fail
A business plan that is too detailed can result in failure if it's just a little wrong. can be accurate if we are in static conditions, while we are in very dynamic conditions. it's better to carry on while making adjustments along the way, field adaptation.
the product changes, the strategy too, but the vision should not be because it is our identity that is different from other competitors.
must know when to go forward alone, when to partner, and when to follow trends and when to hold on to the vision.
MVP
Learning can also be shortened, you don't have to take months to prepare a product whose only purpose is to test. just take it out, it'll be fast" get feedback and continue to learn from that feedback, improve. Focus on energy to minimize every cycle.
First, make an MVP that targets early consumers, consumers who really need our products, not the general public. Just evaluate from there. It's simple, the important thing is that it can solve the main problems of consumers, excessive features can even be considered a waste because it hasn't been tested to be useful or No. Avoid the temptation to be perfect on the first try.
The difference between successful and unsuccessful startups is that they have the wisdom, ability, and tools to determine which of their plans are indeed brilliant and which are actually wrong.
separate which facts are still assumptions, test all existing assumptions. Don't be naive to assume that our assumptions are correct. Don't regret knowing it later, when the product is ready, you know, our initial assumptions were wrong. Information like this is a very important value for startups more than anything else. Facts often have to be picked up in the field.
idea
don't be afraid to steal ideas, because in fact big companies are also flooded with brilliant ideas, but they must prioritize their old customers who are very large and can't just improvise. This is where startups benefit because the consumers are still few or even non-existent.
Unfortunately, consumers often don't know what their problem really is.
it could be that what we think is trivial, turns out to be very important in the eyes of consumers. what we glorify, is actually underestimated. consumers don't care how long something takes to make. they only care what it does to them.
success is not based on the features we release, it's about whether we are successful in solving consumer problems.
small batch
it would be better if the time from preparation to getting feedback was reduced. So take small batches, so you don't miss out on a big product that no one wants. Small batches can also make it easier for us to know if something is wrong and make it easier to fix it. but indeed not all of them can be made into small batches.
if you want to test many features, do a multivariate test, the product with different versions is aimed at various consumers at the same time, then the progress is observed from there. but limit the version, don't let it get too much until you don't hold it anymore.
don't focus resources on chasing the illusion of success that is temporary, rich, for example from advertising, not organic, it won't last long, in the end, it's useless
we also have to know whether the visible results are due to the changes we make or just a coincidence? or it could be because of our previous work which only shows the results now.
indicators of success must be made based on clear cause and effect, this also makes it easier for us to learn, must be understood by everyone, avoid using terms that are too technical. False indicators are very dangerous because they can trick our brains.
additional points
If the product really fails, it's time to swerve, replace business fundamentals that have proven to fail. The age of a new startup can be said to be dead if it can no longer swerve. type" on page 178
usually, if the numbers go down, someone else will be blamed. This causes us to often provide data that is interpreted as we wish rather than as benchmarks.
using the five whys technique, which is to keep asking why and why 5 times every time an error occurs. but usually, they blame each other, and those who don't attend will be the scapegoats. there must be someone who can lead the meeting well so that the discussion doesn't turn bad