Dan Hill

Lean Startups: a Game of Chess

From a few conversations recently with fellow startups and with people thinking of becoming founders and starting their own company, I occasionally get the feeling people see the whole lean (Lean) movement in different ways. They get that the ways of yore - months planning, months building, big budgets, no real data - lead to products no-one wants, huge amounts of waste and all-round frustration.

But the interesting part is the different things people see as the antidote. For me, and most of my contemporaries, Eric Ries’s articulation of the Lean Startup is currently the most resonant. It makes sense, it works: we’re both more productive and more usefully productive.

That said, the Lean Startup is only an intellectual framework, much like a theory in physics or a historical narrative. In time people will come to disprove it, adapt it, disgard it, improve it, and so on. We look back on generations that thought the world was flat and laugh, but it worked for them. It’s up to us to use the tools in the most effective way.

The misconception I want to talk about here is this: I meet people who seem to think that being lean means only thinking as far ahead as the next release/iteration/pivot. After all, once you’ve got the next release and hypothesis test out today/tomorrow/next week, you’ll know what to do next. No point second guessing, we might be proved wrong and have to change everything anyway. (Oh, and there’s the vison way over there)

This feels a little intellectually lazy. As long as we keep shipping, keep testing, we’ll work it out.

Sure. But at some point you have to actually work it out.

I prefer to think of it like a game of chess:

• The billion dollar exit/fame and glory/world changed is checkmate. Everyone knows how that works.
• The opponent is real life. The markets, your customers, your competitors, opportunities, tech, hiring, firing, funding, boards, screw ups, etc.
• Each takes a turn to move. You either win, or you fail.

The basic similarities are obvious: you’ve got to understand how the different pieces move before you can play; almost no-one wins their first game of chess; there are set openings, tactics, moves that can increase your chances of winning; sometimes you’ve got to do something unpredictable.

In the old school startup we’d try and plan the whole game out all the way to checkmate along one execution, then play it regardless of what the opposition (life) did. This rarely worked (though there are exceptions of course), as life could quite easily play round that. Very quickly every move you make is nonsense.

The answer isn’t to play one move at a time. 

A grandmaster wins because she can see the next 20 moves that could happen, the most likely responses from the opponent, the particular line of attack.

A chess computer wins because it can predict every possible combination of moves all the way to checkmate, the probability of success or failure of every one, and after every move it can recalculate the whole thing.

It’s impossible to be the computer, but it’s possible to be the grandmaster. You’ve always got to make a move, and for me being lean (Lean) is about always being able to make a move, and respond (with understanding) to what your opponent (life) plays next.

But you’re still thinking about the 7 moves ahead, the 20 moves ahead, the direction towards checkmate. When the opponent next plays, you’re not surprised and thinking again from zero - it’s just one of the many plays you’ve gamed out. Of course, in any good game of chess there will be those moves that force you to throw everything out the window, but they shouldn’t be every move your opponent plays.

Getting traction is a successful opening, getting some control over the board. Particularly in the early game you’ve got to respond, often drastically, to a change in play by your opponent. Customers don’t want it, they like some things but not others, they don’t understand it etc.  But you know you’re playing a thought out opening, you can see the bigger picture - the aim is to get to control of the board as quickly as possible, testing the opponent, pushing them, thinking further ahead than they are. You’ve got to be willing to throw away a few pawns if needed, to move a knight or a rook boldly. But no move is random, it’s all part of the longer opening - you’re always thinking 10 moves ahead, even if moves 3-10 of those keep changing.

Getting funding is sacrificing a bishop. If you’re already losing it’s not a sacrifice, it’s being beaten. But if you have control over the board, and you’re thinking twenty moves ahead, you can game it out. Maybe your opponent (life) will take it with this piece, maybe that one, but once they do you’re in a stronger position as you swoop in with your queen onto their back rank. Once you sacrifice your bishop though, you can’t ask for it back - that’s why you’ve got to be thinking many moves ahead.

By the time you’re in the end game - are we being acquired, are we IPOing, are we merging, or any of the other wins - you know your opponent, how they play, how they think. You’ve got to be thinking 50 moves ahead. Once you pick a strategy they’ll know what you’re doing and be able to guess how you’re going to do it; it’s harder to pull back from.

So, it’s not a case of planning and executing 20 moves ahead. In the early game you’ll constantly be rethinking the potential later moves, potential responses by your opponent, and in the middle game maybe you’ll be playing 5 moves straight and thinking 50 ahead. 

But as a friend recently said, thinking costs nothing in comparison to doing.

So in summary, I don’t believe being lean is the same as playing everything one move at a time and waiting to see what happens. As Ries says, if you want something to happen you’ll be proved right, it always will. Instead, it’s like chess, you play efficiently by making small (or big) moves that react to your opponent, understanding them, finding their weaknesses, and you win by playing 20 moves ahead.