![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure about the protocol here. Lean Startup is written about in TLX Group Business Review Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page). and O'Reilly Radar [1]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
Interesting that the names, like "leanguy" appear in connection to Lean Startups and IMVU on other sites across the web and that the references above are again pointing to Ries' self-placed material. C'mon already! You guys are obviously too smart too bother with such tasteless guerilla marketing. mbss 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msspaeth (talk • contribs)
This statement is not true - "For example the idea of failing often and learning quickly can benefit anyone in any industry." - you do not want to fail often in a biotech industry or where the cost of failure is quite high. I propose we remove it.
Leanguy (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The first conference on this, the Startup Lessons Learned Conference was last week, and the New York Times covered the Lean Startup this weekend. An active community member is maintaining a conference coverage roundup. And since the NYT now has covered it, I imagine that there will be a bunch of coverage in other sources over the next few weeks. I don't have time to work on our article (and given that I'm a practitioner, perhaps have a COI), but I thought a section to collect useful links would be handy for whomever will work on this. William Pietri (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Because I have a clear conflict of interest (and the subject of some of this discussion), I thought I would add these comments to the talk page. I hope this is the correct process. I think the article would be greatly enhanced by referencing the global movement that is working with these ideas. To that end, I am adding a few references here of possible reliable sources that could be useful.
Wall Street Journal coverage: http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704635204575242543105830072.html "Dozens of Silicon Valley start-ups are applying his ideas, while entrepreneur groups world-wide are holding regular meetings to discuss the methodologies. "
Medill Reports - Chicago, Northwestern University, about the movement's impact in Chicago: http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=166474
On the impact of Lean Startup ideas in big companies, see: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/what-start-ups-can-teach-big-companies/ http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2010/04/thinking-inside-the-box-eric-ries-on-creating-startups-within-large-organizations.php
and at Intuit in particular: http://www.jmorganmarketing.com/implementing-enterprise-2-0-at-intuit-part-three-cultural-and-organizational-shifts/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPb6P-MfkRI&feature=player_embedded
And my own efforts to dispel some common misconceptions about the Lean Startup, which might themselves be worth considering as part of the article, from Reuters: http://blogs.reuters.com/small-business/2010/04/27/top-5-myths-about-the-lean-startup/
I hope that's helpful. --Ericries (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
In the interest of addressing Orphan status, I wanted to propose some other articles that are relevant. For each, I'll suggest a supporting source:
Companies that have used Lean Startup techniques (and talked about it publicly):
Dropbox_(service) http://www.slideshare.net/gueste94e4c/dropbox-startup-lessons-learned-3836587 http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704635204575242543105830072.html http://en.justin.tv/startuplessonslearned/b/262672510
Pbworks http://www.slideshare.net/dweekly/pbworks-lean-startup-2009330 http://en.justin.tv/startuplessonslearned/b/262673321
IMVU http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2010/01/turn-your-startup-into-a-lean.php
Cheezburger http://jobs.cheezburger.com/job/detail/4324-experienced-asp-net-c-developer http://www.scottporad.com/2010/03/24/open-letter-to-eric-ries-dave-mcclure-and-everyone-who-attended-the-lean-startup-meetup-at-sxsw/
Aardvark_(search_engine) http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/04/24/how-a-start-up-grew-by-paying-attention-to-whats-behind-the-curtain/ http://damdtchy.posterous.com/17948980 http://www.businessinsider.com/a-qa-with-the-cofounder-of-aardvark-a-startup-that-just-sold-to-google-2010-5
Lean Startup techniques: A/B_testing, Pivot, Lean, Continuous Deployment, Customer Advisory Board, Net Promoter Score in addition to the existing techniques which are already linked.
--Ericries (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi All,
I think there's a lot of material that's been published recently on lean startups. Eric Ries' book on lean startups is published and will be widely available.
http://www.amazon.com/Lean-Startup-Eric-Ries/dp/0307887898/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298652689&sr=8-1
Perhaps this warrants additional content. This is a significant movement within the technology community. What do others think?
Rbakal (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The comment above from Rbakal sounds a bit like further promotion of the book/concept, not a discussion about the appropriateness of the entry in Wikipedia. As someone working in technology entrepreneurship, the "movement" is not yet and will not necessarily be "significant". But this is for the wider public to decide over time--not I and certainly not Ries.
I am disappointed when I see Wikipedia used so blantantly as a pre-book-release promotion engine. As a professor of business and of entrepreneurship, I spend enough time already trying to remain as objective as possible about the usefulness of these subjects in academia (sometimes feeling that I should indeed put myself out of work), but I strive to incorporate enough history, philosophy, ethics, and strategy into my courses that students learn to draw from their disciplines (mostly engineering) and use plenty of good common sense combined with lessons of the past and present (case studies sometimes) in order to prepare for innovation management which may include entrepreneurial endeavours. I often enjoy inviting people like Eric Ries to my courses--live or via the Internet to chat (free of course)and to tell their stories (if the story-tellers are good speakers and demonstrate a good business ethic), but I am up to the ears in books on entrepreneurship and start-ups that as I am sure Eric knows, will not likely help students along their way nor provide much more information about the world of start-ups than many of us who teach it (or who have start-ups) know.
On the other hand, Ries' book (which should have nothing to do with this Wikipedia page really), is more comprehensive than many entrepreneurship texts in that it covers off most of the cases, jargon, and concepts--that have become the common language shared among individuals who learn or teach the subject. From that perspective it is a useful text. But this Wikipedia page isn't supposed to be for book reviews either. We should wait a bit for peer review.
When Guy Kawasaki drives home the notion that one should get product out the door, we get it. It is often important to remember this. Of course not all companies are IT-based, nor can they do the equivalent of "getting code out the door" on a daily basis. It wouldn't make sense. "lean start-up" is a bit like "global start-up" or "born global". They reflect self evident concepts whose purpose I am sad to say without meaning to be rude, are derived to promote individuals, businesses, or universities (or all of the above)and I fear that the practice is going too far.
Bottom line---what is Wikipedia and how should it be used? I suspect that the term "lean start-up" will see some use. Some users will really like the notion too--partly however because they enjoy being joiners and citing the latest and greatest. So, excuse my cynicism, but I believe that when Ries and/or his colleagues made the entry in Wikipedia over a year ago, it was for reasons that are not approved by Wikipedia.mbss 19:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't have time to do anything with this article now, but there's a new NYT article on the topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/science/lean-start-ups-reach-beyond-silicon-valleys-turf.html?pagewanted=all William Pietri (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
From User_talk:Ronz#Lean_Startup_Article:
How do the images help with the article in any way?
From User_talk:Ronz#Lean_Startup_Article:
Please leave the tag until someone has time to actually address the many problems in the article.
As an example, the first sentence needs a rewrite. "...that aims to change the way..." This is a goal or the approach rather than a neutral description. Sound like it's taken directly from an advertising piece... Such problems occur throughout the article.
In Eric's book he specifically provides his definition of a Startup. Please include this definition in the article (don't have the book on me right now).
--149.135.146.2 (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok I've found it: "A startup is a human institution designed to create a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty." (my kindle doesn't show the page number, just shows as 8% in)
--149.135.145.22 (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Lean Startup → Lean startup – The term, "lean startup", is a common noun phrase that describes a type of business. It should not be capitalized on Wikipedia even if the sources do so. Jojalozzo 14:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, 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.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):-
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:-
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:-
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)
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 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).
--> 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.
--> The goal is not to shorten product development cycles, but to avoid coslty failures and to get faster to "product-market fit".
--> 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
@Oldag07: 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)
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)
The sentence that ThunderPeel2001 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)
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.
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 "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
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)