4 ms·

The MVP is dead. Long live the RAT

11 points by acjohnson55 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gooseus 10y ago
Maybe it's too early on Saturday, but I didn't get much out of this but a bunch of new semantics that seem to mean the same thing to me... so what exactly differentiates an MVP from an RAT except for a subjective interpretation about is implied by the terms Minimum Viable Product and Riskiest Assumption Test. I think this article would gain from an illustrative example of an MVP that should have been an RAT and their explicit differences in approach and implementation. The only reference to an actual company/product is to Google with their Google Glass product.. and it just mentions they had a prototype on the first day. What was the RAT that their day 1 prototype was addressing? What did they learn? Pretty sure Google made a bunch of wrong assumptions with Glass... what was the riskiest one they should have tested first?
- kristianc 10y ago
  I'm guessing the Riskiest Assumption with Glass is that people would be willing to wear a cumbersome piece of technology, with a "red light" to say when it was recording on their face in exchange for a HUD. They field tested that idea with a small group of early adopters and found that it wouldn't fly.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  > what exactly differentiates an MVP from an RAT except for a subjective interpretation about is implied by the terms Minimum Viable Product and Riskiest Assumption Test. That's exactly what differentiates them. Although I'm not sure what about language you feel is subjective. I don't think subjective/objective really captures the thing that makes words fuzzy. Words are culture, and so they mean different things in different circles. The cultures are all blended, so when two individuals talk everything is a little soft around the edges. But "minimum" is quite a different word from "riskiest". Minimum implies "what do you think you can get away with presenting to someone" whereas "riskiest" implies you are making an assumption that could sink the ship. I think you'd have a hard time arguing they are so similar as to be functionally equivalent.
tenkabuto 10y ago
This article seems to be more of a critique of what our understanding of what an MVP is has devolved into, and a big neon sign pointing us in the direction of the original idea of an MVP. It's suggesting that an MVP was originally just a test of the assumptions that one has regarding their product, but over time we've tacked on additional requirements for what an MVP is (possibly to just make ourselves more comfortable with the process). RAT seems to be a return to the original idea of questioning the assumptions behind the things we're making, and the name Riskiest Assumption Test is on-the-nose enough that we'd hopefully never forget what it's to be used for. I'm not sure whether the author intended for this or not, but I got from the article the idea that with an MVP, people may be inclined towards testing one too many assumptions at a time, possibly due to their desire to make a product. The author drove home the importance of testing each individual assumption in the most minimal way possible, and I really appreciate this point.

11 points by acjohnson55 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Maybe it's too early on Saturday, but I didn't get much out of this but a bunch of new semantics that seem to mean the same thing to me... so what exactly differentiates an MVP from an RAT except for a subjective interpretation about is implied by the terms Minimum Viable Product and Riskiest Assumption Test. I think this article would gain from an illustrative example of an MVP that should have been an RAT and their explicit differences in approach and implementation. The only reference to an actual company/product is to Google with their Google Glass product.. and it just mentions they had a prototype on the first day. What was the RAT that their day 1 prototype was addressing? What did they learn? Pretty sure Google made a bunch of wrong assumptions with Glass... what was the riskiest one they should have tested first?

kristianc 10y ago
I'm guessing the Riskiest Assumption with Glass is that people would be willing to wear a cumbersome piece of technology, with a "red light" to say when it was recording on their face in exchange for a HUD. They field tested that idea with a small group of early adopters and found that it wouldn't fly.
erikpukinskis 10y ago
> what exactly differentiates an MVP from an RAT except for a subjective interpretation about is implied by the terms Minimum Viable Product and Riskiest Assumption Test. That's exactly what differentiates them. Although I'm not sure what about language you feel is subjective. I don't think subjective/objective really captures the thing that makes words fuzzy. Words are culture, and so they mean different things in different circles. The cultures are all blended, so when two individuals talk everything is a little soft around the edges. But "minimum" is quite a different word from "riskiest". Minimum implies "what do you think you can get away with presenting to someone" whereas "riskiest" implies you are making an assumption that could sink the ship. I think you'd have a hard time arguing they are so similar as to be functionally equivalent.

tenkabuto 10y ago

This article seems to be more of a critique of what our understanding of what an MVP is has devolved into, and a big neon sign pointing us in the direction of the original idea of an MVP. It's suggesting that an MVP was originally just a test of the assumptions that one has regarding their product, but over time we've tacked on additional requirements for what an MVP is (possibly to just make ourselves more comfortable with the process). RAT seems to be a return to the original idea of questioning the assumptions behind the things we're making, and the name Riskiest Assumption Test is on-the-nose enough that we'd hopefully never forget what it's to be used for. I'm not sure whether the author intended for this or not, but I got from the article the idea that with an MVP, people may be inclined towards testing one too many assumptions at a time, possibly due to their desire to make a product. The author drove home the importance of testing each individual assumption in the most minimal way possible, and I really appreciate this point.