This episode offers a great perspective & framework on how to evaluate potential opportunities & how to position yourself. It would be great if you could give your take on the the relationship between funding round & stage of company. E.g., I'd assume almost all seed round companies are pre-P/M fit and most series A would be the same. But at what round do we see product-market fit start to materialize? And generally at which funding round would we start to see hypergrowth?
Great question. I think it's safe to say that most seed companies are still seeking PMF. After all, the money is used to really fund that exploration. I think once a company has capital, depending on the idea, you might actually see signs of PMF even at Series A. Much depends on how much seed is raised which translates into how much time does the company have to explore. If it's several quarters (or even years), then we'd expect some solid PMF before the next round. But if it's just a bootstrap, then yes Series A might be still be used to find PMF. Usually Series B (or our third round) has some business performance, i.e. a way to drive growth + monetization. And then later rounds only make sense, especially when the dollars are large, if the company is in hypergrowth.
Love this! How would you classify a scaled company going through an expansion? So we have PMF with our flagship product (mostly sucking sound, although getting slower), and we are investing in some zero to one areas that are doing the zig zag. So we have established processes, but many times, this doesn't make sense for the new products- so we haven't hit our stride with anything. We also have a large modernization initiative going on to get a platform that can support our existing customers + expansion. All this makes for a super chaotic and disorganized very large organization. Thinking about where I fit, I enjoy the ambiguity of a smaller startup and can work well within the structure of a larger org, but this is the worst of both worlds right now.
You describe things here pretty well. I'd simplify things and suggest you have a set of PMs and projects that are focusing on scaling the mature, core business. That would include the re-platforming exercise. Then you have a set of early explorations that ideally would leverage the same customer base, but expand what the company stands for. As you rightfully point out, you can't manage these initiatives the same. They are so very different and the PMs who work on them are probably skilled differently and attracted to solve different problems too. Most companies struggle to administer both styles of projects though, and usually just try and foist the scaled process onto the early stage one, creating an innovator's dilemma situation. My advice is to pick a lane intentionally. But if you are equally skilled, pick the one that has durability. The challenge I see is if the company struggles with expansion, it's very thrashy to be on those projects and you can't really learn much. You want a project where your skills match but also has some semblance of success.
You really explained the 4 stages of the company very well and the problems at each stage. However would be great if you could double click on the last part. ie how to know which stage is right for you. Thanks
![How to Get a Developer Job - Even in This Economy [Full Course]](/img/n.gif)
This is such a unique podcast. Keep it coming Nikhyl
Extremely valuable podcast!
Love it! Super insightful with great perspectives!
This episode offers a great perspective & framework on how to evaluate potential opportunities & how to position yourself. It would be great if you could give your take on the the relationship between funding round & stage of company. E.g., I'd assume almost all seed round companies are pre-P/M fit and most series A would be the same. But at what round do we see product-market fit start to materialize? And generally at which funding round would we start to see hypergrowth?
Great question. I think it's safe to say that most seed companies are still seeking PMF. After all, the money is used to really fund that exploration. I think once a company has capital, depending on the idea, you might actually see signs of PMF even at Series A. Much depends on how much seed is raised which translates into how much time does the company have to explore. If it's several quarters (or even years), then we'd expect some solid PMF before the next round. But if it's just a bootstrap, then yes Series A might be still be used to find PMF.
Usually Series B (or our third round) has some business performance, i.e. a way to drive growth + monetization. And then later rounds only make sense, especially when the dollars are large, if the company is in hypergrowth.
i am eng, i found this very useful, eng is kind of similar.
Love this! How would you classify a scaled company going through an expansion? So we have PMF with our flagship product (mostly sucking sound, although getting slower), and we are investing in some zero to one areas that are doing the zig zag. So we have established processes, but many times, this doesn't make sense for the new products- so we haven't hit our stride with anything. We also have a large modernization initiative going on to get a platform that can support our existing customers + expansion. All this makes for a super chaotic and disorganized very large organization. Thinking about where I fit, I enjoy the ambiguity of a smaller startup and can work well within the structure of a larger org, but this is the worst of both worlds right now.
You describe things here pretty well. I'd simplify things and suggest you have a set of PMs and projects that are focusing on scaling the mature, core business. That would include the re-platforming exercise. Then you have a set of early explorations that ideally would leverage the same customer base, but expand what the company stands for. As you rightfully point out, you can't manage these initiatives the same. They are so very different and the PMs who work on them are probably skilled differently and attracted to solve different problems too. Most companies struggle to administer both styles of projects though, and usually just try and foist the scaled process onto the early stage one, creating an innovator's dilemma situation.
My advice is to pick a lane intentionally. But if you are equally skilled, pick the one that has durability. The challenge I see is if the company struggles with expansion, it's very thrashy to be on those projects and you can't really learn much. You want a project where your skills match but also has some semblance of success.
You really explained the 4 stages of the company very well and the problems at each stage. However would be great if you could double click on the last part. ie how to know which stage is right for you. Thanks