Let me first say that I agree with the underlying philosophy of the advice, that being that a small number of highly-motivated, talented people can outperform an army of mediocre individuals.  However, there are several aspects of the "hire the best" mantra that have always bothered me.

First, it has unfortunately become a tired old management cliche.  Of course everybody says they hire the best.  Who would ever boast about hiring the worst?  And who would ever want to work for a company that brags about hiring the worst?  But saying you hire the best, and actually hiring the best are two very different things.

Second, it's a bit absolutist.  In my mind, if there are 17 million programmers in the world, then "hire the best" means 1 person has a job and the other 16,999,999 people are unemployed.  That's obviously impractical, making the advice at the most general level non-actionable.  I hate non-actionable advice.

Third, there really is no such thing as "the best".  There are a variety of factors that make up a good associate - raw intelligence, communication skills, people skills, work ethic, etc.  Every potential employee will have a unique mix of these aspects ... no one is perfect at everything.

Fourth, what does it say about me?  Am I the best?  I do the very best I can to "sharpen the saw" of my personal skill set.  I read programming books and magazines, self-teach myself new technologies, read blogs, and attend all manner of workshops, user groups, and code camps.  I feel like I'm at the top of my game, and the best programmer that I've ever been.  But am I the absolute best?  In a world filled with so much talent, it would be very conceited of me to make such a claim.

Lastly, what do you do if you live in a small city like I do that isn't the epicenter of the technological world?  Should I move to San Jose, CA or Redmond, WA, where the per-capita talent may be higher than where I live?  And how can I compete as a small software company if all the other larger software companies have already gobbled up the best talent?

So here's my take on it.  I don't think you need to move to California or Washington.  I think there are plenty of smart people all around ... you just have to find them.  I think you should hiring the smartest people you can find, invest in them to help them be the best they can be, and encourage them to fanatically acquire domain knowledge.

The latter two points above seem to be glossed over too quickly by "hire the best" aficionados.  Yes, raw talent is a very important aspect, but I think great programmers are born over time, not stamped out at a factory.  And I want people who care intensely about what they're doing and want to learn everything they possibly can about their domain.  There are just too many people in the world that want to punch a clock and pick up a paycheck.  Give me people with passion.

Which brings me to my closing thought ... leadership.  You can have the best people in the world, but without great leadership they won't accomplish much.  And in a small software company, leadership pretty much comes down to one thing ... YOU.

After Software Edge was sold, I worked for INTERSOLV for about a year, and started my second company, TeamShare, in early 1996.  This was in the very early stages of the Internet taking off, so like a lot of people, I was thinking about how to do something useful in the new era.

I went back to my roots with defect tracking, which by now I had built up nearly four years of domain expertise in.  Being shy and introverted, I didn't do any customer interviews at all.  I simply drew upon the customer experience I already had from building DCS.

Based on that experience, I thought a browser-based interface would solve three problems.  First, it would be easier for distributed teams to work together, and I knew from DCS that there were lots of customers that had distributed, or extended teams.  Second, it would eliminate client installs, which caused a lot of problems with DCS when we did upgrades from one version to the next.  Basically everyone had to do the upgrade at the same time, and people using an old client version couldn't talk to the new server.  It was hard for people to coordinate their upgrades.  Third, there was a technical problem with the way DCS handled its user inbox, which was used for defect notifications.  If someone hadn't logged in for a long time, we had to synchronize changes down to the desktop.  It was a slow process and made a lot of customers angry.  I figured a browser-based interface would eliminate the need for this desktop synchronization.

I wasn't sure if making it web-based would be enough of a differentiator from PVCS Tracker, so I looked for a couple of other features I could add to make TeamTrack better than PVCS Tracker.

DCS had a lot of built-in reports, which customers liked.  We also had the concept of projects, which allowed customers to delineate their development groups from each other.  The reports worked on a per-project basis.  This worked well at the tactical level, but as upper management started to use the system, they complained about not being able to see the big picture.  There was no way to run reports across multiple projects to get a consolidated, high-level view.  I remember Bob Pinna telling me, "Kevin, people want cross-project reports.  If you can just crack that nut, we'll have it made."

To deliver this feature, I decided to implement hierarchical projects.  I figured if projects could be arranged hierarchically, then reports could be run recursively across multiple projects, and customers would have what they'd been asking for.

The other need I decided to tackle was required fields.  What customers said to us was, "The reports you have in DCS is great, but they're useless to me.  No one ever fills in the fields they're supposed to, so we don't have good data to use in the reports."  So I thought a lot about how to have a good implementation of required fields.  I realized that it wasn't just about getting the required fields filled in, but they had to be filled in at the right time.  So I decided to build into TeamTrack the concept of workflow, consisting of states and transitions.  I could then associate required fields with each transition in the workflow, and customers would have what they asked for ... fields getting filled in with good data to facilitate proper reporting.  To my knowledge, TeamTrack was the first defect tracking system to implement workflow, a feature which went on to be copied by nearly all defect tracking systems that came after it.

So let's review what I did.  I didn't conduct any interviews, but I had the luxury of not doing that because I had all the experience from DCS fresh in my mind.  The ideas I had weren't born of my own fanciful wishes, but were based on real problems experienced by real customers.

But there's something else that I think is also interesting.  In DCS, no one asked for a web-based interface, they asked for simpler client upgrades and faster inbox refreshing.  No one asked for hierarchical projects, but instead they asked for high-level reports across multiple projects.  And they didn't ask for workflow, they asked for a way to make sure fields got filled in at the right time.  It was then up to me, using the domain expertise that I had by now acquired, to map the customer needs into specific features.  That's an interesting part of the process.  You can't expect customers to tell you what features to add, they just tell you what their problems are and then you have to figure out how to design a system that will solve those problems.

So once again I think we see a combination of the two schools of thought about idea creation that I mentioned in Part 1 of this blog series.  Customer feedback was an important part of the process.  But so was applying personal ideas, creativity, and domain expertise about the problem.

In the next entry in this blog series, I'll examine how applicable these lessons are in the current era of software development.

If you're a software startup, how do you decide what to work on?  That's a question that I've put a  lot of deep thought into over the years.

As I've talked to people about this issue, there are two basic paradigms that standout.  They are extremes of each other, but they serve as useful pivot points for the discussion.

The one school of thought, headed up by my sales & marketing friends, says you should "Listen to your customers and do what they say."  Well, that sounds reasonable, but what if you're a true startup company and you don't have any customers?  Then who do you talk to?  My friends tell me that in this situation, you work your personal network, you make individual contact with people, you take them out to lunch, ask them very general, open-ended questions like "So Pat, what part of your job do you spend the most time on?", and then you engage in "active listening" to discern their needs.  After doing enough of these personal interviews, a common pattern of need will emerge, and there you have it ... you've got your product idea.

According to this way of thinking, you should not even begin to write your first line of code until you have lined up at least half-a-dozen reference customers who have not only committed to buying the product once it is available, but have agreed to pay you in advance for the costs of the product development.

The second school of thought, headed up by technically-inclined people such as myself, tend to think you should draw on your own personal experiences and your domain expertise in whatever field you are contemplating, think of a great idea, write the code, and once the product is available, begin the sales & marketing aspects of the business.  People who think this way are introverts by nature, and would love nothing more than to hole up in a cave somewhere, spend a couple of years writing the greatest product on Earth, and then tenderly and lovingly release its awesomeness to the world.

So which of these schools of thought is correct?  Probably neither.  But which one is closest to being correct?  I think there are probably examples of both kinds of success.  As I am currently working on my third startup company, for the sake of anecdotal data, let's examine my first two companies, which were both successfully sold to larger software companies.  How did those companies succeed?

In 1991 I was working as a software engineer at Hewlett-Packard.  During my tenure at HP, my project team was struggling to cope with the myriad of "to do's", bugs, and enhancement requests on the project.  We began using a very primitive UNIX-based defect tracking system named DDTS.  It sucked for two main reasons.  First, it used UNIX shell scripts as its core technology, which made it difficult to get useful information out of the system.  Just getting a list of defects assigned to you meant you had to write your own shell script.  Each engineer had to have their own personal script with their name hard-coded into it.  Second, it could only be accessed from a UNIX workstation, which meant I had to leave my PC-based development system, walk over to a UNIX workstation, and login to access DDTS.  How inconvenient.

From this experience I was aware that there was a need for defect tracking, and the current solution in place was very suboptimal.  I reckoned that the world could use something better.  While those thoughts were fermenting, my friend Bob Pinna told me he was going to leave HP and start his own company to make a defect tracking system.  Wow!  I'd been thinking about the same thing.  Bob had a few more years of experience than I did, and had done not just software engineering, but software project management as well.  I figured if Bob thought it was a good idea, then it probably was.  Bob drew on his personal  project management experiences, but also talked to several other project managers, mostly at HP, to figure out the initial feature set of the project.  Bob left HP and started working on the product full-time.  I stayed at HP and worked with Bob part-time to write the system documentation and help with testing.

When the product was ready, in October of 1992, and before we had made our first sale, I left HP to work with Bob full-time.  I had started at HP on August 1, 1990.  My last day was October 2, 1992.  My life as a salaried engineer working for a large company had lasted exactly two years, two months, and two days.  My life as a software entrepreneur had begun.  Our product, Defect Control System, or DCS, was released and sales grew rapidly.  Two years later the company was acquired by INTERSOLV and the product was renamed to PVCS Tracker.

Getting back to the idea generation process, in which two schools of thought does this model fit into?  To me it seems clear that some aspects of both methodologies were used.  Interviews were conducted and feedback was incorporated into the product.  The product was not developed in a vacuum.  However, the idea itself came from personal experiences of understanding the need for defect tracking, and understanding the weaknesses of the existing solution.  Interviews were done after the idea was decided upon, and for the purpose of honing the idea and deciding upon the exact feature set.  We showed the product to our friends who were still at HP, but there was no pre-commitment on the part of HP to buy the product once it was ready.

The process worked, although not without some misfires along the way.  One thing I remember is that because of the close ties we had with HP, the product had a Bugs per Thousand Hours report, which was an important metric used within HP.  Turns out, not too many organizations outside of HP were doing things that way, and the feature went mostly unused and was the source of a lot of customer confusion.  Other important features were missed, like the need to be able to create custom fields for tracking information specific to each organization.  Everyone did things a little differently.  The first version of DCS had custom fields, but you could only add a total of 8 custom fields, two text fields, and six drop-down selection fields.  This limitation turned out to be woefully inadequate, which we learned very quickly.  I don't think you'll ever get everything exactly right out of the gate, but hopefully you get pretty close.  I think we got a lot more things right than we got wrong.

In the next blog in this series, I'll talk about my second company, TeamShare, which made another defect tracking system, TeamTrack.