No salaries surely qualifies us here. As does a fully stocked server room, nice flatscreens & desktops all for $0 (ie they are all donated big company cast-offs)

Sure, if we only count the "fulltime" folks we almost fit on one hand. Add to that a cloud of hugely gifted part-time contributors and I think we still make the grade.

Two week release cycles are probably not the shortest in the business. But our go-live deadline is surely squeezie enough to qualify

Weeeeelll, we've got wiki documentation and sometimes the mood gets to Scott and out pops a graphviz diagram... but the diagram is created and evolved in the context of writing code. It is not an abstraction that people sign off on, more a tool to visualize the immediate problem space and the desired solution(s). The wiki documentation is there because it's better than napkins ;)

Hmmm... it probably depends how you look at this one. We try to minimise software development by using tools that do the hard work for us, allowing us to focus on our value add. But we're not shy of taking on a lot of development if the vision calls for it.

I don't entirely agree with Jason on this one and I think we fail it by his definition. contrain to stay sane is sage advice. But where's the fun if you can't dive on a golden opportunity even though it is (a) off the beaten track (b) too huge for you to realistically conceive of succeeding and (c) fraught with risk?
If you really do have a "less-is-more competitive advantage", then surely a key way to leverage it is to take huge risks. Risking everything is ok when you've got nothing to begin with. If you succeed... well... then I guess you've got something to loose next time.