There has been a sort of discussion going on for a while in entrepreneurial circles around whether coming up with ideas is more important or valuable than being able to implement the idea, and vice versa.  For example, If I had the idea for Twitter but had no idea about how to program the site to make it work and therefore hired you, a code wizard, to put the site together for me – which of the two of us had a more valuable role?

The idea people, without the personal ability to implement their idea, often assume an ultra-protective role and act secretively.  Some even require potential independent coding contractors to sign a non-disclosure agreement (perhaps indicating that their idea could be easily implemented and copied by someone with the skills, means, and ability to implement it).  If the ideator is offering the implementor an equity stake in the venture rather than paying outright for the work, there is much to consider.

Take, for example, this recent question excerpt from Startups.com:

Recently a co-worker, seeking me out because I’m respected for my developer chops, sought me out and made a business proposal. First they awkwardly made me sign an NDA, which honestly I found offensive (were they telling me state secrets?), and then they told me their idea for a product that would be delivered as both an iPhone app and a web app.

The idea was neat, but they want to draw up a partnership agreement that puts their stake in the venture at 75%. To deliver this vision, they’ll give some GUI and usability guidance, but I’m going to be the chump busting his back every night and weekend for months to come, so I’m quite unhappy about this.

What do you think?

This situation is, unfortunately, not all that unique.  Things of this nature happen on a regular basis.  At first glance, giving the implementor a 25% stake seems unfair, especially if he is doing all of the work to turn the other guy’s idea into a reality.  On the other hand, the share could end up being very fair.  Perhaps the ideator is not equipped personally to make his idea a reality, but he may have significant sales, marketing, and PR chops that will allow the app to explode exponentially across the web and mobile marketplaces.  In this case, retaining 75% knowing that he has the connections to make sales happen seems like a no-brainer.  So, the real question here is  – where does the balance lie?

As is the case with all partnerships and agreements, it is extremely important to no a fair amount about the person you are going to make a legally binding agreement with – and this goes both ways.  Know about their strengths, weaknesses, what food they like, and their preferred drink.  Read the agreement fully to make sure that you actually agree to the terms before signing it, and then do some major delivering on your side of the deal, and do your best to encourage the other side to do so as well.

If you were in this situation, how would you respond?  What would you look for? How would you suggest dividing up the stake in the company?  Would you (as an implementor) demand payment up-front rather than a stake in a potential success?  I would love to hear some responses/discussion on this issue!

For a few more perspectives on the Ideation vs. Implementation conundrum check out the thread over on Startups.com – and add your perspective there if you like.