software company

portcrap

Im building a software company but do not come from a technical background. I am starting to be faced with questions around GUI, database architecture, cloud servers, code development / programming etc. Is there any books or websites that anybody could recommend to give me an overview of the basics?

I know each area is a specialty in their own right and take years of work, but all I need is basic understanding or overview.

Thanks

TonyStark

portcrap wrote: »

Im building a software company but do not come from a technical background. I am starting to be faced with questions around GUI, database architecture, cloud servers, code development / programming etc. Is there any books or websites that anybody could recommend to give me an overview of the basics?

I know each area is a specialty in their own right and take years of work, but all I need is basic understanding or overview.

Thanks

I think it's a broad question to recommend a series of books for. If you had an example of a type of question from a specific area we could make a few recommendations.

professore

You need someone who can explain the pros and cons of whatever you are going to do with the software (and hardware). At the end of the day they are just tools to do a job - not an end in themselves, although to listen to some developers you would think they are.

portcrap

Thanks for the replies. You are absolutely right. One of our main objectives is to hire a CTO. In the meantime I suppose the best course of action is to speak to someone that can help us scope out the project and perhaps cost it.

Is there such a thing as an IT generalist that understands these areas in a broad context? Someone that can advise us on the project? And I suppose where do you look for people like this?

GarIT

It would probably take years of study to get to a competent level to make business decisions on those. Consider hiring a consultant.

Try here http://www.pwc.ie/services/consulting/technology.jhtml if it's a large project
or here http://www.newbridgetechnology.ie/ if it is small.

Graham

GarIT wrote: »

It would probably take years of study to get to a competent level to make business decisions on those. Consider hiring a consultant.

Try here http://www.pwc.ie/services/consulting/technology.jhtml if it's a large project
or here http://www.newbridgetechnology.ie/ if it is small.

Why the 2nd recommendation? The site looks about 10 years out of date.

GarIT

Graham wrote: »

Why the 2nd recommendation? The site looks about 10 years out of date.

There not necessarily recommendations, I probably should have made that clear. Just what came up in a search for "IT consultant". PWC are going to be looking for a minimum of 5 to 6 figures, so it's a budget alternative.

Synode

Graham wrote: »

Why the 2nd recommendation? The site looks about 10 years out of date.

The way that picture slides in though. Wow :pac:

ejabrod

It's a very difficult task that you have undertaken.

Some technical basis (I believe) is a requirement for what you are trying to achieve.

The question you ask is very broad.

What type of software do you expect your company to develop? Based on that question: what is your target marketplace?..........the questions go on and on.

IMO, before you build the software company, you need to build a team (that you trust) that have competence in each area. It would also help if this team has some experience in start-up and have build relationships over time (if they are experienced they will have, at one time or another, worked for one of the big IT firms).

Research of the marketplace will be another aspect you need to investigate - no point in creating software no company wants....

There are many, many questions that need to be answered before the company is even formed.

Synode

Good answer above. It seems strange to want to build a software company without a technical background. It would be like me wanting to start an aviation company without any engineering qualifications. Is there a particular market you're targeting? What is driving you to start building this company? The stuff you ask about in the OP is the stuff people learn by going to college and getting qualifications. I doubt there's a simple book that gives an overview of everything, but I could be wrong.

amen

if they are experienced they will have, at one time or another, worked for one of the big IT firms

I'm not sure what the above was meant but there are plenty of experienced software people who have never worked for one of the big IT firms and they are often more experienced than those working for the big IT Firms.

Out of interest who would you consider a big IT firm ?

ejabrod

amen wrote: »

I'm not sure what the above was meant but there are plenty of experienced software people who have never worked for one of the big IT firms and they are often more experienced than those working for the big IT Firms.

Out of interest who would you consider a big IT firm ?

The point was probably missed - those with experience most likely would have worked with (either directly or through partnership) any of the large IT firms will also probably have made relationships through them firms and it might be benificial.

I would consider IBM, Ericsson, Microsoft, Intel, AoL or the likes to be 'big' firms (there are many firms out there that can be considered to be big) but then again I am only speaking from my own experience or working with a number of big firms as well ad smaller and medium firms as well as 3 start-ups over the last 16 years.

Anyway, that is going off topic. Most successful IT companies (IMO) need relationships with other bigger companies to get started - this I have experienced myself.

The point of my post was to attempt to inform the OP of what (in MY opinion) may be necessary to start a software company with no technical knowledge, not to validate or defend my opinion.

EamonnDunne

ejabrod wrote: »

I would consider IBM, Ericsson, Microsoft, Intel, AoL or the likes to be 'big' firms (there are many firms out there that can be considered to be big) but then again I am only speaking from my own experience or working with a number of big firms as well ad smaller and medium firms as well as 3 start-ups over the last 16 years.

It's a very big assumption to make, and one I wouldn't agree with.

ejabrod

EamonnDunne wrote: »

It's a very big assumption to make, and one I wouldn't agree with.

Here's an idea for you EamonnDunne. instead of trying to find faults with my posts, why not offer some constructive advise to the OP as, you haven't had one positive thing to say on this thread.

You are welcome to disagree with my opinion, but my opinion is based on MY experience in the IT industry.

Or maybe you are just a person who is argumentative for the sake of it.


portcrap, I wish you the best with your venture and maybe EamonDunne can help you get your software company off the ground as he appears to know so much more than I do

EamonnDunne

ejabrod wrote: »

Here's an idea for you EamonnDunne. instead of trying to find faults with my posts, why not offer some constructive advise to the OP as, you haven't had one positive thing to say on this thread.

You are welcome to disagree with my opinion, but my opinion is based on MY experience in the IT industry.

Or maybe you are just a person who is argumentative for the sake of it.


portcrap, I wish you the best with your venture and maybe EamonDunne can help you get your software company off the ground as he appears to know so much more than I do

I just thought it was incorrect to make such a definitive statement as "if they are experienced they will have, at one time or another, worked for one of the big IT firms"

In fairness you did qualify it after wards with your experience, so maybe I should have taken more from that comment.

ejabrod

EamonnDunne wrote: »

I just thought it was incorrect to make such a definitive statement as "if they are experienced they will have, at one time or another, worked for one of the big IT firms"

In fairness you did qualify it after wards with your experience, so maybe I should have taken more from that comment.

Maybe you can offer the OP some benefit of your knowledge to help him get started, rather than focusing on my input

EamonnDunne

ejabrod wrote: »

Maybe you can offer the OP some benefit of your knowledge to help him get started, rather than focusing on my input

I thought the quality of the responses so far have been great, others have posed several questions that really need to be answered before more direction can be given to the OP.

beauf

EamonnDunne wrote: »

It's a very big assumption to make, and one I wouldn't agree with.

Could you be specific. What would you not agree with.

EamonnDunne

beauf wrote: »

Could you be specific. What would you not agree with.

That experienced people would have worked with what is being referred to as "big IT firms". This is an incredibly broad and diverse industry which in my opinion would allow many experienced developers to have never worked in one of these firms. Certainly from my decade in the industry I've met many experienced developers who would not fit that profile.

As a side note, the comment appears to have greatly upset ejabrod, which was not my intention, perhaps the original tone of the post was misjudged.

beauf

portcrap wrote: »

Im building a software company but do not come from a technical background. I am starting to be faced with questions around GUI, database architecture, cloud servers, code development / programming etc. Is there any books or websites that anybody could recommend to give me an overview of the basics?

I know each area is a specialty in their own right and take years of work, but all I need is basic understanding or overview.

Thanks

Wikipedia in my opinion is good for a light skim.

Though I don't think it will give you the overview (of the bigger picture) that you are seeking.

Out of curiosity. Why not outsource the IT work if its not part of your speciality. Lot of IT companies are run by accountants and business people. The don't have to know the tech, just the business.

beauf

EamonnDunne wrote: »

That experienced people would have worked with what is being referred to as "big IT firms". This is an incredibly broad and diverse industry which in my opinion would allow many experienced developers to have never worked in one of these firms. Certainly from my decade in the industry I've met many experienced developers who would not fit that profile.

As a side note, the comment appears to have greatly upset ejabrod, which was not my intention, perhaps the original tone of the post was misjudged.

I would have considered that the OP query is wider in scope than just developers. In that context I took ejabrod comment to refer that the Op might want to consider people with a wide range of experience, including experience in large IT companies.

Though its really trying to answer how long is a piece of string, as the information given by the OP is too vague to give a clear answer. So I guess we're throwing mud at a wall hoping something will stick (be useful).

If you were solely looking for developers or specialists you may give a different answer. In that context "experienced" (developer) means something else entirely.

Bootros Bootros

EamonnDunne wrote: »

I just thought it was incorrect to make such a definitive statement as "if they are experienced they will have, at one time or another, worked for one of the big IT firms"

In fairness you did qualify it after wards with your experience, so maybe I should have taken more from that comment.

I thought his "big" IT firms had a 1992 bias.

beauf

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

I thought his "big" IT firms had a 1992 bias.

Do you mean like Oogle or Faceache

The Corinthian

portcrap wrote: »

Im building a software company but do not come from a technical background. I am starting to be faced with questions around GUI, database architecture, cloud servers, code development / programming etc. Is there any books or websites that anybody could recommend to give me an overview of the basics?

I'll be honest; when I first read this I thought "WTF!". I recognise you may not have explained the full story, but just from the little you have given you sound like someone who wants to set up an architectural firm, yet has no knowledge of architecture, the market for architectural firms, or even what type of architectural firm it will be or what market segment it will fill.

If you've already decided on these things, then well and good, but if not you should be aware that 'software company' is a generic term. As with pretty much any industry the software companies tend to fill specific areas - be it in what technologies they specialize in (i.e. databases, mobile, DotNet, Java, Web, etc) and the markets they principally serve (i.e. financial and banking, D2C, B2G, etc). IT is too wide an area to be a competent Jack of all Trades - more correctly, you can try, but you'll be lying if you claim you can do everything professionally and as a result your business will suffer as a result.

So if you do have a specific market segment, at least in mind, you should let us know as this will tailor the advice you'll get here.

Secondly, you will need a CTO - ideally, at this early stage, as a partner. Importantly, you should be aware that a CTO should not only bring technical knowledge but also business knowledge. This is important because even if you are an experienced business person, I would presume you don't know much about IT specific business procedures such as contracts, specifications, specific HR hiring and management practices, software licencing and so on.

As such, whomever you bring in as CTO will need to be not only an experienced developer, but also have a background in team leadership, business analysis and project management. As you're a start up, experience in start-ups will also be highly beneficial - experience in big firms is useful too as they can bring in many good processes and concepts, but this won't be as useful at the start as knowing the nitty-gritty of running a small, all-hands-on-deck, software outfit.

You also could hire a consultant in the short term to get you started but in the long term you want someone on-board.

I say you'll ideally want a CTO as a partner, because otherwise you'll have to pay them the market rate and naturally someone with that level of experience and skill won't be cheap (remember, they'll be clued into the market rates as they know the business). And if you do seek one as a partner, the onus will be as much on you to sell your envisaged company and yourself as vice versa as no one, certainly with experience, will be terribly interested in sacrificing a well paid job elsewhere for a pig in a poke.

Additionally you'll need to show what you're bringing to the company (i.e. capital, a client base, etc) - unfortunately, and I'm not accusing you of this, the World is full of people who feel they "deserve to be CEO of a company because I had the idea for it" and they're frankly a waste of carbon matter.

HTH

gargargar

Someone recommended PWC - I doubt any new company has ever paid PWC for advice. You will get better advice from a small to mid size web consultancy. Those guys deal with large established organisaions.

portcrap

Thanks for the advice folks ..

Apologies for being vague with the details - It is a Health IT company focussing on IT solutions. I know the type of company I want to build, the products I am focussing on, the market need, the market propensity to buy etc. I bring health sector knowledge to the table and excellent commercial experience.

Absolutely agree with 'The Corinthian', I need to bring a CTO in, at least a lead developer who can manage the project and progress to a CTO. It is difficult as a startup to do this due to funding considerations and potential CTO's reluctance to accept equity as part of the remuneration package. But you are right I am getting to grips with the intricacies of IT contracts and licences etc. etc.

I also take your point on board about hiring an external consultant at the beginning. I think is this critical for the technical project work breakdowns especially as we are looking at modular development cycles. At least until we have a CTO on board.

Thanks a mil for highlighting the necessary requirements a CTO must bring to the table 'Corinthian' that is really useful!!

If any of you have advice where to look for a potential CTO - beyond Linkedin, recruitment agents etc. please let me know. In the meantime Ill be pulling together a job spec.

Aswerty

Not to be putting words in peoples mouths but a CTO in this case would just be a technical co-founder who'll be putting the same amount of skin in the game as yourself. And unless you're looking for an equal partener (i.e. 50/50 or close to it) you're going to get nowhere if it's an unpaid position. You'll also need to be able to demonstrate how you'll be taking 50% of the workload because any competent developer will be making sure you're not front loading the risk onto them which is often the case.

If you're looking for a technical founder then go where they go: technical meetups, online communities (such as this), normal social gatherings (I swear we do those too!), and maybe try your arm at the likes of https://www.cofounderslab.com/ (though I wouldn't be too hopeful on that front). Recruitment agents won't be any use to you and LinkedIn will only be useful as far as your personal network takes you.

And the idea for the software is worth nothing. Using it as a reason for increased equity or as a reason that have a lesser work load will be a red flag to most developers.

The Corinthian

portcrap wrote: »

I need to bring a CTO in, at least a lead developer who can manage the project and progress to a CTO.

No. You may get lucky and get someone who has the experience and knowledge to be a CTO, but has not yet held the post, but ultimately you need someone who qualifies as a CTO, not a lead developer who could 'progress' to a CTO.

It is difficult as a startup to do this due to funding considerations and potential CTO's reluctance to accept equity as part of the remuneration package.

TBH, if a potential CTO is reluctant to accept equity as part of the remuneration package, then I would ask why and if the reason is not personal I'd seriously reexamine your venture, because they've probably spotted something you've missed.

But you are right I am getting to grips with the intricacies of IT contracts and licences etc. etc.

You'll get an understanding of these things, but ultimately, you need someone with more than an understanding. Basically, it's not your job - it's a CTO's job.

I also take your point on board about hiring an external consultant at the beginning.

Only in the very short term. If funding considerations are an issue, using a professional consultant for too long will bankrupt you.

If any of you have advice where to look for a potential CTO - beyond Linkedin, recruitment agents etc. please let me know.

Check your personal network. Target Health IT companies and see if you have a way to introduce yourself to some of the more senior technical staff. Then poach them. There's one such very established firm in south county Dublin that I suspect will have on or two potential candidates.

Aswerty wrote: »

And unless you're looking for an equal partener (i.e. 50/50 or close to it) you're going to get nowhere if it's an unpaid position. You'll also need to be able to demonstrate how you'll be taking 50% of the workload because any competent developer will be making sure you're not front loading the risk onto them which is often the case.

It doesn't necessarily need to be an equal partner, as it comes down to what the OP is bringing to the venture.

So if the OP is bringing a real war-chest to the game, years of relevant business experience and a list of potential clients (s)he has a personal relationship, then they are worth more than the potential CTO in terms of equity. However, if - as you point out - they are bringing little more than the 'idea' and some enthusiasm, then they're not even worth 10%. Indeed, no potential CTO worth their salt would touch such a venture with a barge-poll.

Recruitment agents won't be any use to you and LinkedIn will only be useful as far as your personal network takes you.

Actually they might, if you go for one that deals with top-end candidates, as they will keep regular contact with their list of candidates and may know of one who may be interested in rolling the dice on a start-up. Expensive option though.

gargargar

I am not able to post a link but google NDRC future health. It's a programme for new health software startups.

I think this would be an excellent starting point. At a minimum you will make a lot of useful contacts. They could help with getting the team together. Closing date in a couple of days though.

Aswerty

The Corintian wrote:

So if the OP is bringing a real war-chest to the game, years of relevant business experience and a list of potential clients (s)he has a personal relationship, then they are worth more than the potential CTO in terms of equity. However, if - as you point out - they are bringing little more than the 'idea' and some enthusiasm, then they're not even worth 10%. Indeed, no potential CTO worth their salt would touch such a venture with a barge-poll.

I would expect most viable founders, including the OP, come in somewhere between these two archtypes thus lending to a more equitable (excuse the pun) split. From my limited real life experience when you get the higher value type it is less a partnership they are looking for than an employee who will accept high risk/reward options (or with these guys they'll often get chumps to go in for high risk/low reward options but the experience will "stand to them"). This type will generally have done a startup before or been involved with similar formative processes at a senior level.

I get the impression the OP is not so much Mr. Warchest or Mr. Idea. And for most techies both these guys can be a nightmare because neither result in a co-founder relationship which is in my view the most holistic outcome for a developer. Though maybe this is my own bias speaking.

Based on the OP so far I'd be very leery of joining as a lesser partner. Of course from his point of view it would be more beneficial, at least on paper, for someone like me to do so. Though this raises the point that we, as interested parties, are going to give the OP advise favourable to developers as oppose to how to get a better deal when partnering with them.

The Corinthian

I have no idea what type of founder the OP is. My primary purpose for mentioning what one is bringing to the table is that the importance of selling the venture to even a potential employee, let alone partner, is often overlooked and underestimated, regardless of what he's bringing to the table or how viable the venture is.

As for being an interested party, I'm not. I'm not based in Ireland and my dance card is full, even were I in Ireland.

gargargar

At the start of the business you need a (mid-senior level) developer before a CTO. I certainly wouldn't get a non coding CTO. Your going to find it tough as there are many startups out there looking for CTOs.

If you are giving shares away then get legal advice as if the guy walks away in 6 month you don't want them to take their shares. Look at some kind of vesting setup. Also DON'T GIVE THEM 50%. Will end up in a stale mate situation if things go wrong. I knew one 2 man company which was 50/50. Guys had a serious argument and the original idea owner could not come to agreement with the other guy and had no option but to shut it down.

The Corinthian

gargargar wrote: »

At the start of the business you need a (mid-senior level) developer before a CTO. I certainly wouldn't get a non coding CTO. Your going to find it tough as there are many startups out there looking for CTOs.

While I agree that he should probably not bring in a non coding CTO (or at least have one who will get their hands dirty at the start), a pure developer would lack skills that could be critical in the initial stages starting up a company.

Note that a non-coding CTO could also have numerous coding resources at his or her disposal, especially those with off-shoring experience.

Also DON'T GIVE THEM 50%. Will end up in a stale mate situation if things go wrong. I knew one 2 man company which was 50/50. Guys had a serious argument and the original idea owner could not come to agreement with the other guy and had no option but to shut it down.

If he want's the person he'll either have to give them what they're worth or not get them. With regards to decision making, a memorandum of agreement can be written so that this is dealt with in a different fashion.

Aswerty

The Corinthian wrote: »

I have no idea what type of founder the OP is. My primary purpose for mentioning what one is bringing to the table is that the importance of selling the venture to even a potential employee, let alone partner, is often overlooked and underestimated, regardless of what he's bringing to the table or how viable the venture is.

I didn't take that from your post but it does make my reply redundant as a response to it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As for being an interested party, I'm not. I'm not based in Ireland and my dance card is full, even were I in Ireland.

I didn't mean interested in this project but in wider sense. I was highlighting that developers will have a developer centric mindset. And this may not be the best view point with regards the OP getting the best deal when partnering with such a party. I've heard of many developers getting burnt to the advantage of the person in the business role. Inherent self interest and empathy leads me not to promote such a scenario which biases my advice and I assume, the advice of others on this forum.

The Corinthian

Aswerty wrote: »

I didn't mean interested in this project but in wider sense. I was highlighting that developers will have a developer centric mindset. And this may not be the best view point with regards the OP getting the best deal when partnering with such a party. I've heard of many developers getting burnt to the advantage of the person in the business role. Inherent self interest and empathy leads me not to promote such a scenario which biases my advice and I assume, the advice of others on this forum.

TBH, it's not in the OP's interests to hire a developer either as they will lack the level of understanding and experience on the organizational and business side of things - and if these are not done at the start properly, it can be a costly business to fix them later on.

He's looking to set up a software company, and ultimately that means more than simply someone who can code up the software - it would be like starting a construction company and hiring a pure bricklayer to handle everything from architecture to managing other workers.

So he needs to have someone who has at least a foot in the other major disciplines in the business (so this person can either do the work themselves or know when and what extra resources to bring in). In very, very simple terms these three disciplines tend to be engineering (development), analysis and project management and they often define other roles when they overlap, with a CTO being the one who has a foot in all of them:

The above diagram is naturally an oversimplification, but it illustrates that if all you do is hire a developer, you're cutting out a large swathe of skills and experience that you'll wish you'd tapped into before long.

Aswerty

Just to point out – I also think hiring a developer is a bad idea. A co-founder is needed; a person who will help drive the company to be successful.

Most developers who are interested in founding or partnering in a start-up, in my experience, are well aware of the challenges beyond development. Said developer will grow into a C level role as business needs, and their own intuition, push them to handle the non-development aspects of growing a business. The person in the non-technical role will also grow into a C level role as the companies life cycle plays out. But from the offset I think considering these people anything beyond developers, domain experts, sales guys, etc. is at best premature. Though they might put a fancy title on a business card for personal esteem reasons or in an attempt to be taken more seriously within the market.

You do get guys coming into start ups with the C level check box already ticked but I don't think it is as common – or at least I haven't heard of it as often. This is within the context of the software industry (and excluding the serial entrepreneur guys). I expect other industries are less accommodating to the "sure I'll give it a go" style since the monetary cost of getting to market is often significantly higher.

My main point would be that the technical role just like all other roles in an early stage business are often filled by people with potential as opposed to people who already poses the desired skills and experience. Especially if the business doesn't have significant financial backing.

fergalr

The Corinthian knows what he is talking about here.

If you want a software company, you generally need a technical cofounder / CTO.

I have seen a successful, though very domain-specific software company start with a semi-technical cofounder, and bring in a CTO at a later date. (while still a startup; I'm not talking about bringing in an experienced team here after the business is out of its initial phase, which is very common.)

But that is a hard and risky way to start a software company. The more 'software' the company is, the more dangerous it is, and the important important a good technical cofounder is.


Basically, if you want to start a startup, your first task is getting the team in place.

Being able to convince a suitable candidate to become your technical cofounder is table stakes.

You don't necessarily need someone with a track record - although of course that is a good indicator of suitability.

If you can't convince someone suitable to be your technical cofounder, then you are going to have a hard time convincing all the other stakeholders.

EamonnDunne

fergalr wrote: »

If you can't convince someone suitable to be your technical cofounder, then you are going to have a hard time convincing all the other stakeholders.

This is really the core of the issue. Your first "sale" is actually to a technical person to convince them to join. It's also one of the toughest.

The Corinthian

fergalr wrote: »

I have seen a successful, though very domain-specific software company start with a semi-technical cofounder, and bring in a CTO at a later date. (while still a startup; I'm not talking about bringing in an experienced team here after the business is out of its initial phase, which is very common.)

Out of curiosity; did you find that without a 'proper' CTO type present from the onset, you made initial road-map mistakes that would otherwise been caught? If so, how serious were these? If not, was it luck or am I over-blowing the need for a CTO type from day one (at least for your venture)?

EamonnDunne wrote: »

Your first "sale" is actually to a technical person to convince them to join.

No. Any potential working partner. Even in a software company, technology is often not the most important factor.

fergalr

The Corinthian wrote: »

Out of curiosity; did you find that without a 'proper' CTO type present from the onset, you made initial road-map mistakes that would otherwise been caught? If so, how serious were these? If not, was it luck or am I over-blowing the need for a CTO type from day one (at least for your venture)?

I wasn't talking about me - I was talking about another company I had seen who didn't have a technical cofounder.

I'm pretty technical :-)

The Corinthian

fergalr wrote: »

I wasn't talking about me - I was talking about another company I had seen who didn't have a technical cofounder.

I'm pretty technical :-)

Sorry, my mistake. Do you know have any observations as to their scenario though?