In the venture funding literature there isn't much discussion of failure and there certainly isn't much explanation why. Most failures are attributed to bad management. Therefore, most vc's ask for grade-A management before they will fund a venture. Even then, as many as 60% of a fund's portfolio companies will end up bankrupt. Were those grade-A managers really B or C?
Or could it be that the real reason for failure is hard to determine from looking at the books? The bottom line is negative, has been negative and is getting more negative. It must be bad management. Or is it?
So what really happened at the startups you worked at?
The two ventures I worked at both disappointed and were sold off
Latest one suffered from an overly optimistic business model, combined with the .com downturn right when they were going for second-round financing. Bad management? Perhaps, but others have made a go of less likely ideas.
Is it naive to look for a single cause. Is failure, like success, a confluence of many factors?
If you ascribe to the ideas of WilliamEdwardsDeming, it would be probably easier to look to the overall system for the causes of the failure rather than any one single cause. Possible systemic causes include
ClaytonChristensen has a theory of long-term failure:
"SecondSystemEffect" [SalesKit? Software, in Saint Louis]
The original technical lead(s) got too ambitious with the idea that we'll "do it right this time" -- with an extremely complex and fully data driven system. It may have a been a good idea, for easy customization across multiple customers, but it was a killer for getting systems reliable and successful with the first few customers.
Of course, there were other problems too: We had the interdepartmental politics of a Fortune 500 company -- in our little startup venture of about 60 people. 7 levels of management is a bit much; really! ;->
-- JeffGrigg
NetworkEffects - Couldn't get enough buyers and sellers together to get over the threshold.