As best I can tell you don’t seem to address the main reasons most organizations don’t choose to outsource:
additional communication and planning friction
principal-agent problems
You could of course hand-wave here and try to say that since you propose an EA-oriented agency to serve EA orgs this would be less of an issue, but I’m skeptical since if such a model worked I’d expect, for example, not not have ever had a job at a startup and instead have worked for a large firm that specialized in providing tech services to startups. Given that there’s a lot of money at stake in startups, it’s worth considering, for example, if these sorts of challenges will cause your plan to remain unappealing in reality, since the continue with the example most startups that succeed have in-house tech, not outsourced.
I agree, that in their posts, the OP only advocates for their idea.
Also, I agree with your points. I think having full time tech staff, someone that knows the ins and out of a system/org and is valuable, and this can be hard to replace in an agency model.
However, I think the rest of your comment is ungenerous.
There are literally firms that specialize in providing tech to startups, and if you expand this to include general contractor firms in IT, that indeed work for startups, this is a large fraction of the tech industry.
Setting aside OpenAI, few EA orgs focus on creating intellectual property (EA aren’t “disrupting” social media/logistics/healthcare, etc.). Indeed, based on the OP’s comments, the need is more toward prosaic work (which is sort of the problem). The skill is more fungible.
You make a point by saying there’s “a lot of money at stake at startups” but this itself supports the OP’s point: (early) employees in for-profits grind brutally to win equity and exit (often in zero-sum games with competitors). There’s less need for that level of control and aggressiveness in EA orgs.
These do suggest that an agency model could work.
More directly, I think it would not have been difficult for the OP to add some pro forma, “there are drawbacks section” but, basically, really your perfectly correct points are sort of expected and normal.
I don’t think the OP is planning to take over all tech in all EA orgs but instead offer an alternative. Even if only 30% of EA orgs use it, the idea seems viable.
I think the level of discussion should be higher and address “devil is in the details”, seeing what the demand could be and what can be worked out. That seems to be have the OP is doing.
I do think the EA advantages like the OP suggest is indeed large and may even be unique in the non-profit field.
My impression is that EA orgs are far more mission-aligned and have more scope for cooperation than typical nonprofits and charities. Those guys tend to compete with each other and are very concerned with self-preservation.
I think Charles’ responses are good. I’d also like to see evidence of the claim that these are the main reasons. Occam’s Razor says to me that if outsourcing costs 2-3x (or more) than in-house hiring, then that’s the main reason lean startups don’t go for it. Otherwise, companies could just hire agencies on permanent contracts, effectively treating them as superexpensive (but partially pre-vetted) in-house staff.
As best I can tell you don’t seem to address the main reasons most organizations don’t choose to outsource:
additional communication and planning friction
principal-agent problems
You could of course hand-wave here and try to say that since you propose an EA-oriented agency to serve EA orgs this would be less of an issue, but I’m skeptical since if such a model worked I’d expect, for example, not not have ever had a job at a startup and instead have worked for a large firm that specialized in providing tech services to startups. Given that there’s a lot of money at stake in startups, it’s worth considering, for example, if these sorts of challenges will cause your plan to remain unappealing in reality, since the continue with the example most startups that succeed have in-house tech, not outsourced.
I agree, that in their posts, the OP only advocates for their idea.
Also, I agree with your points. I think having full time tech staff, someone that knows the ins and out of a system/org and is valuable, and this can be hard to replace in an agency model.
However, I think the rest of your comment is ungenerous.
There are literally firms that specialize in providing tech to startups, and if you expand this to include general contractor firms in IT, that indeed work for startups, this is a large fraction of the tech industry.
Setting aside OpenAI, few EA orgs focus on creating intellectual property (EA aren’t “disrupting” social media/logistics/healthcare, etc.). Indeed, based on the OP’s comments, the need is more toward prosaic work (which is sort of the problem). The skill is more fungible.
You make a point by saying there’s “a lot of money at stake at startups” but this itself supports the OP’s point: (early) employees in for-profits grind brutally to win equity and exit (often in zero-sum games with competitors). There’s less need for that level of control and aggressiveness in EA orgs.
These do suggest that an agency model could work.
More directly, I think it would not have been difficult for the OP to add some pro forma, “there are drawbacks section” but, basically, really your perfectly correct points are sort of expected and normal.
I don’t think the OP is planning to take over all tech in all EA orgs but instead offer an alternative. Even if only 30% of EA orgs use it, the idea seems viable.
I think the level of discussion should be higher and address “devil is in the details”, seeing what the demand could be and what can be worked out. That seems to be have the OP is doing.
I do think the EA advantages like the OP suggest is indeed large and may even be unique in the non-profit field.
My impression is that EA orgs are far more mission-aligned and have more scope for cooperation than typical nonprofits and charities. Those guys tend to compete with each other and are very concerned with self-preservation.
I think Charles’ responses are good. I’d also like to see evidence of the claim that these are the main reasons. Occam’s Razor says to me that if outsourcing costs 2-3x (or more) than in-house hiring, then that’s the main reason lean startups don’t go for it. Otherwise, companies could just hire agencies on permanent contracts, effectively treating them as superexpensive (but partially pre-vetted) in-house staff.