3 ms·

This was definitely one of the thing that stuck out to me, as I was (still am) learning about this industry, people throwing around the term 'MVP', all with the

This was definitely one of the thing that stuck out to me, as I was (still am) learning about this industry, people throwing around the term 'MVP', all with their own definition and vision of what is an 'MVP' – from wireframe sketches (huh) to static screens. Some even blur it with videos explaining what their product is supposed to do (but no actual product yet). Do MVP really need work? Or is it sufficient as long you determine that there is value in your product via whatever means you choose? Hmm…

whoisvince 15y ago
Thanks everyone for your replies! @justjimmy, as for my understanding of what MVP is — there actually needs to be an actual functioning product... although, Eric himself does mention in his 'Lean Startup book' to products that qualify under the MVP title with just a video (Dropbox) and a Concierge service (don't remember the product)... I do find it weird that he mentions those as qualifying, since they really just validate the business model. One of his (Eric) simplest definitions for a MVP was a product that could easily go through a full cycle in the lean.feedback loop: https://skitch.com/vince.baskerville/gixq3/mvp-feedback-loop https://skitch.com/vince.baskerville/gixq3/mvp-feedback-loop which should/hopefully help distill what customers want & thus actually pay for.
- mindcrime 15y ago
  I do find it weird that he mentions those as qualifying, since they really just validate the business model. Validation is exactly what you're seeking, especially in the earlier phases of the learn startup / customer development process. The whole point is to get validated learning as early as possible, and eliminate waste, where "waste" is "building something nobody wants."
- justjimmy 15y ago
  Maybe we need to separate the two more clearly? It's kinda blurry atm. PoC/MVP is basically boiling down the product to the core and validate if it has value. (Whether it's through an initial working product, wireframe or a video) But the actual working alpha product that a startup put in consumers' hands has to be a non PoS with minimum bugs, as pointed out in the article.
mindcrime 15y ago
A fairly common definition of "MVP" is something along the lines of "The least you can build to get validated learning." Depending on the situation, it's entirely possible what wifeframe sketches might be an early MVP. It's also important to remember that this "lean startup" / "customer development" stuff is meant to be an iterative process. Your MVP today might not be the same as your MVP a month from now, or a year from now. Edit: from Eric Ries himself[1]: First, a definition: the minimum viable product is that version of a new product which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort. [1]: http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/08/minimum-viable-product-guide.html http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/08/minimum-viable-...
- gfodor 15y ago
  The devil is in the details. There is no way to know for sure what level of features or polish is truly going to yield unbiased results. It could be that if you were to add that 11th feature, you'd have hit the sweet spot where the product clicks for the consumer. The catch is that there's really no good way to know if it was the 11th or 12th feature that was necessary for you to get there. If your initial MVP with only 10 features fails, how do you know to plug in the 11th or just throw in the towel on that idea altogether? My biggest beef with the lean startup philosophy is it seems to encourage engineers away from working on deep, hard problems for a long time. It's all too easy to release something basic too early, see it inevitably "fail", and decide to "pivot" based upon this. I feel this is often a symptom of a deeper disease: either not having courage in your convictions or not building something that you could see yourself (or someone you know) using regularly. In short: in creative endeavors it is sometimes healthy to have bias in your views based upon intuition and not direct evidence ("I don't care what the A/B test said, we're going with this idea anyway") because sometimes this intuition can lead you down corners that break you out of local minima up to another plateau.
  - mindcrime 15y ago
    My biggest beef with the lean startup philosophy is it seems to encourage engineers away from working on deep, hard problems for a long time. But it doesn't. If the result of working a deep, hard problem is a solution that the world obviously needs, then the LS methodology does not push doing "MVPs" or whatever. So if you're working on a cure for cancer, or a cheap, clean, renewable energy source, you wouldn't be following this model in the first place. The whole "lean startup" / "customer development" approach is meant for dealing with case of extreme uncertainty, and especially in regards to market/customer knowledge. It's all too easy to release something basic too early, see it inevitably "fail", and decide to "pivot" based upon this. Anybody who does that doesn't understand the Lean Startup approach, and isn't doing it right. Every change isn't a "pivot" and you don't go pivoting at arbitrary points just because of an isolated bit of negative feedback. The idea is to find a market for the original idea, as conceived, and pivot only if a market cannot be found (or created) for that. I feel this is often a symptom of a deeper disease: either not having courage in your convictions or not building something that you could see yourself (or someone you know) using regularly. In short: in creative endeavors it is sometimes healthy to have bias in your views based upon intuition and not direct evidence ("I don't care what the A/B test said, we're going with this idea anyway") because sometimes this intuition can lead you down corners that break you out of local minima up to another plateau. Agreed... there is a place for vision and intuition sometimes. Unfortunately there's no easy way to know when your intuition is actually leading somewhere. It's a battle we all face.

whoisvince 15y ago

Thanks everyone for your replies! @justjimmy, as for my understanding of what MVP is — there actually needs to be an actual functioning product... although, Eric himself does mention in his 'Lean Startup book' to products that qualify under the MVP title with just a video (Dropbox) and a Concierge service (don't remember the product)... I do find it weird that he mentions those as qualifying, since they really just validate the business model. One of his (Eric) simplest definitions for a MVP was a product that could easily go through a full cycle in the lean.feedback loop: https://skitch.com/vince.baskerville/gixq3/mvp-feedback-loop https://skitch.com/vince.baskerville/gixq3/mvp-feedback-loop which should/hopefully help distill what customers want & thus actually pay for.

mindcrime 15y ago
I do find it weird that he mentions those as qualifying, since they really just validate the business model. Validation is exactly what you're seeking, especially in the earlier phases of the learn startup / customer development process. The whole point is to get validated learning as early as possible, and eliminate waste, where "waste" is "building something nobody wants."
justjimmy 15y ago
Maybe we need to separate the two more clearly? It's kinda blurry atm. PoC/MVP is basically boiling down the product to the core and validate if it has value. (Whether it's through an initial working product, wireframe or a video) But the actual working alpha product that a startup put in consumers' hands has to be a non PoS with minimum bugs, as pointed out in the article.

mindcrime 15y ago

A fairly common definition of "MVP" is something along the lines of "The least you can build to get validated learning." Depending on the situation, it's entirely possible what wifeframe sketches might be an early MVP. It's also important to remember that this "lean startup" / "customer development" stuff is meant to be an iterative process. Your MVP today might not be the same as your MVP a month from now, or a year from now. Edit: from Eric Ries himself[1]: First, a definition: the minimum viable product is that version of a new product which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort. [1]: http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/08/minimum-viable-product-guide.html http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/08/minimum-viable-...

gfodor 15y ago
The devil is in the details. There is no way to know for sure what level of features or polish is truly going to yield unbiased results. It could be that if you were to add that 11th feature, you'd have hit the sweet spot where the product clicks for the consumer. The catch is that there's really no good way to know if it was the 11th or 12th feature that was necessary for you to get there. If your initial MVP with only 10 features fails, how do you know to plug in the 11th or just throw in the towel on that idea altogether? My biggest beef with the lean startup philosophy is it seems to encourage engineers away from working on deep, hard problems for a long time. It's all too easy to release something basic too early, see it inevitably "fail", and decide to "pivot" based upon this. I feel this is often a symptom of a deeper disease: either not having courage in your convictions or not building something that you could see yourself (or someone you know) using regularly. In short: in creative endeavors it is sometimes healthy to have bias in your views based upon intuition and not direct evidence ("I don't care what the A/B test said, we're going with this idea anyway") because sometimes this intuition can lead you down corners that break you out of local minima up to another plateau.
- mindcrime 15y ago
  My biggest beef with the lean startup philosophy is it seems to encourage engineers away from working on deep, hard problems for a long time. But it doesn't. If the result of working a deep, hard problem is a solution that the world obviously needs, then the LS methodology does not push doing "MVPs" or whatever. So if you're working on a cure for cancer, or a cheap, clean, renewable energy source, you wouldn't be following this model in the first place. The whole "lean startup" / "customer development" approach is meant for dealing with case of extreme uncertainty, and especially in regards to market/customer knowledge. It's all too easy to release something basic too early, see it inevitably "fail", and decide to "pivot" based upon this. Anybody who does that doesn't understand the Lean Startup approach, and isn't doing it right. Every change isn't a "pivot" and you don't go pivoting at arbitrary points just because of an isolated bit of negative feedback. The idea is to find a market for the original idea, as conceived, and pivot only if a market cannot be found (or created) for that. I feel this is often a symptom of a deeper disease: either not having courage in your convictions or not building something that you could see yourself (or someone you know) using regularly. In short: in creative endeavors it is sometimes healthy to have bias in your views based upon intuition and not direct evidence ("I don't care what the A/B test said, we're going with this idea anyway") because sometimes this intuition can lead you down corners that break you out of local minima up to another plateau. Agreed... there is a place for vision and intuition sometimes. Unfortunately there's no easy way to know when your intuition is actually leading somewhere. It's a battle we all face.