Bootstrapping And Growing Your Tech Team

So you’re a technical founder of a young exciting startup. You’re expected to take technical role and build a team to build the product. So how we’d start?

The founding team

When you build a team, there’s one common pattern on founding team: they are focusing on speed and time to market. As a tech founder, you might find this at odd with code quality, and that is right. We always strive on confidence on every build. In ideal world every build should have unit tests, integration tests, stress tests and then delivered to customer, but in a lot of cases, it’s mutually exclusive with time to market. So how to tackle this issue?

Step 1: Define Your Product Team

The good thing about startups is team is usually small and communication is easy. During this good time, it’s important to define the role of the product team to cover every facet of product development lifecycle. I usually divide the team to 4 big chunks.

1 pcAshrWxuHJhXqvpLouWLQ

Every person needs to take or assume one of the role. Every product team that I’ve built or I helped to build usually consists of those four roles with different titles. Every single person on the startup that consider themselves as the product team needs to take one of the role. The roles are divided this way to give a clear ownership of every step and facet on product development. Let’s take a look:

  1. Product Owner is usually assumed by the guy that know the business process and rules on the product. In early stage, often this role usually taken by the CEO. This role owns the product features and the priority.
  2. Project Manager is the guy that focuses on getting things down. This role owns the timeline and resources.
  3. Developer is self explanatory. They code the product, they make dream comes true. This role owns the code and infrastructure.
  4. Quality Assurance is the gatekeeper. They must be the fiercest defender of the product quality.

This role division also serves as a guide for future career path. All four of them need to be equal, and nobody should serves in two roles in the same time, because the nature of division is to provide balance.

The reason I draw line over them is to illustrate the tug of war or tension that needs to be maintained. The team breaks apart if one party too push in or to push out. We need to maintain the strain just enough to make the team works.

Step 2 : Lay out process and tools

A product success chance can be increased by adhering process. A popular framework is agile processes such as scrum or kanban. Choose one and stick to it, if one does not work, switch and try. Attend a training or learn the video together with the team. Talk with other companies who do similar process. Although many people start to declare the demise of the agile. At the moment, it’s the only available process framework that have and still works.

As a technical founder, we’re also expected to lay out the engineering process because it’s your domain. You’re expected to know and do things like code review and automated build. If you lucky enough you may be able to create a continuous delivery/integration/deployment process.

The tools I usually use are as follows:

  1. JIRA Software — I use it to organise user stories and to know the visibility on the project.
  2. Test Rail — I use it for QA team to create test suites and test cases for our products.
  3. GitHub — Everybody knows it, it’s hands down the best place to place the code.
  4. Travis CI — it’s tied with GitHub, it provides easy automated build tools for your CI and CD needs.
  5. Fabric.io — as majority of the team I’m involved with is mobile team, fabric gives us flexible platform for distributing beta and getting crash logs.
  6. Instabug — for instant bug report, it also reports crashes. I use it for the beta testers.
  7. Amazon Web Services — a very popular cloud. I’ve tried many others too, but mostly I’m working with AWS.

Step 3 : plan the roadmap and educate your team

I’ve seen a startup that take the quote “move fast and break things” to the extreme. They deliver bad product that constantly breaks down. To avoid that, plan your product roadmap. Discuss with the whole team about it. The most important roadmap items for early stage startup is the first 3–6 months. For each milestone put a theme or common goal. For example in the first 3 months is MVP, the 3–9 months is the user acquisition, and so on. So people on your team aligned.

If you have sizeable team, focus on a high leverage activities such as mentoring and building a solid onboarding process for new hires. This will save a lot of time for building products. Aside of the technical materials needed to build the product such as iOS or Android training, spend some time and money to buy books like Clean Code.

The MVP Phase

Getting the product out of the door is hands down, the goal of an early stage startup, and speed is important. We may not have a luxury of writing unit and integration test in this stage. On early stage, most of the burden is usually shifted towards QA as the gatekeeper. Here, QA team need to be resilient and tough as more manual tests need to be done. Crashes and major bugs is pretty detrimental for an MVP. Minor bugs are somewhat okay because it can be fixed quickly. You may as well implement a continuous delivery system in this phase. Not doing so is anti pattern because CD is a high leverage activity on this phase regarding to speed and fast feedback. I somehow puzzled with contradicting excuse of not doing CD early on: because they have no time due to the speed requirement. You have no time to save time. Haha!

The User Acquisition Phase

This where the things shifted from speed to robustness. Pressure is in the dev team. Implement things that you had no chance to implement in the first three months. Write unit tests, write the tests that you haven’t written in the first 3 months, implement code review, refactor ruthlessly. We still deal with speed but robustness takes priority on user acquisition. Improve the QA test cases and automate what can be automated. We want to make sure we have high confidence on features delivered to the users on this phase. In this phase, there is usually business shift, changes here and there, new hires coming in and we still want to have high confidence on our build.

The “Next” Phase

Writing software product is never ending. The first two phases are usually the hardest. When you pass those phases, you usually already build a somewhat complete team. So the focus is shifted to scale. Scaling the product, scaling the team. The first 4 roles will expand. So in this phase, what you need is a leader of the pack or manager. Hire or promote managers, build a career path and training plan. But one thing to note, keep the organisation as flat as possible.

For the developers, it’s time to learn distributed system and architecture. You may start with a simple CRUD backend in the start, but overtime it’s going to be large. In this phase, think about the architecture, decide the parts we need to be refactored first and so on.

Conclusion

This is only one way of building a startup tech team. People mileage can vary. One thing about technical founder is to keep in mind that you need to strive for perfection. In many cases, I see tech team is neglected. So find a good founder that realise that tech team is as important as “the business guy”.


This article has been republished with editing and permission from Didiet Noor. Original source is from Medium.

Didiet is a software engineer and tech advocate. He can be contacted via Twitter @lynxluna.

Revisiting “Are Digital Music Services Scalable”

With Rdio basically dying off and sold for parts, Beats Music dead and Zune finally taken off life-support, I thought it was a good time to revisit the article I wrote a year ago about digital music services.

In any “new” industry, there will always be a pioneer that basically proves the worthiness of a business model (or at least some aspect of it), after which they will continue to grow with ‘copycats’ (I’m using the term loosely here) following in step to see on whether they can build something for the new industry. As time has proven time and time again, the greatest beneficiaries of a new industry are not necessarily always the pioneers, as in the case of the smartphone, it took Apple to basically turn the market around although many players have dabbled in that market before with some success.

And just like in any other industry, growth spurts witnessing the birth of many similar-modeled businesses will continue for a time, until the business model itself will prove itself (or not) as something sustainable in the longer term. Bankruptcy and consolidation is unavoidable, whether it is triggered by government oversight or regulation, or the fact that the business model itself does not scale as well for multiple companies. Or perhaps in the case of music services, contracts like these simply don’t allow for a variety of company sizes.

Spotify continues to dominate the music streaming market due to their deep pockets (I mean, what else could it be?) while Apple and Google have their own streaming plays. While Rdio is probably the first of the more ‘international’ music streaming services to stop operating, there are probably many other regional- or local-based digital music services who are probably operating at a loss or defunct. That said, even Spotify is yet to be profitable. The winners of this game? Not even the artists, but the recording companies who own the masters of the songs. Yet, even when we say ‘recording companies’, it simply does not paint an accurate picture of what is actually going on, as with any other industry, there are big companies and there are small companies, with differing influence. And even they are trying to figure out what to do next.

So recent events have apparently confirmed what I postulated last year, that digital music services — to an extent — are not scalable. You either have to run a very lean ship to be sustainable, find multiple revenue streams (not be a pure consumer-facing play), or expand with no end using other people’s money with hopes of an IPO or acquisition down the line.

Why is it always a question of streaming vs downloads?

Another angle to this problem is the generated revenue itself. Warner says streaming income is overtaking downloads, while some high-profile artists, most recently Adele, have shunned streaming services in favor of supporting download services like iTunes. While it’s totally up to the artists — as it should be — to decide where they want to sell their music, thinking about one business model versus the other, I think, is counterproductive.

Artistes and musicians today, on differing scales and revenues, already enjoy a much more diverse choice of revenue streams: live shows, merchandise, experiential packages, games/apps, and so on. The increase of “screens” enjoyed by the fans must also be serviced by content produced by these artistes and musicians, so it should never be a discussion around streaming vs downloads, for instance.

If the music industry were to learn something from the movie industry, it wouldn’t be something like this, but making separate release windows for downloadable content and streamable content could be similar to how movie studios break down their release dates to cinema, then to DVD release or streaming services, and lastly TV. This could become the norm, instead of the exception, as some artistes have already done this before.

[Digital] music services will need a ‘big brother’

We have yet to see how Apple Music will fare, and I have no idea on how much money Google Play Music is actually making. But there is no doubt in my mind that they will thrive on, as both Apple and Google do not depend their livelihood from those services. That said, the services are needed for, at the least, customer retention, so they’ll definitely run their services properly. Deezer has some relations with Warner Music, Sony Music Entertainment is part of Sony, and Universal Music is part of the French conglomerate Vivendi. Rdio had Cumulus Networks as an investor, which was more of a strategic deal rather than an investment deal. Spotify? Spotify currently stands alone, and I would think they would have better chance to sell themselves to a ‘big brother’ rather than getting to IPO stage. But who will they sell to?

Simply put, if it doesn’t have Spotify’s scale (and as mentioned in the previous article, even Spotify would be under scrutiny here), a music service is bound to need a ‘big brother’ — a network or ecosystem of sister companies — to keep it afloat and either enhance the service, or make the service as part of a bigger experience. The multiple consumption “screens” that users now have simply doesn’t have space for standalone music services, or will not have. Consolidation in the industry will either be caught up with consolidation with other entertainment-driven services, or a consolidation of consumer offerings (for instance, instead of paying separate prices for Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, and so on, users can pay one price to enjoy everything).

As has happened with the major labels, who basically consolidated from 5 major players to 3, the digital-based entertainment industry will further consolidate, either through acquisitions, technology purchases and so on, and the ones with the largest consumer base (and sustainable business model, of course) will win. Naturally this would not include services serving special niches or market segments that by scale do not make sense for these giant companies to do, but niche companies like these will have limited room to grow anyway.

So what’s the takeaway?

For users — get used to more services shutting down or consolidating in the future.

For artistes/musicians — get your music on as many platforms as possible but do not expect a big payday. Your superfans will probably spend more for exclusive merchandise anyway (well unless you have the capabilities to become an international artist, of which you will definitely need an international-level music marketing company).

For aspiring music services — consumer-facing business models will simply not scale enough for you to be profitable (unless you’re Spotify). Find other ways of making money and target for sustainability over scale.


This article has been republished with editing and permission from Ario Tamat. Original source is from Medium.

Ario is a co-founder of Ohdio, an Indonesian music streaming service. He worked in the digital music industry in Indonesia from 2003 to 2010, and recently worked in the movie and TV industry in Vietnam. Keep up with him on Twitter at @barijoe or his blog at http://barijoe.wordpress.com.

Keep Updated On The Go, Get Dailysocial for Your Android Phone!

Yes, we finally have an Android application for Dailysocial thanks to the awesomeness of Feed.nu, a tool that makes it ridiculously easy to convert your WordPress blog into a fully-functional Android native app. By downloading this app, you can stay updated with all tech-startup news from Indonesia, and we’ll even notify you whenever a new article is published. Isn’t that awesome!?

Android users can click here to download APK installation file or simply scan the QR code above to go to the installation file. Simply install the app and you’ve got all the news updates in your Android phone. Easy, simple and get your daily dose of Indonesian tech-startup awesomeness!

Google Translate Sucks, We Understand.

As DailySocial grow for the past 1.5 year, we’ve tried to figure out about our positioning in this growing Tech startup industry. We’ve met some amazing and brilliant entrepreneurs, diligent angels, visionary investors and other influential people in the industry. We learn a lo from them.

It came to our knowledge that the people that consumes DailySocial is not only Indonesian although it’s written in Bahasa Indonesia. It’s a good surprise to know that some foreigner actually make use of the Google Translate button to try to understand the post in order to get a bigger picture about Indonesia’s tech-startup scene. Google Translate sucks, you still have to think hard and collect the small piece keywords from each post to be able to understand the whole post.

Continue reading Google Translate Sucks, We Understand.