Brain and Hands. Assembling a Rough MVP via Outsourced Talent

Brain and Hands. Assembling a Rough MVP via Outsourced Talent.

A Practical Approach for Deeptech Startups

Introduction: A Realistic Path from Idea to Working Prototype

In the development of complex technological projects, the concept of a "fast MVP" often fails. The gap between a Proof of Concept (PoC) and a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) can become a financial chasm. The strategy of an "early raw MVP" focuses on creating a prototype that is functionally close to an MVP, with acceptable imperfections, at minimal cost. This allows proving project viability before attracting large-scale investment.

Philosophy: Efficiency Over Bureaucracy

This strategy rejects excessive regulation in favor of practical efficiency. The core principle: the Technical Lead is the project's "Brain" — a person who deeply understands the architecture, the problem domain, and can instantly assess implementation quality simply by reviewing the code.

Key Focuses:

    Direct Verification Over Reports: The tech lead reviews source code, not formal status reports.

    Brief Communication: Handover of results takes minutes, not hours of meetings.

    Architectural Integrity Through Personal Control: The founder personally designs and verifies compliance.

    Minimal Formalities: Trust is confirmed by code quality, not a stack of documents.

Practical Implementation: From Decomposition to Integration

Phase 1: Forming a Talent Pool

    Where to Look: Niche technical communities (Unreal Engine Discord, GitHub, specialized forums).

    Selection: Focus on specific technical skills for specific system modules.

    Assessment: Personal interviews to test depth of domain understanding.

Phase 2: Budget and Timeline for a Deeptech Project

Total Budget to Demo: ~$250,000

Budget for First 6 Months: ~$125,000 (for ~5 specialists)

Result in 6 Months: A working demo, functionally close to an MVP.

Acceptable: Minor bugs, sub-optimal performance.

Unacceptable: Architectural violations, broken core scenarios.

Phase 3: The Bureaucracy-Free Development Process

    Decomposition into Minimal Tasks: Each task is for 1-2 weeks with clear completion criteria.

    Distribution by Competency: Matching a specialist precisely to a task.

    Minimalist Workflow:

Assign Task → Execution → Brief Result Handover → Code Review by Lead → Acceptance or Clarifications

    Efficient Communication:

        10-minute handover for completed or intermediate results.

        Tech lead's questions → creation of a clarifying task for fixes.

        No multi-hour meetings—only concrete discussions about the code.

The Technical Lead as the "Project Brain": The Critical Role

In deeptech projects, the technical lead-founder is not a manager but an architect and integrator who:

    Designs the entire system and understands every architectural detail.

    Writes specifications from memory, knowing exactly what and how must be implemented.

    Instantly verifies implementation by analyzing source code.

    Sees architectural alignments and violations without additional documentation.

    Integrates all components personally, ensuring system integrity.

Without such a tech lead, a deeptech project is doomed—it will collapse under the weight of incompetence and poor management.

Risk Management: Technical Control Over Process Control

    Incompetence Risk: Detected within a week via code review, not after months of reporting.

    Architectural Risks: Controlled directly by the tech lead during every code review.

    Scope Creep Risk: Freelancers receive only isolated modules; the overall vision stays with the lead.

    Legal Risks: Simplified, as each contractor works only on a part of the system.

Flexibility as a Key Advantage

    Rapid Adaptation: Receive result → review code → adjust specification → move forward.

    Iterative Refinement: Each completed task clarifies understanding of the next ones.

    Resource Maneuverability: Ability to quickly reassign tasks between specialists.

    Focus on Essence: 95% of time is spent on development, 5% on coordination.

Expected Outcomes and Success Criteria

In 6 months with a $125,000 budget:

    A working technology core demonstrating key innovations.

    Core user scenarios in a functional state.

    An architecturally sound system, ready for refinement into an MVP.

    Verified contractors for key development areas.

    Concrete performance metrics for the technology.

For Attracting Investment:

    Demonstration of a working, complex technology, not just slides.

    Confirmation of architectural scalability through implemented modules.

    Clear, demonstrable technical progress month-over-month.

    A clear, minimal budget requirement for the next phase.

Practical Recommendations for Implementation

Task Management:

    Specifications from the Lead: Freelancers receive clear tasks without ambiguity, from someone who sees the whole system.

    Minimal but Complete Tasks: Each task must have a clear completion criterion.

    Independent Modules: Maximum isolation of components to simplify integration.

Communication:

    Only When Necessary: 10-minute result handovers, questions about the code.

    Written Clarifications Only when discrepancies are found.

    No Status Meetings: Status is visible in the code.

Quality Control:

    Personal Code Review by the Lead: Checking compliance with architecture and specifications.

    Focus on Key Components: Detailed review of critical modules.

    Integration Testing by the Lead: Personally verifying that components work together.

Conclusion: An Efficient Launchpad for Deeptech Projects

This presented strategy is the antithesis of bureaucratic development, created specifically for deeptech startups where:

    The technical lead-founder is the project's brain, without which everything falls apart.

    Resources are limited, but demonstrable progress is needed quickly.

    Technological complexity requires a holistic vision that cannot be distributed among freelancers.

This methodology enables you to:

    Start with $125,000 over six months instead of waiting for major investment.

    Demonstrate monthly progress through working components.

    Maintain architectural integrity through the direct, personal involvement of the tech lead.

    Quickly correct course based on real technical results.

Key Conclusion:

This strategy only works if there is a technical lead-founder who acts as both architect and integrator. Without such a person, attempting to replicate this approach will lead to failure. With such a person, this is the most effective way to move from an idea to a demonstrable prototype with minimal cost and maximum quality control.