The problem I have with all of this is some odd fixed belief that there are no systemic effects at work and that every startup operates in a vacuum. That whether a startup is successful or not is wholly an intrinsic property with no externalities to other startups and the ecosystem itself.
It's not just startups competing with each other for funding, but often for customers, attention, market awareness. And then everything in the space is moving. Following lean/agile/RAT techniques is just as much about exposing your ideas to the oxygen of the dynamics of the overall market (macroeconomics, tech trends, partnerships, alliances and dependencies, etc.) as is is to direct users/customers.
And since humans are involved heavily in the act, we are dealing with anthrocomplex adaptive systems. This means success is highly sensitive to initial conditions and non-linear impacts: it's not just some deterministic paint-by-numbers roadmap. Emergent practices matter more than "best practices", and thus the rate of learning -- about customers, the market, macroeconomics, investors, etc. -- is your only sustainable bet for success.
To presume that following a formula somehow removes all the unknowns is folly. Thus rather than seeing the straight lines as failure of entrepreneurship to get "better", I see that a lot of the controllable failures have mostly been winnowed out and the success rates could have achieved a sort of systemic saturation point.
Helpful analysis.
The problem I have with all of this is some odd fixed belief that there are no systemic effects at work and that every startup operates in a vacuum. That whether a startup is successful or not is wholly an intrinsic property with no externalities to other startups and the ecosystem itself.
It's not just startups competing with each other for funding, but often for customers, attention, market awareness. And then everything in the space is moving. Following lean/agile/RAT techniques is just as much about exposing your ideas to the oxygen of the dynamics of the overall market (macroeconomics, tech trends, partnerships, alliances and dependencies, etc.) as is is to direct users/customers.
And since humans are involved heavily in the act, we are dealing with anthrocomplex adaptive systems. This means success is highly sensitive to initial conditions and non-linear impacts: it's not just some deterministic paint-by-numbers roadmap. Emergent practices matter more than "best practices", and thus the rate of learning -- about customers, the market, macroeconomics, investors, etc. -- is your only sustainable bet for success.
To presume that following a formula somehow removes all the unknowns is folly. Thus rather than seeing the straight lines as failure of entrepreneurship to get "better", I see that a lot of the controllable failures have mostly been winnowed out and the success rates could have achieved a sort of systemic saturation point.
Inspiring work indeed, Jeroen, thank you. Are you also following Cedric Chin's work (Common Cog)?
Thanks for the kind words and no, will check it out. What is good about it?
Apologies for my delay, Jeroen.
Praxis, I would say. Academic rigour, but thoroughly real-world-evidence-based.
Nicely formulated!