[HN Gopher] Ideas are just a multiplier of execution (2005)
___________________________________________________________________
Ideas are just a multiplier of execution (2005)
Author : durmonski
Score : 46 points
Date : 2021-12-13 12:45 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (sive.rs)
(TXT) w3m dump (sive.rs)
| bern4444 wrote:
| It seems to me that execution is the multiplier. If an idea is
| worth $20, the execution is what multiples that idea to a far
| greater value.
| kurthr wrote:
| I guess I'd argue that the best execution (immediate, complete,
| free) can only get 100% out of an idea... adequate execution
| gets 80% of margin$ out of the idea, while poor execution gets
| <10% and leaves room for better executing competition to
| squeeze (market share) in and self-fund future capture of the
| idea's value. Lots of ideas take time for people to get used to
| and for demand (and infrastructure) to develop so final scale
| may be much larger than the initial and to really build
| efficiently you have to keep executing just enough to capture
| most of that (hopefully) exponentially growing potential value
| for the idea.
| fori1to10 wrote:
| Multiplication is commutative
| ModernMech wrote:
| Not always. For example matrix multiplication is not.
| panda88888 wrote:
| I feel that idea is more like the initial unit vectors providing
| a direction, and execution is the multiplier to the initial
| vector.
| bob1029 wrote:
| Ideas are so much more important than execution, but they exist
| on an entirely different axis in my mind.
|
| The best idea imaginable could theoretically be put into
| production with negligible execution. The ability to easily
| execute an idea is one intrinsic component of that idea.
|
| Adding some practicality constraints to blue-sky sessions might
| sound counterintuitive, but it can also help ensure our ideas
| remain in the realm of "remotely feasible".
| davidhunter wrote:
| The 'idea' that you can separate idea from execution is not an
| accurate reflection of reality. These are not distinct phases.
| Ideas are a catalyst for execution. Execution throws up new
| ideas. So I agree with the conclusion but not the reasoning.
| bjornsing wrote:
| Well multiplication is commutative, and I'm primarily an "ideas
| guy" so I prefer seeing execution as "just a multiplier".
| deegles wrote:
| Great, how do I identify the multiplier of an idea? :D
| munificent wrote:
| Execute, take the resulting value, and divide by your estimated
| execution skill. :)
| jdonaldson wrote:
| Great ideas are great often due to a combination of a strong
| value proposition and a lack of competition, which you
| (eventually) cannot control for. Execution is the only thing
| firmly in your wheelhouse over the long run. VCs and other
| incumbents play this "long" game, but it's probably not the game
| that an individual founder should necessarily play to maximize
| their ROI.
| crate_barre wrote:
| I think it's worth attacking some of these adages. At scale, good
| execution is not enough when saturation is in play. You are the
| n-th YouTuber, the n-th influencer, SaaS, developer, etc. I'd
| argue that at scale there are a host of other critical parameters
| that determine things (luck for one, a unique angle on things
| (which requires great ideas)). Execution isn't nearly enough now
| days.
|
| But anyways, the old adage sounds good I guess.
| boringg wrote:
| Yeah lots of nuance which is always lost in adages.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| That explains why no one has very heard of Leonardo Da Vinci. The
| guy had a bunch of great ideas, but other than same
| drawings/paintings actually never really executed on those ideas.
| bidivia wrote:
| The guy had a bunch of great ideas because he did things like
| dissecting hundreds of bodies, studied and analyzed and drew
| what he learned so other people could benefit from that.
|
| He was a master painter that worked all the time.
|
| Most engineering ideas of Da Vinci were shit precisely because
| he never executed them. But he was a great illustrator.
| rmah wrote:
| People know of da Vinci because of his execution, not the
| random tech thought experiment sketches. He painted perhaps the
| most famous painting of all time, the Mona Lisa, and the most
| famous mural of all time, The Last Supper. Many of his sketches
| were of human anatomy (e.g. Vitruvian Man), which he did mainly
| to help him paint more realistically. Less well known today
| were his work in geometry, architecture, civil engineering,
| optics, etc. He wrote numerous books on a wide variety of
| topics. Most were meant to be helpful "how to" guides for
| people of the day.
|
| IMO, da Vinci would not be as well known today if he had not
| _executed_ magnificently. Lots of people come up with random
| ideas. Few actually do anything with them.
| awinter-py wrote:
| this lia dibello profile is a more nuanced take on this topic
| https://commoncog.com/blog/business-mental-model/
|
| this research claims:
|
| > people who have achieved a high level of business expertise
| have a deep understanding of the following three core areas: (1)
| factors involved in effective operations, (2) forces influencing
| the market, and (3) those driving business finance and economic
| climates
|
| these information sources are, in a sense, 'ideas', but they are
| discovered through execution
|
| softer version of this claim is that 'ideas' come from market
| research, and market research is not that different from
| execution
| pictur wrote:
| When you understand the importance of realization, you also
| understand why ideas matter.
| thirdplace_ wrote:
| Ideas and executions have value. But they are not denominated in
| dollars.
| jacknews wrote:
| Yeah, no.
|
| IMHO A great, original idea, with adequate execution, is far,
| far, more valuable than a ho-hum idea executed perfectly. Just
| like a sputtering unreliable automobile is far more valuable than
| the finest horse and carriage, because it embodies future
| potential.
|
| Of course VC's don't want to pay for great ideas, and want you to
| believe that all the value is in the execution that they enable.
| consultutah wrote:
| Simple business "ideas" like cleaning, plumbing, roofing,
| siding, etc. that a million other people are doing can all be
| built into 6 or 7 figure businesses through solid execution.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Most of those benefit by:
|
| - Geographically-limited servicing areas. Your online paper
| store can sell around the world. Your plumber's got to get to
| the house.
|
| - Constraints on throughput. Service jobs _take time_. They
| respond poorly to capital, automation, scaling, pre-
| fabrication, or other efficiency techniques, all of which are
| already optimised. The additional input is _skill_ , which
| takes time to accumulate.
|
| - Hands-on. A plumber or roofer can't be downloaded, nor can
| you drop-ship your plumbing or roofing problem to a service
| centre in the next state or around the world. Work happens
| _at the site itself_. (This is strongly similar to but
| distinct from the first point.)
|
| - Reputation. Service work is difficult to assess, and
| indicia of quality include years in business, word-of-mouth,
| and local reputation, again, factors which take time to
| develop.
|
| - Limited opportunities within a given region. Because only
| so many professionals _can_ be supported, the ones who _do_
| achieve a good reputation tend to crowd out competitors. It
| 's difficult to break into a market.
|
| These "simple ideas" all face strong bounds on scaling or
| wide-area provisioning. Within a local region, accumulated
| skill and reputation form a strong basis for a reliable
| business with predictable annual revenues (if some seasonal
| variability).
|
| Simple ideas without the scaling constraints mentioned are
| far harder to break into as the competition is at a global
| scale. Even a strongly enthusiastic user-base (DuckDuckGo) or
| tech-giant backing (Bing, to repeat the example, or Google+)
| doesn't guarantee a sizeable market share.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Everyone talks about Hitler's "Blitzkrieg", as if telling
| commanders "attack with all your might and speed" was the
| innovative part.
|
| No, the innovative part was that the German Commander, Gerd von
| Rundstedt, was able to maneuver 7 Panzer divisions (aka: 2000
| tanks) through the Ardennes Forest in just 3 days.
|
| This was considered an impossible feat. The Ardennes Forest is
| heavily wooded and hilly terrain... with 200-meter cliffs
| littering the area, in a time before GPS-navigation. However,
| Mr. Rundstedt was a veteran of WWI and was extremely familiar
| with the forest, and served as an impressive guide. (EDIT: I
| had some details here but I double-checked and apparently was a
| bit confused earlier)
|
| The French counter-attack thought they had 2 weeks to prepare.
| They were caught with their pants down as 2000 tanks streamed
| out of the forest before they could mount their planned
| defense.
|
| Once The German army group secured the Ardennes Forest, the
| rest of the ~4-million men of the German Army poured through
| the Forest unhampered into France.
|
| -------
|
| The fact of the matter is: details matter. Hitler wasn't the
| smart one here, it was Rundstedt.
|
| Very likely, the German scouting parties were mapping out the
| region and preparing long before the order was given. Little
| details that will never really be revealed in any history book,
| but these are the details that mattered in the Battle of France
| 1940.
| desireco42 wrote:
| Hitler was really good at inspiring and motivating people.
| And he was very driven.
|
| I agree that coming up with crazy idea was not innovation.
| Well... Look at Musk, he is also very driven and able to
| motivate people. But he also has excellent ideas that would
| be impossible without crazy execution.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| Interesting. But, so...don't tell me "knowing the territory
| helps you move faster" is the new blitzkrieg-means-lightning-
| war?
| dragontamer wrote:
| "Blitzkreig" wasn't the important bit. The important bit
| was "throw Rundstedt at the problem".
|
| It doesn't matter what "idea" you gave Rundstedt, he will
| get the job done. He's the brilliant mind that allowed
| Poland, Belgium, France, and the southern-push of Soviet
| Union to be taken so quickly.
|
| Rundstedt lost his position as Field Marshal because he
| began advocating for peace after the Allied landings
| (Famously quoted as: "Make peace you fools! What else can
| you do?"). Still, he was reinstated in time for the Battle
| of the Bulge, and boy-oh-boy, was that a surprise to the
| Allies.
|
| I mean, Rundstedt couldn't squeeze a strategic victory from
| that hopeless situation of 1944/1945 (and was long an
| advocate of peace before then). But the fact that he
| grabbed a temporary tactical victory in those conditions
| just proves how incredible he was as a commander (well,
| that... and everything else he did in WW2).
|
| ------
|
| Blitzkreig, as a strategy, is largely "Lets drive really
| fast in airplanes, cars and tanks, and communicate by radio
| to stay coordinated on the front".
|
| It was the obvious strategy given the new technological
| advancements at the time. It should be compared/contrasted
| with the French strategy (which was the use of heavier
| tanks that marched roughly the same speed as infantry...
| largely because the French haven't adopted the Radio
| yet)... but the Blitzkreig style had its flaws.
|
| French tanks had bigger guns and heavier armor: the early
| Panzers were light and fast but utterly outgunned. It
| almost certainly only worked because of Rundstedt's
| brilliance. If the French were given an extra few more days
| to pull their heavy tanks to Sedan (lets say The Battle of
| Sedan was just a few days later than historical), the
| French probably could have held off the German assault
| entirely.
|
| The Meuse is a huge river, it would have been very
| difficult for the Germans to cross if French heavy-armor
| was actually guarding that river. Indeed, the Germans were
| only successful because the bombing campaign vs the bridges
| of the Meuse were stopped by the Luftwaffe. And also
| because French troops panicked and retreated off of some
| misinformation.
|
| -----
|
| That's a lot of details to get right: moving through
| mountainous + forested region (without roads!!) with speed.
| Defending key bridges using ground and air forces. A feint
| attack to the north to draw away French forces from this
| area. There was also some luck and awful moves by the
| French commanders in the area.
|
| Then adequately defending against the heavy-French armor
| counter-attack with only light tanks (tanks with 1/2 the
| armor and 1/4th the cannon size), to give time for your
| slower troops to cross the Ardenes and reinforce the
| position. The German tanks had to draw and trap the French
| heavy-armor against the larger anti-tank guns.
|
| The "standard" 37mm cannons on the Panzers and of typical
| infantry were literally bouncing off of French armor,
| dealing no effective damage. In contrast, the French Char
| B1, while slow, had a 75 mm gun that obliterated the German
| armor.
|
| EDIT: The French Char B1, thanks to the "Heavy Armor" style
| of the French, took on 140 shells from Panzer IV and Panzer
| III before destroying all 13 tank opponents simultaneously.
| That's the strength of the French counter-attack at the
| Battle of Stonne.
|
| Blitzkreig required higher-speed tanks with smaller guns
| and lesser armor. Really, if there were more B1s defending
| this area, the Germans would have been screwed.
| petra wrote:
| Yes those are details. But why aren't details(formed into
| a winning strategy) considered ideas?
|
| Or put more precisely, a deep understanding(that proves
| to be true) ?
|
| And that seem like something one can build a sucsessful
| business around.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > Yes those are details. But why aren't details(formed
| into a winning strategy) considered ideas?
|
| Because "Hmmm, my light tanks and anti-tank guns can't
| win for some reason. Instead, lets draw their heavy tanks
| into traps comprised of Luftwaffe dive bombers and
| direct-fire from massive Artillery guns" is not an "idea"
| anymore.
|
| That's Rundstedt just... winning. That's not an idea you
| set out ahead of time, that's just the commander on the
| ground making due with his resources, and the new facts
| on the field as they come up.
|
| And Rundstedt consistently did this. He always made the
| best of his situation. It didn't matter what kind of
| advantages or disadvantages you gave him.
|
| -------
|
| A lesser commander given the orders to "Blitzkreig" with
| lighter tanks and lesser guns may have ordered a suicide
| charge and lost the battle. Or maybe they would have
| retreated in face of the French apparent invulnerability.
| But Rundstedt figured out a plan and executed it well,
| holding the area despite the apparent French advantage.
|
| "Ideas" are largely things that you plan to do. Yes,
| plans and ideas are important (and the German
| "Blitzkreig" definitely was a good idea). But "Execution"
| are the things that your people do once they run into
| issues, or what to do when that plan fails.
|
| IE: You only have light tanks because you're Blitzkreig
| focused, and the French B1 guarding the area is
| invulnerable to literally all of your tanks, and your Pak
| 36 guns you gave your infantry are basically the same
| caliber as the Panzers. You just lost a fight with 1x B1
| vs 13x Panzers. Now what?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_Pak_36
| dredmorbius wrote:
| The French tanks were superior in armament, armour, numbers,
| and placement.
|
| The German tanks had radios.
|
| On-the-ground realtime initiative, adaptation to
| circumstances, and exploitation of opportunity beat
| checklist-superiority.
|
| See Col. John Boyd's F-16 advantage in _transitioning between
| flight modes_ as a similar case of non-obvious advantage
| against an enemy aircraft which was _individually_ faster,
| could turn tighter, and fligh higher. The F-16 was worse at
| any of those, but could switch between flight modes more
| quickly, and won on agility. (Or so the story I was told
| studying military science back in the day.)
| outworlder wrote:
| > IMHO A great, original idea, with adequate execution, is far,
| far, more valuable than a ho-hum idea executed perfectly.
|
| Ok, so adjust the multipliers then. That's what a multiplier
| does.
| pcarolan wrote:
| This is right. Most great companies were just great ideas with
| early adequate execution. Airbnb was a great idea, did their
| data science and product focus help? Sure, but the idea was far
| greater value than those things. At the end of the day the
| technology isn't that different than a travel site.
|
| Most companies scale to the point where they pay tons of money
| to do local optimizations to squeeze out the last 20% of the
| juice. The first 80% is usually driven by tailwind around the
| idea.
| kjksf wrote:
| VRBO does the same thing as AirBnB.
|
| It launched in 1995, 26 years ago.
|
| AirBnB launched in 2008, 13 years ago.
|
| If anything AirBnB shows the power of execution, not the
| power of an idea.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| >squeeze out the last 20% of the juice.
|
| Do you mean to tell me that Juicero wasn't a great idea?
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| Didn't Juicero suck super hard though? Like it didn't
| function as advertised at all? If it was a proper
| industrial grade juicer for the home in the aesthetic of
| IKEA I'm sure they'd be OK now.
| ianbutler wrote:
| My understanding is their proprietary juice packs were
| able to be rolled and squeezed by hand so the question of
| why do I want this 300 dollar juicer for special packs I
| have to buy when I can squeeze the packs by hand popped
| up and it fell a part from there.
| codegeek wrote:
| I donno. Most great ideas fail and success rate is mostly
| dependent on execution. That is why I believe execution gets
| more weight than idea no matter how great the idea is.
|
| A great idea with bad execution = failure
|
| A mediocre idea with bad execution = failure
|
| A super bad idea with bad execution = failure
|
| However, you can take a semi bad or mediocre idea and execute
| the heck out of it = success.
|
| So I would look at the success numbers. "far far more valuable"
| is too subjective. Using your example, I personally wouldn't
| get into an unreliable vehicle but a faster horse that I know
| for sure works.
| sombremesa wrote:
| What _is_ execution? It seems that in some way, it 's
| analogous to success itself. If you make apparently terrible
| decisions but your business succeeds despite you, would
| anyone really call that bad execution? If good execution
| _equals_ success, then is it helpful to know that good
| execution equals success?
| codegeek wrote:
| I define execution as "doing something every day to keep
| making progress". It could be hiring someone, write that
| one small piece of code, creating a landing page or
| marketing content, talking to that customer, reaching out
| to a prospect, solving a problem for the team etc etc.
| Anything that is a step towards possible success. It is not
| a binary thing. Sometimes you do things that has a bad
| outcome. But if you do it over a long period and keep doing
| it with lessons learned and you succeed, that is execution.
| sombremesa wrote:
| How does this type of definition apply to something like
| Flappy Bird? Would you call that poor execution?
| sdfgsdf wrote:
| Alternative take. Execution is just a multiplier of ideas.
| panda88888 wrote:
| Well, multiplication is commutative. ;)
| karanbhangui wrote:
| I don't see how the conclusion is correct based on the premise:
| "That's why I don't want to hear people's ideas. I'm not
| interested until I see their execution."
|
| As per the premise, wouldn't you want to quickly vet out the idea
| to see if it's > 0 or your hurdle rate multiplier? If idea is
| Awful (-1), no level of execution is going to result in a
| desirable outcome.
|
| This premise shows exactly why idea vetting is important.
| bidivia wrote:
| How do you know an idea is awful or not?
|
| Paul Graham does not have an idea, and he is a grand master
| expert in the field.
|
| The best ideas from YC backed companies looked awful for Paul
| Graham, he just trusted the people behind them.
| jdoliner wrote:
| _Just_ a multiplier... multipliers are a big deal. And of course
| multiplication is commutative so execution is just a multiplier
| of ideas. In short they 're both crucial, either can bring the
| total value of a venture to 0 or less.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Hum... Does the author realizes that multiplication makes no
| difference between its parameters?
| rl3 wrote:
| That feeling when you spend almost a decade on an idea that's
| worth $20.
|
| Hey, at least that's like $2/year or something.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-15 23:02 UTC)