Do MVPs Fail Us?

The Minimum Viable Product (MVP) has been a cornerstone of startup methodology for over a decade, promising a way to validate ideas quickly and efficiently. But as markets evolve and customer expectations soar, a question emerges: Does the MVP way of thinking fail us?

This question isn’t about abandoning the MVP concept entirely, but rather examining its limitations and exploring how we can evolve our approach to product development. In an era where user experience is crucial and switching costs can be significant, the traditional MVP may fall short in several critical areas:

1. It often prioritises speed over adoptability
2. It may not adequately address market fit beyond early adopters
3. It can overlook crucial adoption barriers in favour of basic functionality

As we delve into this exploration, we’ll challenge the conventional wisdom surrounding MVPs and propose a more holistic framework that addresses these shortcomings. By expanding our understanding of what “minimum” and “viable” truly mean in today’s market context, we can develop products that not only validate ideas but also pave the way for widespread adoption and long-term success.

Are there MVP alternatives?

While the traditional MVP approach has been valuable, it’s crucial to expand our thinking to encompass a more comprehensive framework that addresses both product viability and market adoption.

1. Minimum Viable Outcome (MVO)

Focus on desired business and customer outcomes, setting specific, measurable, and time-bound objectives that align with overall business strategy and market needs.

Airbnb’s MVO

When Airbnb started, their MVO wasn’t just to create a platform for home-sharing. They focused on the specific outcome of making it easy and trustworthy for people to rent out their spare rooms. This outcome-focused approach led them to implement features like host and guest profiles, reviews, and a secure payment system. By concentrating on this core outcome, Airbnb was able to build trust in their platform and drive adoption in a market where the idea of staying in a stranger’s home was novel and potentially risky.

2. Minimum Viable Data (MVD)

Identify essential metrics for decision-making and AI model requirements, balancing data needs with privacy and security concerns. Include metrics that measure not just usage, but actual adoption and replacement of existing solutions.

Netflix’s MVD strategy

Netflix’s transition from DVD rentals to streaming required a careful MVD approach. They needed to gather enough data to inform their streaming strategy without compromising user privacy or overwhelming their systems. Netflix focused on collecting viewing habits, user ratings, and completion rates. This MVD approach allowed them to develop their recommendation algorithm, which became a key driver of user engagement and retention. By focusing on these essential data points, Netflix was able to personalise content suggestions, leading to increased user satisfaction and platform stickiness.

3. Minimum Viable Output (MVOU)

Deliver tangible artefacts that support both MVP and MVO, fostering collaboration across teams and enabling iterative improvement based on feedback. Ensure these outputs address key adoption barriers.

Spotify’s MVOU

When Spotify entered the music streaming market, they faced significant competition from established players like iTunes. Their MVOU strategy focused on delivering a seamless, fast, and legal way to access a vast music library. They started with a desktop application that emphasised speed and ease of use. This tangible output allowed users to experience the core value proposition immediately – instant access to millions of songs without the need to purchase individual tracks. By focusing on this key output, Spotify was able to overcome adoption barriers related to the perceived complexity and cost of digital music consumption.

4. Minimum Viable Segment (MVS)

Identify and focus on a specific customer segment that is most likely to adopt your product early and provide valuable feedback for iteration.

Slack’s MVS approach

Slack initially targeted tech-savvy teams, particularly developers, as their minimum viable segment. This group was more likely to adopt new communication tools and provide detailed feedback. By focusing on this segment, Slack was able to refine its product based on the needs of power users, which ultimately made it more robust and feature-rich for a broader market. This MVS strategy allowed Slack to build a strong foundation of enthusiastic users who became advocates for the platform, driving wider adoption.

5. Minimum Viable Adoption (MVA)

Consider the minimum features and value required to overcome adoption barriers such as switching costs and sunk investments in existing solutions. This concept integrates aspects of the Net Adoption Threshold (NAT) framework.

Zoom’s MVA strategy

When Zoom entered the video conferencing market, they faced established competitors like Skype and GoToMeeting. Zoom’s MVA strategy focused on simplifying the user experience to reduce adoption barriers. They made it possible to join a meeting with just one click, without requiring software downloads or complex setup processes. This approach directly addressed the switching costs associated with adopting a new video conferencing tool. By minimising these barriers, Zoom was able to achieve rapid adoption, even in a crowded market.

6. Minimum Viable Experience (MVE)

Design the core user experience that delivers the essential value of your product while ensuring it’s intuitive and engaging enough to drive continued use and adoption.

Duolingo’s MVE approach

Duolingo’s initial MVE focused on making language learning feel like a game. They distilled complex language learning concepts into bite-sized, engaging lessons that users could complete in just a few minutes. This gamified experience was crucial in overcoming the perceived difficulty and time commitment associated with learning a new language. By creating an MVE that was both educational and entertaining, Duolingo was able to keep users engaged and coming back, driving long-term adoption and habit formation.

While these six approaches—MVO, MVD, MVOU, MVS, MVA, and MVE—offer distinct perspectives on product development and market entry strategies, it’s important to recognize that there is often significant overlap between them. For instance:

1. Airbnb’s focus on trust-building (MVO) directly informed their data collection strategy (MVD) and user experience design (MVE).
2. Slack’s choice of initial target audience (MVS) influenced both the core features they developed (MVOU) and the adoption barriers they needed to overcome (MVA).
3. Zoom’s emphasis on reducing adoption friction (MVA) was intrinsically linked to their user experience design (MVE) and the outcomes they prioritized (MVO).

This interconnectedness highlights the complexity of choosing the right approach—or combination of approaches—for your specific product and market context. Factors such as:

• Industry dynamics and competitive landscape
• Target audience characteristics and preferences
• Available resources and technological capabilities
• Regulatory environment and data privacy considerations

All play crucial roles in determining which MVP strategy (or strategies) will be most effective.

Given these complexities, deciding on the optimal approach often requires careful reflection, market analysis, and sometimes external expertise. It’s not uncommon for companies to struggle with identifying the most suitable MVP strategy for their unique situation.

If you find yourself grappling with these decisions or seeking to optimize your product development and go-to-market strategy, consider some assistance.

Redefining “Minimum” in Product Development

When we talk about “minimum” in the context of MVP or its variants, it’s crucial to consider the following factors:

Organisational Resources

The “minimum” should be defined in relation to the organisation’s available resources, including budget, personnel, and technological capabilities. It’s about maximising value creation within existing constraints while ensuring the product can cross the adoption threshold.

Timeline

“Minimum” should be contextualised within the project timeline and market demands. It’s not just about speed, but about delivering the right value at the right time to drive adoption.

User and Market Expectations

The “minimum” should meet or exceed the baseline expectations of your target users and market. In mature markets, this baseline may be higher than in emerging ones. Consider not just feature expectations, but also the value required to overcome inertia and drive adoption.

The Power of Focus: When Traditional MVPs Thrive

While we advocate for a more holistic approach, it’s important to note that traditional MVPs can still succeed when they adhere to a philosophy of excelling in one core area. The key is to:

1. Identify a single, critical user need or pain point

2. Develop a focused solution that addresses this need exceptionally well

3. Ensure the solution provides enough value to overcome adoption barriers

4. Iterate rapidly based on user feedback to refine and expand the offering

This approach can be particularly effective for startups or when entering new markets, where establishing a strong foothold with a singular focus can pave the way for future growth and wider adoption.

Aligning everyone and everything

The big question of course is; How do we align the design, development, and deployment approach with Stakeholder dialogue?

The chosen approach to product development should directly inform and shape stakeholder conversations, especially regarding market adoption. This alignment ensures that all decisions and feature requests are evaluated against the established process, goals, and adoption criteria. Here’s how this can work:

1. Clear Communication of Approach: Ensure all stakeholders understand the chosen development methodology and its focus on both viability and adoption.

2. Feature Evaluation Framework: Create a clear framework for evaluating new feature requests based on their contribution to both core value and adoption potential.

3. Stakeholder Education: Educate stakeholders on the benefits of the chosen approach and why considering adoption barriers is crucial for the product’s success.

4. Decision-Making Process: Establish a transparent process for feature decisions that considers both immediate viability and long-term adoption potential.

5. Iterative Feedback Loop: Set up regular check-ins with stakeholders to review progress, gather feedback, and assess adoption metrics.

Evolving Beyond MVP-Centric Thinking

So, do MVPs fail us? If treated as the default tool, yes. If treated as an option to customise to the circumstances of the product’s circumstances, no. The MVP concept has undoubtedly revolutionised product development, enabling countless startups to test ideas and iterate quickly. However, in its traditional form, it often falls short of addressing the complex realities of today’s market landscapes.

The failure isn’t in the MVP concept itself, but in our sometimes narrow interpretation and application of it. By expanding our framework to include considerations of market adoption, user experience, and long-term viability, we can evolve the MVP approach to meet the challenges of modern product development.

Special thanks to Polina Zimmerman, Jason Goodman, & Mark Arron Smith, Finnian HaDiep, Guilherme Garcia, D Jonez