Web studios and freelance teams - start-ups? (intermediate results)

Without delaying, am I bringing in the interim results of the topic posed in the previous post of the Web Studio and the freelance team - participants of startups? (trying to figure it out) .

I make the following considerations both on the results of the discussion in the comments and on the results of side-to-face personal meetings with several representatives of web studios (freelance teams) who have been on the same topic over the past couple of days.

What are the main topics discussed? 1. Why should web studios or freelance teams implementing a project get ballast as the author of an idea?
')
A cynical answer immediately comes to mind: “the author is the necessary ballast, which is dropped to the investor, who invests in the implemented prototype (first version) of the idea”. Why? Therefore. The investor does not invest just in the bare idea. The investor does not invest simply in the sales team or an outsourced product. An investor in the project necessarily needs an idea carrier. I draw your attention: the investor doesn’t need a main developer or a project manager - the investor needs a person,

• which is burning with the idea
• who understands who needs this product and why,
• who knows which way to develop it further.

In fact, the question about ballast is not new and familiar to all developers who have ever worked in more or less large companies: the original conflict between the product (product manager) and the developers. Developers are accustomed to sincerely believe that they themselves can make a product, and the product only gets in the way under their feet. Although sometimes it happens that way too.

2. And what does the author understand by the idea?

Variant of the same topic from the author’s idea sounds like this: “I will put my idea on two pages, pass it on to the developers, and they steal it - why do I need it”.

The author of the idea cannot be understood as a person who came out and just said (or put it on two pages): “let's make a new social network that will kill Facebook” (options: “portal on which everyone can teach everyone”, “tour search system, which will finally be convenient ”, etc.). The carrier of an idea does not have to be able to program, but he must understand and be able to explain

• exactly how the service should be arranged
• why he will be better than competitors
• why they will start and will enjoy a lot of people.

Therefore, in the process of implementing these two pages, there will be so many non-programmer issues, but product issues that will need to be known how to decide that the explanations of these two pages will be collected along the way for the whole volume. Or it should immediately be a whole volume.

After the implementation of the first two pages (together with the volume of explanations), we will have to invent and write the next two pages, in the process of implementation of which another volume of explanations will be born, and so on.

If the author of the idea believes that it is entirely with all the subtleties that can fit on two pages, then this idea is either too trivial, or the author does not imagine the fullness of the problem, and therefore does not have the competence of the author of the idea.

3. In fact, the project is a three-edged sword: the author, the team and the investor.

The author may come up with the idea of ​​the project, the team may be able to implement it, but a third person is needed, who

• will be able to say that this project will shoot (earn money, will be claimed by investors of the next round, will be needed by specific strategic investors),
• will give money in the process of bringing it to the next state of aggregation: for a certain level of sustenance and for the use of external resources (which are most likely needed),
• propose a plan to increase the cost of the project (in terms of key indicators, according to the financial model) and help with the “packaging” necessary at the stage of communication with investors of the next round,
• will serve as an arbiter and a lever for solving problems and organizing interaction between the authors of the project and the developers.

That is, in this formulation it is not a classic financial investor who will give money and will sit and wait for the result, but who will take part in some aspects of the project’s life, but something more similar to a business angel.

So what are the survey results?

After the colon, the number of people responding to this option is indicated. The sum of the answers between the questions does not match, since not all participants answered all the questions.

I am the head of a web studio or freelance team and me

• interesting to participate in a startup: 92
• uninteresting: 3

If I participate in this, then

• I am willing to spend my development resources in exchange for a share in the project: 72
• use of my resources must be paid for: 25

If I participate in this, then I am ready to listen to ideas from

• anyway from whom - even from students: 47
• from any people with experience in the market: 46
• Only from representatives of top management of companies: 4

If we participate in this, then our share

• Discussed: 62
• 50% / 50%: 22
• anyway more than 51%: 13

If we participate in this, then

• only as a studio (team) as a whole: 56
• I am ready to allocate people to work on the project and give them a share: 41

And what practical conclusions can be drawn from all this?

I ponder the conclusions and write about them in the next post next night. I want these conclusions to be practical and allow us all to try to understand what can and will happen in real life.