Talk:Lean startup

Proposed deletion as a Neologism
I'm not sure about the protocol here. Lean Startup is written about in TLX Group Business Review and O'Reilly Radar. I assume these qualify as a verifiable, secondary sources, therefore not subject to deletion as a neologism? --SaintSal (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Author refers to self--Harvard Business Review BLOG entry by a guest is not the same as being written in HBR. Huge difference. The 5 points listed in the O'Reilly Radar that became the foundation of the Ries book are great management tools for companies working with code, based on existing principals of lean manufacturing--nothing less, nothing more. mbss 20:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msspaeth (talk • contribs)

STARTUPS SHOULD NOT FAIL
In Ries 2010 Web2.0 talk he NEVER once mentions Open Source Software and his ENTIRE talk on startups... He starts out about STARTUPS FAILING and the premise of the LEAN STARTUP IS they should NOT... This is "conveniently" ignored... why? The simple fact is The lean startup is a gimmic to sell a book and their is absolutely NO evidence that it works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.208.196.24 (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Marketing Speak
Lean Startup leverages the latest technology to create product prototypes in weeks sounds a bit like marketing speak, and I wouldn't say that using the latest technology isn't of primary importance to Lean Startup. Rather, I think the emphasis should be on rapid prototyping and Minimum Viable Product. --SaintSal (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This article smells like buzzword all over it. I learned very little from it and the definition seems fuzzy and manufactured by a bunch of tech bloggers all quoting each other. This should be deleted. 93.173.2.230 (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Change 'Continuous Integration' to 'Continuous Deployment'
I propose to change 'Continuous Integration' to 'Continuous Deployment', many companies do Continuous Integration, but what separates Lean Startups is that they release product to production lot more frequently ( sometimes tens of times a day ) - which is Continuous Deployment.

Leanguy (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

or , then sign your comment with  ''. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.''


 * Sorry, oppose, at least as article stands - lede seems supported by e.g. Brant Cooper, Patrick Vlaskovits The Entrepreneur's Guide to Customer Development 2010 Page 41 "A concept coined (and trademarked) by Eric Ries, a Lean Startup is one that combines fast-release, iterative development methodologies (e.g., Agile) with Steve Blank's “Customer Development” concepts. Eric writes that lean startups are born.." it looks as though the article is about the trademarked Lean Startup rather than a generic. What other terms are synonymous but not trademarked? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for figuring this out. My mistake. Request withdrawn. Joja  lozzo  22:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think we should be capitalizing it everywhere (there are a number of places in the article where it's lower case)? Joja  lozzo  22:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Major problems with this "Lean Startup" article
There are so many WP-NOT problems with this article that I almost don't know where to begin. Let's start with the first paragraph as it stands today (21 May 2013):-


 * "Lean Startup" is an approach for launching businesses and products, that relies on validated learning, scientific experimentation, and iterative product releases to shorten product development cycles, measure progress, and gain valuable customer feedback. In this way, companies, especially startups, can design their products or services to meet the demands of their customer base without requiring large amounts of initial funding or expensive product launches.

Even though this sums up what Eric Ries would like people to think that "Lean Startup" is all about it, in reality this paragraph is simply terrible - not only is it self-promotional (let's not forget he has a best-selling book built on the back of this kind of uncritical and largely self-penned commentary), it also aggressively blurs the distinctions between facts, observations, claims and opinions.

In general, the numerous claims in this paragraph have not been validated by widespread experience: moreover, the numerous claims in this paragraph are not even labeled as claims.

Point by point, I'd say that:-
 * the "Lean Startup" approach is more for (iteratively) developing businesses and products rather than "launching" them.
 * "validated learning" is Riesian jargon and needs flagging as such (and defining elsewhere) WP-NOTJARGON
 * Ries' "scientific experimentation" is no such thing - it's "hypothesis-driven" at best (and even that's a stretch).
 * "iterative product releases" is ill-defined.
 * "shorten product development cycles" is a claim, not a fact or a proof.
 * "measure progress" is ill-defined ('progress' in what sense?)
 * "valuable customer feedback" is warm-sounding jargonese (as if existing companies don't rely on customer feedback).
 * "In this way ... customer base" is also warm-sounding jargonese.
 * "without requiring large amounts of initial funding or expensive product launches" is a claim not yet backed up by real data.

I think Wikipedia deserves better. As a temporary Band-Aid, I propose fixing up the first paragraph at the very least (since that's about as far as most casual web-surfers get into any Wikipedia article) before we move on to fixing up the rest. A better draft might look rather more like:-


 * "Lean Startup" is a largely theoretical methodology for developing businesses and products first proposed in 2011 by Eric Ries. Based on his previous experience working in a few US startups, Ries claims that startups can shorten their product development cycles by adopting a combination of business-hypothesis-driven experimentation, iterative product releases, and what he calls "validated learning". Though still largely unsubstantiated, Ries' overall claim is that if companies, especially startups, invest their time into iteratively building products or services to meet the needs of early customers, they can sidestep the need for large amounts of initial project funding and expensive product launches.

Comments? Is it really the case that no Wikipedia editor has looked at this page with any kind of critical eye? Nickpelling (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the opening paragraph with Nickpelling's suggested text. However, large parts of the body of the article can be improved significantly by replacing the promotional tone with a more neutral point of view, removing jargon etc. Ijon Tichy x2  (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Major problems with latest editing of this article
There are so many issues with the latest text changed in this article. Sure, we need to follow the guidelines and avoid mixing claims with facts etc. . But we can't avoid applying deep domain knowledge here.

Let's review the latest changes:


 * "Lean Startup is a largely theoretical methodology for developing businesses and products first proposed in 2011 by Eric Ries"

--> Lean Startup is not a thoeretical methodology. It's a practical concept, methodology and a collection of practical tools (like A/B testing, 5 whys etc.). It's based on practitioners' experience - created by practitioners for practitioners. Far from being mainly in the theory world. In fact, one of the most notable slogans of the Lean Startup is "Practice triumph theory" (quoting Ash Maurya, which is the author of one of the most popular books in this domain - "Running Lean"). The Lean Startup is for cutting the theory short, getting out of the building for practical contact with customers and others.

--> The Lean Startup was not first proposed in 2011. Eric Ries published the Lean Startup principles (using this name) long time before, using his blog "startup lessons learned". The fact that the Wikipedia article on this term existed before 2011 support my claim as well.

--> "for developing businesses and products" - too general. There are so many concepts that can match this definition. Why not include a more specific attribute of the Lean Startup, like "helping startups and enterprises facing major uncertainties reduce risks". Ok, you can add "claim" before, no problem (I don't see why, as you try to explain the goal of of the methodology, and the goal was defined by the methodology creator).


 * "Based on his previous experience working in a few US startups"

--> As of now, the Lean Startup claims are not based only on Eric Ries experience, with all due respect. It's a big an exploding veteran successful entrepreneurs' community that is backing this up with all the relevant experience they gained. Starting with Steve Blank, Ash Maurya, Dave McClure, Dropbox guys and I can provide endless other examples. In enterprise domain, we have GE, Intuit, Cisco and others to support the claims.


 * "Ries claims that startups can shorten their product development cycles"

--> The goal is not to shorten product development cycles, but to avoid coslty failures and to get faster to "product-market fit".


 * "Though still largely unsubstantiated"

--> This sentence is in significant dispute. I'm not sure this is legitimate for the opening paragraph. Lean Startup has become closer to a "standard" state in today's entrepreneurship space, clearly in the Internet space. This seal of respect is based on Harvard Business Review May 2013, for example, and on adoption of this methodology in numerous academic institutions (like Stanford, Berkley, Colombia, and many more across the globe). Ramigazit1 (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Ramigazit1 (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed or Popularised?
If Ries "first proposed this in 2011", how is that I can remember hearing about many of these ideas in the 1990s, and actually being involved in using them in business projects at that time?

First 'popularised' this in 2011 might work much better? Redwaterjug (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You remember having heard about these ideas in the 1990s because, as the article states, the lean startup methodology borrows many ideas—as well as the word "lean" in its name—from lean manufacturing. I remember reading one blog post on "double-loop learning and the lean startup" that concluded: "It's great to see these powerful concepts influencing a new generation of organizations. Looks like we've come full circle." And while you probably had a business model in the 1990s if you were in business, you were not using the Business Model Canvas or the Lean Canvas as a tool for rapidly testing business models; that's a new development. Biogeographist (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Rename to "The Lean Startup" (Ries's trademark) or else generalize the article
Should the article be about startups that are lean? Or about Ries's methodology? If the latter, then the title should be changed to "The Lean Startup."

The article currently treats "lean startup" as synonymous with the ideas in Ries's book. But his ideas go beyond the simple concept of a "lean startup" to include continuous deployment, etc. And his trademarked term for this is "The Lean Startup."

There seeems to be some dancing around the term "lean startup" as if Ries owned the term because of a trademark. As a descriptive term, of course, "lean startup" can't be trademarked. If you do a trademark search via http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&p_lang=english&p_d=trmk you'll see that the trademark is for the phrase "The Lean Startup" and applies only to consulting and educational/training services under that name.

So should the article be about startups that are lean? Or about Ries's methodology? As it stands, it is about his methodology and should be renamed to "The Lean Startup." Frappyjohn (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

German translation
Note to self / to everyone interested: de:Lean Startup should be created. This for a starter. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Third-party sources
User:Ronz added Template:Third-party to the article today, and I agree that the article could use more third-party sources. I don't have time to add more sources soon, but I will point out that as of today there are [//scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16038884148964605303 1,469 results on Google Scholar] that cite The Lean Startup directly, and a search for the phrase "lean startup" on Google Scholar returns 3,680 results, so there is much material that can be mined for reliable third-party sources. Biogeographist (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree, it shouldn't be a problem finding them.
 * I'm not clear how much of the concept is marketing of already existing business practice, but we need to take care determining and presenting the proper history. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section
You added a cleanup tag that says that this article's Criticism section may compromise the article's neutral point of view and should be integrated into other sections of the article or rewritten. How exactly do you think it compromises NPOV, and how would you suggest that it should be rewritten? No drive-by tagging, please! Biogeographist (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I probably would change the title to "limitations". That would take a little rewriting, but I don't have a lot of knowledge on the subject.  Good luck! Oldag07 (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * But "Limitations" implies that the criticisms are correct, whereas the section accounts for responses to the criticisms that concluded that some of the criticisms were either misunderstandings or were irrelevant since they were already anticipated within the formulation of lean startup theory. "Criticism" is a better heading than "Limitations" because "Criticism" doesn't imply that the criticisms are correct. Furthermore, criticisms that are mistaken or irrelevant are difficult to integrate into other sections of the article, and are better presented in their own separate section titled "Criticism". In conclusion, in the absence of some better justification, I oppose renaming the section "Limitations" or integrating all of its content into other sections of the article. Biogeographist (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I oppose taking the tag off. That guideline is there for a reason. Oldag07 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It is meaningless to oppose removing the cleanup tag without any rationale for keeping it! That is not how Wikipedia works. Template:Criticism section says: "Note that criticism and controversy sections are not prohibited by policy, and the tag should only be used if there is a real concern that the criticism section and its contents are causing trouble with the article's neutrality. Adding this template to a section without opening any discussion of the matter on the article's talkpage may result in the template's removal from the article."
 * Nobody has presented a cogent argument that the criticism section in this article is "causing trouble with the article's neutrality". Furthermore, the cleanup tag was added without opening any discussion of the matter on the article's talkpage. I have explained above why I cannot see how the content of the criticism section could be integrated into the article. Unless somebody presents a cogent argument for why the criticism section is causing trouble with the article's neutrality and how it can fixed, I will remove the cleanup tag. Biogeographist (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I have changed the section heading to "Reception" to assuage the opposing editor (even though no cogent argument was provided for opposing the previous heading!) and removed the cleanup tag. But, again, remember that as Template:Criticism section says, "criticism and controversy sections are not prohibited by policy, and the tag should only be used if there is a real concern that the criticism section and its contents are causing trouble with the article's neutrality". No drive-by tagging, please! Biogeographist (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This looks like PDCA from 1959
Why is there no hyperlink to this: PDCA (plan–do–check–act or plan–do–check–adjust) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDCA

PDCA is old and outdated, and this is here new? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guettli (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * PDCA is an example of the more generic categories of decision cycle and learning cycle, of which there are many, many variations, and PDCA was not the first. Learning cycle is already linked in the appropriate place in this article, and there is a link in Learning cycle to Decision cycle, PDCA, etc. Biogeographist (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Original research about Finneran
that added, and that I removed, is unsourced original research—also, avoid the phrase, "It should be noted". I agree that Finneran was likely not reasoning well about MVPs, but to say that in the article, without citing a source that says the same, is original research: it is putting our own personal opinions into Wikipedia's voice, which is against Wikipedia policy. Biogeographist (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy states that self-evident facts do not be to cited. Please see WP:FACTS. Also, you misunderstand WP:OR. This is about statements which are not supported by sources. In this instance a "viable product" is defined by on this very page, and also in minimum viable product. Statements which are attributable to not need to be attributed. Thanks. Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that we are arguing about the sentence on the talk page is a good indication that the sentence is not a self-evident fact and that it's an interpretation. There are other possible interpretations. Perhaps Finneran's idea would have been a viable product with another group of customers, and Finneran didn't test widely enough. If that's true, he had a viable product in general, and the problem was with his testing and not with the product. Finneran noted that "We did, however, get plenty of positive feedback" about the software. So was the problem really with the product or with the process of customer selection?
 * Also, you cited the essay WP:ONLYREVERT as a reason why I shouldn't remove this contested interpretation from the article, but lists my reason for reverting as a good reason to revert: In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement. This is often true of small edits. I have explained why this sentence makes the article clearly worse: It is not a self-evident fact, but an interpretation, an opinion.
 * However, you identified below another issue which renders this whole discussion irrelevant, so I will proceed to that issue below. Biogeographist (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You really don't understand what's being discussed here. Thanks for making Wikipedia a lesser resource by focussing on minor issues you don't understand, while letting larger fundamental problems go unfixed for years. Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is full of problems, and I have limited time that I choose not to use editing imperfect articles like this one to perfection. I do, however, revert newly added problems that I notice, so that at least imperfect articles are not becoming even more imperfect.
 * If you want to explain how you think I don't understand, I am all ears. Until then, your erroneous citation of Wikipedia essays and of the Wikipedia notability guideline, and your lack of a rebuttal to my counterargument, speaks for itself. Biogeographist (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC) and 16:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

John Finneran self-published source
On examining this article it's unclear of the notability of John Finneran. In the article it states he is a "a business writer and former user of the lean startup method" however I cannot find any books or articles (either business or otherwise) by him. It seems he was just a blogger and his website (and his online presence) appear to have vanished. It's unclear why this person's opinion or experience is notable. See: WP:SELFPUB Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, WP:SELFPUB can be considered a valid issue here, and removing the material entirely has the side effect of settling our disagreement above, "hitting two birds with one stone". So I will go ahead and remove all that material, since we seem to be in agreement about that, at least. Technically this is sourcing issue, not a notability issue; notability is about whether a given topic warrants its own article. Biogeographist (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Article meanders and contains numerous topics not related to Lean Startup
I was going to use this entry to provide students with an overview of Lean Startup. However I will look elsewhere, because the Article is bloated, containing things like business model canvas and mission canvas that are not Lean Startup content. The business model canvas is not part of Lean Startup. The Story of Zappos is an example of Lean Startup. Build-Measure-Learn is a key part of lean startup, yet it is not presented as such. Continuous Integration and Continuous deployment have nothing to do with the Lean Startup method, just as CI/CD are not part of Scrum. You can continuously deploy buggy software that people dislike and you would be doing CD. This entry needs to get back to basics. Rdymond (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)