Look, You're close. I think the process of trying out ideas is poorly understood by most people, and based on the way you wrote this, even yourself. You touched on it a bit - "distilling ideas into something that can be tried without much investment". That's the gem.
This is what you're supposed to do with an idea:
* Identify the hypotheses that make it work.
* Identify which hypothesis is the most critical one - if that one fails, then you know the idea isn't going to work. It's fair to say that an idea depends on 2 or more hypotheses - the key here is to identify the critical ones.
* Finally, figure out how to fail each critical hypothesis as fast (and as cheap) as you can. There is always a way. If you can't fail it, then you got something good. You don't need market research. You don't need the assurance the idea will work. Just test the hypothesis.
What about testing the non-critical hypotheses? You'll get to them. Failing those doesn't mean the idea should be thrown out, only that you need to adjust the idea to take your new knowledge into account.
That's it, really†. I'm using this process to build my own business, and it's working out extremely well. I've thrown out tons of bad ideas and got some great traction on the good ones. The scientific discipline to testing the ideas is the key.
†I lied. There's one more step: keep track of your critical hypotheses - that's your business intelligence. You can use them to validate future ideas.
Perhaps I should have replied to the grandparent comment :-)
I was reacting to this part: "Larger ideas usually end up being tried through force or by going behind somebody's back, and that's probably how it'll stay."
My impression was that you appeared to believe this is the only way to do things. I was hoping to suggest that it doesn't have to be. Re-reading your post again, I see better what you're trying to say.
I think there are some ideas that cannot be broken down and you really do have to be reckless to try them - they deserved a mention because otherwise my comment was too general. They're dangerous but they're also important for progress.
Look, You're close. I think the process of trying out ideas is poorly understood by most people, and based on the way you wrote this, even yourself. You touched on it a bit - "distilling ideas into something that can be tried without much investment". That's the gem.
This is what you're supposed to do with an idea:
* Identify the hypotheses that make it work.
* Identify which hypothesis is the most critical one - if that one fails, then you know the idea isn't going to work. It's fair to say that an idea depends on 2 or more hypotheses - the key here is to identify the critical ones.
* Finally, figure out how to fail each critical hypothesis as fast (and as cheap) as you can. There is always a way. If you can't fail it, then you got something good. You don't need market research. You don't need the assurance the idea will work. Just test the hypothesis.
What about testing the non-critical hypotheses? You'll get to them. Failing those doesn't mean the idea should be thrown out, only that you need to adjust the idea to take your new knowledge into account.
That's it, really†. I'm using this process to build my own business, and it's working out extremely well. I've thrown out tons of bad ideas and got some great traction on the good ones. The scientific discipline to testing the ideas is the key.
†I lied. There's one more step: keep track of your critical hypotheses - that's your business intelligence. You can use them to validate future ideas.
(edit: formatting)