4 ms·

Yes, MVP's have relevance, and no it was never the case that you were intended to jump straight into building an MVP as your first step. Everything you spoke ab

Yes, MVP's have relevance, and no it was never the case that you were intended to jump straight into building an MVP as your first step. Everything you spoke about about w/r/t "pre validation" is included already in Steve Blank's "Customer Development" methodology, as laid out in The Four Steps to the Epiphany[1] and/or The Startup Owner's Manual. [1]: which has been around since 2005.

TaniaBell_PD 2y ago
Hi there, I agree that it was never _meant_ to indicate that you jump straight into building an MVP. However, people don't read the small print. Appreciate that a book isn't the proverbial 'small print' but not many founders read The Four Steps, The Startup Owner's Manual, The Lean Startup etc. _before_ they dive into figuring out how to take their idea forward. I speak from experience - I've spoken with a number of founders who focused on building an MVP first and have spent hundreds of thousands in the process without any hope that they'd get their investments back. The idea of MVP makes sense. But the term MVP is unhelpful and is responsible for more value destruction than it's helped create. In fact I see two problems: 1. the phase before the MVP doesn't have a name 2. the term MVP suggests you need a product to validate your idea To address these problems: a. we need a name for the phase that comes before building - Pre-Build in|Validation b. we build a Proven Viable Idea, not an MVP.
- mindcrime 2y ago
  but not many founders read The Four Steps, The Startup Owner's Manual, The Lean Startup etc. _before_ they dive into figuring out how to take their idea forward. Then that is the problem that needs to be solved. The information they need is out there. If they are unaware of it, or choose to ignore it, that is the problem. we need a name for the phase that comes before building - Pre-Build in|Validation I think we have that already. It's called Customer Discovery, and it's the first phase of the Customer Development methodology. I don't think inventing new catch-phrases is really adding anything here, personally.
  - TaniaBell_PD 2y ago
    the thing is, language shapes our thinking, discursive psychology will back me up on this. Pre-Build in|Validation is unambiguous about what needs to happen before we get into building. It doesn't take away from Customer Discovery nor from the Customer Development methodology. it's curious that you're not commenting on the MVP => PVI tho
    - mindcrime 2y ago
      > it's curious that you're not commenting on the MVP => PVI tho I just don't see any value in this new term, TBH. I think more benefit would accrue from spending the energy on encouraging people to read TFSTTE. shrug
      - TaniaBell_PD 2y ago
        fair enough. you're entitled to your opinion. and I to mine. :)

TaniaBell_PD 2y ago

Hi there, I agree that it was never _meant_ to indicate that you jump straight into building an MVP. However, people don't read the small print. Appreciate that a book isn't the proverbial 'small print' but not many founders read The Four Steps, The Startup Owner's Manual, The Lean Startup etc. _before_ they dive into figuring out how to take their idea forward. I speak from experience - I've spoken with a number of founders who focused on building an MVP first and have spent hundreds of thousands in the process without any hope that they'd get their investments back. The idea of MVP makes sense. But the term MVP is unhelpful and is responsible for more value destruction than it's helped create. In fact I see two problems: 1. the phase before the MVP doesn't have a name 2. the term MVP suggests you need a product to validate your idea To address these problems: a. we need a name for the phase that comes before building - Pre-Build in|Validation b. we build a Proven Viable Idea, not an MVP.

mindcrime 2y ago
but not many founders read The Four Steps, The Startup Owner's Manual, The Lean Startup etc. _before_ they dive into figuring out how to take their idea forward. Then that is the problem that needs to be solved. The information they need is out there. If they are unaware of it, or choose to ignore it, that is the problem. we need a name for the phase that comes before building - Pre-Build in|Validation I think we have that already. It's called Customer Discovery, and it's the first phase of the Customer Development methodology. I don't think inventing new catch-phrases is really adding anything here, personally.
- TaniaBell_PD 2y ago
  the thing is, language shapes our thinking, discursive psychology will back me up on this. Pre-Build in|Validation is unambiguous about what needs to happen before we get into building. It doesn't take away from Customer Discovery nor from the Customer Development methodology. it's curious that you're not commenting on the MVP => PVI tho
  - mindcrime 2y ago
    > it's curious that you're not commenting on the MVP => PVI tho I just don't see any value in this new term, TBH. I think more benefit would accrue from spending the energy on encouraging people to read TFSTTE. shrug
    - TaniaBell_PD 2y ago
      fair enough. you're entitled to your opinion. and I to mine. :)