A new approach to minimum viable product
humbledmba.com
A new approach to minimum viable product
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: A new approach to minimum viable product
#2I am missing the new approach. Maybe this is an explanation of how you applied lean and MVP principles?
Re: A new approach to minimum viable product
#3A minimum viable product is something that customers can actually use. Something that you can sell, that people are willing to pay money for.
This?
> We did everything possible to not show that we hadn't even started the back-end yet.
Is testing marketing and UI design. Which is great. But it's not an MVP.
Re: A new approach to minimum viable product
#4This isn't MVP (there's no product!), just the beginnings of customer development, no?
Re: A new approach to minimum viable product
#5MVP is one of the many words which has undergone corruption and softened in meaning through people's personal interpretations (Pivot, Startup...other increasingly vague terms).
The approach put forward here is not exactly new - if you read Ash Maurya's Running Lean (http://www.runningleanhq.com) he talks extensively on using a rich landing page (rather than a 'viral' launchrock-style page) to accelerate validated learning. The classic DropBox video example is another piece of classic Lean case material. What these both somewhat lack is the 'P' of MVP. Product.
I'd suggest this is 'practical application of Lean Startup principles' rather than MVP - people tend to talk about 'building their MVP' and that process hasn't begun in this case. Validated learning is critical, and getting a headstart on it in this way is a useful technique, but blurring the distinction of early-stage customer development and the actual MVP doesn't help the discussion. It makes the conversation around desirable qualities of a public MVP somewhat harder.
Re: A new approach to minimum viable product
#6The cicles do not make sense to me. Minumum viable means the result of the lowest effort/functionality that leads to a viable product. Using overlapping circles just does not work at all, I'd say
Using minimal without viable is somewhat strange. If you look at a program: What is minimal? Hello World? No, I can still do "int main(){ }"! But wait, this still does a context switch... IMO it just does not make sense to say something is "minimal" (but not viable). it's better to say there is viable and not viable and within viable thing, you can head for minimal, too.
Re: A new approach to minimum viable product
#7A minimum viable product is something that customers can actually use . Something that you can sell, that people are willing to pay money for. This? > We did everything possible to not show that we hadn't even started the back-end yet. Is testing marketing and UI design. Which is great. But it's not an MVP.
I think this can still be considered an intermediate MVP that can be tested. The goal of lean is to eliminate waste, so there is a risk that an MVP with working code has no demand whatsoever.
One drawback to this approach is that it may give you false negatives. What if you landing page copy doesn't work or your AdWords copy is wrong? As with all lean/custdev hacks ymmv. Bottom line is you need to find customers to talk to, otherwise everything is an assumption.
Some other articles that touch on this approach:
http://startupbound.com/how-i-quickly-test-and-validate-star...
http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2008/11/using-adwords-t...
http://www.cindyalvarez.com/best-practices/customer-developm...
Re: A new approach to minimum viable product
#8I got a new term for this. A fake MVP. Think it's a cool concept, as long as you only fool a couple people (around 10 ~ 50 and not thousands) with it to get some feedback.
Re: A new approach to minimum viable product
#9The cicles do not make sense to me. Minumum viable means the result of the lowest effort/functionality that leads to a viable product. Using overlapping circles just does not work at all, I'd say Using minimal without viable is somewhat strange. If you look at a program: What is minimal? Hello World? No, I can still do "int main(){ }"! But wait, this still does a context switch... IMO it just does not make sense to s…
There is a minimum circle and a viable circle so it would follow that they must both contain products.
So the circle on the left contains minimum (crappy as they indicate) products and the circle on the right contains products that are all viable - some overdone perhaps.
I'm not sure why it wouldn't make sense that something is minimal but not viable. Any product that can't sell because it is too minimal would fit there.
And the intersection that they are showing is in fact what you are describing: viable and within viable, also minimal. In other words, the most minimal of the viable.
Re: A new approach to minimum viable product
#10A minimum viable product is something that customers can actually use . Something that you can sell, that people are willing to pay money for. This? > We did everything possible to not show that we hadn't even started the back-end yet. Is testing marketing and UI design. Which is great. But it's not an MVP.
I think this can still be considered an intermediate MVP that can be tested. The goal of lean is to eliminate waste, so there is a risk that an MVP with working code has no demand whatsoever. One drawback to this approach is that it may give you false negatives. What if you landing page copy doesn't work or your AdWords copy is wrong? As with all lean/custdev hacks ymmv. Bottom line is you need to find customers to t…
i don't disagree that there's value in using this stuff. a lot of value. but doing only this is not an MVP. "P" = product, something you're selling, something people are using.
there should be another name for this. MVI maybe? minimum viable idea?