First rule of first principle thinking, do not use first principle thinking when a mental model is available

Story of three Indian product entrepreneurs on a beach

[posted on 8 Jan 2017, migrated from]

I get to meet and hangout with many product entrepreneurs in India across a wide variety of spectrum (wannabe, early stage all the way up to category leader). I have been one and have crossed a few early stages myself, based on my experience I see 3 type of founders

The Surfer, Voyager & Fisherman

The Surfer

Surfer is someone who is riding a tide, has unique skills, most often flamboyant but certainly a great story teller. Some may call him lucky for the tide is responsible for his greatness and he may have been only there at the right place and time.

He however believes that he can read the wind & the wave and that he has his board in so much control that can swerve smoothly against the biggest tide.

Investors could be referred to as bystanders on the beach making bets on surf board, tide or surfer himself to win.

Press makes a celebrity of him for it becomes a sport worth paying attention to for the adrenaline kick that it can produce.

They however have the same fate that movie industry mete to its heros & heroines, i.e post their short lived hotness they are relegated to the archives of history.

Many yesteryear consumer internet and e-commerce stalwarts are good examples of this. We are yet to find our Rockstar/Shehenshah/Thalaiva heroes that are timeless in this category.


Voyager is like the columbus, an italian in spain, a master storyteller as well. He is going for the glory and riches but also believes and leverages his experience of past expedition by a previous voyage.

He sets sail to find India but discovers America. He also finds other backers to to chase the dream.

After the Surfers, Voyager becomes a great story to write about so they get their share of press as well.

Good examples are engineers, product managers from other successful big product companies like Yahoo, Veritas, Symantec, Google, Microsoft (MNCs) & Zoho, Tally (Indian Companies) etc.


He is someone who also faces the vagaries of the sea but goes to catch fish. His work is not sexy and it may stink but feeds him and so many others. He may choose to fish where nobody is fishing or have to compete and jostle with other fishermen going after the same fish. His journey is a long one.

Story of a fisherman comes only when stories of other two types have been repeated to boredom. Many call this as the bootstrapped entrepreneur.

They are different but have few things in common. Each involves skills but given the odds has self doubt. Some play the game for 3–4 years, other spend decades.

Yet the

  • Surfer does not create the tide
  • Voyager can only envision his prized destination in a rear view mirror.
  • Fisher man does not create the fish.

Many first time entrepreneurs are confused on what persona they would like to choose or what choices are even available to them. As the startup ecosystem ebbs through greed and fear the god that founder look up to changes, in times of boom the surfer is the god, in times of gloom fisherman is the god. Also when one type is treated god the other type is berated.

Wish there was more understanding amongst them and about them to reduce the pain they go through. For contribution they do to society through society they all deserve salute.

Technology has always been political

[original post date 25 Dec 2016, migrated from]

Rants are not worth responding but

I have known Nikhil for 10 years and have the highest respect for him, after Om Malik he is my most favourite technology journalist for his deep and incisive views. I also admire his courage to deliberate topics which are normally deemed outside the ‘overton window’ (non discussable topics)

So despite the rant I had to sit down and had to think on this because this is Nikhil asking these questions. However after reflection I found that I can’t agree with him on several counts, well this is not our first time

I also feel more compelled to do so because while he talks technology & politics in the title of his post but it seems to be a complaint against iSPIRT. And I am on the side of iSPIRT, have been part of iSPIRT from the day it officially started and many years before that. Moreover now I am a full time ‘Fellow In Residence’ since last four months running the M&A Connect program.

His rant has many factual errors including about UPI that Nikhil Kumar already points out in his tweets.

If I understand it right the following seems to be major points he rants about

  • Unsettling adoption pace in Digital Identity & Payments
  • Muddled debate on digital colonization
  • Subversion of choice in technology diffusion
  • Close relationship of technology and politics

Technology is the yin, policy the yang of new markets

Technology as Kevin Kelly beautifully points out is a force of evolution, it is an unstoppable force of nature. Definition of politics or policies in this context is it is allocation of scarce resources in the face of change. Technology creates new possibilities while policies moderates those by setting up the new rules of game. Looking across time or geography this relation has been so empirical that technology and policy have been the yin and yang of new market creation.

Sometimes policies or regulation kills a market. Peer to peer music file sharing — Napster anyone ? DMCA killed it. Closer home about 5–7 years ago every mobile payment startup in India died because it was not clear who defined the policies when it came to mobile payments (RBI or TRAI)

Over time this is the reason why the ‘challengers’ just like the ‘incumbent’ have learnt to engage not only to understand the new game (technology) but to also influence the rules of the game (policies). More pronounced recent debate of defining the rules of the game for being challenger friendly is Net Neutrality of which Nikhil was the chief crusader himself.

Makes me wonder what makes one crusade(er) more noble than another.

Poor understanding of Digital colonization

Digitization is going to happen to everyone in the world, that is the force of technology. Digital or not is not the choice we have, how in the new digital world can we influence net positive societal impact is a more apt question.

I am not in favour of a state hand in speeding the process of digitization but in the digital world does one want to be in control of a private hand whom you can’t influence. I would rather prefer to yield in to the power of who I can vote out not a global private lord that dictates a feudal system.

In face of creative destruction it is indeed the responsibility of the state and the society to rehabilitate the farmer or the cobbler that loses a job because of change in technology. To shoot the messenger that warn about the creative destruction and is helping preparing everyone for the change is naive.

Dealing with Illusion of Choice

It is easy to score a debate by calling something as ‘attack on choice’. In world with natural monopolies (key digital infrastructure) options out there are merely illusion of choice. Many other countries are discovering now that Google, Facebook control identity than most countries would like to yield it. These countries have already yielded their choices and data to large corporation. Internet is fundamentally a aggregation of private data which is retailed to highest bidder. Due to India’s ability to leapfrog an architecture around data for the first time we can even enter into a dialogue about data and privacy. The debate and the policies on this has not been settled. Questions on these are great, rolling sleeves with an alternate solution even better. Standing by the side and only complaining the least useful.

Debating Issue Vs pointing fingers without facts is not cool

People in iSPIRT are rooting for positive change like Nikhil and everyone involved feels responsible for the consequence of change that takes place especially those that get influenced by them. They think deeply about the societal impact and have had major share of disagreement with the Government as well. To cherry pick links and blog post to say things iSPIRT is very close to just one stakeholder is totally unwarranted and uncool.

India stack — one of four building blocks for Product Nation

iSPIRT is a part of the ecosystem and works with everyone within it — entrepreneurs (entire spectrum of ‘new’ to ‘seasoned’ ones), policymakers, global corporates, academic researchers, developers, investors, banks, other industry bodies, global think tanks and more.

The vision for iSPIRT is building India as a Product Nation, our thoughts captured in the annual letter 2016 here. For realizing that vision building public goods is a declared motto. Four type of these building blocks of public goods is Technology (India Stack), Policy , Market Catalyst (InTech50, M&A Connect), Playbooks (Roundtable, PNGrowth, iKEN). Belief systems formalized to make this happen as credo has stood us for last four years.

As much impact as India Stack if not more is happening in other blocks as well — Innofest that is championing support of grass root innovators that will help build the ‘India 2’ (beyond metro) market. A fintech leapfrog council (FTLC) that is helping public sector banks navigate the nonlinear change, a huge step in helping banks arrest the negative impact of technology disruption. Startup Bridge India a roadshow for Indian startups in the valley declaring the arrival new global category leaders from India that silicon valley should take note of and partner. Helping grooming the next ring of category leaders in India through PNGrowth bootcamp led by practitioner entrepreneur who are few years ahead (senior doing group study for juniors). How do we know that this is creating an impact, NPS (Net Promoter Score) of each of the initiative hovers around +80.

Of course iSPIRT works with policy makers as well to ensure that when rules of game are drafted the challenger is not endowed with a structural disadvantage. When iSPIRT supported Nikhil on similar rules creating exercise with respect to Net Neutrality I do not understand why engaging other stakeholder should not be done.


I have gone through many red pill moment myself to later realize that it is also recursive, it feels smart to have the first red pill moment but is humbling when there is realization that there is a red pill’s red pill (Matrix Revolution gives a more detailed picture than just the first Matrix movie). In times of unprecedented change cognitive dissonance is bound to happen, wisdom is measured by how much cognitive dissonance one can handle.

“Nikhil, do continue to ask tough questions on important topics regardless of how discomforting they are, for we all will benefit by finding answers to it. However to attribute wrong intent to people and organization especially without facts is uncool even in a rant for you have been the gold standard of teaching India to form points of view supported with facts.

Also I would encourage you to define why should one crusade be called more noble than another one”

Trailer > Movie > Behind the scenes of Movie making

[original post date 1 Apr 2017, migrated from]

I asked my manager on what are things that I could do to be a better a product person. Her tip which took 2 minutes to implement when I started putting in practice had profound impact on me. Since then I have shared it with scores of entrepreneurs and some reported a had 100X return for them too.

We engage in conversation with folks that have scarce attention span, the more senior in a decision making capacity somebody is the more scarce their attention is. In meetings when asked to explain something i.e a new product feature, a business plan, a startup idea we are in so much in love with what we do that we start with telling the birth story of how we started and from there describe a journey line of how it reached till current stage.

Her tip was to invert the messaging architecture, i.e when there is limited attention span first describe the conclusion and then go down a pyramid of how it layered up. In other words first narrate your message as trailer and not as the making of the movie. It is only when folks get excited in a trailer will they decide to watch the movie and a very select few even care about the making of the movie.

Most folks, especially engineers instead start with explaining the making of the movie.

Liquidity of Indian startups compared to US & Israel

[original post 3 Apr 2017, migrated from]

Recently was having a conversation with a Private Equity friend and was trying to explain the challenge that has captured my imagination and full attention, ie exits for software product startups in India. He felt that the data about the exit structural deficit that I was trying to point out felt too bearish to be true. My counter argument was that my intent is not to sound bearish but instead be a realist, after all acknowledgement of a problem is first step to solving one. Post that conversation I thought should put this data out publicly so that through crowdsourcing can at the very least improve my understanding if it is off by wide margins.

VC vs Exit for US, Israel & India

VC vs Exit, deep dive on India

VC Software Products in India (in $m)

Exit (i.e M&A) Software Product in India(in $m)

Source iSPIRT M&A Report

VC vs Exit, deep dive on Israel

VC Software Product in Israel (in $m)

Exit (i.e M&A) Software Product in Israel (in $m)

Source IVC Report,

Above data indicates that Israel was able to generate 1.8X of the money that went in while in India in the same period only 0.2X. The right comparison is exits from 2012–2016 with VC investments from 2005–2009, iSPIRT report does that comparison but results are even less encouraging.

Exits follow a power law, however in India it seems like a power law’s power law.

Not only is the volume of exit is challenge but also the structure, any ecosystem exits follow a typical power law. For every $1 bn exit, there are ten $100m deal, for every $100m there are hundred $10m deals.

Top 7 deals in India account for ~$2.5b of the $4b in exit. About 250 of 391 deals total a deal volume of $97m which means the size of an acqui hire i.e in long tail is about 0.5m, which is inadequate even for an angel investor. Lack of many $10–100m deal means there is a missing middle of the long tail.

Source iSPIRT M&A Report

Will your product survive a silicon valley product teardown ?

[original posted date on 20 Mar 2017, migrated from]

Answering following 10 questions that can withstand a silicon valley product teardown ? Use this a framework if you are building a world class product.

  1. Who is the one user or customer ? also called the unit of one. Name him or her.
  2. What is the job that he is trying to do in his life in the context of the product idea ? Many times this job could be non functional such as an emotional or a social one
  3. What is the friction and the barriers in those jobs.
  4. How does the product in question help solve or address the friction ?
  5. How would this be framed in terms of benefit in customers life. i.e before and after the product, improvement in customers life.
  6. What is the measure of improvement in customers life also called as customer benefit metric.
  7. What emotions are triggered by the use of the product i.e how does the use of the product make the user feel.
  8. What are the magic moments, i.e in the journey of delivering the customer benefits what are the the unexpected delight that comes up.
  9. What is the shortest path to the first magic moment in the use of product and what are subsequent magic moments ?
  10. What aspects about the product will the user want to talk about. How easy is it to share that story

If CBInsights did a proper market map of Indian startups

[Original post date 2 Apr 2017, migrated from]

If CBInsights were to do a market map of software product startups in India it will look something like below. For Indian startups that map should be done based on broad markets available to an Indian founder and not slicing of sectors that CBInsights normally does due to nascent nature of these markets.

Startups targeting different markets

and their market cap

Data not exhaustive, it is from a very informal analysis of roughly 700 product startups that iSPIRT has interacted with in last few years through various initiatives.

Strategic insights they yield

Consumer startups have had high volatility in their valuation, a variance of over 50% which is reflection of the fact that value expectation has gone out of sync of reality of market growth. Further growth can come only when firms go beyond the 36m “India 1” city dwellers that they currently have but key question is do they have the right unit cost structure to address for next 100m “India 2” users. So one implication is to think idea ground up for 100m “India 2” users that have Rs 2–5 lakh/pa income.

Because of Cloud and Saas the paradigm of software purchase has shifted from “selling” to “assisted buying”. This opens opportunities for startups outside valley to compete in the global Saas market, the comparative advantage for India is that its cost structure of both engineering and sales help startups from here reach profitability sooner, it also helps enable to create low end disruptor markets that a SV startup cannot even begin to play at.

M&A is the story of when fear meets greed on a treasure hunt voyage.

[posted on 28 Mar 2017, migrated from]

“Startups are bought never sold”

Like many others I have used this aphorism in every M&A Connect conversation in last 8 months. It sounds intelligent, pithy making some one saying that look very smart however I was stumped when my 7 year old nephew asked me what does it mean ? I was at loss of words trying to explain it to him. In an attempt to simplify the explanation that can pass his comprehension test this is how I started describing it.

M&A is the story of when fear meets greed on a treasure hunt voyage.

Imagine that you have a small boat (startup) sailing on an unruly sea (uncertain conditions) with the mission of reaching a dream island where you have been told is buried treasures a bounty of immense riches.

To reach there many things would be needed.

You will need a map (aka business plan); have to identify a tail wind that will propel you forward; hire or inspire men to join as your crew ; convince another set of people on the shores (venture capitalist) to finance your voyage. To these folks you will tell a narrative of how your boat with a powerful engine (product), detailed map and unique navigation skills (strategy) will help you find the treasure.

In the same sea you will find big Titanic ships heading to their own treasure island. In this world there also people who are crystal ball gazers (Gartner, Influencers such as Robert Scoble) who make prediction about changing tailwinds & tell folklore about new dream islands.

When the Titanic gets a whiff of this new folklore (ex IOT is the next big thing), they then either create a radar ping in new direction or change the course of their entire ship towards that island.

And then it becomes a race of many towards this new island, boats of all sizes i.e small boats and Titanic are now competing in the race. This race is a dance that oscillates between fear and greed in strengths and weakness of a David and a Goliath.

The Titanic is always cognizant that it has many direction to handle and its huge size allows it only a certain pace. Also doing anything inconsistent of its past will get it rattled by other kind of men on shores (public investors).

Small boats on other hand do not have enough fuel and have to depend on the men on the shore (venture capitalists) to give them money for fuel constantly to take forward their quest.

Sometimes small boats realize that they can’t become big Titanic themselves, typically happens after 4 years.

At which stage they tell the Titanic that getting new engine from this small boat will help the Titanic reach the new island faster and set stage for joining forces.

Things to note though

Only when Titanic shifts in direction startup is after that the Titanic would be interested in a conversation.

If the small boat is not in geographical proximity of the Titanic and yet trying to get to the same island but from opposite corner of the world, the startup will not be in the radar. This problem particularly plagues Indian startups.

Are we there yet ? Innovation Accounting

[Original Post date 6 Oct 2014, migrated from WordPress post on]

Innovation Accounting for startups was introduced by Eric Ries in his famous book ‘The Lean Startup’, however is as case with many thing written about in the book it is poorly understood even if it is acknowledged as an important and useful thing to do.

Before one can do the accounting, i.e. tracking, a good understanding of what is being tracked is needed ?

Defining something as complex as Innovation turns out to be hard. Lets try address this by asking a few simple questions

What name, object, people or thing comes to mind when the term innovation is utterance.

Typical keywords as part of the answers include Google, Apple, iPhone, Steve Jobs, Something Different, New, Solving Problem, Doing in a Better way, Novelty etc

Where do you start when you start with innovation ?

It would be great if one starts with a problem, however most people start with an idea. Key again is that it is different from something that exists. However being different by definition makes it uncertain in terms of the value it brings.

Who decides something as an innovation ?

The day iPhone was launched or any product is released in the market it does not become an innovation. The declaration of it is an innovation happens almost unconsciously when it delights the target user. Important thing to note is that it is the end user that decides something as innovation

What is the difference between an invention and an innovation ?

A key difference between an invention and innovation is that invention is declared as so by the inventor or the patent office whereas an innovation is declared so by the target user for whom it is intended for.

So in a nutshell you start with a new and different idea that has potential value but with high amount of uncertainty and after some time when it delivers value to a certain audience it is meant for it gets declared innovation. It is this journey of going from uncertain business value to certain business value that is called as Innovation.

Thing to note is that this journey is an extremely hard and only one in tens of thousands succeed.Many people confuse the journey to innovation as innovation itself. Innovation can only be look through the rear view mirror, not through the front glasses.

Now coming back to accounting innovation.

Any simple method where this degree of uncertainty is methodically listed and addressed to reduce the degree of uncertainty and confidence of business value is increased where business value can be counted through money, those would be called as Innovation tracking. To make these abstract sounding concept a little more real. Here is an example from a peer group of startups that I meet with regularly that practice Leanstartup.

Anything that you have done that helps track your startup’s journey of innovation.

Choosing right market can save upto 18 months of runway

[original post 20 Sep 2016, migrated from]

Starting point of a startup is an idea and it goes through a journey of product releases and pivots to reach its product market fit and further scale. Source of this idea is a brainstorming session or hot flavor of the season (FoodTech, Fintech etc). Sometimes it comes from past work experience of the founder. In rare cases it is rooted in an unsolved customer pain point.

For Indian software product startups when looked at through the lens of market segments a pattern seems to emerge that is hard to ignore.

Market Map

A 2 X 3 matrix

Parsing the market map

  1. Before 2009 India consumer was not a major open digital market. There were few online ticketing sites, many attempts in the e-commerce space that did not grow out in a big way. Telecom VAS a closed market existed only because of regulation gap around strong consumer privacy laws . In 2009 something happened along with the birth of Flipkart where consumers changed behavior. They started believing that they could trust doing online transactions and swiped their cards. It would be hard to attribute a causal reason of whether it was ‘Cash on Delivery’, critical mass of people on internet or myriad of other reasons. It is suffice to say that market behavior changed since then. Today there are countless new ideas being tried out because this market has opened up.
  2. India SMB market is yet to witness its Flipkart moment. I have been a close observer on two industry (read multiple organizations collaborating efforts) attempts to wrench open this and closely involved in my last role in leading multiple experiment in creating this market. While I am very bullish about this market but the fact of the matter is that this market is yet to open up. Just like how consumers shifted mindset about transacting online, small business need to change their buying ‘tailored shirt’ mindset to buying ‘branded shirt’ mindset for this market to explode. Open API based GST system in India may cause to be a major reason of change here.
  3. If India consumer has already exploded and India SMB is around the corner, India Enterprise is yet to germinate. There are handful few startups that have been able to sell to Indian CIO, they are exceptions than the rule.
  4. In the Global consumer market there is hardly any precedence of a startup from India i.e. equal to a Facebook or Snapchat. Not that this may not happen, odds are low. This is because it is very hard to understand global culture nuance when based in India. Risk capital available to try out radical business models are not present. There are handful instances where this is being attempted such as Zomato, Hike but the jury is still out.
  5. Indian startups are rocking the Global SMB market, strategic inflection point that has made this possible is that small business are searching for solution to their problems online. When solution is possible to be delivered online through Saas, the purchase consideration is based on the experience of solution (try and buy) and not based on the trusting the salesman who delivers the software CD. Given this dynamic it does not matter if the solution was built in Alabama or Alwarpet in Chennai. Comparative cost advantage of doing desk based selling from India makes it possible for price points unimaginable in other parts of the world . This is in turn opens many low end markets that have been earlier priced out. Companies that are trend setter here are Zoho, Freshdesk, Wingify, KissFlow, Kayako, ChargeBee, Hotelogix and many others.
  6. There is also good precedence of traction for the Global Enterprise with more than handful examples. The pattern here has been to prove product with pilot customers in India and scale it faster with global market selling. This involves migration of feet on street sales team globally, iflex has been the Zoho equivalent grand daddy to set the precedence here but recent examples are Druva, Eka and newer folks like Innovaccer, Unbxd are following suit.
  7. There are startup ideas that are tech components and may sell into a value chain into one of these market and not directly, for example a developer toolchain. The effect of traction in the market has same implication for them.
  8. The above map is not going to be static map and is bound to change. Certainly past is not an indicator of future however history of technology has taught that path dependency plays a huge role in shaping of markets. Thus realization of this map has allowed few startups have change their gear in reaching product — market fit or scale. Also this map helps understand that playbook for winning a market is a different than a playbook for creating a market.

To quote Marc Andreessen

When a great team meets a lousy market, market wins. When a lousy team meets a great market, market wins. When a great team meets a great market, something special happens.

What are the market maps that you are seeing ?

My cognitive dissonance with Network Neutrality

[Original Post date 7 Feb 2016, migrated from]

I am silent on Network Neutrality as I am split on the side to take irrespective of the hat I wear. Understanding the underlying science makes it harder.

Entitlement of Ownership of Network that feels like a public good

Network neutrality is a battle of ideas about the ownership of the network. It is a battle between the owner, license holders, consumers & producers of the network.

Internet is an important public resource for entire humanity, the scramble and fight for it thus is not puzzling. And this has led to frenzy amongst regulators, law makers, industry lobby and many other stakeholders.

Network neutrality ‘for’ argument is that users should get fair access to the network on fair terms and fair price. This ask for fair access makes sense, challenge though is in modeling internet akin to dedicated a physical resource to determine fairness of use.

Is there a science to ownership of network ?

Traditional network reserve a channel for information transfer for a specific time. This network type is Time Division Multiplexing.

Bandwidth, a measure of maximum throughput of information flow constrained by the low & high end frequency of the channel.

This design makes network neutrality ask possible, reserving the channel for those who paid for it.

Fig: Time Division Multiplexing Network, eg Landline Telephone Network

A simple analogy to understand this is like train & its track . The track is like the channel that is reserved for a specific time window & switches based on destination. The information is like the ‘train coaches’ that pass through the track.

Fig: Analogy for a Time Division Multiplexing Network

For internet (statistical multiplexing), there is no reserving of a channel. Many source are trying send information across the channel at same time. Information is resent if does not reach the destination.

Bandwidth, a measure of maximum throughput of information flow is a function what other information is competing to get in and the loss in the channel.

Fig: Statistical Multiplexing, eg TCP/IP network (i.e Internet)

An analogy is that of cars on a highway that have to signal the starting point after reaching destination else another one is resent.

While there are good mathematical model for computer (a Turing Machine), traditional network (Nyquist Sampling Theorem)

There exists no rigorous mathematical model for statistical multiplexing (internet). Few folks have postulated one recently have established it to be as rigourous as Turing machine for a computer.

In this model throughput of the network, loss and delay are key properties of the system and related.

It states that networks are systems that trade throughput, loss & delay and conserve the three, ie increase of two will reduce the third.

Called as theory of information translocatability or DeltaQ connects the above three parameter to the quality of service.

With this theory it is hard to bandwidth as a finite physical resource.

Net Neutrality ask here is like reserving the entire highway for my car because I pay road tax. This goes against the very reason this network design pattern used to solve channel access problem. If followed to its logical can collapse the entire design and this type of network.

A PhD dissertation explains it in detail here

Pioneers of TCP/IP network design such John Day RINA, Cook Report have pointed this out for ages.

If this theory is true, it says focusing only on one stakeholder’s ask we will create an architecture instability. We will create a network that will fall under its own weight. Is that what we want by arguing for network neutrality ?

What are things that feel right to me ?

That there should be openness for innovation in platform like internet. Much of progress in internet has happened because of that. Monopoly is a fact of life but monopolizing is criminalizing for the society. Giving current power bearers more tools to twist with more power does not feel right.

Thus the argument of keeping the distribution as neutral as possible make sense to me.

However if the theory is true we can’t change the objective reality of a statistically multiplexed network.

Thus it feels as if stuck in a no man’s land of Kuhn’s paradigm shift. If there was a Feynman it would have made things simple to atleast understand.


SaveTheInternet team in India has now framed the network neutrality as equality of competition (of opportunity & not outcomes) as that would be create maximum societal benefit. I have sided this for protecting that openness.

Disclosures: I am a contributor in many organizations, co-founder of Bangalore chapter of Mobile Monday (2006–2013, not active now). I am a Fellow at iSPIRT, software product industry think tank since it began in 2013. I also joined the general group at SaveTheInternet a few weeks ago. My day job is in leading Product Management for Quickbooks Online at Intuit India.

All above opinions are mine and have no bearing on official position taken by any of these organizations.

Rajesh Jain

Marketing, Entrepreneurship, India. Updated daily.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss

Tim Ferriss's 4-Hour Workweek and Lifestyle Design Blog. Tim is an author of 5 #1 NYT/WSJ bestsellers, investor (FB, Uber, Twitter, 50+ more), and host of The Tim Ferriss Show podcast (400M+ downloads)

My Life, The Universe and Everything

Truths I learn. Barriers I seek to break. Let me scream.

Entrepreneurship, Leadership, Innovation and Team Building

About Entrepreneurship, Building Teams and Innovation