Tech startups should operate more like public relations firms. They share similar goals — using technology and clever messaging to solve big problems — but modern PR firms such as Edelman and Robert Wood Johnson base their campaigns on research. As a PR person, I wouldn't choose a medium, let alone a specific technology, without proving through stats, focus groups, etc., that it was the best way to solve a problem. Sometimes the best approach was an iPhone app; sometimes it was to meet with other businesses or policymakers in person. The research was continuous, too. If an app failed to resonate with an audience, we were prepared to dump it to pursue other solutions and media.
Now that I'm a programmer, I find myself and many co-workers doing the opposite. (In fact, I'm a huge culprit, so this isn't a holier-than-thou comment.) A specific set of technologies dictates the problem set and the approach. I recently heard about a college class, for instance, that challenged students to solve a business problem using a Raspberry Pi and an Arduino. I won't deny that those are interesting and useful technologies, but once they wielded those hammers, without a single hour of research, every problem probably looked like a nail.
> A specific set of technologies dictates the problem set and the approach. I recently heard about a college class, for instance, that challenged students to solve a business problem using a Raspberry Pi and an Arduino. I won't deny that those are interesting and useful technologies, but once they wielded those hammers, without a single hour of research, every problem probably looked like a nail.
Whilst I agree with your first paragraph, I think you've picked a particularly poor example to illustrate it with here.
The problem the college course is solving is "find an engaging/useful way to teach students about embedded programming & automation". As such, "solving" a notional business problem through personal meetings and a written process whilst leaving all the hardware in its wrapping would/should result in a failing grade.
This formulation is much more "If you're being rewarded on your ability to hammer things, it's largely immaterial whether or not they are nails.", or perhaps a little more favourably:
"Someone who successfully solves problems with hammers will tend towards seeking nail-like problems."
Now that I'm a programmer, I find myself and many co-workers doing the opposite. (In fact, I'm a huge culprit, so this isn't a holier-than-thou comment.) A specific set of technologies dictates the problem set and the approach. I recently heard about a college class, for instance, that challenged students to solve a business problem using a Raspberry Pi and an Arduino. I won't deny that those are interesting and useful technologies, but once they wielded those hammers, without a single hour of research, every problem probably looked like a nail.