6 ms·

As with any term that becomes a "buzzword" (e.g., DevOps, Lean, Agile), the definition of MVP definitely gets muddled and everyone has their own take on it. I c

As with any term that becomes a "buzzword" (e.g., DevOps, Lean, Agile), the definition of MVP definitely gets muddled and everyone has their own take on it. I could replace the term with "how to build products by repeatedly identifying your riskiest assumptions and building the smallest possible experiment to test them", but I think "MVP" is a bit easier to read. > This article is more about "how to find out what an MVP might be". This sounds a bit tautological. An MVP is the smallest possible experiment to test your assumptions. To find out what that experiment should be, you have to do an experiment to test assumptions... Also, one of the key ideas in the article is this is not something you do once to build a single MVP. It's a process you use over and over again to develop every aspect of your business, including the product, marketing strategy, software architecture, etc. For example, to build a large software system, you don't write 100,000 lines of code, then hit compile, and hope it works. Instead, you do it incrementally. Write a few lines of code, test them, make sure they work; write a few more lines of code, test them, make sure they work, and so on. Or to quote John Gall, "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked." > Adding an extra feature nobody needs means you've not built a minimum product. This reminds me of the No true Scotsman fallacy [1]. "No MVP should have unnecessary features." "But that successful company's MVP had all sorts of unnecessary features." "Yes, but no true MVP should have unnecessary features." This sort of critique isn't wrong, but it's not useful. How do you figure out which features are necessary and which ones aren't? The best way I've found to do that is to pick your riskiest assumption and to test it. And to do that over and over again, incrementally building up your product as you go. If you don't like the term MVP for that, I suppose that's fair, but then please suggest a better term to replace it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

IanCal 11y ago
> the definition of MVP definitely gets muddled and everyone has their own take on it. I'm quite surprised by this, since to me there's little to disagree about. A "minimum viable product" seems like a very simple description to me. > An MVP is the smallest possible experiment to test your assumptions. I'm not sure where this is coming from, unless what you get out of it is a viable product, how is it an MVP? I'm not saying you shouldn't experiment, or that you shouldn't build small things and try them out, but I see no reason to keep referring to something as a minimum viable product when it meets none of the three words. > This reminds me of the No true Scotsman fallacy [1]. Again, I'm not really sure why what I've said seems so odd. If it's not the smallest viable product then how is it a minimum viable product? If it's not a viable product, again, it's not an MVP. This is more like reading an article that says "A Scotsman doesn't need to be Scottish or even a person". > This sort of critique isn't wrong, but it's not useful. I feel it is, since I think the concept of an MVP is pretty important because at the end of it you have a viable product. If people are going to use the term MVP to describe proofs of concepts and mockups and a general process, then what term do you suggest should replace it for actually describing minimum viable products?
- brikis98 11y ago
  > I'm quite surprised by this, since to me there's little to disagree about. A "minimum viable product" seems like a very simple description to me. I've found a lot of confusion about the term. Just a few of the many examples I've read: https://hbr.org/2013/09/building-a-minimum-viable-prod/ https://hbr.org/2013/09/building-a-minimum-viable-prod/, http://tynerblain.com/blog/2012/09/11/why-do-products-fail-incomplete-solutions/ http://tynerblain.com/blog/2012/09/11/why-do-products-fail-i..., http://paulkortman.com/2012/11/21/the-problem-with-a-lean-startup-the-minimum-viable-product/ http://paulkortman.com/2012/11/21/the-problem-with-a-lean-st..., https://medium.com/@maxdunn/when-the-minimum-viable-product-is-not-enough-308d8f009b13#.w8u3gudqg https://medium.com/@maxdunn/when-the-minimum-viable-product-..., http://www.romanpichler.com/blog/minimum-viable-product-and-minimal-marketable-product/ http://www.romanpichler.com/blog/minimum-viable-product-and-..., http://www.svpg.com/minimum-viable-product http://www.svpg.com/minimum-viable-product, http://andrewchen.co/minimum-desirable-product/ http://andrewchen.co/minimum-desirable-product/, http://www.startupblender.com/minimum-viable-product-vs-minimum-delightful-product/ http://www.startupblender.com/minimum-viable-product-vs-mini..., http://blog.invisionapp.com/minimum-viable-product-mutants/ http://blog.invisionapp.com/minimum-viable-product-mutants/, https://validately.com/leancustomerresearch/death-minimal-viable-product/ https://validately.com/leancustomerresearch/death-minimal-vi.... Note how many of the articles above try to redefine the phrase to reduce confusion, such as "Minimum Delightful Product" or "Minimum Marketable Product." There is confusion about every part of MVP: what "minimum" means, what "viable" means, and what "product" means. > If it's not the smallest viable product then how is it a minimum viable product? If it's not a viable product, again, it's not an MVP. How do you do know if it's "smallest" or "viable"? Walk me through your process. > If people are going to use the term MVP to describe proofs of concepts and mockups and a general process, then what term do you suggest should replace it for actually describing minimum viable products? Based on the massive confusion around the term MVP, as you can see in the articles I linked above, I think it's fair to say that you need more than an acronym to understand what to do. That's why I tried to define it as a process. Will that fix all the confusion in the world? Of course not. But I hope that focusing on a mindset instead of a product will help at least a little bit.
  - paulddraper 11y ago
ScottBurson 11y ago
> An MVP is the smallest possible experiment to test your assumptions. This is the point that IanCal and I are disagreeing with. An experiment should be called an experiment. What you get after you've done enough experiments to validate your assumptions is an MVP. Maybe we need the abbreviation "MVPA" for "MVP Attempt".

IanCal 11y ago

> the definition of MVP definitely gets muddled and everyone has their own take on it. I'm quite surprised by this, since to me there's little to disagree about. A "minimum viable product" seems like a very simple description to me. > An MVP is the smallest possible experiment to test your assumptions. I'm not sure where this is coming from, unless what you get out of it is a viable product, how is it an MVP? I'm not saying you shouldn't experiment, or that you shouldn't build small things and try them out, but I see no reason to keep referring to something as a minimum viable product when it meets none of the three words. > This reminds me of the No true Scotsman fallacy [1]. Again, I'm not really sure why what I've said seems so odd. If it's not the smallest viable product then how is it a minimum viable product? If it's not a viable product, again, it's not an MVP. This is more like reading an article that says "A Scotsman doesn't need to be Scottish or even a person". > This sort of critique isn't wrong, but it's not useful. I feel it is, since I think the concept of an MVP is pretty important because at the end of it you have a viable product. If people are going to use the term MVP to describe proofs of concepts and mockups and a general process, then what term do you suggest should replace it for actually describing minimum viable products?

brikis98 11y ago
> I'm quite surprised by this, since to me there's little to disagree about. A "minimum viable product" seems like a very simple description to me. I've found a lot of confusion about the term. Just a few of the many examples I've read: https://hbr.org/2013/09/building-a-minimum-viable-prod/ https://hbr.org/2013/09/building-a-minimum-viable-prod/, http://tynerblain.com/blog/2012/09/11/why-do-products-fail-incomplete-solutions/ http://tynerblain.com/blog/2012/09/11/why-do-products-fail-i..., http://paulkortman.com/2012/11/21/the-problem-with-a-lean-startup-the-minimum-viable-product/ http://paulkortman.com/2012/11/21/the-problem-with-a-lean-st..., https://medium.com/@maxdunn/when-the-minimum-viable-product-is-not-enough-308d8f009b13#.w8u3gudqg https://medium.com/@maxdunn/when-the-minimum-viable-product-..., http://www.romanpichler.com/blog/minimum-viable-product-and-minimal-marketable-product/ http://www.romanpichler.com/blog/minimum-viable-product-and-..., http://www.svpg.com/minimum-viable-product http://www.svpg.com/minimum-viable-product, http://andrewchen.co/minimum-desirable-product/ http://andrewchen.co/minimum-desirable-product/, http://www.startupblender.com/minimum-viable-product-vs-minimum-delightful-product/ http://www.startupblender.com/minimum-viable-product-vs-mini..., http://blog.invisionapp.com/minimum-viable-product-mutants/ http://blog.invisionapp.com/minimum-viable-product-mutants/, https://validately.com/leancustomerresearch/death-minimal-viable-product/ https://validately.com/leancustomerresearch/death-minimal-vi.... Note how many of the articles above try to redefine the phrase to reduce confusion, such as "Minimum Delightful Product" or "Minimum Marketable Product." There is confusion about every part of MVP: what "minimum" means, what "viable" means, and what "product" means. > If it's not the smallest viable product then how is it a minimum viable product? If it's not a viable product, again, it's not an MVP. How do you do know if it's "smallest" or "viable"? Walk me through your process. > If people are going to use the term MVP to describe proofs of concepts and mockups and a general process, then what term do you suggest should replace it for actually describing minimum viable products? Based on the massive confusion around the term MVP, as you can see in the articles I linked above, I think it's fair to say that you need more than an acronym to understand what to do. That's why I tried to define it as a process. Will that fix all the confusion in the world? Of course not. But I hope that focusing on a mindset instead of a product will help at least a little bit.
- paulddraper 11y ago

ScottBurson 11y ago

> An MVP is the smallest possible experiment to test your assumptions. This is the point that IanCal and I are disagreeing with. An experiment should be called an experiment. What you get after you've done enough experiments to validate your assumptions is an MVP. Maybe we need the abbreviation "MVPA" for "MVP Attempt".