Research ethos vs. startup ethos
On the face of it, research and high-tech startups should be similar worlds, driven by solutions to new problems or better solutions to existing ones. Yet, there are fundamental differences in their perspectives and culture.
Almost a year ago, I quit my job as a researcher (at Microsoft Research) to start a company (Intentionet). I figured it’ll be fun to take a moment to reflect on some of the differences in the two worlds.
Disclaimer: The observations below are anecdotal, likely biased by the nature of my research community (computer systems and networking) and my startup (enterprise software).
Solving a problem vs. solving someone’s problem
Researchers want to solve important problems in a novel way, and in doing so, they usually do not worry about whose problem they are solving and who will be motivated to adopt the solution. Startups, on the other hand, can succeed only if they can clearly identify specific people that have the problem and incent them to invest in the solution. It does not suffice to identify organizations (not people)— even if the problem is important for the organization, not everyone in it worries about it, and in some cases, there may be no one that worries about it.
As an example, if you developed a technology to eliminate world hunger, you’d be feted by the research community and would surely be on the path to a Nobel prize. But that does not necessarily mean that you’d have a successful company. You also need to find people who are willing and able to pay for your technology. Those that ultimately benefit (e.g., hungry people) may not be able to pay and those that are able to (e.g., governments) may not be willing to pay.
I am painting a broad brush here about differences in first-order concerns that arise when solving a problem. Of course, there are researchers that care a great deal about their ideas being adopted and think hard about who might adopt them; and of course there are startups that do not seem to worry if someone will pay for their solution. I am also not arguing that research should be guided by ability to (immediately) monetize the solution.
You are the company you keep
As a researcher, I found it easy to separate my identity from that of my company. When talking to folks outside the company, I could debate ideas and opine on what does or does not work well, without worrying that my opinions will be viewed as stemming from the motivations of the company. Maintaining that separation is difficult or impossible in the startup world. My opinions are viewed through the lens of the company. If l praise an idea, the company must be investing in it, and if I happen to critique an idea, it must be defensive posturing against competition.
Cult of ideas vs. the cult of execution
An amusing difference between the two worlds is that each thinks what they do is most critical to the success of a high-tech venture. Researchers tend to think that technical ideas are key, and the company will succeed if those are good. They vastly underestimate the effort that goes into turning ideas into a successful business. On the other hand, many startup’ers think that ideas are dime a dozen and what really matters is execution. A corollary is that when a startup fails, researchers assume that the technical ideas were flawed, and startup’ers assume that the execution was flawed.
At this point, you may be itching to ask: What do I think matters more — -ideas or execution? It is whatever you are doing right now.
Acknowledgements: My colleagues, Dan Halperin and Todd Millstein, provided great feedback on a draft version of this blog.
