Bloomington Startup Weekend

The following is a summary of the problems faced during Bloomington Startup Weekend, compiled from a discussion between founders on the final day as we worked toward a private launch.

Weaknesses:

• Lack of structure—This was a blessing and a curse. It took too long to get into a comfort zone about what we should do and who should do what, not really gelling until the project managers assigned themselves to a specific group and Pat took charge of the 7-minute meetings. People were empowered to make decisions, but collaboration with 100 people in 3-4 rooms isn’t that simple.
• We didn’t know the project managers—There was some ambiguity about the role of project managers, both from within that group and in the perception of everyone else. How do they differ from group chairs? Do they have the authority to make decisions? Are they facilitators? Color coding of nametags and formal introductions would have helped, as would having the PMs be the representative voice for each group.
• Legal issues—We are still trying to understand our options in structuring this company. Every state and every group (due to the variance in sizes) may face different challenges that contradict or stretch the default Startup Weekend model about forming a business. The consensus by the end of our weekend was that it would have been helpful to understand these things well in advance of that first pitch session on Friday. Lawyers are best used before they are needed, rather than after. Our group decided to by hyper-cautious because we value what we might have a month from now. The ambiguities and uncertainty were the only big downer during the experience. NOTE: This is about all we can say on the matter at this point. Transparency for our final day will be delayed until we meet again to resolve a few key decisions.
• Founder attrition—Andrew told us last November that 10-15% attrition each day is expected. A few registered people never showed (most sent regrets), and a number of people were only intending to participate the first day. The feedback being posted here reflects only the founders who will eventually be earning the maximum shares. We need to outreach to those who didn’t make it to Sunday to understand why people left.
• Large group dynamics—Discussions often broke down in larger groups. The size of the business development and user experience groups were too big at the start, when we were still trying to figure out how to go about making decisions. Forcing smaller, better defined groups earlier might have avoided a few of the heated discussions, some of which alienated people into finding other things to do or even leaving.
• Technology should be known at the start—The group needs to decide, based on their expertise and the needs of the project, what kinds of platforms are going to be needed. However, a lot of the setup could be avoided by pre-installing a few basic options so time isn’t wasted getting to a place where building occurs.
• Too many communication channels—It was unclear almost to the end how we were supposed to communicate with each other internally. The most effective means was a human protocol, where project managers and designated contacts were identified. As with the tech, it might be helpful to have a pre-determined list of options and vote on a communications method in the same way we did finding an idea for our company. There needs to be order and time-limited restrictions on how much someone can talk or how long a debate can continue. Everyone needs to respect everyone else’s time.
• Lack of professional networking materials—Not everyone brought contact/business cards, and we have yet to assemble a definitive list of LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook links to allow us to keep in touch. We also didn’t get a chance to have a mini-career fair to try and promote job searches.
• Who owns an idea?—A few people came with ideas, read the simple founders agreement, and didn’t present their idea due to uncertainty about who owned the pitch. The transparency probably gave the world some ideas, as well, offering another disincentive. More clarity and protections are needed so it is clear that presenting an idea isn’t tantamount to giving it to Startup Weekend.
• Where was the extended community?—Despite Andrew’s presence and some well-wishing on the blogs, there was no formal support from the larger Startup Weekend community. We want to change this (a motivation for our reflection posts) by making sure there are accessible resources in the form of veteran Startup Weekend founders who have gone through this process already, faced different challenges, and come away with their own insights. Pouring through previous blogs in an attempt to glean that kind of information is not sufficient and eventually intractable.
• Inaccessible people—Some late arrivals were expected, but on both Saturday and Sunday it seemed like it was 1-2p before things really got rolling. If the weekend is a compressed year, that’s about two months lost. We also had a problem on Saturday with an entire department going offsite for conversation. That made it impossible to have input and make decisions in our three-hour cycles.
• How do international students fit in?—Diversity was a big goal and a plus of this weekend. But it was/is unclear about the implications of an international student working on a project where equity becomes a share in a company. As with the other legal questions, this is resolvable by getting the answers before the event.
• Friday pitch session—The ideas that were best supported were clear, concise, funny and prepared. Many of our ideas from the Ning site were not pitched, which was a surprise to some. A better prep on the parameters prior to the event could help Friday night be better organized. There was also an issue of clarity, as a few ideas were combined, with different people pitching completely different ideas under the same name. Much of our Saturday morning confusion came during our attempts to reconcile what the product would do.
• Organize earlier—It proved to be a tough sell for many local business to contribute food and swag when they set their budgets a month in advance. We didn’t get official approval from Startup Weekend until we were within that window, having already started prepping our contingency plans. The recruiting should start one month prior, but the organization of sponsors and facilities should all be taken care of before the recruiting begins.
• Establish a not-for-profit first—Along the same lines, everything gets easier if the organizing entity is a non-profit. Donations are easier to get and might bypass problematic legal situtaitons by giving everyone a formal starting organization to which they can belong, before beginning any work.
• Include more kinds of ideas—Tech people like tech solutions, but this is potentially an equally great vehicle for not-for-profits, existing businesses needing a boost, physical widgets, and service-based companies. These should be considered even if they can’t be completed in a weekend or end in a web site launch.
• Exit and continuation strategies—There should be a more formalized way to leave the project, as well as how to continue it past Sunday. Much of Sunday was spent scrambling around getting signatures and contact information, none of which was possible if a potential founder had already left the building. The burden for getting shares might be tied to both the sign-in and sign-out, asking the person to commit to the company or sign over proxy rights in lieu of attending meetings. For core members, there isn’t much to help the process that begins on Monday. Lining up those resources ahead of time is important.
• Schedule on a three-day weekend —Starting after work on a Friday and finishing late evening before a day of work on Monday makes things more difficult for people participating in the event, especially for out-of-town travelers. Perhaps a three day weekend would allow four days of work that can start on a Saturday morning and end by 5p Monday. User Experience would be improved if there were daytime hours to conduct inquiries.
• Confusion over terminology and disciplines —Andrew opened up the introduction of groups with, “User experience and usability, same thing.” Um, no. Not the way we are taught at the School of Informatics, at any rate. Terms like design and development and even marketing are bantered about in different circles meaning different things. By taking time to clearly define the expectations of each role, and by structuring the weekend so each role has a chance of contributing their expertise, it becomes easier to find a proper home.

I invite all of our participants, including those who couldn’t stay for all three days, to comment on this list and any other criticisms about your experience.