Software Venture Business
Lately I've been involved in a venture business dealing with a software. So, you might be wondering, why?
Well, for me a venture business means innovation. Nobody innovates more than a venture business. Venture business doesn't have anything to start with other than idea. I love innovating over computer system. Imagine using the latest technology like AJAX and Silverlight, and getting paid for doing it!
But there are problem that's relevant with most venture businesses. Venture businesses that failed to survive usually lack of differentiating factor or long time-to-market on their products. The two aren't mutually exclusive either, long time-to-market will enable rivals create a better product first, thus making our product looks obsolete (reducing its differentiation) even before it's launched.
Now, what I've always avoided from a venture business is red tape. Why? Because excessive bureaucratic procedures are bad for time-to-market. If you want a software product delivered well before time and under budget, you should streamline any business processes that doesn't add value to the product. For example: when deciding a name for a product took more than two months, then something must've been very wrong.
I'm not against bureaucratic policies. It's a sign of maturity. But venture businesses are not made of maturity. If it's mature, then it's not a venture. Google is small, so there's no need for many layers of command. But when a company is as big as IBM, you'll expect more people taken into account when deciding something.
This is especially true in a software industry. Creativity (one of the component to differentiate products) doesn't come easily. Creativity can be encouraged from an environment, but cannot be produced. This is something I learned as an Industrial Engineer. Creating the environment is something not trivial. Excessive bureaucracy hinders creativity, because more and more people are required to decide over something.
Someone once said (can't remember who or where unfortunately), that success for a venture business has an inverse reslationship to the number of C*O it has. What it actually mean, is that the more people managing other people, the less it would able to produce quality products. The more people doing synergistic value addition at the same time, the better the product would be.
So, are we still managing others doing their own work or do we empower others doing everybody's work?