字幕表 動画を再生する 英語字幕をプリント >>Thomas Sharon: Hi everyone. Thanks for coming. My name is Thomas Sharon. I'm a UX Researcher here. And without further ado, I would like to introduce you to Eric Ries, the founder of the Lean Startup movement. And thank you for coming. [applause] >>Eric Ries: See, I don't know. It's hard to know when you have an audience you don't know. It's hard to know what to say. So, some of you maybe know the blog, Startup Lessons Learned. Anybody? Quick show of hands. OK, good. We have true new people. So, thank you. Thank you for coming to check it out. So my name is Eric Ries. I don't really want your undivided attention. So keep your laptops on. That's fine. And in fact, if everyone do me a favor and take your phones out of your pockets. I mean, I'm sorry. I know I'm not supposed to have this one, but if can turn them on. No, I'm not joking around. Out of the pockets, please. 'Cause this is gonna be a talk. You might get bored and you might wanna tweet amongst yourselves. Or I don't know, whatever special internal tools you guys use. Whatever it is, please feel free. All I ask is that you use the Lean Startup hash tag, at least if you're on Twitter. Okay. Is that fair? I won't tell anybody. Don't worry. I'm in New York because I'm writing a book. So one of things you do when you're writing a book is you have to go to tell as many people as possible that this book is coming out. It'll come out in the fall. I thank you in advance for preordering it. You can do so at lean.st. That's my life now is as a professional expert selling books, which is a far cry from how I started, which is as a programmer writing code. So I'm one of those people that grew up writing code. I used to write code for a living, which is a job I knew really well and understood. I was pretty good at it. And then, I started doing startups and I started to have to manage people who wrote code for a living. I knew that slightly less well. And then I was managing people who managed people who write code for a living. And now, I am this professional expert. And so I advise people who manage people who manage people who write code. So I've become very far removed from the actual work of product development. But that journey has taken me from just writing code to doing this because I actually think the way that we organize new product development is basically wrong. And that most of the energy that we are investing into what is called 'entrepreneurship', when it's two guys in a garage, or 'disruptive innovation' or something else buzzwordy when it's done inside a big company, is wasting a lot of people's time. And I think we can do something about it. So that's what I wanted to talk to you guys about. Thanks for coming. So anyway, and this book, of course, will be available in stores everywhere in the fall. So, if you read the book, you will learn five principles of the Lean Startup. And we'll go through them today. And I wanna invite you to ask questions either on Twitter, if you're not feeling that courageous, or interrupt me at any time or we'll have time at the end. All right? So, entrepreneurs are everywhere. The first thing is, especially in an audience like this, I wanna be clear, that entrepreneurship is not just about two guys in a garage eating Ramen noodles. In fact, what makes you an entrepreneur is not what kind of noodles you eat, but the context in which you operate. And as I've been travelling around talking about Lean Startup, what I have learned is that there are entrepreneurs in all kinds of places you wouldn't necessarily expect. And we have a lot more in common than people realize, because entrepreneurship is management. But not the kind of general management we're teaching MBAs and that we have studied for the last hundred years, something fundamentally different. It is management of a kind of work that is measured by validated learning, rather than just making stuff. We accelerate that learning through something called the 'build-measure-learn feedback loop'. And then we measure and hold entrepreneurs accountable using a new accounting system called 'innovation accounting'. Now, I apologize. You came to a very, I'm sure, you saw the signs up here like, "Ooh, an exciting talk about entrepreneurship and startups and that's gonna be cool." And what did you get? You got management and accounting, which are perhaps the two most boring topics on Earth. So if anybody wants to leave now, I won't be offended. It's OK. Because the truth is, what do people know about entrepreneurship? I feel like -- who saw 'The Social Network'? OK. Right. I feel like that's probably the best modern example of the entrepreneurship story we're all used to. And you see this in magazines and you see it in 'The Social Network'. I noticed last night that the story, 'Ghostbusters' -- remember 'Ghostbusters', the movie? It's an entrepreneurship story. They start a business. They, Dave, everything's the same. It's like the same plot structure as 'The Social Network', believe it or not, except it has a Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, which is awesome. In these entrepreneurship stories, what happens? It's a story in three parts. Act One: The plucky protagonist, his character, his character flaws and how he came up with his amazing idea. Act Two: What I call the photo montage. It's usually about two minutes long. It goes from "they finally get the thing to work". Then they're writing on whiteboards and drinking some beer, pounding on some keyboards. And then they get their first customer. And then that's pretty much it. No dialogue or anything in the photo montage. And then Act Three: Now that we're on the cover of magazines, how do we divide up the spoils? And who's in charge? And who's in Who's Who? And how do we deal with the EPA and all that stuff? For fans of 'Ghostbusters'. What I think is really interesting about these stories about entrepreneurship is that 95 percent of the time of the movie is spent in Acts One and Act Three, even though in real life, all of the important work of entrepreneurship happens during the photo montage. But the problem is, for a story-telling point of view, the photo montage, even though it has no dialogue and only lasts two minutes, is it's unspeakably boring. What do we do as entrepreneurs that actually makes a difference? We spend our time trying to figure out which customers to listen to and who to ignore, how to product-prioritize product features. I mean you guys, how many product prioritization meetings do you go to? It's not exactly the stuff of movies. It's unbelievably boring. And how do we hold people accountable? How do we measure to figure out if we're actually making progress or building something that nobody wants? See, watching somebody pretend like they don't have anxiety that their vision is wrong, is not very good for movies. But that's what most entrepreneurs do. And so, we're gonna have to talk about stuff like management and accounting, 'cause it's time to go inside the photo montage and try to figure out what can we do to make the actual work of entrepreneurship more effective. So, entrepreneurs are everywhere. My goal, my mission in doing this whole Lean Startup thing has been to try to put the practice of entrepreneurship on a more rigorous footing. And so, I started out with a definition. Here's mine: What is a startup? "A human institution designed to create something new under conditions of extreme uncertainty." So I think the most important part of this definition, and for our purposes today, a very important part of our discussion is what it excludes. It doesn't say anything about what the size of your company is. It could be five people, 5,000, or 50,000. It really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what sector of the economy you work in. It really doesn't even matter what industry you're in. If you fundamentally are operating with extreme uncertainty about who is your customer, what product do they actually want, and how do we build a sustainable business, then you are an entrepreneur. And when I work with large companies, one of the things I have been trying to do, is to get them to adopt entrepreneurship as a job title. Entrepreneurship is a career. When you become an entrepreneur, you are no longer an engineer. You are no longer a marketer. You are no longer a UX designer. Whatever it is you used to do, all of a sudden now, you have a different job title and you've entered a new career path. But unfortunately, we don't get the memo that tells you that. So, it can be a little bit confusing. That's all a fancy way of saying a startup is an experiment. What I mean by "experiment" is not just like let's ship it and see what happens, OK? That's not science. If you just put some compounds in a beaker and heat it up, you might look like you're doing science. But unless you have a hypothesis that you're trying to test, you have theory, it suggests which experiments are gonna help you and then you make specific predictions, then, fundamentally, you're not conducting an experiment. And we mean, in a Lean Startup model, "experiment" in the scientific sense. We're trying to create a science of entrepreneurship that will help us to stop waste people's time, because that's what we're doing on an industrial scale. And you guys know. Anyone's who's worked on new products knows that most of them are doomed to failure. And when you get at the end of that product -- I mean as an engineer, I kept having over and over again the experience of working on amazing technology that is today sitting on a shelf or worse, that fundamentally nobody is using. And I kept looking for more and more technical solutions to that problem. I thought, "If we could just get the right development methodology, if we just had the right amount of unit tests or the right this or the right that, then we could stop that happening." But the biggest waste that product development faces today is not building things inefficiently, but building things very efficiently that nobody wants. And I brought a demonstration. We all know that most startups fail. Who remembers Web 2.0? Remember Web 2.0 when that was really cool? At the height of Web 2.0, 2006, a graphic designer put together this graphic. Have you seen this before? This was the like the logos of all the incredible Web 2.0 companies that were gonna change the world. And in just three years, in 2009, a different graphic designer was feeling a slightly different set of emotions when they put together this graphic. Our three year report card in Web 2.0. I mean, the blood red Xs, these are all companies that are just dead. I think for our purposes today though, a much more important part of that chart to look at are the green circles. I won't point at any of them in particular, but some of those green circles are supposed to be the success stories of Web 2.0. But for this chart, what that means is there are companies that were acquired by a larger company, including this one. And listen, I'm all for people making money. So when a company gets acquired by another company, usually investors and the founders make some money and that's all good. But my question is which of these companies are actually success stories? Success stories by the higher definition, not of "did anybody make money?" But rather, which of these companies succeeded in living up to the aspirations, dreams, time, talent, and energy of the founders and their investors? And more importantly, their employees. See, look, we all know that when big companies buy startups, at least half the time, they die afterwards. So we buy something for hundreds of millions of dollars. And then we wind up selling it three years later for tens of millions of dollars. That's not supposed to happen. In general management, that doesn't happen. When you buy an asset, it depreciates in a predictable way. But when big companies buy startups, it doesn't happen exactly like it's supposed to. And I think the problems that corp-dev departments have when deciding how to buy startups and which startups to buy and then how to integrate them into the parent company, are the exact same problems that internal innovators who are trying to create brand new startups inside big companies have. And they're the exact same problems that venture-backed entrepreneurs have with their investors. All of us lack a theory of entrepreneurship to guide our behavior and so we're falling back on tools and methods that are not appropriate to entrepreneurship. That's my belief. So, I don't think it has to be this way. See, it's one thing if startups were failing because they were taking too much risk. If one of these companies was working on teleportation and then it turned out to be too hard -- we couldn't quite get the technology for quantum entanglement like we thought -- I accept that kind of failure; that happens. But I chose Web 2.0 for my demonstration, especially for you guys. You know. There's not a single company on this chart where you would say, "Boy, I wonder if that can be built." Right? "Geez, I wonder if that new social network -- is it possible to build it?" We all know. Software companies, we can build anything we can imagine. Think about that for a second. The dominant question of our time is not can it be built, but should it be built. And the issue is can we build a sustainable business around a particular product? So, the future of our society, our economic growth in the future, the GDP growth of industrialized countries in the future is going to be dependent on the quality and character of our collective imaginations, which I think is a very strange place to be. That is really different than the kinds of economic problems that general management was designed to solve in the 20th Century. Now, most of my startups have failed. So I know that's not how you're supposed start one of these talks, like, "Hi. I'm a professional expert and I have had more failures than successes. So you can be just like me if you'll follow my advice." So, I'm sorry about that. But those of you who spend any time around entrepreneurship know the truth that where there's startups, there's a lot of failure. And it has to be somebody's fault in a talk like this and obviously it shouldn't be my fault 'cause I'm the expert. And preferably, it should be the fault of someone who's dead so that they can't argue. So I chose this guy. [laughter] This is Frederick Winslow Taylor. He died in 1915, which is very handy for the purpose of this talk because it means he can't talk back. So, sorry, Fred. Fred Taylor invented something called "scientific management" in the early 20th Century, which today, we call "management". See, people don't really remember Fred Taylor. And those who've studied scientific management in school probably remember him for some of his outdated and really ridiculous ideas, like time and motion studies or the idea that a worker is basically just an automaton and should be told what to do. The reason we don't give Fred Taylor the credit he deserves is because he invented things that to us are so obvious, we can't imagine them ever having been invented. It doesn't make sense. Like, everybody knows that work should be done as efficiently as possible, right? And that we should treat work like a system and that we should have managers organize that system. That's just plain common sense. And my favorite, Fred Taylor, invented something called "The Task and Bonus System", which we just call "tasks". The idea was if you want to do a large project, the best thing to do is decompose that project into a series of individual tasks, assign those tasks to functional specialists. And everyone just does their part knowing that if everybody does their part well and everybody else does their part, the whole will actually work out like the manager said. And here's the best part. If you do your task particularly well, better than expected, you should be paid a bonus rather than being penalized. What could be more obvious? Except in the 19th Century, the way work was organized is that if you did your task better than expected, you were penalized. [pause] Why? Because that showed a lack of integrity. You obviously could have done it better before. But you didn't. So that proves that you're a liar. It gets worse. Not only are you a liar, but what about all your compatriots, your coworkers, who do the same task the old, slow way? They're liars, too. All of you have been lying this whole time and you should all be penalized. Imagine working in a factory where if you can come up with a better way to do your repetitive job, not only would you be penalized, so would all your coworkers. Can you imagine the culture that would grow up around such a thing? That everybody is working really hard to make sure that nobody ever does anything in any way better because then we'll all be in trouble. That phenomenon was so widespread in the 19th Century, they had a name for it. They called it "soldiering". That all the workers were intentionally soldiering on, trying to do work as slow as possible so that nobody would get in trouble. Now, we laugh when we think about that kind of thing happening in a factory. Because to us, the way that we manage physical products, and just all regular general management, is light years beyond what was possible in Fred Taylor's day.