« M.O.S.T. Analysis | Sacred Cow Dung Home | OpenSource EMRs »

May 07, 2005

BEWARE all you "Chasm Crossers" ...

Ecademy Clubs: Global Capital Access Club - Forum

[ This is a revised comment from an original thread above on the GCAC Forum on Ecademy — cgm ]

A "Chasm" without the other side is called a "Cliff"
or
In the Fog of real world markets, "Chasms" and "Cliffs" look identical


Basically, Geoffrey Moore’s "Chasm Crossing" argument IS compelling BUT -- and this is a BIG BUT -- it ASSUMES there exists the other side of the CLIFF to make it a CHASM ... Geoffrey does NOT address the existence of the other side (ie the FUTURE MARKET) -- IT IS ASSUMED!!!!

The problem with this is that VCs (and successful entrepreneurs) can NEVER assume the future market will exist ...
this is why VCs are so market-focused and why I keep emphasizing the choice in target markets and thorough market analyses to increase the probablity that a venture will prove successful ...

 
"Behind EVERY successful company lies an ACCURATE Market Hypothesis"
(ie That the other side of the Chasm either exists or will exist within the timeframe of a venture)


We can dream all we want about there being another side to a chasm but unless that side proves real over time -- it's not a Chasm it's a Cliff ...

(BTW, Geoffrey agrees with this -- he was really doing an analysis of hypergrowth in proven industries and, unfortunately, it has been mis-applied as justification to take "daring leaps" into "unproven" industries -- this was not what his study was about nor his intent)

Also, I wouldn't write-off the vision of VCs too quickly -- VCs need to share the vision of "the other side" with the entrepreneur -- for it is the VC who is making the financial leap and must be convinced that there will be a market on the other side of the abyss ..

Also, I believe that "luck and timing" is totally related to "the leap" ...
if you leap too early, you just went over a cliff ...
the luck has to do with the fact that -- no matter how much analysis you do to convince yourself and others that the another side exists or will exist -- you are always leaping into the fog and the luck is that it will hopefully turnout to be a chasm and not a cliff ... the competence of the team is irrelevant if the market hypothesis is wrong -- I've seen lots of competent VCs and management teams efficient drive their companies over cliffs -- all because their underlying market hypothesis was incorrect ...

This brings me to --
The "1 X 10 >> 10 X 1" Rule
 
"a mediocre management team with an accurate market hypothesis
will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS 
out-perform a stellar management team with an inaccurate market hypothesis"
 
(or "a competent move in the wrong direction destroys a company faster than an incompetent move in the right direction")

It is this rule that gets VCs into the most trouble and gives them their bad reputation --
VCs bet on "pure-play" market hypotheses with highly tweaked management teams and highly effective execution strategies
so when the underlying market hypothesis bet is wrong -- the demise of the venture is usually rapid and quite dramatic

Posted by cmayaud at 03:24 PM | Permalink| Comments (1)
Del.icio.us Tagging | Digg This | Posted to Business Strategy | TRENDS | Venture Capital Process

Comments

Excellent! I enjoyed reading your material. think in herds: http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Charles_Mackay , Few people are capable of expressing

Posted by: John Baumann at October 15, 2005 06:30 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?