Why “MVP” Is Confusing
I have struggled with the term minimum viable product (MVP) since the first time I heard it. It’s confusing but alluring, misunderstood yet trendy just the same. At a headline event for Denver Startup Week 2018, Jeff Patton finally broke it down: minimum viable product has two opposite historical meanings (plus a third crappy definition that most people use). And that is why MVP “sucks as a term.”
Minimum viable product is a contronym. As with cleave, fast, and oversight, MVP has two opposing definitions: one depends on profit and the other doesn’t.
Definitions of MVP
Patton offered a history of the term, starting with its coinage by Frank Robinson in 2001 and eventual melding by Eric Ries with concepts of validated learning from Steve Blank.
Frank Robinson
As Robinson first coined the term, MVP is “the smallest product that can achieve its desired market outcomes.” By “product,” he means the release of a product. And by viable, he means it’s successful in the market, e.g., showing a return on investment. This version of MVP has just enough scope so that people will try it: Its goal is to Earn.
You will sometimes find Robinson’s version of MVP called the minimum marketable feature (MMF) or minimum marketable product (MMP).
Eric Ries
Taking what he learned about validated learning from Steve Blank, Ries redefined MVP as “the smallest thing you need to do to test a hypothesis.” This version of MVP has just enough scope so that you can validate your guesses: Its goal is to Learn.
The Common, Crappy Definition
Neither minimal nor viable in its approach, the third and most commonly used definition of MVP is “as much as we can ship on time.” This version of MVP has just enough scope to crush my soul: Its goal is to fool ourselves into thinking we’re making progress.
Reminder: common practice ≠ best practice
Attempts to Reform
Ash Maurya attempts to resolve this definitional contradiction, defining MVP as “the smallest thing you can build that delivers customer value (and as a bonus captures some of that value back).” It evokes Robinson’s original emphasis on ROI while preserving Ries’s looser definition of the product.
Rik Higham completely sidesteps the problematic polysemy of MVP by putting a new frame around validated learning with the RAT (riskiest assumption test): “identify your Riskiest Assumption and Test it.” This emphasizes Steve Blank’s original emphasis on learning.
Jordan Blackman has devised some new terms that capture the original meaning and disambiguate the term MVP: Right-Sized Product (RSP) and Product Validation Test (PVT).
Which one is best?
…understand and be clear about whether your MVP is intended to earn or to learn.
As with most things related to product management, the answer to this question is “it depends.” (C’mon, you knew that was coming!) Products and organizations at different stages have different needs. Jeff Patton rightly points out that Ries’s lean-startup approach is neither lean nor uniquely suited to startups. I gather that Patton’s point is that you need to understand and be clear about whether your MVP is intended to earn or to learn. Either way, your goal is to take the risk out of your endeavors. I will leave you with this Daymond John quote, as told by Patton:
“Real entrepreneurs take affordable risks.”
—Daymond John
If you enjoyed this article, give it the clap. If it was good enough to give the clap, consider sharing it. 😉
