space) you’ve probably got
a bit of a network of experienced technical entrepreneurs that you can
draw on if you want to startup a new venture. Whereas,if you’re a
first time business (skilled) entrepreneur then you likely don’t have
a good network of experienced technical entrepreneurs in which case
you’ll likely end up partnering with a less experienced tech co-
founder. But as I mentioned above you should still choose a technical
co-founder with a business mind that can be the CTO (handling both
tech strategy and tech execution) as the business grows and not “just
a coder”, designer etc who won't be able to provide both tech strategy
and tech execution.

The question of equity split is a complex one, it does come down to
effort in terms of hours put in, but the other big part is related to
skills and experience and how important technology is for the
business. If you’re a first time technical skilled entrepreneur and
you’ve got the opportunity to co-found with an experienced and proven
business skilled entrepreneur who’s got the idea and business skills
then taking 20% equity could well be worth it.
On the other hand if you’re a first time business (skilled)
entrepreneur and you’ve got the opportunity to partner with an
experienced technical skilled entrepreneur then giving 50% of the
business could well be worth it. If technology is very important to
the business then giving away more than 50% and having two technical
co-founders might well be worth it.

An exception to this is if you're just building a mobile app (that's
more like a product than a full business) or if you’re starting a
business where technology isn’t a key part of the business then a
business focused entrepreneur with a little bit of tech experience
might be able to get away with hiring a designer and programmer or a
technical project manager to go build the app or website/tech and
doesn't really need a technical co-founder. Though I've heard enough
stories where that doesn't work either and it costs a lot of money.

Gareth

On Apr 7, 10:13 am, Ryan Henderson <ryanhe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Great points. Programmers (collectively) on pedestals is a fair point. I
> have worked with some great ones though, and the business knows it! I
> have also worked with many programmers, some that you would never put in
> front of the business (internal), your customers (external), let alone
> form a company with them.
>
> Your point about CTO is a good one, though I would say not all start-ups
> need an experienced CTO. Depends on your business really. A tech
> co-founder should demonstrate more than just coding skills though.
>
> And to be clear, developing software, or in the bigger picture systems,
> is much more than just churning code... so don't get coder and
> programmer mixed up with a good software/systems developer. In some
> businesses you will see, coders, team leaders, business analysts,
> project managers, software architects, testers and various other people.
> A good SOFTWARE DEVELOPER should have all those traits in some form,
> maybe they are not CTO material but they are the type of person that
> understands more than just code (Though they should be a master of code
> first). Maybe this is the types of person you need as a tech co-founder
> (again depends on your business). In my opinion there are lots of
> programmers, fewer developers, and even less CTOs.
>
> Ryan
>

> > On 6 April 2011 06:05, Brendan Quinn <bren...@clueful.com.au
> > <mailto:bren...@clueful.com.au>> wrote:
>
> >     On 6 April 2011 07:49, Geoff Langdale <geoff.langd...@gmail.com

> >    http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e13...

>
> >     No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
>
> >     To post to this group, send email to
> >     silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com

> >     <mailto:silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com>

> >     To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >     silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com

> >     <mailto:silicon-beach-australia%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >     For more options, visit this group at
> >    http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon
> > Beach Australia mailing list.
>
> > Guidelines on discussion:

> >http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e13...

[Gareth Rose]

Nice post Rob.
Great points def agree.


On Apr 7, 12:22 pm, Robert Yearsley <robert.j.years...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[Mick Liubinskas (Pollenizer)]

Shit! What a great thread! So great to see.

A few poorly thought through comments...

- Any good co-founder is hard to find. Startups are hard. It's all
hard. But getting easier, and it's worth it.

- A great technical co-founder who can code, design, build databases,
translate an idea into a product, iterate, not be precious,
communicate well, work hard, not be drawn to big bucks, help you raise
money, help you sell, not hate marketing/sales and showers every now
and again is rare. This is why it's hard, and also why it's probably a
team (eventually) not just a single person.

- The above is as rare as finding a non-technical co-founder who gets
tech enough not to be an idiot, understands that an idea is not worth
that much, is not a product nor is a business, can be patient, is
focused (of course) not to add 100 features, doesn't think features
are the answer, can clearly and passionately articulate a vision,
words hard, is not drawn to big bucks, can raise money, can sell, does
not hate tech/design, and showers every now and again.

- 20% is not the issue.

- A non-technical founder can not, in my opinion, run a tech startup
any more than a non-chef could hire a few cooks, get some food, a few
ovens, a few recipes and open a restaurant.

- The technical co-founder needs to match the founder, the idea, the
timing, the budget. (More things that are hard)

- Pollenizer does play the roll of technical co-founder on our
projects (Thanks Roger!) (amongst other things inc customer dev,
capital raising, design..) and it's hard. Fast moving ideas, strong
willed founders, lots of failure as you're working it out, founders
who've never built a startup before thinking you build and launch,
hard work, no money, stress, competition, and more uncertainty. And
yes, I'm ecstatically happy to say that there is no way Pollenizer can
run even 10% of the startups in Sydney let alone Australia and thank
god we can't. There are a bunch of ways this can work, despite being
hard, and we are just one. That's why we helped Startmate start, why
we support Pushstart, and hope there is 10 more.

- Good startup coders/tech should be put on a pedestal. It's art/
science/magic and not having written a (serious) line of code in 15
years, I thank the universe each day for our amazing team. There not
perfect, but they're wonderful and I couldn't do a thing without
them.

- We aren't doing nearly enough to get more computer science students
to go entrepreneurial (and even quit before they graduate). A few
people are really trying though (Sean Marshall et al). Why doesn't
this happen more in Australia? Too much good money in banking?

- The fact we can have a good conversation about it says it's getting
better. I think we're maybe 10 years away from a world class tech
community. That's fast, but don't slow down now.

- For those sitting in cubicles getting paid far too well to write
code for big rich banks, please apply this phrase from the Dalai Lama
to your decision to resign tomorrow and go find a startup to join;

“We are all on this planet together. We are all brothers and sisters
with the same physical and mental faculties, the same problems and the
same needs. We must all contribute to the fulfilment of the human
potential and the improvement of the quality of life as much as we are
able… Mankind is crying out for help. Ours is a desperate time. Those
who have something to offer should come forward. Now is the time.” -
HH Dalai Lama

Anyway, back to my terrible inbox (hurry up Bart).

Mick "20 GOTO 10" Liubinskas

[Matthew Ho]

the way that I have approached it, is a bit different and maybe this
will help some people.

My background is in online marketing, sales, social media and I have a
good business network. I'm not a programmer but I am looking to learn
Python / Java. I think its quite a valuable skillset to have being
able to program (at least to understand people who are programmers).

I have helped out startups in the past because 1) they were my friends
2) that's what I like to get in involved with. I did it voluntarily
and helped them out with the skills that I had. I also hang out with
developers and some of my really good friends are developers, and I
love talking to them about startups and new apps, etc...

Sometimes my developer friends approach me and ask me about marketing
for their startup and I'm willing to help. And vice versa, if I need
some technical help they are also willing to help me.

My belief is that I don't think approaching new people and tell them
about your idea and asking to be a co-founder really works, unless you
know them. Having some kind of relationship, goes a long way if they
are going to buy into what you are doing. If I do need a technical co-
founder, I know who I can approach, or at least they can give me some
high level advice and introduce me to the right people.

I'd start by connecting with people that may have the skills you need
and give them help in the areas they do not have strong competencies
in.

On Apr 7, 10:13 am, Ryan Henderson <ryanhe...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Great points. Programmers (collectively) on pedestals is a fair point. I
> have worked with some great ones though, and the business knows it! I
> have also worked with many programmers, some that you would never put in
> front of the business (internal), your customers (external), let alone
> form a company with them.
>
> Your point about CTO is a good one, though I would say not all start-ups
> need an experienced CTO. Depends on your business really. A tech
> co-founder should demonstrate more than just coding skills though.
>
> And to be clear, developing software, or in the bigger picture systems,
> is much more than just churning code... so don't get coder and
> programmer mixed up with a good software/systems developer. In some
> businesses you will see, coders, team leaders, business analysts,
> project managers, software architects, testers and various other people.
> A good SOFTWARE DEVELOPER should have all those traits in some form,
> maybe they are not CTO material but they are the type of person that
> understands more than just code (Though they should be a master of code
> first). Maybe this is the types of person you need as a tech co-founder
> (again depends on your business). In my opinion there are lots of
> programmers, fewer developers, and even less CTOs.
>
> Ryan
>

> > On 6 April 2011 06:05, Brendan Quinn <bren...@clueful.com.au
> > <mailto:bren...@clueful.com.au>> wrote:
>
> >     On 6 April 2011 07:49, Geoff Langdale <geoff.langd...@gmail.com

> >    http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e13...

>
> >     No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
>
> >     To post to this group, send email to
> >     silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com

> >     <mailto:silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com>

> >     To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >     silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com

> >     <mailto:silicon-beach-australia%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >     For more options, visit this group at
> >    http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon
> > Beach Australia mailing list.
>
> > Guidelines on discussion:

> >http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e13...

[Roger Kermode]

Hey Mick, these are hardly poorly thought through comments..... gold, mate. Thanks for adding to the thread.

R.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list.

Guidelines on discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e1303508d?hl=en%3Fhl%3Den

[Matt Moore]

Probably repeating some of the previous posts (in this very interesting & useful thread - many thanks to all the participants):

When you are looking for a business partner, you often begin by looking for someone with a particular set of skills or experience. Some additional things come to mind:

1. What will make or break the relationship is the extent to which you share common goals, values, and worldviews. This latter stuff doesn't appear on CVs or LinkedIn profiles and can only be comprehended by working with someone. Often you will find that values are not shared and it's best to discover this early before significant time has been invested in a relationship that is dysfunctional. Go on lots of first dates and don't get married to the first person that comes along.

2. You also need to respect each other as equals. If one individual has significant power over the other (or decides to take a high status position whether they actually have the power or not) then it's probably not going to work (and someone will end up getting screwed).

I have a couple of tech ideas but I don't want to partner with a technologist until I have some potential customers lined up for them. As noted, ideas by themselves are pretty worthless.

[Rai]

Nailed it. To me these are the most salient points when looking for someone to work with.
Unfortunately, you either find these things out by getting to know the person really really well first, which takes time, or working with them, by which it might be too late.

Hmmm..... maybe we need to set up a potential-founders dating service... :P

Rai

[Derek Winter]

I'd like to re-inforce Matthew's viewpoint.

Because of (at least)...

- The stress and pressure that founders will undoubtedly experience

- The amount of time they will spend together

The strength of relationship between them is critical to the success of the venture. It will get tested along the way, but the ability to trust and respect each other even when the necessary robust debates occur (ok ... brutal arguments sometimes) will make a huge difference to the chance's of success.

This kind of relationship doesn't happen overnight, so some history of working together, knowing each other outside a work context, friends in common, networks in common ... will make a huge difference.

But that's not all. The right people for the CTO/CEO (for want of a better word) type roles on day one are highly unlikely to be the right people for the same role's two years later and almost definitely 5 years later. The ability to recognise this and be able to replace yourself with the right people as the business builds and develops will be vital. This is not to say that those people don't continue to have crucial and significant roles to play, just that the personality profiles that make them good entrepreneurs and able to successfully function in the early stages of a startup are probably the same personality profiles that don't make them good at functioning in the same roles when the business is bigger and growth and development stabilises. 

I've seen this scenario wreck start-ups as well as 'stunt' their growth and development.

As an aside, as a newcomer to this group, I've enjoyed the great discussion this topic has generated.

Derek Winter

 

Ergo Consulting

Subscribe to the Ergo blog...

 

49-51 Rosslyn St, West Melbourne, VIC 3003, Australia

  

Office: (03) 9923 7300 | Mobile: 0405 344 370 | Fax: (03) 9923 7355

 

Email: derek....@ergoconsulting.com.au

Web: www.ergoconsulting.com.au 

LinkedIn: linkd.in/gw1DQ6

Please consider the environment before printing this email

Guidelines on discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e1303508d?hl=en%3Fhl%3Den

[VB]

Maybe some confusion is caused by the definition of founder, but if
you want to start a company and don't have a co-founder, you are
really the only founder. When you are saying you are "looking for a co-
founder" this is in fact a contradiction in terms. The other person
will not be equal to you in terms of entrepreneurial endeavour. There
is nothing wrong with it, but it's basically false advertising. If you
are starting a company and need to have technical staff working for
equity only, make this abundantly clear.

And also, on a controversial note, my observations of the "founder
market" is there isn't necessarily a shortage of good technical people
to join early stage companies, but a shortage of inspiring
entrepreneurs who know how to attract them.

[gord]

Actually Im looking for exactly this kind of Technical Cofounder role.

What Im looking for in a non-technical cofounder is -
- Singleminded, self disciplined, driven person with a clear vision
- Business+People skills and experience, obviously
- grounded in reality, organised, and actually gets-stuff-done
- idea that does have a paying market, solves a pain point
- some level tech and design awareness
- some open-mindedness to modern technical strategies
- has generated some funding


Warning signs :

Someone who thinks PHP is the only language is probably not going to
excite me.
Someone who describes creating new software as 'coding' probably has
no understanding of whats under the hood


Positive signs :

If a biz-geek/entrepreneur has made faltering steps towards
implementing an actual technical solution..in chicken-wire and
selotape [PHP :] then that is a huge plus. If they have drawn up what
the software might look like, thats a huge plus.

Any other sign of tenacity in achieving practical results leads me to
believe this person will succeed. ie. that my work in building state
of the art software to realize their business vision will pay off.


portable CTO ?

Pollenizer seems to fill a concrete need... but I think there is
another niche where you have more sustained focus of a fulltime
dedicated CTO during the initial growth phase of the startup to ship
product v1. Thats precisely what I want to be doing - backing a great
entrepreneur during that intense rapid growth phase, and building the
technical team.

I was lucky when I worked for magicdraw.com, as Chief Architect at
their Asian dev studio... I basically had the freedom to build up a
technical team and deliver two new shrink wrap products. Effectively
I got away with creating a startup within a larger organisation.
Skunkworks/Guerilla/Aikido development at its best. After this I
guess theres no hope for me - Im hooked on the buzz of delivering the
new new thing.

So..
If you truly are the real deal and looking for a tech cofounder /
CTO.. do get in touch.


cheers,

gordon.

[gord]

Currently building two decidedly uncool real-world projects in
Node.js.
Hype aside, it really is just a much better PHP.


Agreed... Ive seen projects die [most of them in C++, strangely]
because
the core devs cared more about the elegance of their template
contortions than
the usability/simplicity/robustness of the product.

<rant>

The other common killer is premature optimisation - ie. they worry
about scalability for 2 years before they ship basic features.

The third killer I would say is allowing the code to get too big.
Bigness is an evil all of its own.
C++ suffers from this often, in practice. Ive also seen some
surprisingly large PHP code-bases.
In contrast, Im reminded daily of the shortness of code in Javascript
[Node.js]
[ Modern JS is very different from the crappy old JS you used to see
pre JQuery days ]

The forth killer I would say is morphing requirements...
the cure is to ship code for the old requirements anyway, then update
to the new requirements
This follows from the "shipping is everything" rule.

</rant>


gord.



On Apr 8, 12:09 pm, Derek Winter <Derek.Win...@ergoconsulting.com.au>
wrote:

> I'd like to re-inforce Matthew's viewpoint.
>
> Because of (at least)...
> - The stress and pressure that founders will undoubtedly experience
> - The amount of time they will spend together
>
> The strength of relationship between them is critical to the success of the venture. It will get tested along the way, but the ability to trust and respect each other even when the necessary robust debates occur (ok ... brutal arguments sometimes) will make a huge difference to the chance's of success.
>
> This kind of relationship doesn't happen overnight, so some history of working together, knowing each other outside a work context, friends in common, networks in common ... will make a huge difference.
>
> But that's not all. The right people for the CTO/CEO (for want of a better word) type roles on day one are highly unlikely to be the right people for the same role's two years later and almost definitely 5 years later. The ability to recognise this and be able to replace yourself with the right people as the business builds and develops will be vital. This is not to say that those people don't continue to have crucial and significant roles to play, just that the personality profiles that make them good entrepreneurs and able to successfully function in the early stages of a startup are probably the same personality profiles that don't make them good at functioning in the same roles when the business is bigger and growth and development stabilises.
>
> I've seen this scenario wreck start-ups as well as 'stunt' their growth and development.
>
> As an aside, as a newcomer to this group, I've enjoyed the great discussion this topic has generated.
>
> Derek Winter
>
> Ergo Consulting

> Subscribe to the Ergo blog...<http://feeds.feedburner.com/ergoconsulting>

>
> 49-51 Rosslyn St, West Melbourne, VIC 3003, Australia
>
> Office: (03) 9923 7300 | Mobile: 0405 344 370 | Fax: (03) 9923 7355
>

> Email: derek.win...@ergoconsulting.com.au<mailto:derek.win...@ergoconsulting.com.au>
> Web:www.ergoconsulting.com.au<http://www.ergoconsulting.com.au/>
> LinkedIn: linkd.in/gw1DQ6<http://au.linkedin.com/in/derekwinter>

>    silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com<mailto:silicon-beach-australia@goo glegroups.com>

>    <mailto:silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com>
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>    silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com<mailto:silicon-beach-a ustralia+u...@googlegroups.com>

>    <mailto:silicon-beach-australia%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
>    For more options, visit this group at
>  http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon
> Beach Australia mailing list.
>
> Guidelines on discussion:http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e13...
>
> No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
>
> To post to this group, send email to

> silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com<mailto:silicon-beach-australia@goo glegroups.com>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com<mailto:silicon-beach-a ustralia+u...@googlegroups.com>
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en
>
> --
> You received this message because you...
>
> read more »

[Matthew Ho]

there's a really good post by Fred Wilson about outsourcing
development vs in house development skills. I was talking to someone
at work about this today.

Basically, he says if you are a tech startup, software development is
a core competency and you can't outsource it. Someone needs to be
writing code. You can outsource some specific elements like mobile
development, but even lately he's stated that more startups need
mobile dev skills in house.

"Specifically, I think it is always a bad thing for the founding team
of a software company to outsource software development. We see this a
lot. A team will come into our office and pitch us. When I ask how
many people they have, they say "this is all of us". Then I say, "who
is writing code?" And they say, "we've hired a company to do that for
us." That is a very disappointing moment for me because it means we
almost certainly won't invest in that team. We believe that software
companies must own their most important capability themselves and that
is the ability to produce their product in house.

The founding team of a software company should have a strong product
manager on it (often that is the founder) and should have at least
several strong software developers on it who can write most of the
code. It does make sense to outsource some parts of software
engineering from time to time."

http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/09/outsourcing.html

> ...
>
> read more »

[Peter Alderson]

The situation is due to a lack of entrepreneurial understanding among
both the non-technical and technical cofounders.

Non-technical cofounders need to:

1. Better communicate the concept

A non-technical cofounder is best positioned to execute on a concept
that addresses a specific problem that they’ve had firsthand
experience dealing with. Forgo the “an app to display my FB friends on
an interaction graph” and revisit the “at my last job we were spending
$1m per month trying to organise inbound email”.

2. Present enough evidence to support the concept

If abiding by item 1, this shouldn’t be an issue. At the same time,
there is almost no end to the amount of material that can be gathered
to validate the concept; particularly if they’re seeking to address a
true pain point. The real test of the non-technical cofounder is how
far they’re willing to go to increase the targeting of the validation.
E.g. a drawing is better than a verbal description, Powerpoint is
better than a drawing, wireframe trumps Powerpoint and a working demo
is aces high.

3. Remain open to future working arrangements/product shifts

Be liberal with equity - it’s not worth anything and only ever will be
if the moon is blue. Non-technical cofounders must also recognise that
they’re asking a technical cofounder to take a risk on themself. They
must put their hand in their pocket and front some risk money. If and
when this point reached, it’s the technical cofounder that’s now
taking on the greater level of risk.

To balance my comments, technical cofounders need to:

1. Better understand the 1,001 tasks, outside of product development,
that are required to make a BUSINESS work

Do not be short-sighted and understand that there’s an awful lot of
work that goes into creating a business. A valuable non-technical
cofounder will attend all industry events, write press releases, write
web copy, manage all marketing, work with lawyers, bookkeepers,
accountants, organise offices and everything that goes in one, answer
phones, email, handle complaints, recruiting, keeping on top of
industry developments, fundraising, payroll, insurance, financial
management, not to mention selling the product, blogging, keeping
customers fat and happy and a lot, lot more. A technical cofounder’s
time should be spent doing what they do best; developing the product.
A true business is a lot more than the product itself.

2. Better understand the value of industry experience/contacts

Item 2 on the non-technical cofounder list is essentially a due
diligence pack on the industry experience/contacts the non-technical
cofounder has and should provide enough insight to determine whether
the potential cofounder can establish such relationships where they
previously didn’t exist. The value of industry contacts and the skill
is takes to craft and manage them should not be undervalued. There
have been plenty of multi-million dollar deals constructed over a
beer.

3. Look beyond the ‘hot’ sectors

Reading through the thread it sounds as though many of the pitches
people are hearing sound a lot like this http://bit.ly/ePluvW.
Obviously, that would be something to wash your hands of as quickly as
possible, if you can pick yourself up off the floor. The serious
message here is avoid anything that’s been featured in Wired magazine.
That includes check ins, group buying, FB games etc. Look for
originality within the concept being presented and know that it’s
quite likely to be found within the most ‘boring’ of industries.

Finally, given the context of the thread I’m sure you can all
appreciate - http://whartoniteseekscodemonkey.tumblr.com/

[Tristan]

I think Shane's idea is a great one.  Like angel investment but time and coding rather than money.

Wasn't somebody in the SB group working with computer science departments at Universities to try and establish links?  So projects that programmers work on as part of their degrees could be based on real business concepts people have.  This would be great because it would allow programmers to work on something that was potentially more 'real' than any invented scenario their course prescribes.  They would also gain useful experience dealing with a real client and potentially some equity.

[Phil Sim]

A couple of quick thoughts...

If your a non-technical founder, it shouldn't cost you more than $10k to go out to elance, freelancer or rentacoder and get a  prototype built. Or else learn enough programming to get your first iteration out, which is what I did. If you haven't got the commitment to do either of those you're probably not going to make it as a startup anyway. You should then take it out to the market, test your idea and see if you realistically get some traction. IMO, only then should you bother looking for a technical partner and I'd suggest you'll find it a lot easier with a prototype and a vision someone can see, especially if you have some initial customer feedback to go with it.

phil

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Tristan <tristan...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think Shane's idea is a great one.  Like angel investment but time and coding rather than money.

Wasn't somebody in the SB group working with computer science departments at Universities to try and establish links?  So projects that programmers work on as part of their degrees could be based on real business concepts people have.  This would be great because it would allow programmers to work on something that was potentially more 'real' than any invented scenario their course prescribes.  They would also gain useful experience dealing with a real client and potentially some equity.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list.
 

Guidelines on discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e1303508d?hl=en%3Fhl%3Den

 
No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
 
To post to this group, send email to
silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

--
Phil Sim
Chief Executive Officer,
MediaConnect Australia Pty Ltd
www.mediaconnect.com.au
phi...@mediaconnect.com.au
Ph: +61 2 9894 6277
Fax: +61 2 8246 6383
Mobile: 0413889940

[Mick Liubinskas (Pollenizer)]

I think if you're non-technical and you use odesk or elance, then
you'll most likely end up disappointed. But you're right about the
commitment.

My suggestion for testing a new idea if you're non-tech is to do
manual testing of the idea. Run it with wordpress, google ads, paypal
accounts, manual emails - whatever you can control until you actually
know what to build - and more importantly, if you should build it at
all. You might also be in a good position to convince a technical
person to join, as you have some evidence, not just an idea and a few
mock ups (which is what I used to do...)

I'm serious about this, you can test a lot of businesses without any
tech. To begin with the important thing is flexibility and speed of
learning. Once you get it right, then it's about automation, features
and scalability. Read about the story of Aardvark. Phil likes to call
it the Wizard of Oz approach (which I think he borrowed from Andrew
Jessup who borrowed it from...
http://www.pollenizer.com/what-high-technology-startups-can-learn-from-the-wizard-of-oz/)

Tech, non-tech, old, young, male, female, - just get out there and
keep doing it until you succeed. No excuses.

Mick "Manuel" Liubinskas

> >http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e13...

[slamdunka]

On Apr 6, 11:34 am, Roger Kermode <roger.kerm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yup this is what Pollenizer does. The challenge is that Pollenzier can't
> service everyone, in fact many people need help to even get themselves
> prepared before talking to Pollenizer, and that as a result there are many
> folks out there who miss out for the want of tiny amount of focus.

Don't forget Pollenizer charge you an hourly for the services they
provide as well as take equity.

[Patrick Collins]

Is that any different than a cofounder?

Sent from my iPhone

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list.
>

> Guidelines on discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e1303508d?hl=en%3Fhl%3Den

[Mick Liubinskas (Pollenizer)]

>> Yup this is what Pollenizer does. The challenge is that Pollenzier can't
>> service everyone, in fact many people need help to even get themselves
>> prepared before talking to Pollenizer, and that as a result there are many
>> folks out there who miss out for the want of tiny amount of focus.

> Don't forget Pollenizer charge you an hourly for the services they
> provide as well as take equity.

To clarify Slamdunka, Pollenizer doesn't take an hourly fee, but we do
make sure the investment covers out team to keep the lights on. We
keep our base costs low so we can continue to work on startups (which
inherently don't have money) and take all our upside in the equity. We
try to think of it as convincing an experienced startup person to quit
their job at Google to join you as co-founder, but they need to cover
their mortgage. Does that make sense? If not, I suggest a game of one
on one. I can't dunk, but I've got a good scoop layup.

Mick "6 minute increments" Liubinskas

On Apr 12, 11:48 am, Patrick Collins <pcolli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is that any different than a cofounder?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>

> On Apr 9, 2011, at 6:52 AM, slamdunka <almon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 11:34 am, Roger Kermode <roger.kerm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Yup this is what Pollenizer does. The challenge is that Pollenzier can't
> >> service everyone, in fact many people need help to even get themselves
> >> prepared before talking to Pollenizer, and that as a result there are many
> >> folks out there who miss out for the want of tiny amount of focus.
>
> > Don't forget Pollenizer charge you an hourly for the services they
> > provide as well as take equity.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list.
>

> > Guidelines on discussion:http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e13...

[Tristan]

I've attempted to visualise all the options and ideas discussed in this thread.  With a focus on the ideas that have a clearly defined action - as opposed to the nuanced discussions about the difficulties of actually getting along with potential co-founders!

Anyway, let me know what you think and what I've missed, how it could be improved etc.

http://awe.sm/5I25m

[slamdunka]

I certainly didn't mean it negatively as I don't find it
unreasonable(if the equity taken/rates charged is balanced correctly).

Just didn't think you should be inundated with people offering up
equity in exchange for free web development.

Your approach certainly makes sense, although I may take you up on the
game of one on one in the future. These old legs dont dunk anymore
either.


On Apr 12, 10:01 am, "Mick Liubinskas (Pollenizer)"

[Peter Alderson]

There's a few good answers on Quora about how to find a technical
cofounder that people may find helpful -
http://www.quora.com/Finding-Co-Founders/How-do-I-find-good-technical-co-founders

[Aegist]

Brilliant resource there Peter. I feel like this whole thread has just been answered in one link.

-------------------------
http://www.sportsarbitrageguide.com
http://www.surebetbookies.com/
http://www.comparebookmakers.com
http://www.shanegreenup.com
http://www.tdmskp.com.au

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list.

Guidelines on discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e1303508d?hl=en%3Fhl%3Den

[John Masson]

Very interesting thread. One thing I'm wondering about is whether
there is space for someone to be a stepping stone between a well
thought out idea and the bringing in of someone in a CTO style role?

Thinking about what I do in a team all day in the corporate world, a
lot of it is rapidly building tactical or POC style applications in a
modern, scalable framework. About half of what I'm hearing sounds like
the need for more resources like this? (The other half being the need
for deeply involved business partners)...

Someone who can cost effectively do a 10 or 20 day sprint in which you
work with a person who has good knowledge of building software end to
end (not 'just a coder' as people mentioned) that can help you mock up
designs, create a feature list for a POC, write the schema, build the
app (in a decent scalable framework), provide a platform to host it
(sure, it's not going to scale to 1,000,000,000 users but somewhere it
works), and hand it over for you to play with, think about and show
others (perhaps your future CTO)...

Probably should add here I'm aware I might have just described half of
what Pollenizer does :) but I'm not really clear on their role,
thought it went beyond this though into the business side and funding
etc, what I was envisaging was more of a technical POC building
team...


On Apr 11, 10:54 pm, "Mick Liubinskas (Pollenizer)"

<bigm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think if you're non-technical and you use odesk or elance, then
> you'll most likely end up disappointed. But you're right about the
> commitment.
>
> My suggestion for testing a new idea if you're non-tech is to do
> manual testing of the idea. Run it with wordpress, google ads, paypal
> accounts, manual emails - whatever you can control until you actually
> know what to build - and more importantly, if you should build it at
> all. You might also be in a good position to convince a technical
> person to join, as you have some evidence, not just an idea and a few
> mock ups (which is what I used to do...)
>
> I'm serious about this, you can test a lot of businesses without any
> tech. To begin with the important thing is flexibility and speed of
> learning. Once you get it right, then it's about automation, features
> and scalability. Read about the story of Aardvark. Phil likes to call
> it the Wizard of Oz approach (which I think he borrowed from Andrew

> Jessup who borrowed it from...http://www.pollenizer.com/what-high-technology-startups-can-learn-fro...)

[Mikel Lindsaar]

On 13/04/2011, at 9:51 PM, John Masson wrote:
> Someone who can cost effectively do a 10 or 20 day sprint in which you
> work with a person who has good knowledge of building software end to
> end (not 'just a coder' as people mentioned) that can help you mock up
> designs, create a feature list for a POC, write the schema, build the
> app (in a decent scalable framework), provide a platform to host it
> (sure, it's not going to scale to 1,000,000,000 users but somewhere it
> works), and hand it over for you to play with, think about and show
> others (perhaps your future CTO)...

This is an interesting idea.

However, from the "other side" this is sort of thing we do for bread and butter.

The truth of the matter is, to sprint through a 10-20 day cycle and get an application up to a good alpha stage, will cost you around $25-40k. That would be a 1 and a bit month sprint with members of our team working on your app full time. It would include working with myself helping guide at the start the idea and help shape it, and my lead devs and designers fleshing out the idea, getting some screen mockups done, place holder pages, basic functionality and something that could be put out there as an alpha.

It would be an alpha. It would have rough edges. But (depending on the complexity of the app) it would be good enough to start getting users to use, get feedback and get the name out there.

We all know the most important thing in launching a startup is to LAUNCH the startup. Everything else is secondary.

But the other point is, you can then go to a technical co founder and say "I have built this. It works. Wanna come on board?"

That sort of proposal is a lot more attractive than the "I have an idea, go execute it and it it succeeds, I'll take 50%" which at the end of the day is a lot like what a lot of equity only deals are all about.

Regards

Mikel Lindsaar
http://rubyx.com/
http://stillalive.com/

[Jonathan Clarke]

Just putting this out there. 

Is there a shortage of technical people willing to work for someone else?  

I was at the ruby meetup last night, about 10 jobs were announced that they were looking for people.  I'm not sure but it seemed that no-one was really interested.  Most seem to be working on their own thing, freelancing or starting up....

Jonathan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list.

Guidelines on discussion: http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia/msg/351e183e1303508d?hl=en%3Fhl%3Den

[NickLothian]

On Wednesday, April 13, 2011 9:50:21 PM UTC+9:30, Jonathan Clarke wrote:

Just putting this out there. 

Is there a shortage of technical people willing to work for someone else?  

I was at the ruby meetup last night, about 10 jobs were announced that they were looking for people.  I'm not sure but it seemed that no-one was really interested.  Most seem to be working on their own thing, freelancing or starting up....

Jonathan

From the perspective of a technical person - yes, there is plenty of work around.

I suspect people complaining about the lack of technical founders don't realize how good the market is at the moment. Without trying, it's easy to make $600/day (here in Adelaide), and if I know people getting very close to $700/day without actively chasing high paying jobs. I've seen mention of $1000/day development jobs in finance in Europe - but apparently people don't realize that's what some financial companies in Sydney are paying now too. 

 

The potential financial upside of a startup might be great, but working on something interesting is much more likely to attract the best people than potential future money alone. Technical people can do risk/reward maths too, and the high rates available to developers at the moment changes that math a lot.