Is it better to learn technology by oneself or to find a cofounder/outsource? (bootstrapped web-startup)

I'm going through this right now myself. I've never done web design or web programming before, but in the last couple of weeks, I put together a set of wireframes in PowerPoint, and set up a database hosting service and laid out a content management system in MySQL.

I'm currently putting together a simple text-based version of the site using PHP, which I'm learning from free online tutorials. I've learned how to set up forms to put data in the database and take it out to display it to the user.

Now, I have no expectation that I am going to learn enough to put together a polished product. However, I expect that I can put together a pretty well laid-out minimum viable product that should be sufficient to find investment or show a more technical co-founder that I am serious about this.

The lesson I've learned is that to become 80% proficient in something (like PHP or MySQL) may take me 1000 hours, but to become 50% proficient only takes me 40 hours. 50% isn't enough to build a finished product, but it's enough to know exactly what I need done and find people to do the rest of it.

One last thought here that is somewhat off-topic but entertaining: a less-than-scrupulous guy I know who owns a sign shop once told me that the key to being able to charge somebody ridiculous amounts of money is if they have no idea what it takes to get the job done. "Do you have any idea what it takes to put a welding torch on a crane to install that thing?" They don't, and he charges $1000/hr for the job.

If you can learn that 50%, you know exactly what it will take to do the job, even if you can't do it yourself, and it will save you a ton of money.

I understand the desire to be the sole founder -- I was, for Smart Bear. Some people argue it's easier to have cofounders, and in general that's probably true, but going it alone isn't automatically wrong.

But then, I was actually capable of doing everything -- the code in addition to the rest.

You're asking whether it's wise to do a company by yourself when you cannot do everything by yourself. Sounds bad when I phrase it that way, right?

Your stipulation that "MBA hires dev is wrong, proved by the bubble" is completely wrong -- the bubble was wrong because the companies had no way to make money. Nothing to do with MBAs or developers or founders.

I do agree however that "MBA hires dev" is difficult because the MBA cannot ascertain whether the dev is any good, just like a non-doctor cannot ascertain whether a certain doctor is competant.

But then, for that same reason you won't be able to write particularly good code. If you believe the strength of your business is in marketing, sales, position, your domain knowledge, or anything else not involving having a good product, then by all means you should stand something up yourself and go!

If the quality of the product matters, then you need a real dev from the start.

Note I am NOT trying to imply that the quality of the product does matter! Many businesses were started with truly shitty software but executed well elsewhere. I'm not lobbying for one way or the other, just trying to inject some reality into the choices.

Sorry for sounding harsh, but this do-it-yourself approach sounds like an awfully bad idea when you are not an experienced software developer. Doing software development right is a task that requires knowledge, talent and experience. Therefore, chances are that the first prototype of your software might more-or-less work, but is written in a way that makes it incredibly difficult to maintain and expand for anybody else but you, probably even for you.

Besides that, you would have to invest a lot of time for a job that somebody else probably can do better and faster.

Disclosure: I work for a Russian company that in particular provides custom s/w development services.

I would go the outsourcing route but hedge my risks. For instance, I would engage a trusted third party with the right technical background to help me select the outsourcing vendor, establish the processes, and then review the code and documentation produced by the selected vendor on an ongoing basis. In other words, hire a consultant to be my part-time VP of Tech.

Then I would make it very clear to the bidding vendors from the very start that the results of their work will be reviewed for quality and they won't get paid if their materials do not match the given acceptance criteria.

Kirill,

As a software engineer myself, who makes a living fixing bad code. I can tell you that companies struggle with this all the time. They often, draw their designs on a napkin, hand it to a developer to write. 99% of the time, the design was not well thought out, therefore, there were revisions long before the developer had a release ready for the QA team.

The problematic issues this starts, is similar to someone wanting to build a large house. However they only have enough start up funds to build one room. They rationalize that when we have more funding we can add on to our one room house until we have the dream house we want.

The foundation is poured for the one room house and the then the house is built on top of that.

Later, when funds or a need arises to add more rooms, the owners realize that before rooms can be added, the foundation (which is below ground, and what we don't see we often forget about) also need an addition to support the new rooms.

A good foundation; is sealed from the dampness of the ground and made structurally sound with steel rebar. That water seal is broken, and the rebar is cut, when the foundation needs to be added too. We hope we can reseal it, and reconnect the rebar, however the joints between the old foundation and the new foundation will be a point of failure. Over time one room sinks and the two rooms become uneven.

Software too; relies on a strong foundation of code that allows future additions of code and UI (User interface) Often when your company grows and the software needs upgrading, your UI Designers are going to be fighting with your software developers. The UI designer will ask "How hard is it to add a check box? I can do it on my web site in 5 minutes." Your developer might answer with "Very Hard because; when the user checks the check box. We have to do something with that event, which the foundation code doesn't support" The UI designer is not aware of the foundation code, because it is under ground to them (out of sight out of mind).

I have been fixing these problems for over 12 years. 80% of the time, the addition or fixes doubles the original cost of development. That could mean all the money you have saved by writing it yourself, is lost and now costing you the monies you would have spent in the first place. Your customer relationship; could be damaged, and sometimes that take 1000% of effort to restore their faith in your product.

If you decide to write this yourself, I would highly, highly, recommend you gain an understanding of Agile Development.

However, I would recommend that if you have a good idea, for a software package, that you use contractors. Divide the IP(intellectual property) into parts that are useless individually but once glued together it becomes the valuable IP. Get yourself a project manager in the software field, and then get a contractor for each of the sub divided IP parts.

Look on line for HIPO forms. It is a simple input/process/output from that helps describe what you’re expecting each of the IP parts to do. You describe what the input receptacle looks like and you describe what the output plug looks like. The Contractor builds the process. Because you designed the outlets and the plugs, you know how they fit together.

Google for contracts, that guards against the lost of IP to software contractors. Perhaps find a local consulting firm and ask to see what they have their contractors sign before they send a sub contractor to work for you.

I hope this helps, and good luck on your project.

Carl Boudreau

The pros for doing it by myself are:

* the control of the core technology will be preserved;
* no trade-offs as when working with a cofounder;
* maybe technological awareness will let me understand the promising

tech directions better; * will check my ethereal ideas for reality compliance very early.

The "control" of the technology will be preserved regardless of whether you do it yourself or hire someone or take on a co-founder. If someone steals your intellectual property that is theft and you have recourse. It is not likely if you find the right person.

Additionally, having no experience with technology yourself there is very limited value in the technology you bring to the table...

The benefits of having a co-founder far outweigh the negatives. This comment is what leads me to believe you just don't want to work with anyone else. I don't see what "trade-offs" you would have. It is pretty commonly accepted that startups have better chances to succeed with two people over one person.

It is unlikely that your short-lived, newly acquired technology skills are going to give you an edge over someone who has been working in the field. In fact, you will have an even more limited and narrow view than most technologists.

I THINK you mean a reality-check, but again, in that case a partner is BETTER suited for this - you can keep each other in check.

The cons are:

* I will loose time getting familiar with and learning all the

technologies needed (although I actually like all this geeky stuff and it is not a problem to learn, - it is much better to devote more time to Customer Development, Marketing and Sales from the business perspective).

No argument on that point, but you missed so many others.

Other benefits:

• share the risk
• leverage two (double) the intellectual capability, marketing ability and contacts and networking.
• Moral support during difficult times (don't underestimate how challenging a startup can be)
• share the undesirable and tedious and difficult tasks
• and the list goes on...

Maybe you just don't make a good partner, so you are better off by yourself.

When you start to get into the "geeky stuff", you'll either enjoy it and continue to do it or:

• Sales and Marketing will suffer because you cannot devote time to it.
• You'll hit a limitation on your technology skills since you won't be working with people who are better at this than you are and would make you better.
• You'll get frustrated with the hired developers who will not have a vested interest in your enterprise. Hourly fees will only motivate people so much and you're not the only guy with a check book.
• You'll get so sad and lonely, buy a puppy and discover that a tech partner can write more code and pee on the carpet a lot less.

You'll be able to learn coding, but it will take you months if not years to know your way around in all the possibilities. Therefore, you'll make bad decisions and start in the wrong direction.

And worse: when you're coding, you're not thinking about the business and when you're occupied with the business, your product is not making progress.

I'm in exactly the same situation as you are, ten years ago I wrote a windows app with 20.000 lines of code, but I don't have experience in the web technology that I need now. I don't even consider going through the learning curve myself, I'm looking for a guy that can do in a week what will take me two months. But I am learning the basics, so I can see what's going on and do things myself when needed.