For different groups to understand what is possible and what is not, a matrix of sorts is needed to quantify why things may or may not be possible.  Things like an overall Company vision and roadmap contribute to why and when things are happening, but scoring things can also bring some much needed transparency into the process.

At first glance this seems like an excuse as why not to get something done – simply blaming “its too computationally expensive” – but as you can see there are a myriad of reasons.

I am far enough away from the time when this was first discussed that I have started to think about the issues that came up in another way.  You can easily plot the overall Difficulty and Impact of a project by plotting them on a graph similar to the one below.

Each dot represents a potential project or feature

Scoring would work such that;

Green = justification for immediate completion
Yellow = decide based on subjective views
Red = justification to wait

You can see how almost any discussion between groups, such as BD and engineering, could be plotted on this graph.  Something that has extremely high impact but is technically very difficult (red) may not get the hours/work necessary in light of other projects.  However something that is high impact and low difficulty (green) could get prioritized right away.  Using this methodology brings in some objectivity that may otherwise be absent from a discussion.

There are many subjective reasons why something may end up in a specific area or color, but this at least lets you plot all projects accordingly.

As an organization grows, this allows you to weigh the ideas and complexities of partner requests with that of folks who have longer term (cross quarter) projects currently in motion.  Things like engineering hours, PM resources, and design may play a role in the score and color of a dot.  Previously running projects have probably the highest impact, but provide justification on a high impact low difficulty project being pushed off a month.

Everyone in the organization should understand how a suggestion or feature improvement could affect the overall goals and timeline of a Company.

I don’t think I will stop contributing grand ideas to the product and eng. teams here anytime soon though

As an aside I was reminded of this recently while watching @cooperb give his talk about our infrastructure stack on MongoDB.

I have noticed a common occurrence where someone sets up a meeting or call to go over something new or propose something interesting, but they only cover this within the last part of the meeting time. This sets you up to have very little time to present your request, while spending significant time setting up and getting ready for your big “ask”.

Commonly after introductions are made via email and calls or meetings have been setup, folks never dive into the crux of the issue until there is little time for healthy discussion. It can be daunting to go into a big request at the early stages of a conversation or relationship, but you should strike the right balance. Even setting someone up with a brief agenda early, including the “ask” within it can be helpful. This way both parties know that eventually you will bring up the request sooner or later. This can also help in letting them digest the request first, while you setup the story behind the rest of your discussion.

There are a few different types of meetings that happen and each can be handled differently. Sometimes in a sales meeting you need to set up the product or proposal the right way, or give proper background. Other times in a proposed partnership you need to go over some of the important details that pertain to your proposal. Other meetings are used to brainstorm something entirely new, but there are one or two key points that must be a part of the final product. In any of these cases it is always prudent to make sure there is plenty of time to discuss the price, requirements, or demands that you have.

The “big crescendo” at the end of a meeting can sometimes be a surprise to the audience and does not leave them with enough time to process the demand as well as ask questions.

I recommend bringing the “ask” as upfront as you can without harming the story you are there to tell.

In it, he details the current state of the union for big companies and small ones looking to build out portions of their expertise through acquiring entire companies, and adding/folding them into the larger entity and  concludes:

It’s not necessarily a new frontier we’re entering. The current environment is simply turning up the volume on what has been happening for some time. And it’s only going to get louder. So BigCos and scaling startups, with increasingly valuable equity, are enjoying a perfect storm for acqhires.

I commented on the post, and as Bryce invited me to write up my thoughts, I figured I would do so here.  This is paraphrased from that comment and explored further below.

I can buy the parts to build a car, or I can pay more and buy one that I know will perform.  This is a no brainer decision because of time, quality, safety, and ongoing maintenance.

In the world of web startups,  you can hire individuals and try to make the team hum, or you can buy an agile group that you know can perform.  The issue is the premium you will pay for a fully functioning web startup team, but it may be worth acquiring a fully operational team that you know is going to produce what you want.

I am sure someone could do a better calculation but this is just back of the napkin stuff;

Acquhire option

what are 8 people worth all at once  who can produce? lets call it $10MM

2 engineers
2 mobile client developers
2 designers
2 front end developers
2 BD folks (hey im biased and can’t leave us out )

Assuming $100K each thats $1MM in headcount instantly.

Cost? $10MM upfront to buy the startup and product.  Great small exit for the team.

Result:
Time ~ instant (or 90 days)
Hope they work at your co. for 5 years
You are paying $200K per person for an instahire situation.  (more if you count options, raises, more payments and “other” but trying to simplify)

Hiring Option

Hire 2 people per month ~ $100K/month/per person across 12 months is 24 people at a $2.4MM burn rate.  This obviously does not include ANYTHING else you need to be spending money on like office, computers, insurance, food, other so lets double it and call it $5MM

You get a stellar group that takes approx. 1 month per person to get up to speed (I think this is generous) so you are not running at full speed for 1.5-2 months per person.

Result:
Time ~ 10 months (but really longer in my opinion)
Have equal to or less than team in 5 months – hope they all can work well together – and get them up to speed on your product.

conclusion?:
Time is now an important ingredient to a startup trying to crank something and suddenly $200K per head for an “insta-team” situation makes a lot of sense.

I believe that you can buy a fully functioning machine, and pay a premium – or you can buy all the parts and assemble a machine yourself.  In the example of buying a car, buying the parts is most certainly not an option, and you are better off buying the finished product from a safe and stable Company.

A million things could go wrong with each scenario above – and I am sure I am leaving parts out, but I wanted to get my thoughts down after the request.

With last weeks announcement, the “game change” that happened is that previously Facebook had websites including “Like” buttons all over the web.  In a move that I commend as extremely smart, they have people “liking” content both on Facebook.com and offsite, which in turn puts more content into the Facebook news feed, then making the content seen by more people, hoping for more “likes”.  It is/was a Möbius strip of activity that resulted in more activity and attention.

Now, they have included a “always on” setting which takes your actions from apps, sites, and services and automatically ports it into your news feed. Although its not the same main news feed, its now a smaller, faster, news feed inside your main feed on the right hand side (yo dawg!)

The actions though are now well beyond “like” and include basically anything you can think of.

You will now be able to “watch” content, “read” a magazine, “listen” to some music, etc..

But the catch is, everything now goes into the mini feed that is a firehose of activity.

As RWW said (emphasis theirs)

Be forewarned though, with these apps you’re automatically sending anything you read into your Facebook news feed. No “read” button. No clicking a “like” or “recommend” button. As soon as you click through to an article you are deemed to have “read” it and all of your Facebook friends and subscribers will hear about it.

I did this myself with Rdio + Facebook and you can see the following results

Interestingly this activity came from my Android (using Rdio) while I was at the gym.  Embarrassing or not, the world of activity streaming is now here.

The firehose feed is interesting because if you interact with content streaming by, Facebook sees this as intent and automatically upgrades how important it thinks this content is.  I see the firehose as actually “training” the main Facebook feed, which is also interesting because you will be seeing content that is more relevant to you as well.  What is interesting here is that users are training the feed with firehose intent, and marketers will now be able to target towards this new streaming activity.

I see a ton of Spotify and Rdio activity right now in my firehose facebook feed, but as developers dig in, I expect to see much more content from third party apps, and expect to get bombarded with the initial requests to “stream” from apps I use.

Being a competent CEO requires great knowledge: knowledge of the products, the people, the market, and the competition. Acquiring this type of knowledge can be both grueling and humbling. It does not exist in boardrooms, executive off-sites or high-level customer meetings. It lives at the bottom of the company’s hierarchy where the work gets done. It lives in the code base, the individual contributors and customers who directly use the products. Most previously successful CEOs attempt to cheat this process by quickly assembling a team of people to tend to the details.

It essentially points out that “getting there” as a CEO takes hard work.  You have to hear from customers, listen to feedback, deal with personal and roadmap issues, dig into competition and understand your space, all while balancing both short term goals of the company with the longterm outlook and strategy of the business.

I love this mentality because it shows you have to dig in and really understand all the moving parts.  Its hard work and there is no getting around it.  Its posts like these that bring out the true side of being the chief executive of an organization and focus less on the big wins and megadeals that paint a rosie picture of perfection and happiness at all times.

Its also after you have dug in and shown that you can get your hands dirty, in addition to leading the charge for the company as a whole can  you get the fully respect of your organization.  I am lucky enough to say that I have been a part of that a few times in my career and foursquare is no exception.

Everybody is busy. Everybody wishes they had more time. Following up correctly takes time and is not always the easiest thing to remember. However to the person on the other end of the email or phone is deeply appreciative.

When someone comes in for an interview they typically send you a thank you note. This person is probably in some way or another completely unsure about the entire experience and looking for as much communication as possible. At the very least its the right thing to do to have continuous and timely contact with the candidate to follow up. Its something that will set a good precedent for you and the person – and in the event it does not work out leave them with a good feeling of how things went down.

Cold emails and warm leads happen all the time. Two people being introduced by a third party, candidate advice, business partnership emails – there are endless examples. Following up quickly is a great way to show everyone involved you are responsible and reasonable. It sets a great precedent for whatever business is to follow and gets you in a great habit of not putting these things off for later.

There are also examples of poor follow ups which make things difficult for everyone. My friend Vinicius Vacanti of YipIt recently opened this topic again (highlighting my setting up an appointment post) I always imagine myself on the other side of the email, phone call or voicemail which makes things go a bit smoother.

Vins point is that “Let me know what works for you” or “next week is great” is actually inefficient and slow. Using the techniques he mentions, or my own for making a plan helps everyone out. It may seem like it takes more time, but in the end its actually a time saver.

Back to the examples from above; job interviews and partnerships. Interviewees are in a position where they don’t have all the information and are not privy to your timeline. By communicating throughout the process you can ensure they are not getting frustrated, annoyed, and stay fully informed. Partnerships operate the same way. Its better to be transparent and clear, even when you don’t know the answer or timeline. Transparent does not necessarily mean giving all the information away, but rather letting all parties know “something” is going on. No answer is always a bad approach.

Finally, following up is one of those things we can all do better, myself included – and sometimes writing these things out is a great reminder for myself to continue to try to do things better.

When we first conceived this idea, it was setup to accomplish three major things

1. Encourage civic participation through the distribution of the I Voted foursquare badge for all foursquare users who “shout” that they voted (variations count: vote, voting, voted) while at a designated polling location
2. Increase transparency at polling locations by visualizing the time of day, checkin volume and gender of those checking in
3. Develop a replicatable & scalable system to use for the 2012 Presidential Election based on learnings from the data that is produced for the 2010 Midterm Elections

I think we accomplished all these things, and more.  We also created a foursquare I Voted badge for 2010 which was a huge success

This includes a wave of invites from the following services;

1. The twitter follow
2. The tweet with a mention
3. The LinkedIn connection
4. The Facebook friend request
5. The Foursquare friend request
6. The Plaxo friend request

The funny part about this is that it can happen after an email exchange, a tweet, or just an exchange of a business card.  I think its socially interesting to say the least and this is of course half in jest, but I thought I would post the term here because it happens so often.

Did I leave something out?

They say you can master a job or at least hit your stride after 18 months.

So what does this mean for new workers?  Do they need 18 months to get up to speed?  As you bring on more new employees, as I am experiencing right now, you have to find ways to create institutional knowledge.  I think 18 months sounds high (at least in the startup technology world) and that can be an eternity if it were really the case.  I am sure this is some kind of average across many different disciplines.

For me, this is knowledge that trancends all departments and is the final word on a matter. Most of the time this is a philosophical choice made by the founders or management. Most of the facts are presented as “This is how it is done. ” which may be met with some opposition but a need is probably in place for the “why” behind this method.

This is not to say this cannot later be challenged. Far from it in my own case. I actually thrive when I am in an environment that is maleable to change and I can fix or repair institutional knowledge rot.

Back to the first case, it can become vitally important to a company to have this IK. It represents not only the way in which things are done but also the thought structure and even culture of a company.

Being open to learning the IK of other departments is also essential. I cannot tell you the amount of times I have found out the inner workings of another department and had an “a ha” moment explaining what has been going on behind the scenes.

Thankfully I now work in a startup which is not yet an institution.

I began thinking about this topic as I productize materials to begin to get other people up to speed as fast as possible. I reccognize that with fast growth comes institutional behavior – but if you handle it right you can come out on the other side with a great institution with great culture all stemming from a great team.