Jasmin Heimann

Businesses need to buy faster than ever before without compromising safety. Procurement sits at the core of this!

Thinking about this a lot lately: The battle between every startup and incumbent comes down to whether the startup gets distribution before the incumbent gets innovation (Alex Rampell).

Thought-provoking new post by Even Armstrong "Context is what gets the margin that SaaS lost The playbook for what happens next was written in 2003. (Nobody in Silicon Valley has read it because it wasn’t a tweet.) Clayton Christensen called it the Law of Conservation of Attractive Profits: when one layer of a value chain commoditizes, the adjacent layer de-commoditizes. IBM’s hardware commoditized, and value migrated to Intel and Microsoft. If applications and systems of record just become the cost of the tokens to create them, and are thus commoditized, the value must migrate to the layer between them. The reason is structural. At any point in time, there is one thing that is the main bottleneck in a technology stack. Everything else gets cheaper and more interchangeable so that bottleneck can be solved. Right now, the thing that matters most is the connection between how AI models are trained and the agent systems that actually use them. That’s where the real performance gains are. For that connection to improve, everything around it has to get out of the way. Databases become interchangeable inputs. Applications become disposable interfaces. Building software isn’t the hard part anymore. Directing it is. The context layer sits at the new bottleneck. Here’s the important part: the context layer doesn’t fully compete with existing software spend. It replaces coordination overhead that companies just accepted. It takes money from the payroll budget, not the IT one. If that sounds too clean, consider what the alternative looks like where you pay a bunch of MBAs to do fake email jobs and make slides, all just to make sure that your company doesn’t go off the rails."

This future is often difficult to predict because it always disguises itself as the past. (...) This is what Marshall McLuhan called "driving to the future via the rearview window." Welcome 2026!

@benln We are! Omnea.co

I know a couple former founders who know how to hustle looking to join startups (technical, product, operations roles) Which companies are hiring former founders?

@zebriez Scaling People

what books have made you better at your job? some of mine: -Adrenaline Junkies and Spreadsheet Zombies -Interviewing Users -Working Backwards -Difficult Conversations -Making Sense of People

@paulbz I think it is because a new technology protected by a patent is usually not enough of a moat to generate VC returns! VCs are more likely to make money in companies serving new markets than companies introducing new technologies. reactionwheel.net/2020/11/produc…

@ArielRenous balderton.com/wp-content/upl… foundingsales.com

What are the best books/resources on how to build a high-performing sales team?

@dennismuellr bruno-simon.com runway.com

what are the most well designed landing pages?

Interesting pivots: PLG CRMs now doing endgame.io AI account enrichment breyta.ai AI transcription poggio.io AI account plans pocus.com Buying signals (GTM agnostic) ☠️ calixa.io, variance.com

No matter your mode h/t @johncutlefish

@rrhoover I think this is called Resonance ⬇️ en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance…

I'm most alive when I'm: • Creating (ideally something that can be seen, touch, felt) • Moving (lifting, bouldering, cycling, etc.) • Connecting (authentically with others) Perhaps this is universal.

What Speed Is Startup Speed? Investors often tell Startup Founders that the distinction between success and failure often comes down to one critical factor: Speed. Startups exist in a unique ecosystem where time is both their greatest asset and their most formidable enemy. Every day counts in the race to validate ideas, acquire customers, and achieve profitability before running out of cash. This urgency creates a culture where problems must be solved rapidly and “getting to yes” on a daily basis is non-negotiable. In contrast, larger companies often have the luxury of time. Their established revenue streams and market positions allow them to move more cautiously, sometimes even benefiting from a "wait and see" approach. For them, "no" or "slow" can be perfectly acceptable answers as the stakes of rapid change are often higher than the potential benefits of quick action. But many Founders don’t actually understand what Startup Speed actually is. They think they’re moving fast but oftentimes the feedback they get from Investors is “move faster”. And while it’s easy for a Founder to dismiss advice coming from an outsider, a seasoned Investor has seen fast and has seen slow and knows when to tell Founders to kick their companies into another gear. Measuring Startup Speed Everyone talks about “Startup Speed”, but is there a way to measure it? While there’s no definitive test that can tell a Founder how fast they’re moving, there are probing questions that can be used to triangulate “Speed”. Here are examples of useful “Speed Tests”: Speed Test 1: Rate of Growth Startup Speed companies strive to meet or exceed the annual “triple triple double double” standard when they’re young and then continue growing at a doubling pace when at mid-scale. Only when they’ve hit public markets metrics do they slow down to sub-100% growth rates. The fastest companies find a way to keep growing even at scale. Speed Test 2: Rate of Learning Startup Speed companies minimize the time between adding topics to their learning agenda and ticking them off. Startup Speed companies know how to cut corners and hack their way to delivering super-fast “80% answers” as a precursor to judging whether the last 20% is worth chasing down. And ultra-fast Startups routinely deliver learnings in days/weeks rather than months/years. Speed Test 3: Rate of Shipping Code Startup Speed companies understand that innovation is brought to life in code and code is very much like trying to study the stars. To look at a star 50 light years away means looking 50 years in the past. To ship code 1 year after having an idea means trying to address problems that are 1 year old from a market perspective. Startup speed companies are shipping code in days and weeks vs. months, quarters or years at more established companies. Speed Test 4: Rate of Decision Making Startup Speed companies realize that forward momentum will slow or stall if the organization takes too long to make decisions. Startup Speed companies are comfortable making rapid decisions with incomplete information and then adjusting if necessary. The fastest Startups are exceptional at categorizing decisions as “reversible” and “irreversible” and relying on judgment rather than attempting to perfect “reversible” decisions. Speed Test 5: Rate of Talent Management Startup Speed companies rely on top-tier talent to deliver twice the quality at twice the speed of their competitor’s typical employee. Startup Speed companies can onboard new team members and have them contributing meaningfully within their first few weeks. And Startup Speed companies can identify underperformers quickly and offboard them to make room for the talent they need. The fastest Startups hire self-starters and world class problem solvers instead of spending precious time training and redeeming mid-tier talent. Speed Test 6: Rate of Crisis Resolution Startup Speed companies are adept at identifying and solving crises at warp speed. Startup Speed companies don’t panic when problems arise. Positive and negative information travels equally quickly throughout the organization and isn’t slowed down for “spin control”. Instead, Startup Speed companies are structured to identify mission critical problems and can quickly pivot to “war mode” with dedicated crisis management teams spun up and wound down as needed. Speed Test 7: Rate of Adjustment Startup Speed companies set measurable goals/KPIs and are quick to adjust plans when it’s clear the goals won’t be met. Startup Speed companies know when a missed goal is acceptable as well as when a missed goal puts the company at risk. The fastest Startups have leaders who are exceptional asset allocators who quickly adjust the assignment of people and budget when goals aren’t being met. Speed Test 8: Rate of Collecting Input Startup Speed companies create a culture focused on having ALL conversations as close to “now” as possible. Startup Speed companies think fast and act fast, so the work cadence is designed to collect input from co-workers in real-time. This can take many forms and range from spontaneous huddles to real-time electronic communication channels. But many (not all) seasoned Startup Veterans believe that the fastest Startups are fully in-person because it maximizes the speed and quality of collecting input and solving problems. This list of “Speed Tests” isn’t exhaustive, but the answers to these tests provide insight into whether a Startup is truly embracing the speed necessary for success. And the converse is also true. Startups that fail to achieve a critical level of speed face dire consequences. Without the ability to "get to yes" on a daily basis, startups risk many forms of death: Death By Starvation Slow Startups can easily burn through their cash before achieving product-market fit or scaling enough to attract more capital from Investors. Death By Being Second Slow Startups can have problems scaling if there are faster-moving competitors that get in front of customers and build awareness for their offering first. Death By Defection Slow Startups oftentimes struggle from morale issues and lose top talent to faster moving Startups. TLDR: For Startups, the message is clear: If you can't get to "yes" every day you might as well close shop. The Startup journey is a race against time and those that can't maintain the pace will likely face some form of death before they can crack the code on the business they're trying to build.

@WhatsApp feature request: schedule messages to send later

@harleyf Philosophize this! by Steven West open.spotify.com/show/2Shpxw7dP…

What are your favorite podcasts that most people don’t even know about but you think are absolutely incredible?

When working at a startup, you're doing something that has never been done before. You're unable to predict, even probabilistically, what will happen. It's not just risk, it's uncertainty (H/T @ganeumann). Figure out how a startup makes uncertainty productive before joining!

@hajak John Gardner might have an answer: In the past, "meaning was supplied in the context of coherent communities and traditionally prescribed patterns of culture. Today (...) you have to build meaning into your life, and you build it through commitments." pbs.org/johngardner/se…

Thinking of what we expect from "friendship" and how that makes us lonely: hajak.se/alignment-and-…

What attributes do you think a city MUST have to be a prime location for entrepreneurship? Obviously access to $$ - but what is holding back cities like London, Paris, Zurich, Berlin?

Having been an Operator, an Entrepreneur and an Investor, I get asked the question all the time why big companies continuously fail to innovate. If I gave a lecture on the topic it would be called: "How to make bad decisions and not get fired." Let's start with a thought exercise. Imagine getting a call about a “once in a lifetime investment opportunity” from a trusted friend who has an amazing long-term investment track record. Being a great Investor, your friend has run thousands of scenarios and crunched the numbers to project the risk/return profile of the opportunity. The analysis resulted in the following profile: - Odds of a complete wipe-out: 60% - Odds of a 1-3X return in 6-8 years: 30% - Odds of a 20-50X return in 6-8 years: 9% - Odds of a 100X+ return in 6-8 years: 1% The complication: The minimum investment amount would put your entire life's savings at risk! Your friend needs to know if you want in on the deal. What do you do? Most people would pass because the thought of the “wipe-out” happening is terrifying. This is totally understandable even though the math suggests it’s a great investment. Now let’s change the conditions of the investment a bit and then ask the same question (we’ll call this Scenario #2). What if the minimum investment were reduced such that you could invest 10% of your net worth instead of 100%? Now would you say yes? Just about everyone would except for people busy socking money away in mattresses because they think the men in black suits are watching them. Let’s change the conditions even more (Scenario #3). What if your friend were able to source 10 investments with the same risk/return profile? In this case it’s even clearer that you’d want to invest and the operative question would switch from "whether" to "how many" investments you would make. It shouldn’t come as a shock that this type of return profile exists in many ecosystems because new technologies are constantly being created and paradigm shifts are happening all the time. Most professional Investors believe that if anything the opportunity set is increasing. And while these investment opportunities are available to three separate constituencies (Incumbents, Entrepreneurs and Professional Investors), the only “rational” constituency in the ecosystem is the Professional Investor! Investors take risk in order to generate attractive returns. Without risk there's no return, so in order to do their jobs well, Investors have to get used to a risk profile that's comprised of more parts failure than success. In contrast, Entrepreneurs are people who believe enough in their own ideas that they’re willing to go “all-in”. They refuse to internalize their real odds of success and instead believe with self-certainty they'll end up in the best 10% of outcomes. They put their lives on hold for years to chase their ideas and sometimes end up wiping out their personal financial resources along the way. If they succeed they look like geniuses, but there’s a very large and deep graveyard of failed Entrepreneurs littering the path to success. On the other end of the spectrum are the well-established and financially healthy Incumbents in each and every ecosystem. They have the ability to exist in a Scenario #2 or #3 world but somehow can’t figure out how to engage or pull the trigger. If a typical Incumbent is able to put 10% of its excess earnings at risk each year chasing the probabilistic outcomes mapped out above, why do they say “no?” And if they have the opportunity to take the same 10% and spread the investment in 10 opportunities with similar return profiles then why aren’t they? If a rational Leader found out that someone on their team passed on this type of opportunity, they should seriously consider firing them. But Incumbents aren't chasing these opportunities. Why?  Unfortunately, the answer is structural which means it isn't easy to solve. Duration mismatch The common unit of measurement at a public company is either current quarter, next quarter, or current year. You rarely (if ever) hear public company CEOs talk about how the projects they’re working on will pay off in 6-8 years. You might hear a CFO talk about how cost reductions are going to help their ratios in the next year or two, but you rarely hear about longer term bets. But, to build anything meaningful takes time. Real time.  6-8 years’ time, not 3 or 4 quarters’ time. Accountability issues Long term accountability doesn’t exist. While many Executives have 20+ years' tenure at their organization, it's almost always comprised of many 2-3 year stints in roles with a "rotate and pass the baton" mentality. Small sample size No individual Executive assembles enough investments to play the "portfolio odds" game.  Without a portfolio to fall back on, the best an Executive can hope for is to back one or two investments that statistically will probably fail. And unfortunately, the adage is true that lemons ripen early, so the failures will likely be the first "results" posted in their risk-taking career. Misaligned incentives A typical Executive earns their bonus one year at a time based on goals handed down to them from the powers above. They can earn 90% of their bonus by saying "no" to every risky opportunity and it's not difficult for them to earn their full bonus by being really good at making marginal changes around the edges. In contrast, an Entrepreneur is underpaid for years, but if they can string together enough "yes" answers and successes over a long enough period of time then they can earn many many multiples of what they would make working at one of the established companies in their ecosystem. Too much process and too little autonomy The easiest way to destroy the return profile of an investment is to move slowly. At best, burn stays constant on a daily basis, so when process slows down decision making, it slows down learning and makes the ultimate outcome more expensive to produce. It also makes failures more expensive which is a major driver of an organization's risk appetite. And, when process creates barriers to "yes" answers it reduces the ability for a team to innovate at all (and crushes job satisfaction as a bonus). By no means am I suggesting that Incumbents can't directly drive or at the very least participate in funding innovative business opportunities. The very best organizations do this regularly. What I'm highlighting is that most Incumbents aren't leaning into risky but disruptive opportunities even when faced with overwhelming evidence that they should. By making "no" easier than "yes", Executives can and are making poor decisions without any consequences. The result: More opportunity for Entrepreneurs and Professional Investors!

@robindchnt @getkwest good read on this by @AkashBajwa96 here: akashbajwa.substack.com/p/displacing-s…

Opportunities I'm looking for (1/n) Configurable ERP for the mid-market. 100's of companies I've talked to at @getkwest struggled to find a good, modern ERP.