Another article reminds us of the pitfalls of startups, http://www.techvibes.com/blog/why-92-of-startups-fail-infographic-2012-06-18, where it states that for a variety of reasons, 92% of startups fail, or, basically, only 8% of startups survive. I believe that it uses the term, inconsistent, but I always attribute the “inconsistency” to a management team. All decisions stem from the management team – growth, customer acquisition, capital raising, technology adoption. So I always attribute those failures from decision making.
Recently, I received an email inquiring whether I knew of a qualified programmer to begin their phase 2 of their mobile app for 3 months. Having programmed myself, I knew that this inquiry had many defects. First, there are many programming languages, so what expertise was needed? Second, since the new developer had to follow up after another program, is there sufficient documentation to understand the previous work? Third, what was being asked to be developed?
I had informed the sender that the company needed a strong chief operating officer. I met that the management team, and from all appearances, the company needed an effective leader who understood marketing and technology. Instead, the company has decided to be “pennies wise and pounds foolish.”
The right COO would select the appropriate programmer, monitor the progress, and focus on marketing. Already, this company has had a history on not managing properly—taking years to develop a product that under the appropriate management could have been completed in less than a year.
Anyway, I have no fiduciary duty to this company. I simply conclude that it will fall in the 92% of failed startups. The company will find a programmer. It will take longer than the expected 3 months for the reasons I stated earlier. Meanwhile, any potential revenue is delayed when desperately needed, increasing its chances for failure. And I sincerely believe that, under Darwinism, better companies with the best management have the best chance to survive.