My career exists and has thrived simply because I try to always find ways to add value to what I’m doing. I think of every problem as if I were a business trying to solve it. This impacts my approach to career, side jobs, hustles, and more. An entrepreneurial approach to most work problems can only improve the odds of success if tempered with an understanding of why the problem needs to be solved and how the business functions.
I used to think the secret to entrepreneurial success was to solve a problem and to be original when doing so. While solving the problem is definitely going to make it easier to succeed, being a unicorn isn’t always the right answer. Just look at how much Slack sold for to see how something which is the same (on the surface) as any other equivalent product can surpass any and all expectations.
I drank the Blue Ocean Strategy Koolaid in some ways, but missed the point for parts of it. I had conflated always hunting for new grounds as a measure of success rather than accepting that sometimes the best solution already exists and just needs to be streamlined. I’m going to paint in wide strokes, but understanding when this advice doesn’t work is as important as understanding when it does. Jumping from an idea to an implementation is faster and easier when you build on something else and jump into the unknown from a solid foundation.
Stepping Stones
Original ideas are a dime a dozen, but not all (or even most) of them are worthwhile. An idea requires an implementation to succeed, but it can take a lot of work to actually implement the idea from scratch. The more ideas you can bring to life, the more likely one of them is to take.
The less effort it takes to get the ball rolling, the better. This is the principle application of the Pareto Principle (80/20 Rule) or its more radical version the 1-50 Rule. You do the least to get the most in return, and modifying is usually easier than building from scratch. There’s no real reason to do all of the work when you can do some of it and gauge if it works or not before doubling down.
The principles behind Slack aren’t original in any real way. You basically have a modern version of ICQ, Jabber, or any of the other multitude of chat protocols and programs. The difference is they took the core features and did them more efficiently for the specific market space they were targeting. The originality was in the approach rather than the concepts.
I try to focus on quantity over quality for solutions in the beginning. This doesn’t mean to be lazy, but throw the easiest ideas and see what sticks or what doesn’t, and why. Most solutions will fizzle out, but if they are a low cost of investment to implement or test, you’re gambling on one paying off enough to pay off the rest and then some rather than putting all your eggs in one basket. That being said, the ideal solution isn’t always easy. Sometimes you need to reinvent the wheel.
Reinventing the Wheel
IT and software development tends to be plagued with Not Invented Here syndrome (NIH). Anyone who has dealt with automation has seen someone spending a hundred hours on automation that saves a day’s work over years. It’s hard to know when to reinvent the wheel and when to just adapt something which already exists.
That being said, there’s a balance. Slack had to reinvent the wheel with many features or else they wouldn’t be able to succeed. Sometimes, an existing solution just doesn’t work. Look at what others have done and what their outcome was. Let someone else fail for you and learn from it without taking the risk. There needs to be a balance between creation and adaptation, especially early on with a project or solution. The faster you can get something to show and test, the easier it is to make work.
Almost all chat programs are going to require the same basic things, but what really makes Slack, Discord, and Jabber so different? Each of them has a different approach and solution to how to manage them and different features based on different philosophies. The wheels on the Mars rover are different than the wheels on a car. Reinventing the wheel is fine as long as there is a good reason to do so.
What is your problem and what solutions exist? What do those solutions fail at for solving your specific problem and how much does it cost in time or resources to reinvent the solution in a better way? You need to answer these questions to figure out how you can add value to the solution without just creating new problems.
Adding Value
Bitcoin is just a bunch of fancy applied math devoid of any inherent value, yet it keeps flirting with the $20k line (as of writing). It’s value comes from an agreement of its worth and its perceived value. It’s the same idea that makes non-fiat currency work. How much is your solution worth and to whom?
A great solution to a problem that no one has is more useless than a mediocre solution to a common problem. If that mediocre solution is cheaper than a better solution, which one is better will come down to needs. If time is worth more, than the better solution is the one which is most efficient (all other things being equal).
Slack scratches very few itches that other solutions don’t, it just scratches them better for more common enterprise issues. They didn’t start with an original premise, they just jumped to one as they grew. Their value to customers comes from their efficiency in solving a problem others already solved, but doing it better.
You can find “compiled books” on Amazon which are literally just collections of Wikipedia entries which have been vetted for a specific solution. You don’t need every solution to be the brightest and best, you just need it to target a piece of the market that others don’t as efficiently. Targeting a niche is common sense, but how and why are the harder questions to answer. A collection of Wikipedia articles can sell because it’s convenient to someone.
How can you target the niche in a way which adds value? How can you actually implement the solution? Adding value is about more than just thinking outside the box; it’s about being able to bring a solution to fruition that is cost effective and works for the problem.
Image by Jose Manrique from Pixabay