(If you would like to listen to a 10 min conversation about his blog, generated by AI, head here.)
In the early stages of founding a company, one of the most difficult and persistent challenges is striking a balance between bold innovation and the immediate necessity of survival. For founders, the tension between dreaming big and ensuring the company stays afloat becomes a defining aspect of their journey. These early decisions can set the tone for the entire company’s future. Whether it’s about fundraising strategies, deciding on pricing models, determining what features to prioritize, or optimizing limited resources, every choice carries significant weight. Founders are constantly asking themselves: When should I focus on innovation, and when is it time to double down on perfecting the core product? This tension becomes even more pressing in research-intensive industries like healthcare, life sciences, and biotech, where years of work may be required before anything is market-ready.
The Core Tension: When to Go to Market?
One of the most critical decisions a founder faces is determining the right time to bring their product to market. This decision is especially challenging when considering the trade-offs between waiting for the “big win” that innovation promises or capitalizing on what you currently have, even if it’s far from the ultimate vision. The temptation to continue refining and innovating is strong, but it’s a gamble—taking too long can result in missed opportunities, while rushing to market may compromise long-term potential.
So, when is the right time to go to market? The answer varies widely based on your vision as a founder, your appetite for risk, and the type of company you are building. Some founders are more comfortable with high-risk, long-term bets, while others are focused on incremental progress, building steadily. This decision is also shaped by external factors, such as your stakeholders. Are your investors in for the long haul, or do they expect quick returns? Do they understand the uncertainty of the path ahead, or are they looking for tangible milestones and results in the short term?
The answer to this question may also depend on the competitive landscape. For instance, in fast-paced industries like software, the window for success can close quickly as competitors can easily replicate innovations. This forces founders to move quickly, bringing their product to market to capture share before the opportunity fades. On the other hand, industries like biotech or therapeutics allow for more patience—often out of necessity—since years of research may be required before a product even nears commercialization.
Funding and Risk: The Role of Sector-Specific Challenges
The nature of your industry will play a significant role in shaping your innovation-versus-survival strategy. In therapeutic discovery, for example, investors and founders alike understand that millions of dollars may be spent on research, trials, and hypothesis testing with no guarantee of success. They know it could take hundreds of millions more before a product reaches the market. In such sectors, failure is often an accepted part of the process, with the understanding that a breakthrough can yield an enormous payoff.
This high-risk, high-reward dynamic means that stakeholders in the therapeutic space are typically more willing to wait, funding innovations and research that might not bear fruit for years. The entire process hinges on shared expectations: both founders and investors need to be aligned on the potential for long stretches without significant revenue and on the importance of the long-term upside. In these industries, innovation is the lifeblood, and the stakes are so high that the risks are seen as justified.
Conversely, in software and tech sectors, the situation is quite different. Here, the focus is often on speed and scalability. Once a technology proves viable, the market window narrows rapidly, with competitors often poised to launch similar products. In these sectors, survival is directly tied to how quickly you can establish a market presence. Agility and adaptability are key, and innovation must be paired with rapid execution to stay competitive. Even with a groundbreaking idea, if you wait too long, you risk becoming irrelevant or being overtaken by faster competitors. This makes the strategic choices about when to innovate and when to execute even more fraught.
The Different Lifecycles of Companies
Each industry presents unique challenges and follows different trajectories. In life sciences, the path is often one of going from zero to one, meaning a long, arduous journey from having no product to achieving a game-changing breakthrough. This process can take years, if not decades. Founders in this space often have to contend with the reality that they may not see the fruits of their labor for a long time, but the payoff, if it comes, can be extraordinary. The lifecycle of a biotech company might involve years of R&D, regulatory approval processes, and clinical trials before any real momentum can be built.
By contrast, the lifecycle of a software company is typically much faster and focused on momentum-building. Once a minimum viable product (MVP) is launched, companies grow by continually expanding their feature set, improving user experience, and capturing market share. They build on their momentum with rapid product iterations, relying on customer feedback to inform their next moves. In these industries, it’s not uncommon for companies to scale quickly or die trying.
Yet, regardless of the industry, founders should always look for ways to de-risk their journey. Setting clear milestones can help to validate both the technology and the market before fully committing to one path or another. For therapeutic companies, this might mean partnering with larger pharmaceutical companies early on or offering services alongside their core research to generate revenue. These partnerships allow them to fund their internal innovations while simultaneously reducing the financial burden of carrying the entire risk on their own. In software, this might take the form of focusing on smaller, incremental releases rather than betting everything on one major launch. Building a sustainable revenue model early, even if it’s not tied to your ultimate vision, can give you the breathing room to continue innovating.
Balancing Focus and Flexibility: Lessons from Vertex Pharmaceuticals
This is one of my favourite examples of a company that successfully balanced innovation with strategic survival early on. Founded by Joshua Boger in 1989, Vertex took bold steps in drug discovery through rational drug design, an innovative high-risk approach at the time that aimed to tailor drugs to specific molecular targets. Rather than waiting for their discoveries to fully mature, Vertex struck a pivotal partnership with Japan’s Kissei Pharmaceutical in 1993. This deal helped fund their HIV research, allowing Vertex to continue innovating while sharing the risk.
The decision to partner early didn’t just keep Vertex afloat—it enabled the company to stay on the cutting edge of innovation. Over time, they applied this same strategy to their cystic fibrosis research, ultimately developing the blockbuster drug Trikafta. The success of Trikafta firmly established Vertex as a leader in the field, all while demonstrating the power of leveraging partnerships to fuel long-term innovation.
The Bottom Line: Choose the Journey You Want to Be On
At its core, the balance between bold innovation and strategic survival is not just a question of tactics—it’s about the type of journey you want to take as a founder. Some founders thrive on the excitement and unpredictability of high-risk, high-reward innovations, while others find satisfaction in scaling proven ideas, optimizing for efficiency and incremental growth. Both paths are valid, and both can lead to success. The key is knowing what kind of founder you are and what kind of company you want to build.
The decision to focus on innovation or survival will define your company’s trajectory. It’s essential to deeply understand your market, your product, and your stakeholders. Finding that balance is often what determines whether your company thrives or struggles. But beyond just market success, these decisions will shape the kind of founder you become—whether you’re someone who pushes boundaries and embraces risk or someone who excels at optimizing, scaling, and executing on a solid foundation.
In the end, the choice is about more than just strategy. It’s about finding fulfillment in the journey, aligning your actions with your vision, and navigating the tightrope between dreaming big and staying grounded enough to survive. The balance you strike will ultimately determine not just your company’s fate, but your legacy as a founder.
Comentários