In general terms, what is the ideal size and make-up of a team for a pre-revenue SaaS startup?
It's a question I've been pondering about a lot already, and seeing it posted on Quora prompted me to try an answer. I think the second part of the question is more important. I do have a slight preference with respect to the team size as well, but it's light because I've seen and worked with very successful SaaS startups with different team sizes.
I have a stronger opinion on the make-up of the team. In my opinion, the founder team of a SaaS startup needs to excel in three areas: engineering/technology, product/UX and domain/market expertise. If I think about the founders of "my" SaaS startups, these are the three qualities that all of them have – in addition to a huge amount of intelligence, motivation and commitment, which allows them to quickly acquire new skills as the company grows.
Here's the full answer that I posted on Quora – I'd be very interested in what others think:
In my experience the ideal team size is three. The second best option is two, and the third best option is one, four or five. Why?
To begin with, founders are incredibly productive and usually work for relatively little cash, so a 3-person founder team simply gets more done – faster and at lower costs – than a 2-person team or a single founder. This can be a huge advantage, especially for a bootstrapped startup that can't afford to hire many people. Besides that, it’s rare to find all the skills that you need in order to get a SaaS startup off the ground in just one person, which is an argument for two or more founders (more on that below).
Needless to say, at a certain level these advantages get offset by the disadvantages of a founder team that is too large. If you have too many founders, too much time is spent on communication, and each founder doesn't get a big enough share in the company.
In my opinion, the optimal balance is reached with a team of three, closely followed by a team of two. Note that this is not a scientific answer, and I haven’t done a systematic comparison of the success rates of a larger number of startups – it’s just based on intuition and anecdotal evidence. Also, I have already invested in 1-person and 2-person founder teams, which became very successful, so my preference is only a light one.
With regard to the ideal make-up, a SaaS startup needs to have:
- An excellent technical co-founder– a great developer who codes the first version of the product and has the skills to become the engineering team leader or CTO when the company grows.
- An excellent product person – for example a great designer who designs the UI of the application as well as the marketing website and who will lead product management later.
- Domain expertise – whether it’s the CTO, the product person or a third co-founder who contributes this knowledge – at least one founder needs to understand your market, your customers and the problem that you’re solving for them.
1 comment:
Once seeking for the minimum management skills required, I asked myself "what if this or that skill is missing?" That lead me to the idea, that - may be(?) - all typical management skills must be present at least in a rudimental deepness, but NONE is allowed to be completely absent. Allmost every faillure story has in common the reason for its faillure. It's the absence of one tiny business aspect (and the missing management function is not suitable covered by the surveillance installed).
What do you think of this approach?
Okay, it's two different questions, weather you succeede in developing a star, or you succeede not running into a faillure, but still it attracts me, not thinking to have three 110%-buddies for dev/ product/ domain, but having a team that is free of severe lacks (especially if it comes to 2- or 1-person founder 'teams').
Deriving, I'd say there is no reason for a startup, if it does not its coding dev/ architecture itself, ...if it does not understand its customers needs, ...if it does not know its competitors, its products USP, its ...
In other words: Your 3 points list grants an excellent overview for planning, to apply the process of elimination helps to assure against fails despite a terrific idea.
What do you think of that approach ?
Cheers, Nik
Post a Comment