I was a proud participant in this weekend’s Seattle Startup Weekend.  Having participated in 2008 as well I wanted to try to come in with as few expectations as possible.  Not easy, as last year’s was an amazing experience.

As I recall, the event was sold out a few weeks early at 150 attendees.  Some of the best and brightest developers, designers, UI specialists, marketers and sales people in the Northwest and even some from as far away as Kansas City, Arkansas and Austria came out.  It was quite a showing of some serious brain power.  I was happy to simply be there (and stay out of the way)!

Unlike last year’s event, 13 projects were launched this past weekend.  Initially, I was concerned that this format wouldn’t create the same sense of community and team building that we had last year.  This proved to be correct.  However, the many-team approach was much more dynamic that one large team and in turn the new format was much more successful;

Adaptability:
As is probably well known, we faced a number of obstacles throughout the weekend.  We suffered a number of power and Internet outages.  These were initially very frustrating, but it was awesome to see how the small teams adapted to the challenge.  Many were able to move off-site to other locations, whether coffee shops or even homes and stayed focus on their project.

Simply put, one large team wouldn’t have been able to do this.

Communications:
It seemed much easier for the smaller teams to communicate amongst themselves.  That was definitely an issue we faced with Skillbit (ok, I said it).  With >100 people working on one project and not enough time to develop clear lines of communication, it was extremely difficult to make sure all teams were updated with the most relevant information.  The small teams didn’t experience any issues with this (or were minimal if they did).

Buy-In:
With a number of different and far ranging ideas, more people were able to get behind an idea or two.  This definitely had a positive impact on the number of people who were working throughout the weekend.

This is a volunteer event where people sign up to spend their ENTIRE weekend working on launching a new project.  They don’t have to come back, and a lot don’t.  Although, I was sincerely impressed with the number of people who kept coming back.  We suffered some serious attrition during Skillbit.  I think that having many ideas that appealed to many different people was definitely a factor.

At the end of the day, this is supposed to be a fun event, where people get to meet and network, challenge themselves, learn something, and have something to show for it at the end of 54 hours.  In this case it was a success.

Focus:
With a combination of small teams, buy-in and communications each team was intently dedicated to successfully launching something (anything) by the end of the weekend.  I also think a key aspect of this was the “We can’t be the only team not to launch” syndrome.  Competition as they say is good for the soul and I think that is true here as well.

Leadership:
There were so many impressive people that stepped up the plate to lead each team, and there was a just as impressive a group that led the smaller groups within each team.  One of the coolest aspects of this new model was seeing so many people have the opportunity to lead.  As an example of community building, I can’t think of a better way to see who the leaders are.

Some leaders did better than others and some probably learned a lot about themselves over the course of the 54 hours.  Regardless, they all launched something, which says quite a bit!

Output:
Having the smaller teams also had a significant impact on the output of each project.  I would say that all of the teams had a better product with a more polished look and feel that what we created with Skillbit!  This in no way diminishes what we created in 2008, but I think it is a testament to how powerful small teams can be.  It can be attributed to each of the above.

Also, I think it proves the old axiom that sometimes you can’t speed up something by simply throwing more resources at it.  This may work for servers and bandwidth, but it certainly doesn’t stand true in relation to creative enterprises!

What are my takeaways:
Chaos is good!  Many people had issues with the event in 2008 and I know many people will say the same thing about 2009.  They wanted more process, more procedure, more management.  Both events suffered from a lack of all three.

Simply, it was the chaos that made the events SO successful, so much fun, and so amazing as a catalyst for the local community.  I met people this past weekend that I never would have met before, and I would be worse off for not having met them.  In a managed environment, those interactions most likely wouldn’t have happened.  They were so random, so unique, and so fortuitous that I wouldn’t change a thing.  If anything, I would encourage even more chaos!

Hell, why not?

Here is a complete list of teams:

This entry was posted on Monday, February 9th, 2009 at 6:34 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.