For different groups to understand what is possible and what is not, a matrix of sorts is needed to quantify why things may or may not be possible.  Things like an overall Company vision and roadmap contribute to why and when things are happening, but scoring things can also bring some much needed transparency into the process.

At first glance this seems like an excuse as why not to get something done – simply blaming “its too computationally expensive” – but as you can see there are a myriad of reasons.

I am far enough away from the time when this was first discussed that I have started to think about the issues that came up in another way.  You can easily plot the overall Difficulty and Impact of a project by plotting them on a graph similar to the one below.

Each dot represents a potential project or feature

Scoring would work such that;

Green = justification for immediate completion
Yellow = decide based on subjective views
Red = justification to wait

You can see how almost any discussion between groups, such as BD and engineering, could be plotted on this graph.  Something that has extremely high impact but is technically very difficult (red) may not get the hours/work necessary in light of other projects.  However something that is high impact and low difficulty (green) could get prioritized right away.  Using this methodology brings in some objectivity that may otherwise be absent from a discussion.

There are many subjective reasons why something may end up in a specific area or color, but this at least lets you plot all projects accordingly.

As an organization grows, this allows you to weigh the ideas and complexities of partner requests with that of folks who have longer term (cross quarter) projects currently in motion.  Things like engineering hours, PM resources, and design may play a role in the score and color of a dot.  Previously running projects have probably the highest impact, but provide justification on a high impact low difficulty project being pushed off a month.

Everyone in the organization should understand how a suggestion or feature improvement could affect the overall goals and timeline of a Company.

I don’t think I will stop contributing grand ideas to the product and eng. teams here anytime soon though

As an aside I was reminded of this recently while watching @cooperb give his talk about our infrastructure stack on MongoDB.

I have noticed a common occurrence where someone sets up a meeting or call to go over something new or propose something interesting, but they only cover this within the last part of the meeting time. This sets you up to have very little time to present your request, while spending significant time setting up and getting ready for your big “ask”.

Commonly after introductions are made via email and calls or meetings have been setup, folks never dive into the crux of the issue until there is little time for healthy discussion. It can be daunting to go into a big request at the early stages of a conversation or relationship, but you should strike the right balance. Even setting someone up with a brief agenda early, including the “ask” within it can be helpful. This way both parties know that eventually you will bring up the request sooner or later. This can also help in letting them digest the request first, while you setup the story behind the rest of your discussion.

There are a few different types of meetings that happen and each can be handled differently. Sometimes in a sales meeting you need to set up the product or proposal the right way, or give proper background. Other times in a proposed partnership you need to go over some of the important details that pertain to your proposal. Other meetings are used to brainstorm something entirely new, but there are one or two key points that must be a part of the final product. In any of these cases it is always prudent to make sure there is plenty of time to discuss the price, requirements, or demands that you have.

The “big crescendo” at the end of a meeting can sometimes be a surprise to the audience and does not leave them with enough time to process the demand as well as ask questions.

I recommend bringing the “ask” as upfront as you can without harming the story you are there to tell.

Now however, you are greeted with ever familiar OAuth prompts for services you probably already have an account with.  This happens with more than just web services.  Unboxing a new TV you are asked to install widgets for Facebook and Twitter.  Setting up a digital picture frame you are asked to OAuth with Flickr.  Certain sites and web services can even benefit from handshaking with foursquare too.

This is somewhat of a realization of BizDev 2.0, showing that the openness of these APIs is making life easier for first time customers.

Even in the latest iPhone, there is a deep iOS 5 Twitter integration, that makes for sharing to that service very easy.  Creating a prompt from photos and more gives you easy access to an already established social network that you want to share to anyway.  Some may think this means that the kings are decided in this arena, but I think that is hardly the case.  Folks like Twitter may have a stronger foothold, but there will always be room for people to break out beyond the constraints of the social networks of today.

Back to my original thought, getting started with gadgets, you now have a much higher chance of an interconnected device.  The so called “internet of things” is coming, highlighted most recently by Twine raising over 500K on Kickstarter.

This shows a world of interconnected devices, that starts with the initial OAuth handshake.

Do you think you will be able to have a device in the future that doesn’t require a sign in?

Their system emails you when you want (mine come at 11pm) and you simply reply back with whatever you want for that day.  I am using this as a personal “snippets” of sorts to see if I get value.  I am trying to stay on top of it, and I am proud to say I have so far been great at it (yup, almost all 10 days of the new year).  Anything that integrates into an already existing behavior is much easier than many of the personal tracking/diary type apps I looked into.  iDoneThis uses email, which I live in daily.

Outside of work recaps or snippets of the week there is a lot going on and it was recommended to me that getting everything written down/journaled would be a decent attempt at tracking everything.  We will see how it goes.

I am already using foursquare for where I go, and this should be a nice example to fill in the blanks on what goes on.

What are some other great personal tracking / quantified self tools are out there?

Tonight I finished watching Homeland from Showtime – and tweeted about it (really great show by the way!)

To my surprise it set off a flurry of responses from friends and colleagues who were at various stages of being either interested in starting to watch it, in the middle of it, or interested in more.  This presents a “hello Homeland” situation for many of my friends who want to see the show from this tweet, heard about it elsewhere, or maybe just have an interest and want to sample it.  But right now they can’t do that.

Some friends even started watching it right away based on or tipped into watching it from my recommendation.

This is the part I find extremely fascinating (and no, I am not looking for a pat on the back).  Everyone is looking to cut their cable, and stop paying large cable co’s for service, or switch to an a la carte model.  The problem is that this does not mesh well with the behavior that we currently follow.  Its extremely hard to change peoples behavior, and although the complaints are real, the bills are high – the benefit of cable to solve this need/desire to consume things as they are broadcast is a real benefit.

This all got me thinking about Fred Wilson‘s #screwcable post in which he says:

I’ve long believed that piracy is largely a business model problem not a human behavior problem. If you give people a legal way to consume the content they want, they will pay for it.

So what business model supports the current behavior? Affiliate links and capturing attention.

Currently there are different models that could support this type of behavior.  The simplest is affiliate links.  More difficult is capturing attention.  If I could have linked out to two (or one if they were smart) types of content, I bet I could have generated direct sales, or possibly even subscription sales for Showtime via Homeland.  Afterwards, there is interest and intent around the show – just waiting to happen online.

Affiliate links

The first, and simplest method would be to allow someone to deeplink to content that only subscribers have access to.  Meaning a Showtime subscriber could link to an extended viewing of Homeland to their social network, attributing the longer viewing and following episode sale or subscription sale to their account.

The second, would be driving views to content (read: ratings) via my recommendation.  This attention could be monetized by ads, and because it comes from a trusted source (me) my friends and colleagues may sit through advertising supported video for their first viewing of the show.  Subsequent purchases and subscriptions would also be attributed to the original seeder (again me).

Capturing attention

This method has been tried for years by many startups.  I have personally seen many companies that have promised solutions, but never delivered.  A real time chat room or re-played chatroom next to video content isn’t what anyone is really looking for.  They want to share their thoughts about something when its over with their friends in real time.  This is today solved by Twitter and Facebook – usually in a hard to follow thread of comments.

The real time (somewhat solved by Twitter today) and post watch need for a watercooler is very prevalent.  Some friends even wanted to chat about it as soon as they were done watching.  Why can’t Showtime (or someone else for that matter) give us a place to have this conversation.  I am much less excited about this opportunity, but if it offsets the cost of all-you-can-eat cable and gets us to the a-la-carte model faster than so be it.

The problem with an immediate consumption based behavior means that only true a-la-carte cable pricing would suffice.  This would mean an ever growing firehose of video on demand, available at a clicks notice.  Since this is not going to happen anytime soon, this affiliate model would work quite well.

Based on the reactions of some of my various friends, its clear this would have resulted in views of Homeland from a single tweet, which in an affiliate model would have ultimately been good for the show, good for me, and great for Showtime.

It becomes especially important in the beginning of a startup when you have small teams working on small projects in different departments.  This helps everyone know exactly what metric of success you are going after.  It also helps align groups to determine whether or not the work that they are doing aligns with the quantified goals of the company.

These metrics could be anything such as; pageviews, sign ups, paying customers, shipments made, monthly accounts activated, downloads, etc… The common number helps people in any team from business development to engineering know and understand that what they are doing has an impact on the business.

This type of clarity also helps people decide whether the next task they are going to work on aligns with the vision.

Here is an example of what Panic did

You certainly don’t need a flat panel display pulling in APIs to get the job done (although this is a beautiful way to do it).  A shared Google Spreadsheet does the trick just as well, and you can jump in to see the data behind a graph.

When you question what you are working on, or what the CEO finds most important, you should be able to consult this document, graph, or screen and know the answer.  Its great to help multiple departments start to understand how each team works together towards a common metric of success.

]]> http://www.ericgfriedman.com/2011/11/11/a-common-metric-of-success/feed/ 1 http://www.ericgfriedman.com/2011/11/11/a-common-metric-of-success/ http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/EricFriedman/~3/tXwPFQ-3SmE/ http://www.ericgfriedman.com/2011/11/09/always-be-helping-the-nytm/#comments Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:05:32 +0000 Eric Friedman http://www.ericgfriedman.com/?p=7176 Please vote for me at http://bit.ly/EricNYTM

I have been a member  and participant of the New York Tech Meetup for many years, and it was one of the ways in which I got exposed to great startups in NYC.

I have met some great people, seen some incredible demos, and made some good friends over the years.  When I saw the opportunity to participate further, I jumped at the chance and wanted to pitch how I can continue to be helpful, only this time as a member of the board.

I am running to Always Be Helping the NY Tech Meetup, or simply #abh.  

If I continue to help people get introduce to tech companies, help startups hire more engineers, or simply bring exposure to the meetup, I have accomplished my goal.

For many, the NYTM is a large gathering of tech minded folks around the idea that anyone with a great idea can present to their peers to get feedback, users, pitch practice, networking help, and various other benefits.  What it has evolved into is a great organization for New York, capturing the mindshare of both those new to the tech sector, and bringing back those who have worked in the area for decades.

I have participated since the organization matured from a warehouse meeting led by Scott Heiferman, to a ful fledged non profit transitioned to Nate Westheimer and a full board.  Its been a great ride and the core principles have remained the same which is why it is a thriving group with thousands of members.

I have enjoyed and benefited from getting to know folks involved in many startups and want to continue in the following ways;

1. Always be helping to hire bring great talent to startups

2. Always be helping guide people to the technology sector

3. Always be helping people network with relevance

Hire great talent

Referrals are the best way to get great talent.  By identifying great candidates, understanding company culture, and knowing about openings and needs I hope to be a resources to startups large and small, looking for great people.

Guide and mentor

Having worked on both sides of the table in this arena over the past 8 years I can bring some perspective, answer questions, and know when to get out of the way.  Sometimes people need a sounding board for their next move, sometimes they need more direction and I provide both.

Network

I would like to think I have the unique ability to connect folks together when there is a need.  Identifying the right people and opportunities is helpful to startups that have just started, and those that have been around for years.  I have done both over the years.

If you agree that the NYTM needs this kind of help you can nominate me here and vote for me in December – more info here.

If you agree with helping the New York Tech Community I hope  you can share this mantra and use the #ABH hashtag!

I support the @NYTM and want to help Hire great talent #ABH

I support the @NYTM and want to help guide and mentor #ABH

I support the @NYTM and want to help network #ABH

Getting more members, being active, and supporting great organizations like this make the ecosystem better as a whole, and I hope to continue doing that for years to come.

In it, he details the current state of the union for big companies and small ones looking to build out portions of their expertise through acquiring entire companies, and adding/folding them into the larger entity and  concludes:

It’s not necessarily a new frontier we’re entering. The current environment is simply turning up the volume on what has been happening for some time. And it’s only going to get louder. So BigCos and scaling startups, with increasingly valuable equity, are enjoying a perfect storm for acqhires.

I commented on the post, and as Bryce invited me to write up my thoughts, I figured I would do so here.  This is paraphrased from that comment and explored further below.

I can buy the parts to build a car, or I can pay more and buy one that I know will perform.  This is a no brainer decision because of time, quality, safety, and ongoing maintenance.

In the world of web startups,  you can hire individuals and try to make the team hum, or you can buy an agile group that you know can perform.  The issue is the premium you will pay for a fully functioning web startup team, but it may be worth acquiring a fully operational team that you know is going to produce what you want.

I am sure someone could do a better calculation but this is just back of the napkin stuff;

Acquhire option

what are 8 people worth all at once  who can produce? lets call it $10MM

2 engineers
2 mobile client developers
2 designers
2 front end developers
2 BD folks (hey im biased and can’t leave us out )

Assuming $100K each thats $1MM in headcount instantly.

Cost? $10MM upfront to buy the startup and product.  Great small exit for the team.

Result:
Time ~ instant (or 90 days)
Hope they work at your co. for 5 years
You are paying $200K per person for an instahire situation.  (more if you count options, raises, more payments and “other” but trying to simplify)

Hiring Option

Hire 2 people per month ~ $100K/month/per person across 12 months is 24 people at a $2.4MM burn rate.  This obviously does not include ANYTHING else you need to be spending money on like office, computers, insurance, food, other so lets double it and call it $5MM

You get a stellar group that takes approx. 1 month per person to get up to speed (I think this is generous) so you are not running at full speed for 1.5-2 months per person.

Result:
Time ~ 10 months (but really longer in my opinion)
Have equal to or less than team in 5 months – hope they all can work well together – and get them up to speed on your product.

conclusion?:
Time is now an important ingredient to a startup trying to crank something and suddenly $200K per head for an “insta-team” situation makes a lot of sense.

I believe that you can buy a fully functioning machine, and pay a premium – or you can buy all the parts and assemble a machine yourself.  In the example of buying a car, buying the parts is most certainly not an option, and you are better off buying the finished product from a safe and stable Company.

A million things could go wrong with each scenario above – and I am sure I am leaving parts out, but I wanted to get my thoughts down after the request.

With last weeks announcement, the “game change” that happened is that previously Facebook had websites including “Like” buttons all over the web.  In a move that I commend as extremely smart, they have people “liking” content both on Facebook.com and offsite, which in turn puts more content into the Facebook news feed, then making the content seen by more people, hoping for more “likes”.  It is/was a Möbius strip of activity that resulted in more activity and attention.

Now, they have included a “always on” setting which takes your actions from apps, sites, and services and automatically ports it into your news feed. Although its not the same main news feed, its now a smaller, faster, news feed inside your main feed on the right hand side (yo dawg!)

The actions though are now well beyond “like” and include basically anything you can think of.

You will now be able to “watch” content, “read” a magazine, “listen” to some music, etc..

But the catch is, everything now goes into the mini feed that is a firehose of activity.

As RWW said (emphasis theirs)

Be forewarned though, with these apps you’re automatically sending anything you read into your Facebook news feed. No “read” button. No clicking a “like” or “recommend” button. As soon as you click through to an article you are deemed to have “read” it and all of your Facebook friends and subscribers will hear about it.

I did this myself with Rdio + Facebook and you can see the following results

Interestingly this activity came from my Android (using Rdio) while I was at the gym.  Embarrassing or not, the world of activity streaming is now here.

The firehose feed is interesting because if you interact with content streaming by, Facebook sees this as intent and automatically upgrades how important it thinks this content is.  I see the firehose as actually “training” the main Facebook feed, which is also interesting because you will be seeing content that is more relevant to you as well.  What is interesting here is that users are training the feed with firehose intent, and marketers will now be able to target towards this new streaming activity.

I see a ton of Spotify and Rdio activity right now in my firehose facebook feed, but as developers dig in, I expect to see much more content from third party apps, and expect to get bombarded with the initial requests to “stream” from apps I use.

From their email to AdSense customers

We previously launched the +1 button on Google search and for publisher sites to make it easier for people to share and discover content across the web. Soon, your users will be able to endorse specific ads and make the ads more likely to appear to their social connections. We believe that these recommendations could help your readers notice ads on your site more, leading to higher returns for you over time.

This is what the ads will look like – very similar to the Facebook “face pile” you see on sites where you have friends that have OAuthed

Its definitely an interesting move to increase engagement within advertising. There have been a ton of startups that have tried to tackle this problem and increase relevancy to readers and users by requesting implicit and explicit feedback from users, but none with the sheer scale of Google.  AdSense ads obviously litter the web and are a core source of revenue for many sites so the immediate impact here will be known.  It remains to be seen if there is an increase efficacy of the ad for either relevance, click through rate, or even recall but I will be following this closely to see the results.