While I don't think that 12 (or 30, or 100) is worth shooting for specifically, there is a sense that "billion dollar startups" aren't going to happen if they require resources that cannot be effectively provisioned and scaled.<p>People are <i>exactly</i> that kind of resource, and thus hiring should be on the radar as one of the things you optimize when designing your business model.<p>One of the main reasons my current startup sells exclusively through VARs is because there's <i>no way</i> we could possibly scale out our support organization as fast as our SaaS product can be adopted by companies, and the product is such that companies will need support.<p>By going through VARs, we solve that problem by first training the VARs to support the product, and then selling to their customers (the VAR getting the support contract).<p>It's way more effective in terms of time, and scales a lot better than the alternative: hiring and training our own support organization, which is ridiculously people-intensive.<p>Without that strategy, our company could only scale out with VC money and a "hiring binge", as the author put it, if at all. By taking the time to see where those scaling challenges would be now, we're able to hack around it and position ourself for growth without needing capital to do so.
> Running a Billion Dollar Startup with Twelve People?<p>A "billion-dollar startup" is a contradiction in terms, like a "newborn self-made millionaire". It's a classic of overhyping and wishful thinking. Especially in view of the fact that the majority of startups fail.
The first two bullet points are basically the same one, and not a panacea. Outsourcing still requires management. These people aren't your employees, but they're still working for you. You've essentially outsourced the HR administration along with the design work / translation work / usability testing / whatever. You're still paying for it.<p>A lower employee headcount is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It would be nice if the article could clarify what the net advantages are, rather than the gross advantages.