The tests if done right, boils down to using evidence from objective reality to know if an assumption is true.
In practice, unless you are testing feasibility or viability, my assumption (🙉) is that most of the validations done as Riskiest Assumptions Test is likely to be subjective and measure "man-made reality" as opposed to "metaphysical truths" about why people made choices related to desirability. Most of them are epistemological errors.
Evading the facts of reality is not an option anyway for building a rational business.
The Riskiest Assumption here is this -> "Running tests that don't directly measure if customers love the product will let me know if customers will love the product if I build it later". After all, the job of a high-growth startup is to "make something customers love" not just something people will pay for.
Recently, I have concluded on a Startup Methodology -> build things that I will be a fanatic paying customer of. And if there are more people like me among the 8 billion who are fanatic paying customers, I got a product customers do love. And as a result, a potential "rocketship". If not, I just built tools to scratch my own itch. I win either way.
You are using a lot of philosophical words, but I would like to hear what you intent with: metaphysical truths and epistemological errors. What is the dichotomy that you think I paint? Cause I think as with BML as with experiment cycles you can achieve good results. The cycles aim to frontload something that BML doesn't.
Obviously you should build something that someone loves. Desirability in that sense is a subjective experience that we try to get access to. Even though this is not an extant reality per se, it's a social reality, constructed by humans. It's our best way to get some sense of what is what in the mind's eye.
The question you pose here seems of objectivity; i.e. that viability and feasibility are inherently more objective than desirability, is that what you intended to say?
My previous comment is not to say that the core concepts in the essay are wrong. As your student, I judge that the work you are doing is valuable and I am grateful that you are publishing important ideas on Substack.
By false dichotomy, I meant choosing one or the other is not a dilemma at all. Run BML for desirability and run RATs for Feasibility & Viability. I will give an example of one way to do it in this comment.
And I agree with frontloading. But in a different way. You don't have to rely on "social reality" to get access to a mind's eye. You already have access to one -Your Own. If you start the process with a project you would be fanatic paying customers of. you already have an understanding of the problem domain. And also target customers to sell to because you are the user-persona come to life.
(I say "Fanatic Paying Customers" in a JTBD way of thinking. Let's call it FPC to help solve the world's acronym shortage.)
Instead of starting with this question -> “are people are willing to pay a subscription for a bicycle?”. You start with this statement already being true -> "I want to pay someone to have a bicycle subscription".
Once you have this level of desirability validated. Then you can build a version that solves the problem for you. Meaning, you don't need to build so many things like a user-management system. You can build only the parts that solve the problem for you. And you can verify if it actually solves the problem for you or not. This solves the lopsided Build phase problem.
If it actually did solve it for you, now is the time for things like user management. And see if others in the target customer group are also FPCs like you.
Like this, you can integrate BML with RATs for appropriate questions you want to answer. The right tool for the job for remaining objective and not having to rely on "social reality". And as you have success with that and you are no longer the only user persona, it makes sense to run JTBD interviews.
Metaphysical truths mean situations that are not the result of human choices. Things like the speed of light in a vacuum. Or thrust required for a given payload to reach escape velocity and leave earth. On the other hand, Manmade truths could be statements like this -> "The price for a rocket to send this payload to space is prohibitively high". One is clearly easier to change than the other. I am assuming what's called "social reality" falls mostly in the second category if they are at all true statements. These are statements in our minds based on the results of human choices. If already achieved desirability in an objective way. Then you probably can change the "social reality" and make it feasible and viable. Also, you have the possibility of increasing desirability for new types of customers.
I once heard someone say, "You are always a slave, even if not to human, Then to physics. Because if you jump out this window right now, you will fall". True Story BTW. This is either an example of misuse of a word or of epistemological error.
That works if you are the potential user, but for many startups yourself is not the main user. And the question is, how representable are you as a user? It's a starting point for sure, but I would always try to see the broadness.
For some concepts this could work, some people created certain SAAS things like this. However, after building it for yourself, you should quickly try to identify if there are others that want it. So for me this would be a small steppingstone to get something tangible. But no means of market validation.
At Noorderwind we are already saying for years: stop with the focus on just MVP's and start with the RATs (Riskiest Assumption Tests)
That's great. Whatever framework or acronym works, frontload your research questions!
I think it is a false dichotomy.
The tests if done right, boils down to using evidence from objective reality to know if an assumption is true.
In practice, unless you are testing feasibility or viability, my assumption (🙉) is that most of the validations done as Riskiest Assumptions Test is likely to be subjective and measure "man-made reality" as opposed to "metaphysical truths" about why people made choices related to desirability. Most of them are epistemological errors.
Evading the facts of reality is not an option anyway for building a rational business.
The Riskiest Assumption here is this -> "Running tests that don't directly measure if customers love the product will let me know if customers will love the product if I build it later". After all, the job of a high-growth startup is to "make something customers love" not just something people will pay for.
Recently, I have concluded on a Startup Methodology -> build things that I will be a fanatic paying customer of. And if there are more people like me among the 8 billion who are fanatic paying customers, I got a product customers do love. And as a result, a potential "rocketship". If not, I just built tools to scratch my own itch. I win either way.
You are using a lot of philosophical words, but I would like to hear what you intent with: metaphysical truths and epistemological errors. What is the dichotomy that you think I paint? Cause I think as with BML as with experiment cycles you can achieve good results. The cycles aim to frontload something that BML doesn't.
Obviously you should build something that someone loves. Desirability in that sense is a subjective experience that we try to get access to. Even though this is not an extant reality per se, it's a social reality, constructed by humans. It's our best way to get some sense of what is what in the mind's eye.
The question you pose here seems of objectivity; i.e. that viability and feasibility are inherently more objective than desirability, is that what you intended to say?
My previous comment is not to say that the core concepts in the essay are wrong. As your student, I judge that the work you are doing is valuable and I am grateful that you are publishing important ideas on Substack.
By false dichotomy, I meant choosing one or the other is not a dilemma at all. Run BML for desirability and run RATs for Feasibility & Viability. I will give an example of one way to do it in this comment.
And I agree with frontloading. But in a different way. You don't have to rely on "social reality" to get access to a mind's eye. You already have access to one -Your Own. If you start the process with a project you would be fanatic paying customers of. you already have an understanding of the problem domain. And also target customers to sell to because you are the user-persona come to life.
(I say "Fanatic Paying Customers" in a JTBD way of thinking. Let's call it FPC to help solve the world's acronym shortage.)
Instead of starting with this question -> “are people are willing to pay a subscription for a bicycle?”. You start with this statement already being true -> "I want to pay someone to have a bicycle subscription".
Once you have this level of desirability validated. Then you can build a version that solves the problem for you. Meaning, you don't need to build so many things like a user-management system. You can build only the parts that solve the problem for you. And you can verify if it actually solves the problem for you or not. This solves the lopsided Build phase problem.
If it actually did solve it for you, now is the time for things like user management. And see if others in the target customer group are also FPCs like you.
Like this, you can integrate BML with RATs for appropriate questions you want to answer. The right tool for the job for remaining objective and not having to rely on "social reality". And as you have success with that and you are no longer the only user persona, it makes sense to run JTBD interviews.
Metaphysical truths mean situations that are not the result of human choices. Things like the speed of light in a vacuum. Or thrust required for a given payload to reach escape velocity and leave earth. On the other hand, Manmade truths could be statements like this -> "The price for a rocket to send this payload to space is prohibitively high". One is clearly easier to change than the other. I am assuming what's called "social reality" falls mostly in the second category if they are at all true statements. These are statements in our minds based on the results of human choices. If already achieved desirability in an objective way. Then you probably can change the "social reality" and make it feasible and viable. Also, you have the possibility of increasing desirability for new types of customers.
(If interested in this, I recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Who-Needs-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451138937 )
I once heard someone say, "You are always a slave, even if not to human, Then to physics. Because if you jump out this window right now, you will fall". True Story BTW. This is either an example of misuse of a word or of epistemological error.
Also check out: https://m.signalvnoise.com/validation-is-a-mirage/
That works if you are the potential user, but for many startups yourself is not the main user. And the question is, how representable are you as a user? It's a starting point for sure, but I would always try to see the broadness.
Yes, I am proposing this as a primary/mainstream methodology to start a startup. What do you think?
For some concepts this could work, some people created certain SAAS things like this. However, after building it for yourself, you should quickly try to identify if there are others that want it. So for me this would be a small steppingstone to get something tangible. But no means of market validation.
Yes. It is not directly a means of bigger market validation.