> It (Lean) is a response to scarce capital, and when that constraint is loosened, it’s worth considering whether other approaches are superior
Definitely worth looking at both approaches objectively.
1. Lean Approach: Stay lean, build MVPs, find PMF, then go big.
2. Big bang approach: Have conviction in your idea, use capital to launch big from get go.
Given capital is not a constraint, the next most important thing is time i.e. which approach would help us build a thriving business fastest.
Big bangs take up extra time/energy in ancillary tasks like hiring, PR and so on. Pivots take time, even to communicate internally. Lean let's you operate the whole thing as a series of cheap experiments to validate your assumptions. Pivots are natural and cheap.
Big bang would be beneficial over lean only when your first set of assumptions were on the mark and the company required almost no major pivots. That's rare, maybe Katzenberg can pull it off.
Maybe Big Bang is more effective for iterative companies, those whose business model and PMF is well established. like a second wave of ride-share businesses who copy the Uber/Lyft paradigm but with enough of a personalized twist to secure substantial capital upfront.
Definitely worth looking at both approaches objectively.
1. Lean Approach: Stay lean, build MVPs, find PMF, then go big.
2. Big bang approach: Have conviction in your idea, use capital to launch big from get go.
Given capital is not a constraint, the next most important thing is time i.e. which approach would help us build a thriving business fastest.
Big bangs take up extra time/energy in ancillary tasks like hiring, PR and so on. Pivots take time, even to communicate internally. Lean let's you operate the whole thing as a series of cheap experiments to validate your assumptions. Pivots are natural and cheap.
Big bang would be beneficial over lean only when your first set of assumptions were on the mark and the company required almost no major pivots. That's rare, maybe Katzenberg can pull it off.