Last year I re-read the "Lean Startup" and it blew my mind. I had this HUGE misconception about MVPs, and learned a lot of people misunderstood that concept too. Building an MVP means something other than building the most rough and bare-bone version of a product. It doesn't say startups should build half-assed products to validate hypotheses. The MVP concept says you can build a solution to 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤𝐬 of your business. By today's standards, building an average product often won't derisk anything. It might even invalidate your idea, even if the problem you're trying to solve is real. If the distinction still isn't clear, I've written an entire essay about this. It aims to course-correct the lean startup misinterpretation. And to amplify Eric Ries's initial work! Hope it helps 💜 The essay: https://lnkd.in/eU4CAMnE
I always push customers into a slightly different format, but I agree with what you are saying. - Proof of Concept (PoC): Proof the technology does the basics needed and concept has "teeth" - Proof of Value (PoV): Used to demonstrate a solution's tangible benefits and return on investment by delivering the absolute minimum features to customers to see reactions - Minimal Viable Product (MVP): The absolute minimum on what a customer would pay for and use I think the definition of an MVP gets very muddy and by moving it up stream with a focus on verification per level helps money go farther in more of a positive direction "avoiding" rock licking. But... we do what we can with what we can.
I like to think about it more like "minimum hypothesis test" - i.e. what's the minimal artifact I need to produce to test the most important hypothesis in front of me? That artifact might be a functioning product. Or it might be a marketing website. Or it might a single question you ask a bunch of people you think you're going to sell to. It depends on where you are and what you've already validated or refuted. To me., it emphasizes the iterative nature of going to market, and gets out of the mindset that "I built my MVP and now I'm done". The example in Lean Startup of the demo video for DropBox as an MVP is so illustrative, IMO. Kudos on going back to the well on this book - I keep doing the same as years go by. :)
i like the concept that today's mvp is not enough. minimum lovable product is what market demands. What is an absolute minimum of what people will love?
I’ve heard the term MLP (Minimum Loveable Product) used before, and have started using it too since. Gives you the right to ask - “but is it loveable…” to a dev, and have them add some love to the build 🤭
Enzo I think the Viable part of acronym is often what’s overlooked. For it to be financially viable customers must be willing to pay for it… that might mean only a couple of critical features, but still needs to be fairly polished not half-assed as you put it :)
Brilliant! How many spins of PMF cycle did it take you before you knew that June.so has a great PMF, Enzo Avigo? For most companies it takes 5-7.
Love this part: "Building an MVP means something other than building the most rough and bare-bone version of a product. It doesn't say startups should build half-assed products to validate hypotheses." People so often misunderstand what an MVP is, and invent all kind of names for "the right way of doing it". But in it's essence, an MVP is about minimizing future risk - as you well put it.
MVP in my mind is whatever serves to prove the client's interest or at least reduce the risk linked to the assumption. (something very similar is mentioned in your text). So, in theory an MVP could be a CTA that verifies what percentage of the active user base shows interest for the potential service? In my opinion yes. It might be called something else than MVP but it is certainly a best practice in the innovation process implementation and does fit the definition and serve the purpose of "derisking" or mitigating risks linked to costly implementations.
Thanks for sharing this! Since you said you re-read it, did you understand it to mean the rough, bare bones version the first time? I've not read this book yet btw so I'm asking for your perception out of curiosity ☺️
Data Viz | User-Centric Analytics
1moThe term "MVP" has evoked different types of confusion in me over the years, mainly on account of trying to follow one definition or another :) But if we break it down, I think it comes down to 4 core elements: 1) it validates your value proposition hypothesis, i.e., "this persona has this particular problem, and if I offer this type of solution, it will solve their problems" 2) it is minimal, in that it offers a "thin slice" of the overall user experience. Like a thin slice of cake. Get all the layers, but keep it thin 3) It is viable. The word that commonly precedes "viable" is "financially". So it's got to be financially viable. Which means that customers will pay for this problem to be solved in the way that your solution offers. 4) it is an actual product. May not be in the eventual form factor. But it is a real thing that customers can use to try and solve their problem / need. So I try to stick to these 4 elements while advising people about MVPs or designing MVPs. And this is just the starting point for a real business