Steve Sanderson

Your last PMF is now what's in the way

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 18:22:01 -0600

What I’m seeing with SaaS founders and CEOs navigating the GenAI transition — the ones who built something that worked, and are now in the gap between what they were fit for and what comes next. Post 3 of 6

Your last PMF is becoming your next constraint.

Not because you built something broken. Because you built something that worked — and then optimized it over years, in every direction. The pricing model that converted. The architecture that scaled. The go-to-market motion that closed. The customer profile that drove everything. Each was a correct choice. Collectively, they are now the thing in the way.

AI shifted what can be delivered and what customers now expect. The company stayed exactly what it was built to be. The more precisely you were fit for the last regime, the harder the move to the next one.

Pre-PMF again doesn’t mean starting over. It means finding where the current PMF ends and the next one begins — while everything you built is still running.

See how I’m making sense of the larger pattern: A lens drawn from Carlota Perez

The normal moves don't work because you're solving the wrong problem

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 18:18:59 -0600

What I’m seeing with SaaS founders and CEOs navigating the GenAI transition — the ones who built something that worked, and are now in the gap between what they were fit for and what comes next. Post 2 of 6

You’ve shipped the AI features. You’ve run the strategy sessions. The effort is real. It’s not working because you’re solving a post-PMF problem when you have a pre-PMF problem.

Post-PMF problems respond to execution. More features, better go-to-market, tighter process — these work when you know what the market wants and you’re optimizing delivery. That’s the game you’ve been playing, and you’re good at it.

Pre-PMF problems require clarity first. What does the market want now? What does the product need to become? What assumptions from the last PMF are now the constraint? You can’t execute your way to answers to those questions — and every cycle you spend trying, GenAI startups gain ground. They’re pre-PMF too. They just started there. They’re not carrying what you’re carrying.

The AI initiatives aren’t wrong. They’re the right kind of work for the wrong kind of problem. When you’re pre-PMF again, the move isn’t more — it’s different.

See how I’m making sense of the larger pattern: A lens drawn from Carlota Perez

What losing PMF looks like when you still have it

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 18:15:36 -0600

What I’m seeing with SaaS founders and CEOs navigating the GenAI transition — the ones who built something that worked, and are now in the gap between what they were fit for and what comes next. Post 1 of 6

Product market fit doesn’t announce its departure. That’s what makes losing it so dangerous.

The metrics still look right. ARR is up, or close enough. The team is shipping. The board meeting was fine. The AI features are live. And yet — privately — you have a feeling. Not a conclusion. A feeling. That the thing that made this company work has subtly shifted. That the roadmap you’d defend publicly isn’t the one you’d bet on privately.

That feeling is a leading indicator. The churn, the growth slowdown, the board conversation that goes differently — those come later. By the time they’re visible, the departure already happened.

AI shifted the ground under something that was working. That’s not failure — it’s the condition. What you’re feeling now is the beginning of being pre-PMF again, while the company still looks post-PMF from the outside.

See how I’m making sense of the larger pattern: A lens drawn from Carlota Perez

A lens drawn from Carlota Perez

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 17:38:47 -0600

Visualization based on Steve’s interpretation of Perez’s framework. See caveats below.

Every major technology transition generates the same claim from inside it: this one is different. This one is unprecedented. The speed, the scope, the lack of a roadmap — all of it points to something genuinely new.

The claim is usually wrong about the transition. It is usually right about the experience.

Carlota Perez is an economic historian who spent thirty years mapping how technological change actually moves through economies. What follows is my application of her framework — a lens I’ve been using to make sense of how these changes have unfolded over time, and why the current transition looks the way it does. This is not a summary of her views; where I extend her concepts beyond the scope of her original work, those extensions are my own.

The core observation: major technologies don’t arrive all at once. They arrive in waves — clusters of interrelated innovations that Perez calls technology systems. Each system has a cheap input (the cost that falls and drives adoption), a new organizational logic, and a life cycle: irruption, growth, maturity. Multiple systems exist within a single long wave of development — the current one, which Perez dates from the Intel microprocessor in 1971, has already produced five. Perez calls this the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) paradigm: the overarching organizational logic of the information age, built around cheap microelectronics, networked scale, and software-defined value.

Technology system	Approximate period	Cheap input
Personal computers	~1975–1995	Cheap desktop compute
Internet and web	~1993–2005	Cheap networked communications
Mobile	~2007–2018	Cheap wireless and sensors
SaaS and cloud	~2005–present	Cheap hosted compute on demand
Tech-enabled services	~2009–present	Cheap smartphone-mediated coordination
Generative AI	~2022–present	Cheap inference compute

The cost of generating a model output has fallen faster than almost any comparable cost curve in computing history. That cost fall is what is driving adoption, reshaping product expectations, and putting pressure on companies that were correctly fit for the SaaS and cloud system.

The pattern each transition follows is this: companies that were correctly fit for the previous system find themselves in a specific structural condition as the next one takes hold. The metrics still look reasonable. The team is still shipping. The product still works. And yet — the ground has shifted. What customers can get from a next-generation product has changed. What they now expect has changed. The company is post-PMF in the old system and pre-PMF in the new one, simultaneously.

This happened to companies built for desktop when the web ascended. It happened again to companies built for the web when mobile ascended. It happened again to companies built for on-premise and installed software when SaaS and cloud ascended. Each time, the companies inside the transition thought it was unprecedented. Each time, the structural condition was recognizable.

What changes when you have the pattern isn’t the urgency — the window is real, and transitions have clocks. What changes is the move: from reacting to something that feels like a crisis to navigating something that has a shape.

A few caveats worth stating. Perez’s framework was developed in retrospect — she identified the five Great Surges of Development after they had largely run their course. The table above reflects two working assumptions I hold, not settled conclusions from her work.

Tech-enabled services as a distinct technology system. The table treats companies like Uber, Airbnb, and The Helper Bees as instances of a distinct technology system rather than a downstream effect of mobile or SaaS. The argument: the cheap input is genuinely distinct — cheap smartphone-mediated coordination of physical labor and assets — and the organizational logic (platform economics governing physical supply chains) is a meaningful departure from pure SaaS. The alternative reading is that Tech-Enabled Services is simply SaaS logic deploying into previously unreformed industries. I hold the first position, though the second is defensible.

Generative AI as a technology system within the current surge, not the beginning of the next one. The table places GenAI as the sixth technology system within the existing ICT paradigm rather than the irruption of an entirely new paradigm. The argument for it: cheap inference compute is a cost-curve event within the broader microelectronics paradigm; the organizational logic extends the ICT paradigm rather than replacing it. The argument against it: the speed and breadth of GenAI’s diffusion is already paradigm-scale, and the organizational logic it implies — every workflow rebuilt around learned models rather than coded rules — may be genuinely discontinuous. I hold the first position, with a conditional trajectory toward the second as conditions develop. A new paradigm may follow. That is a different transition, and a different problem.

The framework doesn’t tell you what to build. It tells you where you are, and what the condition you’re navigating looks like when it has been navigated successfully.

Carlota Perez, Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital (2002); “Technological Revolutions, Paradigm Shifts and Socio-Institutional Change” (2004); “Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms” (2009).

Draft of a Pattern for when founder-led product stops scaling

Thu, 22 Jan 2026 14:38:55 -0600

… Services-to-Product Transition: A profitable services company begins adding products to reduce manual work, create leverage, or standardize delivery. Early products automate known workflows and are led directly by an executive with deep customer knowledge. Initial success masks the need to separate product leadership as scope and complexity increase.

… Founder-Led Startup After Initial Product Success: A founder-led startup ships its first product successfully through tight intuition and fast feedback. As customer segments diversify and product demands multiply, the founder remains the center of product decisions while teams grow around them. Delivery accelerates, but discovery and prioritization remain implicit and inconsistent.

… Scale-Up Adding a Second Product or Platform Layer: A company with an established product introduces a second product, self-serve motion, or platform capability. Product decisions that once fit within a single roadmap now require tradeoffs across products, customers, and teams. Existing product governance no longer scales cleanly.

… Post-Acquisition Product Expansion: A company acquires a business with a single, founder-led product and intends to evolve or integrate it. Product scope and strategic constraints increase immediately, but product authority remains implicit or split across organizations. Without an intentional reset of product leadership, decision bottlenecks or fragmentation emerge.

❖❖❖

As product scope expands, decision authority remains implicit while execution spreads, causing learning and accountability to degrade even as delivery continues. What worked when product decisions were obvious becomes a governance bottleneck once multiple products, customers, or constraints exist.

An executive, often the founder or CEO, continues to act as the center of product decision-making while responsibility for execution spreads across engineering, operations, and adjacent teams. This model works when the product surface area is small and decisions are straightforward. It breaks down once product scope increases and tradeoffs become frequent, consequential, and non-obvious.

Product output increases, but learning slows. Decisions are made, but their rationale is unclear or inconsistent. Ownership of discovery, prioritization, and customer outcomes becomes diffuse. Teams execute against direction, but no one owns the tradeoffs when priorities conflict.

Responsibility for the customer experience is shared across product, engineering, operations, customer support, implementation, sales enablement, and sometimes marketing. Each group makes reasonable local decisions, but no single role owns the end-to-end outcome or resolves conflicts between speed, quality, revenue, and customer impact.

The system appears functional. Nothing is visibly failing. Metrics may hold or even improve. This masks the underlying issue: the organization has not decided how product and customer-facing decisions should be made at this stage of its evolution.

Several forces reinforce this condition:

Founder or executive intuition continues to feel efficient and safe.
Operational momentum rewards shipping and responsiveness over learning and discovery.
Early success hides structural ambiguity and delays intervention.
Shared execution across product, engineering, operations, support, and go-to-market blurs accountability.
Growth pressure increases both the volume and irreversibility of decisions.
Hiring instincts focus on adding capacity in delivery, support, or sales before clarifying decision ownership.

As pressure increases, two failure paths emerge. Product and customer-facing decisions either remain centralized, turning the existing executive into a bottleneck and slowing adaptation, or they are implicitly distributed across functions, fragmenting ownership and eroding coherence.

In both cases, ambiguity accumulates. Execution absorbs structural uncertainty. Hiring more people or accelerating delivery increases cost without increasing clarity.

This is not a capacity problem. It is a governance problem.

The company has crossed a threshold where product and customer outcomes can no longer be coordinated through intuition and goodwill alone, but explicit ownership of decisions has not yet been established.

Therefore:

Establish a single, explicit product decision owner before scaling product further.

Name one role that owns product outcomes end to end, including discovery, prioritization, and tradeoff decisions across constraints. Transfer day-to-day product decision authority from the existing executive to this role, while retaining strategic guardrails at the executive level. Define decision boundaries in writing, route all product sequencing decisions through this role, and time-box the transition so decision flow can be evaluated and corrected early.

❖❖❖

v2 of simple d3 with Meteor - now rendering individual records

Sat, 08 Jun 2013 06:17:00 -0600

simplest d3 + meteor example I could make v2

steve/simple-d3-with-meteor · GitHub.

Learning meteor & d3 together – I wanted a simple example to build on. Since I didn’t find one, I’m sharing this. The minimal (for me) was that it took advantage of the reactive data synced between client & server to affect something I drew with d3.

Now, individual circles are drawn by d3 (via a template), each one as a result of individual record changes managed by Meteor. This is more like what (I think) Meteor intended, as it's much closer to how HTML is created by Meteor templates. One difference, the removal of something from d3 is triggered by use of a callback from observing the Things collection.

Add & remove records in "Things" collection using the "+" and "-" buttons
Each record in the "Things" collection will be shown as a circle, with the "name" attribute as the text inside of the circle.

Simplest d3 + meteor example I could make

Wed, 05 Jun 2013 21:04:00 -0600

Learning meteor & d3 together - I wanted a simple example to build on. Since I didn’t find one, I’m sharing this. The minimal (for me) was that it took advantage of the reactive data synced between client & server to affect something I drew with d3.

steve/simple-d3-with-meteor · GitHub.

Thanks to the following sources for their help

SNAP! - Programming for Kids

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 19:07:00 -0600

SNAP! (Build Your Own Blocks).

We’ve had great fun, and results, teaching kids to program with Scratch. Now, Berkeley has “an extended reimplementation of Scratch … that allows you to Build Your Own Blocks. It also features first class lists, first class procedures, and continuations. These added capabilities make it suitable for a serious introduction to computer science for high school or college students."

I’ve only played with it a little - but getting started with Snap! is even easier than Scratch - because it’s browser-based (i.e. written in Javascript and designed to run in the browser).

You can try it right away and it’s worth it - even if you’re not a kid.

Ad-Hoc Usability Testing With Craiglist Users #leanstartup

Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:24:00 -0600

At Food on the Table, feedback from real users is the life-blood of how they do lean startup. When we needed qualatiative feedback from new users, one way was to hire people off of craigslist - a form of ad-hoc usability testing.

This question has come up so often, I promised to share the answer here:

Hi Steve:

I've got a question for you on doing usability testing via random folks on Craigslist. Do you have an example of the ad that you guys use? We're going to shamelessly steal this concept, but we want to make sure we don't write something that only attracts uber geeks.

The answer, abstracted a bit:

First, we need to pull together some information for the ad. Much of this should be derived from the experiment you're working on (i.e. as part of the problem + hypothesis + experiment you've got - right?)
1. what is the context of your experiment, e.g. "website" or "iphone app"
2. what does your hypothesis + experiment say about how to filter or categorize the participants, e.g. for Food on the Table, we may have wanted to filter / categorize whether they cooked, whether they shopped, whether they used coupons. Turn these into individual questions about the participant.
More broadly, given your product, what is a few words associated with your product, e.g. for Food on the Table it may have been "recipes, meal planning and grocery shopping"
Now compose the ad:

title: Usability Testers For Hire

body:

We are conducting a usability study, which means we would like your opinion about a new we are developing that has to do with .

The sessions last approximately an hour and pay $30.

Please answer the following questions with your response.

1. Name:

...

12. Would you be available to do a research session at a downtown Austin office? Y/N

13. What day and time work best for you? (most sessions will take from 1-1.5 hours)

TIPS

Often we had some additional questions in the email exchange - one of the big questions is "are you a developer" or similar; in our experience, developers make horrible usability testers - they want to critique the implementation, etc.
We don't include the name of our product or company because, as you may have guessed, we would like to guarantee that this is truly a new user, i.e. they don't look ahead.
Conducting these usability interviews is a distinct skill - without that skill the value of the learning is at risk. I hope to offer some specific tips on this later, but key points are:
- don't lead the witness - ask open-ended questions and wait... wait... wait...
- watching what they do is as important as hearing what they say, i.e. body language communicates tremendous information - such as hesitation with a mouse, while verbally they're assuring you it's all fine.
- try to get at least 2 people in the interview with the participant
- get interviewers to sit around the participant so they can get different views
- get all the interviewers to capture their thoughts during the process
- don't waste effort on trying to formalize results, instead debrief immediately afterwards with all the interviewers and the relevant other people in the company
- everyone (yes, everyone) should participate as an interviewer regularly - developers, customers support, marketing, bus. dev, CEO - everyone.

Here's a version of the ad we posted on craigslist:

Website Usability Testers For Hire

We are conducting a usability study, which means we would like your opinion about a new website we are developing that has to do with recipes, meal planning and grocery shopping

The sessions last approximately an hour and pay $30.

Please answer the following questions with your response.

1. Name:

2. Age:

3. Do you do all/most of the cooking in the house? Y/N

4. Do you do all/most of the grocery shopping? Y/N

6. How many children under the age of 18 are in the house?

7. What grocery store do you go to buy your groceries?

8. How often do you use the Internet?

9. Would you be available to do a research session at a downtown Austin office? Y/N

10. What day and time work best for you? (most sessions will take from 1-1.5 hours)

Moving on from Food on the Table & What's Next!

Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:05:00 -0600

It’s been a great 3 1/2 years at Food on the Table, however it’s time for me to move on. As you’d expect with a team and investors of this caliber, everyone has been very supportive of my decision. While this next phase will be without me, I remain confident that the work at Food on the Table will lead to great results.

Working closely with Manuel Rosso and our team for the last 3 1/2 years has been a tremendous experience. Out of that I’ve become deeply passionate about my Lean Startup experience & knowledge as well as having radically evolved how I do product development.

Now, the fun part! I'm using this time to collect evidence for two alternatives:

I'll take on one or two consulting projects (Austin or remote) while validating some startup ideas; or
I'll sign on in a new leadership role with an Austin team that is creating new products in conditions of extreme uncertainty (i.e. typically an early stage startup, but possibly a team in a larger org).

Regardless of which alternative, I'm looking forward to new challenges in building products that will continue to evolve my product development approach and give me the right dose of hands-on technical work.

As always, you can reach me at by sending email to any address at stevesanderson.com, e.g. harvestthisemail@

Recovering the Shine

Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:44:00 -0600

One of the joys of having a sailboat is (in all seriousness) restoring a boat to better than new. With my Precision 18, there’s plenty of opportunties for this. Today, I realized I wasn’t sure how to go about restoring the hull (the gelcoat is chalky, but there’s not many scratches) - what do I do, how do I do it and in what order?

Fortunately, I found a good article that gave what is essentially a hierarchy of steps for recovering / restoring the shine in the hull (after cleaning):

try waxing,
and if that isn't sufficient then try polish,
and if that isn't sufficient then try compound
and if that isn't sufficient then try sandpaper

Fortunately, I tried waxing last year - and the results looked good.

So, now I’m on to Practical Sailor to read reviews on wax.

How would you benchmark the productivity of a lean-startup product development team?

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:59:26 -0600

How would you benchmark the productivity of a product-development team in lean-startup?

Why?

In my experience at Food on the Table, we've been much more productive than any of the other early-stage startups I've been involved with. I believe that one of the causes is our pervasive use of lean-startup & feel as if we're on to something important here. So, how can I (dis)prove this?

Uh, really?

I recognize the some of the inherent issues in my question:

no accepted standard to compare productivity
small sample size
what's the impact of environment & how can it be separated
what does lean-startup have to do with this at all
etc.

... despite these issues, I'm still asking the question.

Ok, you might...

So if you've got some ideas how you'd benchmark product development productivity, and maybe how'd you'd take that to the next step, how to compare, then leave a comment below.

Thanks!

Food on the Table is Hiring!

Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:33:00 -0600

Food on the Table is hiring - I’m looking for a great developer to work with us. Read more at We Are Growing! | Food on the Table Blog.

MC and Talk at Austin On Rails Tuesday, September 28, 2010 @ 7-9 PM

Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:31:00 -0600

On the 28th, I’ll be MC’ing the Austin On Rails meeting - (Meeting: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 @ 7-9 PM).

There’ll be four talks:

Technical Feedback Loops - Marcus Irven
Product Feedback Loops - Ash Maurya
Process Feedback Loop - (me)
How My Community Saved My Life - Mando Escamilla

My talk will be a short version of my recent Lone Star Ruby Conf. talk "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please" or why I love continuous learning with continuous deployment. (video)

Check out the talks and hope to see you there!

Progress Trackers in Web Design: Examples and Best Practices - Smashing Magazine

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:55:55 -0600

Gotta love this...

Progress Trackers in Web Design: Examples and Best Practices - Smashing Magazine.

Skype Will Not Verify Phone - Google Voice Help

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:47:19 -0600

FYI - we have a google voice number for Food on the Table -and forward it to our SkypeIn number. However, at some point we realized that it wasn’t working. No matter what we did, we could not get a call to go thrugh Google Voice to SkypeIn.

Fortunately, I found an answer we had Skype set so that it would only"Receive Calls to my online number" from people in my contact list.

http://screencast.com/t/OTMwNzUyM

via Skype Will Not Verify Phone - Google Voice Help.

Fix for: can't use fluid with campfire anymore...

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:31:04 -0600

Now that 37signals centralized their user management, my existing Fluid-based campfire doesn’t work. Specifically, I can’t login because it keeps opening a new window in my regular browser to login, instead of completing the login within Fluid.

I googled for “can’t use campfire with fluid” and similar, and no luck. A little more digging and I found reference to Making Fluid Ssbs Browse Only Pages You Want - fluidapp | Google Groups.

All I had to do was to add launchpad.37signals.com to my whitelist of URL’s to browse in Fluid and it worked.

I’m posting this here so the next person may have a shorter route to find the answer.

Installing nokogiri Slicehost's Ubuntu Hardy

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:32:49 -0600

Here’s the steps to get nokogiri installed;

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install libxml2-dev libxslt1-dev
sudo gem install nokogiri
sudo gem install racc
sudo gem install rexical
(at this point, when I tried "gem install how", it complained I didn't have RubyGems >= 1.3.1. which is required for "hoe")
sudo gem install rubygems-update -v=1.3.4
sudo update_rubygems
sudo gem install hoe

via Mark Howe » Rails requires RubyGems >= 1.3.1 you have 1.2.0. Please `gem update –system` and try again..

For Leopard, installing Sphinx from ports with mysql binary from mysql

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 11:57:50 -0600

Given I’ve installed sphinx

And I’ve used mac port for the install

When I run sphinx indexer

Then it expects the mysql socket to be in /opt/local/var/run/mysql5/mysqld.sock

Given I’ve installed mysql

And I’ve used the binary from mysql

When I run mysqld

Then it use the mysql socket in /tmp/mysql.sock

To get sphinx indexer to use my installed version of mysql, I have to change make a change in the sphinx.conf file to tell sphinx indexer to use the mysql socket in /tmp/mysql.sock:

in some source …

{

sql_sock = /tmp/mysql.sock

…

}

Check sphinx_docs [SphinxWiki] for reference.

Please vote for my SXSWi Panel "Lean Startups: Beyond the Hype, Successes, Failures & Techniques"

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:58:26 -0600

Last day to vote for my SXSWi panel; please vote! “Lean Startups: Beyond the Hype, Successes, Failures & Techniques” http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/3884

iPhone Voicemail Badness - why-oh-why AT&T #fb

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:55:31 -0600

Noticing that I haven’t received any new voicemails in over a week - and hearing rumors about problems with voicemail on the iPhone… I reset my iPhone and after a reboot - ta-da! Over a weeks worth of voicemails suddenly appear. Grrr. Never seen this before and I’ve had my 1st generation iPhone for a couple of years

kanban development oversimplified + shiny bits on couchdb

Fri, 29 May 2009 16:42:11 -0600

Lots of buzz lately about kanban / lean in software development. While watching this from the sidelines, I’ve also been looking at my current team and previous teams and gauging applicability.

With my current team (at FiveRuns), we hit a point a while ago where the team began to reject the extra formality and overhead in some of our scrum practices (e.g. sprint planning, release planning) and began to smooth our rhythm out until we ended up, more or less, as continuous-flow.

The great thing is, I’ve looked back on earlier teams and seen similar trends - but different results. This time (for me) reality & results were stronger than dogma & fear - so we went with what made us better.

Then, I stumbled across Kanban Development Oversimplified and passed it out - it’s a great quick & simple overview.

It’s not good enough to be doing something… I’ve got to build something related. So, combine this with the desire to get some more experience with some new shiny bits (standalone apps on couchdb) and ta da: a simple board with cards + columns to represent our worfklow (surely a cliched application, along with blogs); the board will be a centralized service and a de-centralized service (ref: git) so that people can take their own copy of the board with them - keep using it - and sync up with either the centralized service or another instance, as needed. More later: I’ll post some cucumber scenarios and then a link to the project on github.

FiveRuns at RailsConf/CabooseConf and taking folks to see Penn & Teller

Fri, 01 May 2009 16:07:13 -0600

Attending RailsConf and/or CabooseConf? Join FiveRuns to see Penn & Teller perform at the Rio on Tuesday night.

We’ve got transportation and 40 tickets to catch Penn & Teller at the Rio on Tuesday night. Want to join us? Drop your name in the… hat. Okay, it’s not a hat, but you get the idea.

Enter your name before 8am Tuesday morning; winners will be notified by 10am via email.

See you in Las Vegas!

Webcast: How to Build a Lean Startup, step-by-step

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:28:42 -0600

O’Reilly and Eric Ries are doing an interesting webcast - Webcast: How to Build a Lean Startup, step-by-step. Having recently waded into this end of the pool - I’m getting a lot out of the whole lean startup idea. No great surprise, since it extends what I’m familiar with, from within product development, to all the streams of work that makes up a startup

Intriguing (and radical) approach on how to operate a business

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:20:29 -0600

Check out “The Open Company - Running your business as if it were an Open Source Project. It describes a radical approach (at least from my POV) on how to operate a business. I’m not a business operations person, so I don’t have the chops to completely evaluate the proposition here ahead of time. However, there are some intrigiung ideas in this article and I love where this could lead (not to mention the potential to upset the apple cart).