Reframing failure

In Mark Heckmann's lecture we saw the arc of InTuition from its start as a hunch to a viable business. What struck me most was that Mark started off small. He completed a project for a company while he was at school and he thought that maybe other companies had the same need for student help. At the same time, students would benefit because they would be able to pay their tuition back faster while also gaining professional experience. His hypothesis was to see if there was a scalable business model and he continued to test it, starting off small and then growing. 

His story reminds me of the value of doing small tests. He did a series of small tests that help him move his company forward. Failure is such a big mantra in entrepreneuship but if it is viewed as conducting a series of small tests then it makes the idea of failing less scary. The takeaways I was reminded of in Mark's lecture was start small and continually test your idea.

On a similar note, this article from HBR.com frames failure in a more reasoned way rather than how it's tossed around so casually in much of the articles I have read:
"Contrary to myth, entrepreneurs are not reckless gamblers. True, risky business is an intrinsic aspect of pushing the innovation envelope. But it’s important to train entrepreneurs to fail small, fast, and cheaply."

http://hbr.org/2011/04/column-entrepreneurs-and-the-cult-of-failure/ar/1