I would challenge the notion that the risk we address at the pre-seed is the one of feasibility (whether a startup can build it).
Sitting on the engineering side for 25 straight years, I am officially biased :) but I'd argue that the default answer is that you almost certainly can build it.
And building it, they are. Often with no traction whatsoever. The missing part was either problem-solution fit or product-market fit. Or a combination of the two.
I often use the model of:
0. Ideation/Dream
1. Problem-Solution Fit
2. Product-Market Fit
3. Growth
In reality, though, it is a big oversimplification. While the accents change, the first three steps overlap each other. A successful problem-solution fit, followed by an unsuccessful (or, more likely, an unsuccessful enough) product-market fit, sends founders back somewhere between ideation and the problem-solution fit.
Technical feasibility is just another dimension at these early stages. It's rarely a function of whether it can be built (it can), but rather how much it would cost to build it (probably too much), which sends founders back to the earlier stages to ideate something more affordable.
The assessment of the earliest stages of development, thus, will always lie at the intersection of the three:
- whether we're solving a problem customers care about (problem space)
- whether our solution at least promises business viability (go-to-market space)
- what's the minimal thing that may validate the assumptions above (technical space)
I would challenge the notion that the risk we address at the pre-seed is the one of feasibility (whether a startup can build it).
Sitting on the engineering side for 25 straight years, I am officially biased :) but I'd argue that the default answer is that you almost certainly can build it.
And building it, they are. Often with no traction whatsoever. The missing part was either problem-solution fit or product-market fit. Or a combination of the two.
I often use the model of:
0. Ideation/Dream
1. Problem-Solution Fit
2. Product-Market Fit
3. Growth
In reality, though, it is a big oversimplification. While the accents change, the first three steps overlap each other. A successful problem-solution fit, followed by an unsuccessful (or, more likely, an unsuccessful enough) product-market fit, sends founders back somewhere between ideation and the problem-solution fit.
Technical feasibility is just another dimension at these early stages. It's rarely a function of whether it can be built (it can), but rather how much it would cost to build it (probably too much), which sends founders back to the earlier stages to ideate something more affordable.
The assessment of the earliest stages of development, thus, will always lie at the intersection of the three:
- whether we're solving a problem customers care about (problem space)
- whether our solution at least promises business viability (go-to-market space)
- what's the minimal thing that may validate the assumptions above (technical space)