When the term “Minimum Viable Product” began surfacing in the early 2000s, it was the verbalization of a working process that most hackers and developers had already been implementing for ages — the notion that the fastest path to market relevance was through finding the shortest path to user validation. Eric Ries, widely credited with popularizing the term, laid out a compelling methodology for determining the minimum viable version of a product needed to be successful, and his Lean Startup principles have become the unofficial backbone of startup culture for the better part of two decades. The rise of dozens of now-infamous tech companies were birthed during this pivotal era and further fueled the rapid adoption of the MVP-mantra. And yet, what began as a direct response to stagnation in corporate innovation by young fledgling upstarts, and a disruption-centric manifesto to counter sluggish bureaucracy, has become (rather ironically) the default approach amongst product strategy teams across corporate America today.
As product innovation continues to be one of the most important priorities in corporate growth strategies, there’s been a noticeable shift in the approach to the minimum viable product — going from a mechanism to test out and validate early concepts with a subset of users, to largely becoming the way companies release new products into the market, often with the mindset of spending as little money as possible with the hopes of gaining as many new customers as possible. Coupled with the continued commoditization of design and technology, it’s no surprise that most companies are using product R&D as more of a marketing strategy than a true engine for innovation. And why not? It’s easier than ever to spin up a new app or website that reaches “feature parity” with a few competitors, add in a “plus one” feature, and skin it with a slick user interface and bam — you’ve got a killer MVP, right?
As we rapidly approach 2020, plenty of smart people have already challenged the relevance of the MVP. Certainly, there’s been a lot of misuses of the core intention, leading to a plethora of examples of “MVP” products that are doomed even before they’re launched. The notion that if you build it, they will come, is clearly mistaken. And while some have called for newer acronyms, like the “Minimum Lovable Product” or “Minimum Testable Prototype,” what we need more than a fancy new term is a better understanding of the core principles that makes a product truly minimum and viable.
Here are three reasons why it’s time to overhaul or evolve your approach to the MVP:
1. The definition of minimum is always evolving.
Nothing has changed more in the last decade than user expectations. Which is why the only opinion that matters is what your users think an acceptable “minimum” product is, not what is technically the most minimum version you can build. If you want to put your MVP in front of any kind of user, you better be clear on what that user’s expectations of a product is. They don’t care if it’s a proof of concept, a beta, an MVP or whatever terms we use in the biz — your users only care if your product solves their problems and meets their needs. And it doesn’t take a product guy to tell you that pretty much every user — whether they’re a foreman tracking orders on a jobsite, a banker running models on a financial portal, or a parent shopping for their kids online — all have astronomically high expectations about the fidelity and ease-of-use of the product experience. In a world where nearly 500 websites are launched per second and a thousand apps are released on the App Store each day, you can be certain that your minimum product is going to be fighting for visibility, let alone viability.
Experience is the new benchmark for minimum expectations.
2. There’s an important distinction between viable and validated.
Viability has always been a highly debated term in the MVP methodology, often overlooked as a given that if there is a budget to build it, of course it’s viable. But again, many product managers take viable to mean merely the “most basic version of a product that can we can launch.” However, when it comes to establishing a true metric for success, a better definition is more like “the version of a product that results in achieving true user validation.”
While minimum should largely be defined by your user’s expectations, viability is a more of a two-way variable. Determining the viability of your MVP requires clear goals for the expected business outcomes, plus a product that will enable users to actually achieve those goals. If you’re trying to launch a new ecommerce website that leads to 20% larger cart sizes, or a new mobile app that helps users save 10% more of their money per year, you’re not only establishing expectations for how the product will function, but also for what actions your users will take with it. This is why most MVPs fail, because the latter half of the equation is often forgotten. Make sure that your MVP is correctly positioned to provide the validation (or disproof) necessary to make it worthwhile. You will achieve this through creating a product driven by a well-informed user experience, a strong visual communication system, and the right product features, all optimized to solicit and encourage the user behavior you want. Remember, the goal of an MVP is not to be the final product, it is merely the first version that is ready (and worth) putting in front of your users. So, make sure that version is created for those users, not from a spreadsheet optimized for feature costs.
Build your MVP for your user’s needs first and you’ll have greater success in achieving your business needs.
3. Value creation is the ultimate metric of success.
You can’t create users, but you can create value for your users. Most companies fail to create any sort of true value for their users, but instead pump out product after product, merely trying to get noticed amongst the sea of noise. The average website today struggles to retain users longer than 15 seconds, and mobile app retention rates after 90 days is less than 30%.
Today, the only metric for proving your product is truly a success is loyalty. Retention is the key ingredient that will turn a short-lived MVP into a long-term market leader, which is why a splashy launch or even wild hockey stick user growth isn’t what you should necessarily be after. Users rarely remain loyal because your product is “like X but a little faster” or because “it’s basically Y but also does Z.” For your product to flourish, it has to own a distinct place in a user’s mind, and you can only earn that spot by creating something that comes to be seen and thought of as irreplaceable.
So how do you create value? Nothing will kill your MVP faster than technical issues, feature inferiority, or a poor experience. But alone, even getting one of those things right isn’t enough. People rarely talk about features unless they aren’t working as advertised. And except for ambitious products utilizing some interesting implementation of AR/VR or the latest trendy app using AI like FaceApp, most users ignore the technical bits. The spec docs for just about every MVP herald promises of being “best in class” and “the new industry standard” — but the reality is, it’s fairly rare these days to leapfrog competition in a meaningful way. Instead, the solution is often more of a thoughtful mix of improved technology and a user-centric experience.
What is it that your product can do for users that is truly worthwhile? What piece of tech, coupled with what sort of innovative user experience, will unlock a bunch of value for your users that they previously haven’t had access to? A careful balance of both of these product strategies will create a successful minimum viable product that gives users something that adds net new value in an unexpected way. These are the MVPs that have the greatest returns on investment, deliver the intended learnings and validation required for strengthening market share, and produce a long-term product roadmap that will position your company as a true industry leader.
Deliver net new value to your users and everything else will take care of itself.
Beyond the MVP: 3 Lessons in Building a Better Product was originally published in accpl on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Powered by WPeMatico
