Tech Product Lifecycle

While I support pro-European initiatives like Project Europe, Europe does not need more seed capital or more young entrepreneurs. Only 4% of European startups reach 1M€ in ARR, with a significantly higher failure rate for people under 30. A major issue for startups scaling past 10M€ ARR in Europe is market size. The European market is fragmented, with tons of country-specific solutions offering similar feature sets that are never consolidating because no-one can afford to buy the others. Look how many companies based in different countries are solving the exact same problem right now in Spend Management, Procurement, Billing, Treasury, SMB payments... In a VC's mind, increasing the number of companies increases the likelihood of betting on the right one, especially if you capture them early like pre-seed stage funds do. But all it does in reality is creating a gap between offer and demand by artificially increasing offer while demand stays flat. It drives prices low for everyone and makes it hard to find sustained, long-term growth in an already small market. The same happens with quality, I started in tech at 19 and didn't have a good enough understanding of the actual issues to build a good enough product. I've seen it with Spendesk, Pleo, Payhawk, Soldo and others fighting for the same bone while Ramp grew unbothered on a significantly bigger market. Not everyone should be an entrepreneur, we need engineers, designers, sales and marketers for our companies to succeed. If everyone is offered the perspective to become the next Cursor (spoiler, it doesn't happen that often), especially at an age where you're supposed to start getting trained at your job, it removes an incredible pool of talented employees from the market. I actually think Europe needs less, higher quality companies that can cover the whole continent and get big enough to compete with US players. Europeans need to start buying products made in Europe when they're on par with American or Indian ones. European VCs need to understand it takes a long time to build a 100M€ ARR business when you need to expand in 27 different markets. The reason Europe doesn't build companies is unfortunately not that we lack seed stage funding, it's way deeper.

They both have a point.... Europe creates many promising startups, but few global leaders! Every year, we see incredible companies emerge — from product-first players like Lovable, to workflow automation champions like n8n, and many more across climate, fintech, and AI. The starting point looks bright: strong talent, solid products, and communities that believe in them. But the challenge isn’t starting up. It’s scaling up. European startups often face structural hurdles once they move beyond product–market fit: ⚠️ Fragmented markets - 27 languages, regulations, and customer preferences make “going European” as complex as going global. ⚠️ Capital intensity - later-stage funding still lags compared to the U.S., forcing founders to spend more time fundraising than scaling or going to the US (lovable) ⚠️ Risk appetite - culturally, we’re great at building sustainable businesses, but often hesitate to make the bold, global bets that create category leaders. To turn more Lovables and n8ns into global champions, Europe needs to bridge this gap - with more growth capital, harmonized regulations, and ecosystems that reward ambition at scale.

"…you just don’t have people working hard enough to achieve success." I get where Nik (founder of Revolut) is coming from, but I see things a bit differently. Yes, Europeans value work-life balance more than Americans. But does always being on really mean working hard? Or just being…available? 🤔 The real challenges for European startups aren’t about effort—they’re about structural hurdles. Here’s what’s actually slowing things down: 🚧 1. Regulatory Maze – Founding a company in Europe is still a bureaucratic nightmare (especially in Germany). Now, try scaling across countries with different tax and labor laws. It's like playing startup hard mode. ⚖️ 2. Labor Laws – Many EU countries (Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands) have super employee-friendly laws. Great for stability, but tough for startups that need agility. In early-stage companies, things change fast - if hiring is easy, but restructuring is near-impossible, that’s a real problem. 🌍 3. Cultural Barriers – Selling from Germany into France? Tricky. Scaling across Europe? Challenging. While the U.S. has one massive market, European startups navigate fragmented, risk-averse buying cultures. Convincing customers to take a bet on a new player is often an uphill battle. So, are European startups just chilling too much? Or are they grinding through a whole different set of challenges? Maybe if we tackled these issues, I could finally spend more time on LinkedIn! What do you think? 💬👇 #Startups #Entrepreneurship #Europe #Growth #Innovation

🌍 Scaling Deep Tech in Europe 🇪🇺 Europe’s deep tech moment is now — but scaling it takes more than just great inventions. This bold report reveals what’s holding us back: 🧠 A fragmented talent ecosystem struggling to retain the best minds 💸 Funding gaps, especially at the growth stage (only 14% of EU deep tech companies reach Series C) ⚖️ Risk-averse investors and policymakers who talk innovation but fear uncertainty 🌐 Weak connections between research, industry, and venture capital But it’s not all doom and gloom. The report sets out a real execution plan for Europe to lead in AI, quantum, robotics, semiconductors, and next-gen materials. That includes: 🔧 A call to create 1,000 scaleups across 10 years 👥 Building a talent flywheel through global hiring and EU-wide mobility 🏦 Plugging the Series B & C financing gap with sovereign funds and institutional capital 📈 Creating scale-up-focused innovation policies — not just R&D ones ⚙️ Whether you're a founder, investor, or policymaker, this is your playbook to put Europe in the deep tech driver's seat. We don't need more slide decks. We need execution. And this report shows exactly how to do it. Respect to the European champions behind the Deep Tech Network. 💡 Let’s move from potential to power. #DeepTech #ScalingEurope #InnovationPolicy #AI #Quantum #OGApproved #EuropeanTech #StartupEcosystem #ExecutionMatters

🌍 🇪🇺 🎤 It's much harder to sell genAI software to teams in Europe as compared to their US counterparts. We recently started scaling into Europe and here's what we're learning. We'd love to hear what other folks have found! 1) Regulations: GDPR compliance is tablestakes: Too many US-focused companies over-index on SOC2 but aren't as stringent on GDPR or cookie consent banners 2) Multi-language: Winning in Europe means having French, Spanish, German and other languages in your platform (in addition to English) 3) Regional budgets: Most central enablement budgets come from HQ (often in the US, especially for tech companies). Selling into regional teams isn’t enough, you need buy-in from the central org. Multithread! 4) Rethink your GTM and product: Most importantly, you can't simply retrofit a product built for one market and sell it into another. It requires a completely different GTM, a nuanced understanding of the market, and research into user behavior from the ground up!

Mario Draghi’s report delivers a sounding alarm and a stinging slap on EU competitiveness. #VW is the old man of Europe, #ASML maybe in the same spot in a decade and saddest part is indeed there are no startups that grew in the past decade, neither there seem to be any that ma become 1Bn, 10Bn companies. This is most troublesome to us all , to be honest 😓 Here are a few highlights of the report - #GDPGap: A significant GDP gap has emerged between the EU and the US, largely due to a slower productivity growth in Europe. - #LivingStandards: Since 2000, real disposable income per capita has grown almost twice as much in the US as in the EU. - #Innovation #Gap: The EU lags behind the US and China in innovation, particularly in advanced technologies. - #Industrial #Structure: Europe is stuck in a static industrial structure, with few new companies rising to disrupt existing industries or create new growth engines. - #MarketCapitalization: No EU company with a market capitalization over EUR 100 billion has been created from scratch in the last 50 years, while all six US companies valued over EUR 1 trillion have been established within this timeframe. - #Academic #Excellence: The EU has only three research institutions ranked among the top 50 globally based on top academic science journal publications, compared to 21 in the US and 15 in China. - #Regulatory #Barriers: Complex and fragmented regulatory systems in the EU hinder tech sector growth, especially for young companies. Regulatory barriers include: - #IPRs Filing: Discouraging inventors from filing Intellectual Property Rights due to costly and complex procedures. - #Precautionary Approach to #AI: The EU's regulatory stance often imposes preemptive restrictions that hamper innovation, such as the AI Act's additional requirements on high-powered AI models. - #Fragmentation: Heterogeneous requirements and national regulations make it difficult for digital companies to operate across the EU, leading to high compliance costs. - #Data Constraints: Limitations on data storage and processing increase compliance costs and hinder AI model training, putting EU companies at a disadvantage compared to the US and China. - #Competition and #Cooperation:EU competition enforcement may inhibit cooperation within industries, further stifling growth. - #Public #Procurement Rules:Different national rules in public procurement create ongoing costs for cloud providers, benefiting larger, often non-EU-based companies. This report underscores the pressing need for the EU to close these gaps and address the structural issues holding back its competitiveness.

How to Write UAT Test Cases (for Business Analysts) I remember when I was a junior BA - the idea of UAT scared me. I didn’t want to admit I didn’t know where to start... So I stayed quiet and tried to figure it out on my own. Turns out, I’d built it up to be more complicated than it really is. Here’s what I learned: As a BA, your role in User Acceptance Testing (UAT) is to ensure the solution actually meets the business need… not just that it functions. To do that effectively, you need a structured approach to writing UAT test cases. Here's how I do it: 1️⃣ Start with the Requirement → Begin with a single requirement or user story. → Each requirement must be tested, and depending on how many acceptance criteria it has, you may need multiple test cases. (Think: What is the business expecting from this requirement?) 2️⃣ Review the Acceptance Criteria → Acceptance criteria define the boundary of success for a requirement. → They help you understand what “good” looks like from the business’s perspective. (Use these criteria as your guideposts for what to test) 3️⃣ Develop Test Cases Based on the Acceptance Criteria → Each acceptance criterion should translate into at least one test case. → Some may need both a positive (happy path) and negative (error or edge case) scenario. (If a criterion says “User must receive a confirmation email,” test both a valid scenario and one where the email fails) 4️⃣ Complete the UAT Template for Each Test Case → For each test case, fill in these fields: ☑ Test Description – A clear statement of what’s being tested e.g. “Test password reset email is triggered for valid email addresses” ☑ Preconditions – Any setup required before testing e.g. “User is logged out and on the login page” ☑ Test Steps – Step-by-step actions for the tester to perform e.g. Click “Forgot Password”, enter email, submit form ☑ Expected Result – What should happen if the system works correctly e.g. “User receives reset email within 2 minutes” (TIP: Keep the language business-friendly so anyone can run the test) 5️⃣ Repeat for Each Requirement → Once you've completed the test cases for one requirement, move to the next and repeat the process. → This ensures full coverage and traceability back to each business objective. 6️⃣ Review with Business Stakeholders → Once your test cases are drafted, share them with your business SMEs or stakeholders. (This step is critical - their feedback confirms that you’re testing what really matters to them) 7️⃣ Prepare for Execution → After validation, the test cases are ready to be run. → Depending on your project, UAT may be carried out by business users, or you may help execute or facilitate it as a BA. 📩 Want a copy of my UAT test case template? → Send me a message and I’ll be happy to share it with you 😊 Found this interesting? Repost to your network, and follow me → Matthew Thomas Holliday #BusinessAnalysis #UAT #BAskills #BAmethods #UATtemplate

France’s decision to replace Palantir within its domestic intelligence service should not be viewed as a debate about a single company. It is part of a broader European discussion about digital sovereignty, strategic dependencies and the role of foreign technology in sensitive government functions. According to Politico and Reuters, France’s DGSI will gradually transition from Palantir’s platforms to solutions developed by French company ChapsVision. The process is expected to take several years to avoid operational disruption, but the political message is clear: France wants to reduce reliance on foreign technology providers in critical national security functions. (Reuters) France is not alone. Germany recently selected a European alternative over Palantir, while Switzerland has repeatedly declined to adopt the company’s platforms due to concerns related to data sovereignty, legal exposure and strategic dependency. (amp.dw.com) The underlying issue extends far beyond where data is stored. Discussions around sovereign cloud, data localisation and European hosting often focus heavily on data residency. In practice, data is only one part of the equation. The more difficult questions concern who controls the underlying platform, who determines product roadmaps, how algorithms operate, how dependencies evolve over time and what happens if political priorities, export controls or access conditions change. Advanced analytics and AI platforms are not passive infrastructure. They influence workflows, shape decision-making processes, define integration architectures and create long-term dependencies through proprietary models, APIs and operational practices. As organisations become more dependent on these platforms, switching costs increase and strategic flexibility decreases. This does not mean European governments should avoid working with foreign providers. In many cases, they will continue to play an important role. However, organisations operating in defence, intelligence, critical infrastructure and public administration need to understand that technological choices increasingly have geopolitical consequences. The challenge is therefore not simply selecting the most capable platform today. It is ensuring that capabilities remain available, interoperable and under appropriate control tomorrow. The broader lesson is familiar. Europe has already had similar debates around cloud computing, semiconductors, telecommunications and critical digital infrastructure. AI and data platforms are becoming the next chapter in the same story. Politico: https://lnkd.in/dpTn-S-7 #DigitalSovereignty #ArtificialIntelligence #EuropeanSecurity #DefenceInnovation

One of the most misunderstood responsibilities of a Business Analyst is writing User Acceptance Testing (UAT) test cases. Many BAs either avoid it or get too technical. But remember—UAT is about validating that the solution meets the business needs, not system-level defects. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰: 💡 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩-𝐛𝐲-𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐔𝐀𝐓 𝐓𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬: 1️⃣ Start with a Business Requirement ➤ Pick one requirement or user story. e.g., “As a user, I want to view my transaction history for the past 6 months.” 2️⃣ Understand the Acceptance Criteria ➤ Break it down into what “success” looks like. e.g., Transactions are listed, date range filter works, amounts are accurate. 3️⃣ Define Test Case Components ➤ Test Case ID: UAT-001 ➤ Test Scenario: View transaction history ➤ Test Steps: Login Navigate to 'Transactions' Select 6-month range Click “View” ➤ Expected Result: List of all transactions within date range appears accurately ➤ Actual Result: [To be filled during testing] ➤ Status: Pass/Fail ➤ Comments: [For notes or issues] 4️⃣ Use Business Language ➤ Keep it simple and clear so business users can easily execute it. 5️⃣ Organize in a UAT Template ➤ Use Excel, Google Sheets, or tools like Azure DevOps, Jira with Xray, or TestRail. 🚫 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐁𝐀𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐃𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐔𝐀𝐓: ❌ Writing technical or backend-level test cases (that’s QA’s job) ❌ Not mapping test cases to specific requirements (loses traceability) ❌ Not involving business users early in reviewing test scenarios ❌ Overcomplicating test steps with jargon ❌ Skipping edge cases and negative flows ❌ Assuming UAT is just “happy path” testing ❌ Not validating the test data ahead of time ❌ Forgetting to include Post Conditions or what happens next ✅ 𝐏𝐫𝐨 𝐓𝐢𝐩: As a BA, your goal is not just to check if the system works, but to ensure it solves the business problem it was designed for. BA Helpline

Just touched down back in the US after weeks in Europe. Pulse on the state of transformation in Europe right now, consolidated from ~65 meetings across 5 countries: * Transformation is still transformation with a little t in Europe. Transformation with the capital T involving transformation offices and Chief Transformation Officers are largely missing. Initiatives are mostly owned by the different business units without a central governing layer. Titles doing the work vary widely, leading to foggy career paths for transformation leaders and as a result thinning talent pipelines. * A majority of "transformation" is in reality compliance driven changes in disguise, with the EU being the catalyst for process changes and implementing new ways of working to meet regulations. * Huge shift in view on AI from only a couple of years ago. In 2024 the conversation was largely conservative and security focused. Today, there's a real fear of falling behind the US and China, pushing more organizations to move forward more aggressively. And while the US has gone big on personal productivity use cases as level 1 (hello Copilot rollouts), Europe are focusing on immediate workflow application and cross-org processes to a much larger extent. * Frustration with how much regulation is slowing the pace at which they can execute. Work councils, unions, GDPR, labor regulations, and other protections in place come up in almost every meeting. Rarely do the rules stop the progress all together, but they push it to next year, and then the next year, and then the year after that. Which is suffocating when you compete globally. * Execution is decentralized almost by necessity. 27+ countries, 20+ languages, regional leaders who guard their autonomy fiercely. A central team of two can't drive change for thousands of employees across a dozen markets. The ones getting it right are building distributed, localized change champion networks instead of running everything from HQ. * Germany is always last, and everyone plans their initiatives around it. There's a real country pecking order: German works councils can turn a launch into months of validation, France moves faster than people expect, the Nordics are consensus-driven and slow, and smaller markets often demand special treatment incommensurate with their revenue contributions. * The talent doing this work is genuinely world-class. The people leading transformation here operate across cultures, languages and regulatory regimes every single day. That cross-border fluency is a craft their American counterparts struggle to build, and it's a real European advantage when competing and scaling globally. Thank you everyone I met with for great conversations and debates! I'm leaving very excited about the progress and potential for Europe.