Download - Lean startup machine
LEAN STARTUP MACHINEBoston, June 15-17, 2012
Emily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 1Problem Hypothesis
Julie likes science but doesn’t know what career she wants.
Solution Hypothesis
A website where Julie can connect to scientists + receive mail from them.
Riskiest Assumption
Julie cares about planning her career.
FRIDAY NIGHTEmily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 1: tests
Landing page
FRIDAY NIGHTEmily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 1: testsGet out of the building
In person:• Museum of Science• Galleria Mall
Online:• Teen message boards
SATURDAY MORNINGEmily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 1: results• The few teens we spoke to in person said they
don’t worry much about their careers.• There are teens who are planning careers, but it
would be hard to reach them during the weekend.• It might be easier to shift our focus to parents.
SATURDAY MORNING
Julie cares about planning her career.
Emily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 1: what we learned• It was really fast to set up a landing page.
• Within 20 minutes we brainstormed many possible options for reaching more teenagers. However, we would have needed more time to pursue them adequately.
• It helps to have a girl on the team. It’s less creepy for parents when approaching them.
SATURDAY MORNINGEmily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 2Problem Hypothesis
Ben wants to spark his kids’ interest in science.
Solution Hypothesis
A website where Ben can connect Julie to scientists to receive mail from them.
Riskiest Assumption
Ben will pay for this service.
SATURDAY AFTERNOONEmily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 2: testsGet out of the building
In person:• Museum of science
Online:• Parent message boards• Craigslist• Google AdWords• Twitter
SATURDAY AFTERNOONEmily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 2: tests
Landing page
SATURDAY EVENINGEmily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 2: results• People didn’t get it right away.
• For the purposes of this weekend, we should switch to a concept that dazzles people.
SUNDAY MORNING
Ben will pay for this service.
Emily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 2: what we learned• Parents definitely want to encourage their kids’ interest
in science.
• People generally liked the idea but would want more information before signing up. For example, what would be in the box?
• The concept wasn’t immediately clear to strangers.
• The Lean Startup Machine mentors pushed us hard to sell a fake idea to people as if it was totally real. We weren’t comfortable taking money or lying.
SUNDAY MORNINGEmily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 3Problem Hypothesis
Ben wants to spark his kids’ interest in science.
Solution Hypothesis
Learning adventures! Educational adventure trips led by local science experts.
Riskiest Assumption
Ben wants to sign up.
SUNDAY MORNINGEmily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 3: testsGet out of the building
In person:• At a local park
Online:• n/a
SUNDAY MORNINGEmily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 3: tests
Meetup + EventBrite
SUNDAY MORNINGEmily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 3: results• 6 / 7 people we talked to were willing to sign up on the spot.
• People immediately understood the idea. It required no deep explanation.
SUNDAY AFTERNOON
Ben wants to sign up.
Emily Holmes | @uxemily
Round 3: what we learned• Switching to a simple, clear idea helped us pitch the concept faster to people.
• Our team was more comfortable collecting email addresses than money.
• We came in second place!
SUNDAY AFTERNOONEmily Holmes | @uxemily
ProcessExperiments 1 2 3
Customer Julie, a kid who likes science
Ben, Julie’s dad Ben, Julie’s dad
Riskiest Assumption
Julie cares about planning her career
Ben will pay to receive packages in the mail for Julie.
Ben will pay for Julie to attend science-related learning experiences.
Result Low interest(5/15 thinking about careers)
0 / 20 signups
6 / 7 signups
Learned Low enthusiasm. Teens aren’t primary purchasers.
Parents want to engage kids, but package idea is just okay.
Valid solution hypothesis. Validated riskiest assumption. Solved a real problem.
Decision Customer segment pivot
Customer need
pivot
Concierge test
Emily Holmes | @uxemily
The good, the bad and the ugly
Good• We got a huge amount done in 48 hours.
• It helps to avoid getting attached to one idea.
• It was useful to focus on making sure we’re solving a real user problem.
Bad• Promoting our idea to friends on Twitter is uncomfortable and I think it removes the objectivity from an
experiment.
• The success criteria were totally arbitrary, but some people believed they were a “scientific” way of testing.
Ugly• I didn’t like being pushed to tell friends and family (or strangers) about a fake idea as though it was real.
If I’d been working on a real business, that would not have been a problem.
• This methodology emphasizes a quick buck over a meaningful purpose. Okay for a weekend workshop, but I believe purpose matters. Startup L. Jackson said it well:
Emily Holmes | @uxemily