Essays/linkedin/24-09-17 mvp

🔨 Was it a mistake calling it Minimum Viable Product instead of Minimum Viable Prototype? Is it possible that such a small change has a large impact?

Yesterday, I was reading Inspire, by Marty Cagan, and I came across a very direct message: the MVP should be a prototype, not a product.

The message really hit home. I believe I have a good grasp on what an MVP is, and what it's used for. The minimum thing I can build so I can test with customers whether my assumptions were correct, and whether the new features translate to benefits for them. Looking in retrospect, it made me wonder whether I aimed too much for a product and too little for quick validation.

I didn't pay attention to the impact that such a small change in nomenclature could have. Even if it could have been clear in my mind (perhaps), people around would still hear "Product" above all else. A product puts a higher bar on usability and feature completeness, we expect it to be ready for anyone to use. On the other hand, a prototype can be developed much quicker, with fewer resources, and used to test assumptions.

Looking back, I can see precisely the moments when the path deviated from prototype to product, even if inadvertently.

Small decisions kept creeping in: automate the focusing, detect the lid closure to trigger a measurement, and use only one cable.

In the end, none of that was part of our value proposition nor of the features we wanted to test with customers.

Minimum Viable Prototype. It's a small change that can have a large impact. Topics on which I'll keep reflecting, especially for my future discussions with other scipreneurs who are just starting to define what they want to build.