I’ve written in the past about the evolution of our culture at Buffer. One of the things we started...
Disclaimer: The purpose of this paper is not to bad-mouth or point fingers but to shine light on what I think is the core problem blocking innovation in Lithuania. Only when you identify the core of the issue can you try solving it, right?
In this paper I will argue that the majority of problems in our country, especially the ones associated with innovation, are connected to a single denominator. My goal is to shine light and articulate that underlying problem, which I’m sure is at the back of your mind as well. Let’s try to raise it to the surface and start the discussion.
I think most Lithuanians (and foreigners who have lived here) would agree that there are many issues floating around our home country. Weak economy, corruption, foreign pressures, talent leak, emigration, etc. I could go on but that’s not the point. What’s interesting is that I think all these problems and many more are just symptoms of an underlying systematic misconduct.
It all comes down to this - We Don’t Invest In Great Talent.
Innovation happens when you give the right resources to talented people. Both startups and innovators have proved that. Even more, sometimes great people make stuff happen with marginal resources all together. That’s why it’s absolutely vital to find and engage with them.
Most innovators would agree that talent acquisition is the most important thing in building successful innovation.
Now, what do I mean by the Great Talent?
To my mind, and again I welcome debate on this, there are three main parts of a puzzle, which makes Great Talent: passion, domain knowledge and relevant experience (PDE).
So… Innovation happens when you assemble enough people with strong PDE and build them into action teams with a unifying goal.
However, finding the right talent is probably one of the hardest things to do. It requires resources, time and determination.
But most of all it requires a culture which appreciates the importance great talent and gives it the highest priority.
Current culture in Lithuania most often than not unfortunately has other priorities. We Don’t Invest In Great Talent but we are happy to waste time & money on…
In a country where it’s easier to fund-raise a few million of another building than raise a few hundred thousands to pay European salaries and facilitate suitable support structures for a group of great talent - innovation can’t really flourish.
We Don’t Invest In Great Talent!
We just don’t understand exactly how important it is because it’s not embedded in our work ethics.
Let’s get back to Lithuania/Estonia analysis and the startup world whilst keeping the previous thesis in mind.
Since 2005 Estonia has managed to strengthen its position as the leader in the Baltics both overall and in startup industry.
Key facts about Estonian startups:
I know what you might be thinking – “But they have Skype…”, “It’s only PR….”
Yes, Skype helped. Good PR helped.
But what’s going on in Estonia at the moment is a result of a coherent investment in Great Talent not a lucky fluke. Because it’s consistent and has logical sequence to it.
Several years ago in Estonia a revelation must have taken place when they understood that for a small country with limited resources there is no other option to become prosperous than fostering innovation and I assume startups seemed to be the cheapest way to do it.
So they’ve started building the local eco-system by acquiring great foreign and local talent with complimentary PDE. They’ve used the business network via Skype, Jon Bradford and many other influencers happy to help, to get in touch and acquire right talent. That’s how a smart startup would behave.
Don’t get me wrong. Estonia is not a perfect country. There is no such thing. However, what they are good in is prioritizing and focusing on what truly matter – People. Everything else follows as a result.
They were lucky enough to objectively evaluate their talent pool and understand that some positions will have to be outsourced in order to make sure that invested capital will achieve best possible ROI. They were comfortable enough to say: “We don’t have these people here. Lets find them elsewhere”. And they did. Afterwards everything what followed was logics and hard work, which equals to innovation.
To sum up, Lithuania is not innovating as well as Estonia because we don’t invest in Great Talent as much as we should.
I urge everyone to start looking at the Lithuanian startup eco-system as a startup itself.
Currently so many of us depend on a very few working for Enterprise Lithuania and other structures set up to create a foundation of Lithuanian startup eco-system.
With this paper my hope is to start a discussion on how should we change our approach to building the eco-system in order to make a leap and catch with the rapidly developing world.
We must make talent acquisition the priority and start taking everything from there. It’s a cultural paradigm, which we need to start changing together. And it’s not just startups. It’s society as a whole.
In my next post will focus on actionable solutions on how I think we can build an eco-system more efficiently starting people-first.
I hope these ideas will resonate with you guys and again I encourage sharing your thoughts on my blog or Facebook.
Pirmas tinklaraščio postas lietuvių kalbą. Būkit gailestingi, lietuvių kalba niekada nebuvo stiprioji pusė.
Šiandien kaip ir daugelis iš mūsų stovėjau ilgoje eilėje prie rinkimų būdelių. Daug žmonių. Jaunų, senų, žilų, vaikų. Net šunys ir tie varė balsuoti. Buvo labai malonus vaizdas. Nemalonus buvo turbūt tik laukimas bereikalingai ilgose eilėse. Kadangi turėjau nemažai laisvo laiko, aišku, pradėjau galvoti apie tai, kaip galėtume išspręsti šitą problemą. Tačiau begalvodamas supratau, kad sprendimas net tik panaikintų eiles, bet galėtų pakeisti Lietuvą iš esmės.
Mums reikia padaryti du paprastus dalykus, kad įvyktų pokytis. Padaryti balsavimą internetu prieinama visiems ir stipriai apriboti pinigų kiekį, kurį partijos gali išleisti rinkiminei kampanijoje. Taip. Šios mintys nėra naujos ir negirdėtos, tačiau sujungus jas – galimi labai įdomūs rezultatai.
Leidus žmonėms balsuoti internetu ir apribojus pinigus partijomis, stipriai išaugtų socialinės medijos naudojimas politinėms kampanijoms, nes partijoms reikėtų reklamuoti nuorodą, o masinė reklama būtų per brangi. Socialinės medijos reklama nereikalauja daug pinigų ir sukuria dirva plisti geriausioms partijų idėjoms kūrybingais ir išradingais būdais. Ne didžiulių investicijų pagalba.
Iš kitos pusės balsavimas internetu padidintų mąstančių balsuojančių žmonių procentą. Jiems tiesiog būtų paprasčiau, netgi kiečiau. Ypatingai jaunimui.
Paaiškinimas: mąstančių – balsuojančius už Liberalus, Konservus, Centristus arba jei pastaruosius 20 metų praleidai komoje, Socdemus. Tradicines partijas, kurios turi bent krislelį logikos savo vertybėse ir veiksmuose. Kiekvienam pagal skonį.
Taip būtų dėl to, kad socialine medija mažiau laiko praleidžia pensininkai ir durniai (pvz.: marozai, beraščiai, asocialūs, runkeliai, ir t.t.). Abi šios kategorijos yra problematiškos, nes gali būti lengvai paperkamos, manipuliuojamos ir joms lengva pudrinti smegenis.
Sumažėjus partijų rinkiminių kampanijų biudžetams jos nebegalėtų taip lengvai žarstytis lėšomis lauko reklamoms, stendams, užsakytiems straipsniai, valkatų eskortais, pensininkų papirkinėjimu religinės bendruomenės ir kitais veiksmais, kurių neišeina įrodyti, o net įrodžius kandidatai būna išrinkti ir turi neliečiamybę.
Tai verstų jas naudotis pigiu tačiau ne tokiu aiškiu ir paprastu - socialinės medijos marketingu.
Balsavimas internetu ne tik panaikintų eiles, leistų teisingoms idėjoms pasiekti mąstančius, padidintų teisingai balsuojančių ratą, bet ir sumažintų partijų įtaką pažeidžiamoms (švelniai tariant…) balsuojančiųjų grupėms. WIN WIN WIN WIN.
Disclosure: I’m a startup guy, business developer, events organiser and advisor @ TransferGo. Here I express my views and encourage others to debate them. Thank you for spending your time reading this.
I want to talk about the first 1% of your startup – that’s the idea.
Entrepreneurs come up with many ideas, which at the moment of inception sound exciting enough to give you that much-awaited portion of dopamine surge. You know what I mean, right? Like most of us I tend to write my “dopamine” moments on a special notepad. By now I have more than four of them filled up.
Surprisingly enough (or maybe not), after a while majority of my old ideas don’t seem to look that creative, smart or innovative.
Yet a few of them still ring a bell. So how to pick the one and try running with it?
I believe that the sole purpose of technology/innovation is to make the future more productive, more social, more entertaining, more… etc. In a word – better.
I think startups are one of the most powerful tools out there able to tangibly improve people’s lives. That’s what they are all about. Money should be treated as a by-product, right?
So how to think about the few decent ideas left on the notepad. I’d like to construct a simplistic framework for entrepreneurs on how to do it.
I’d like to categories “the few notepad survivors” into three categories.
Out of the last few ideas-survivors on my notepad I’d choose one, which would potentially do good in one of these categories and then go on testing if it will.
Let me give you some examples of companies who represent these categories quite well.
The pain ideas.
Skype – made international calls accessible to everyone by substantially cutting down prices. Sorry if the examples look a bit boring.
All of us should remember the pre-Skype world when calling abroad was a luxury reserved for larger business or wealthy people. Skype removed the barriers and made global communication available for all. They made the world smaller, more inclusive, and dynamic. But most importantly by solving a huge pain they’ve disrupted an old-fashion telecommunications market and opened new horizons for businesses and global connectivity.
The good news is that unlike the “real value” or “addictiveness” ideas you can test if the problem hurts your target audience enough so they’d pay for the solution.
That’s why I think “pain” solutions are an ideal pick for first-time entrepreneurs:
Don’t get me wrong. Bringing “pain” idea to the market is as difficult as any other idea. But at least you’ll know fairly early if it’s something people want to use/consume/pay money for.
Important detail. Keywords here are “real” and “pain”.
When you start testing the good ideas on your notepad be open and objective by picking the one with serious problem to solve in a market that’s long overdue for disruption, especially if your goal is to build a business out of it. Only if the problem is serious enough and the solution is good enough will people pay you money for it.
Let’s move on to Real Value creators.
For those who don’t know AirBnB is an online platform where you can rent out a room or bed in your house for a certain time period.
So what’s the core difference between pain and value ideas?
If you’ve got an unused room (bed) in your house it’s not really a huge pain, right?
Yes, you may be paying a bit more in utilities than you should but that’s not painful enough. However, with AirBnB you can earn an additional $21k annual income (that’s how much an average AirBnB host earns annually in NYC) which is live-changing value for majority of homeowners..
$21k additional income is a tangible value offer, which is relatively easy to sell and comprehend. Nevertheless, this value proposition became accessible to homeowners when AirBnB achieved traction, grew loyalty and confidence.
If you’re excited about another social mobile location app, which re-adjusts my-social-graph-in-an-interesting-way sort of value idea, think critically about how much value will it really add to your users. Ask them. Be open.
Testing value ideas is it a bit harder because you have to have a working product or prototype in order to test. With value idea it’s common that the real value only kicks in after certain user adoption thresholds are met, which makes it that much difficult.
Keep in mind that most of us are willing to do more to decrease pain than to increase pleasure. Not sure where I’ve heard this but it’s certainly not my idea.
Let’s finish with the addictive stuff.
Some might argue but I don’t think it solves a painful problem or delivers so much value we couldn’t do without. It has improved our lives, made the world “more open and connected” but as a business it’s not yet great because it doesn’t really fit well in one of the three categories. That’s way Facebook is and will remain free.
Stickiness of the idea is very difficult to predict until your product or services becomes sticky. Imagine if you’ve brought the first version of Facebook prior to launch to a bunch of investors and promised it will grow like wildfire their response would have been predictable. Even when Facebook started growing like crazy only the brave and the visionary decided to chip in.
I know many people, especially from Silicon Valley will roast me for what I’m about to say but here it goes. If you have an idea left on your notepad, which neither solves a real pain nor adds real value I’d save it for a side project after you’ve failed a few times or done exits. This is specifically true when you’re not launching from Silicon Valley or similar eco-system. Twitter started as a side you know.
To sum up, picking ideas is not as black and white as I’ve portrayed because decreasing pain and increasing value are two sides of the same coin. However, if you are a first-time entrepreneur or planning to bootstrap heavily focus on the pain ideas or pain relieve part of your idea.
It should give your first-venture a better chance to run the longest distance or fail fast – either way learn the most.
Follow me on Twitter: daumis2475
I’m also on Quora.com
Advisor @ Transfergo.com
It’s been a while since I’ve blogged mainly because of an unexpectedly busy half a year. A lot of stuff has happened and I want to take a moment to reflect back on my experiences and off course take a look at what’s coming up next.
Reality 2 – Me 1. Let me explain.
During last half a year three significant events have shaped the path of my entrepreneurial career. Two failures and one success.
Reality 2 – Me 1.
What I would like to do is reflect point by point on why I think things happened the way they did. I hope that all of you who will hopeful read this have something to take away. Lets start with Pinevio.
Pinevio.com is a startup, which got more PR and press coverage than users traction. J Here is why I think it failed.
That’s why I’m super happy with experience I had with working on Pinevio along side my co-founder and wouldn’t change it for the world. I think failing your first start-up this way is probably one of the better ways to go. Fail harder, right?
Now, the Switch. The idea has failed because we didn’t manage to fund raise in time. Unlike the Pinevio failure, this wasn’t as rewarding or worthy of time invested mainly because it failed for subjective reasons which are rather obscure and would take a long time to explain properly.
However, there is one thing I know for sure. Lithuania needs a quality events and start-up orientated co-working centre because it will be the backbone structure for startup activity in the country.
I sure hope someone executes something similar. Otherwise we’ll definitely come back to this idea in the future.
OK. Finally – Startup Monthly Vilnius conference. That’s the success and I barely look back on it anymore.
Success is difficult to learn from because it covers up the small set backs on the way, which are worthy of analysis.
I think the main reasons for the success were:
All an all, it was super awesome. I remember the feeling I felt on the last day of the conference was similar to the one, when we’ve raised capital for the first time. It’s absolutely remarkable.
What’s even more astounding is that after 3 months of super-hard work our team became better friends then we were before, which is a dream for any leader.
Huge thanks to Mindaugas, Julius, Jonas, Egle, Ugnius and the amazing volunteers who made it happen.
Reality 2 – Me 1
So… what’s next?
I am coming back to startup mode. Hell yeah! Something I really love.
I’m now turning a new page in my career and look forward to meeting new people, startup teams and growing together.
So if you a getting together a great team or think that my skills would complement an existing one lets get together have some coffee and talk about it. I’m completely open.
It’s been a wild beginning of a long journey. Can’t wait for what’s coming up next.
Thanks for a half-year to remember.
All the best,
Šiandien nuo 16h būsiu Hub Vilnius , pasakosiu startuperiams apie Pinevio, kodėl Silicio Slėnis - mums - yra geriausia vieta pasaulyje!
Build as little as possible. - I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for a startup to start testing… http://t.co/sBZJneDq
I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for a startup to start testing your product as quickly as possible. And by The product I mean, only the core fraction of the technology (or service depending on the nature of the business) needed to solve the problem.
NOT a singing/dancing public-availability ready, scalable technology, which does a lot of cool stuff. Cool stuff for you that is. If your first product version looks ready to be launched publically prior to user testing you most probably have already wasted precious resources..
Your first product will suck and the only way to improve it is by testing it out with relevant users, getting their feedback, reiterating and come back to the testers again. After several cycles like that your product will be on a different level.
Stop wasting resources you don’t have and time, which you can’t afford because your competition is getting user feedback and rushing in front every single day when you are sitting in your garage thinking about… oh this button doesn’t have enough shading.
Think about what’s the minimum you can build. Build it. Test it. Reiterate. That’s how you make good stuff that people love to use and tell their friends about. Think about it.