Just watched the lecture.
The first part of the lecture was on the "Idea", and
I want to give an alternative approach.
First, do I believe that what Altman describes can
work and is what he has seen has worked? Definitely
yes.
Second, is that all that can work? I don't think
so.
Third, do I suggest that the alternative approach I
describe here will be common and/or always better
than what Altman describes? No. Sometimes better?
I do believe so. But even if the alternative
approach is rare, that should not be a huge obstacle
since the success Altman is talking about, the goal,
is also rare. That is, for the rare successes, we
should expect that some of the means will also be
rare and not common.
But for the alternative approach, given that it is
rare, we should have some solid evidence of its
effectiveness, and I believe that we can.
I want to propose that it can be possible to have an
idea, test it, essentially just on paper, and, if it
passes the test, be quite sure the resulting product
will be good and fairly sure the resulting company
will be successful.
Yes, I'm proposing that the alternative approach
provides a way to have the idea be by far the most
important part of the work and the rest, e.g., the
execution, be routine.
Or I would say that a good idea is one that makes
it through the filters of my alternative approach.
Then I am claiming that with a bad idea, yes,
execution is everything but with a good idea
execution is routine.
Yes, to me, the ideas like Altman describes look
to me as far too unpromising to be taken seriously
and promise that, yes, indeed, execution will be
many times more difficult than the idea. Indeed,
Altman is admitting that many start ups fail, that
building a successful start up is difficult. I
would agree that, starting with a bad idea, building
a successful start up is difficult.
Now, for the alternative approach for finding a good
idea for a start up:
First, the alternative approach is very selective,
that is, rejects a lot of ideas. Some of the ideas
the approach rejects will be able to be the basis of
successful companies. The alternative approach
rejects ideas when it just cannot build a rock solid
case that the idea is good. E.g., the alternative
does not know how to conclude that the ideas for
Facebook or Twitter would lead to success. The
alternative wants to accept only good ideas and in
doing so will reject a lot of good ideas. The
alternative approach asks for a lot from an idea,
and many good ideas will not have that much.
Second, Altman does emphasize that a need and a
corresponding solution one person sees in their own
life can be relevant. Okay, I've been there and
done that, that is, I've seen needs and solutions.
Third, what I'm proposing for an alternative is, at
least in broad terms, and compared with what Altman
describes, much older, much more thoroughly tested,
and with a much better, really excellent, track
record.
Actually, we all know at least something, maybe a
lot, about the alternative and its track record. I
learned about the alternative early in my career
doing mostly US DoD projects around DC and also some
other experiences, but there is much more
information about the alternative readily available
far from me.
So:
(1) Need.
To make the alternative work, we have to start with
a suitable need, i.e., market need, that is, a
suitable problem to solve. We want the first good
or a much better solution to be, obviously, no
doubt, a "must have" and not just a "nice to have".
Next, for this need, we want to find the first good
or a much better solution, presented just on paper.
Then we want to evaluate the solution, also just on
paper. Sorry, no, we don't "get out of the
building" and talk to other people.
Big example of such a need? Okay, we'd like to have
a safe, effective, inexpensive one pill taken once
to cure any cancer. So, yes, early on, for
Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, a lot of doubt. For
such a cancer pill, we have "no doubt"; to know this
we don't have to "get out of the building", ask
people, throw trial solutions against a wall to see
if there is interest, etc.
(2) Solution.
Given the need from (1), we try to find a solution.
If we fail here, and likely we will, we return to
(1) and find another need. E.g., clearly so far the
one pill cure for any cancer will fail here for at
least a long time.
We want a solution that we are sure, "no doubt",
will be the first good or much better.
Here's a way: Start with the real problem and see
what about it we can assume. Then convert this
problem and its assumptions into a mathematical
problem. So, we are limiting ourselves to needs
that lead faithfully to mathematical problems.
Sorry, no intuitive heuristics need apply.
Next find a mathematical solution.
Develop the mathematical solution just on paper, as
carefully done theorems and proofs, and then
severely check the proofs.
Then observe that it is totally clear that the
mathematical solution will be fully close enough to
the first good or much better solution we want for
the need.
If any of the work here in step (2) fails, then
return to step (1)
(3) Product.
Write software to do the data manipulations
specified by the mathematical solution. Severely
check the software. That's essentially the product.
If fail here, then return to (1).
Track record? Okay:
(A) GPS.
(B) The version of GPS done first by the US Navy for
the SSBNs.
(C) Beam forming in passive sonar.
(D) The A-bomb of WWII -- all three exploded just as
planned.
(E) The H-bomb of the 1950s -- first test, 15
million tons of TNT.
(F) The SR-71, for Mach 3+, 80,000+ feet, 2000+
miles without refueling; proposed by Kelly Johnson
just on paper; built and flown just as proposed.
(G) Keyhole satellite, essential a Hubble, before
Hubble, but aimed at earth instead of space.
(H) The F-117 stealth, essentially a modified F-16,
flew as planned, through Saddam's anti-aircraft
artillery without a scratch.
(I) The airplane the Wright brothers took to Kitty
Hawk, NC.
(J) Phased array radar for Aegis class ships.
(K) High bypass turbofan engines.
(L) RSA encryption.
(M) Hubble.
(N) LHC.
(O) COBE, WMAP, and Planck.
And there are many more. Such projects that failed
in execution? Tough to find. Batting average?
Near 1000.
Right: Projects A-O are all just technical
projects. Right. But in each case they provided
the intended solution for the need. As we have
explained, to have a successful technical solution
lead to a successful solution in business, we want
such a solution to be a "must have"; else we return
to (1).
The high bypass turbofan jet engine a commercial
"must have"? Darned right: It saves an ocean of
expensive jet fuel. How? Simple: Burning jet fuel
releases energy. Want to convert that energy to
kinetic energy and get the resulting momentum. But
for mass m and velocity v, kinetic energy is (1/2)
mv^2 and momentum is just mv. So, we pay in energy
(1/2) mv^2 and get in the momentum we want mv.
So, since in kinetic energy we have v^2 but in
momentum have just v, to get more of our desired
momentum from our given, available energy, we want m
to be large and v to be small. So, mostly we want
to use the hot gasses from the combustion to turn a
big ducted propeller that moves a huge mass of air
at a low velocity. Instead, the military jet
engines intended for supersonic speeds, and long
used in commercial aviation because they were
available, move a smaller mass at high velocity.
So, for commercial, subsonic flight, a high bypass
turbofan is a "must have". Then have the first good
one or a much better one, as we have assumed, and
very much should have a successful business.