Comments on: Is the problem you are solving really a problem?

By: chinamike

chinamike — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:27:02 +0000

Ah, but where can we go to get trained as entrepreneurs? Might not these small, incremental improvements not be tests bed for larger, more risk taking behaviors?

There is a lot to be said for the idea that we need to walk before we can run. If these companies (or ideas) are exposing young entrepreneurs to the discipline of the market and the value of thinking big I say it is all worth it. If it is helping them build their networks and create successful track records for down the road I say go for it!

My number one advice to entrepreneurs is to start small and learn about what it takes to succeed. I personally like that they are taking small steps in protected boxes learning the skills necessary to succeed.

By: Ethan Bauley

Ethan Bauley — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:53:20 +0000

Great stuff, and I think one of Umair's points reconciles the “what's the incentive” counterpoint: venture investors in the tech space seem to have been pretty limited in imagination.

That's wildly anecdotal, but insofar as tech-based companies are likely to address many of the “big” problems in a disruptive way the nets out “better for society”….seems like his thesis stands to reason.

By: Vickie Gray

Vickie Gray — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:36:20 +0000

Yes. Yes, yes, yes.

Vickie

By: Taylor Davidson

Taylor Davidson — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:13:20 +0000

“More boldness and more innovation” is part of the problem, but without the attention of markets (financial and passion) it doesn't solve anything. It's not about devoting 1000 timid people to solve something, but gathering and empowering 1000 timid people to follow, support, and pitch in however they can, even if their “help” is nothing more than reading or talking about a really big problem rather than the incremental problems that Jon points out.

By: matthewbward

matthewbward — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:32:02 +0000

The inertia problem with big problems is certainly real. I, for one, don't like the idea of tackling problems with scale. But that doesn't mean the problems I'm trying to solve aren't big problems. To me, big means important. Big is why I left the world I was in to focus on other people's big problems, albeit in a small geographic area and each problem individually small on its own. I think the best way to tackle big problems is in bite-sized chunks. More than that, inertia gets you. Unless you have a community, as Taylor points out.

Of course, the problem with limited scale is revenue. If it were possible to make loads of money on small problems that make a big difference without much cost, well, those problems probably would get arbitraged pretty quickly.

Great post, Jon. First time I've seen the blog but I'll be back!

By: matthewbward

matthewbward — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:32:02 +0000

By: orin

orin — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:45:20 +0000

It all comes down to incentive – and our society is structured in such a way that it doesn't provide an incentive for solving those particular problems. I'm not talking about government grants or programs as a solution – but that something a bit more built into the depths of the system. When successful reality TV contestants can make a better living than nobel prize winning scientists, something is askew at a pretty fundamental level.

By: Hari

Hari — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:24:48 +0000

@allenburt: It's not about solving a problem that nobody else is tackling. It's about solving it better than anyone else. An easy example comes from Nicholas Kristof's recent Tweet: “Pneumonia kills more children than AIDS or malaria, is preventable, and gets negligible attention.”

@Taylor: I think big problems just require more boldness and more innovation. 1000 timid people have nothing on 1 bold, innovative person. You can find many case studies online about how one person rethought what seemed like an impossible problem and designed a simple, radical, and effective solution. Examples in India: http://www.businessworld.in/index.php/India-sta...

Thanks, Jon. I've always had difficulty understanding why people are so excited about projects that seem so trivial except maybe for the pure pleasure of working on them. My focus is definitely on high impact & high profit projects that are *exciting and worthwhile* to do.

By: Taylor Davidson

Taylor Davidson — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:11:01 +0000

Why don't more of us tackle really big problems? Well, why do really big problems exist in the first place?

How did big problems become big? Did they start off small and snowball, or were they simply always really big problems? Which problems emerged through market failures (misallocation of money, passion, time, attention, etc.) and how can creating / fixing those markets help solve really big problems?

I'd submit that few us tackle really big problems because few of us really can – at least on our own. Individuals can start solving really big problems, but it takes groups, communities and societies for the solutions to flourish and succeed. And that's really what I take from your thoughts: the need for more people to pay attention and devote time to creating and supporting people solving big problems (with attention and money), because that's the only way big problems get solved.

Allen's question is great, because it reminds us that even us with the desire to tackle big problems may lack the direction to focus our energies. Perhaps that's a market that needs fixing

By: allenburt

allenburt — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:08:31 +0000

Loved the soapbox rant. It's easy to get caught up in "marginal change" ideas when everything you read is focused on the latest social media or advertising trends.

If an aspiring entrepreneur asked you what question needed to be solved today, that nobody else was tackling, what would it be?

BTW, love SocialEarth.org. Stumbled upon them a month ago - great reads.