How much evidence is enough to tell a founder: keep going, change direction, or stop?
While many attribute this to lack of money, investors, team dynamics, product fit, customer interest, and cost, the business idea worth pursuing and the model that survives the math are often the most critical factors a founder must navigate from the time they decide to build a startup.
For a startup like ēkot, many say we have a very long way to go, and we’re not even scratching the surface. I agree. ēkot has heard its share of no's — from funding applications, conversations and assumptions that didn't survive scrutiny. But a no to funding is not necessarily a no to the problem, just as interest in a problem isn't necessarily evidence of a viable business.
I believe this is enough to say we are far from the reality of where we are going. But what if your own vision is questioned from the onset, challenged not only because it is hard or has not been done before, but because it sounds like a huge undertaking for a startup even to try? You nod and somehow agree, but the stubborn in you sometimes lets you see through a different lens. The lens where you say, not yet, until you discover that only you will agree that it is indeed hard, if not complex, and so, why pursue?
Is a good idea naturally becoming innovation, or is innovation a direct result of a good idea? Often founders relate a business idea to the problem they have seen, felt, lived, or wanted an answer for.
The question is: is it enough to pursue an idea, turn it into a business, and model it to create innovative solutions?
My take is yes, and why not—only if you can take it further. Meaning, you have an unfair advantage in pursuing it, especially if you have a story behind that perseverance to turn that idea into a business. And yes, I would continue living that idea and enhance it by creating a model that is not only revenue-driven but, more importantly, social impact-driven.
Impact may give a business its reason to exist, but it still has to survive the economics. The challenge is finding where environmental value, customer value and commercial value intersect.
However, that thinking is not always shared in the way we think about business. There is almost like a deadline to everything from validation to testing assumptions within a specific window; otherwise, it is a failed business model. But what if your business model aligns with your life goals and you are willing to wait, say, ten years to succeed?
I recently met a startup addict, he called himself, who reminded me that one of his startups had to survive 11 years to get his seed money of 30 million dollars. One has the tenacity to pursue a goal while thinking, " Is it worth pursuing something you believe in? Now, I get what many successful founders say: you need to love what you do, be flexible, and keep going, because if you don’t, that’s a failure.
So, do I dare to test my assumptions within 30-90 days and move on? Yes.
The 30–90 Window
Every 30–90 days, ask three questions:
Problem evidence:
Are we seeing stronger evidence that the problem is real and important enough for someone to act on?
Commercial evidence:
Has someone moved beyond encouragement to commit time, resources, a pilot, an LOI or money?
Capability evidence:
Have we learned enough to make the solution more achievable than it was 90 days ago?
Then make the decision:
Persevere → Modify → Pivot → Stop.
I have been doing it, and it is just a matter of time before the right fit comes along, and I believe in what we do: creating value and social impact now and into the future. The 30–90 Window isn't a deadline for the business. It's a deadline for an assumption.
Can post-consumer textiles become valuable feedstock rather than waste?
Test it.
Will organisations pay to know where those materials go?
Test it.
Does traceability matter enough for someone to pay for ēkotrace?
Test it.
Can Certified Circular Raw Material (CCRM) create a commercial market for recovered materials?
Test it.
Can the economics work at relatively small volumes?
Test it.
Those are assumptions.
If one fails, ēkot doesn't necessarily fail.
The architecture changes.
