Tragedy of the MVP
Speed is the beating heart of modern technology. Whether in San Francisco or Singapore, tech disciples worldwide worship at the font of speed. Speed, as the legend tells, is generated based on a team’s willingness to fail fast. Only by releasing a product far earlier than you might think right will you find product-market fit.
Unfortunately, everything you think you know about why to release a product early and often is probably stale, if not wrong. At one time end-user validation gave companies true competitive advantage over others. But now, with the roll-out of continuous integration/continuous delivery (CI/CD) tools and platforms like Cloud Foundry, it is easy for almost anyone to push new features and start gathering user data in real-time.
This ease of delivery means it’s not just a handful but thousands of companies pushing a continuous stream of features to users. This is the tragedy of the MVP. I argue this speed-first approach must now be revised based on two critical factors. First, distribution channels for technology are narrowing, which means any product you push must be the best it can be to punch though. And, second, any feedback you gather must do more than just follow the numbers.
Ultimately, we could be moving to a point where discipline and strategy may soon trump cavalier and agile.
Approaches Must Evolve
More and more products (especially in mobile) are finding it difficult to generate the kinds of user-centered learnings previously used to find product-market fit. Markets are being suffocated by increasing numbers of products, making it incredibly difficult for new players to punch through the noise.
In the early-2000s, it was revolutionary to think about releasing an untested product to the market simply to generate learnings. And that is exactly what the new age software thinkers did, rallying behind the hacker credo “F#@k it, Ship it.”
During this time, first-mover speed (plus VC funding) proved essential, which Stanford Professor steve blank notes, “…is a great strategy if there’s a bubble occurring in your market or you are going to bet it all on flipping your company for a sale.” But when the market is truly competitive and efficient, this strategy will fail. Just ask yourself how many of the thousands of new apps from last month you downloaded?
So What Is Next?
We cannot throw away the great work which got us to where we are today. The pioneering idea of a minimum viable product (MVP), a product which comprises the least number of features to viably serve a market segment, is as valuable in a highly competitive strategic environment as ever.
So we need to focus on how to make a new approach to MVP. Too many companies and consultancies over-emphasize minimum over viable when defining their product strategy, ultimately leaving all sides underserved. This is the critical flaw in the current approach
Above all else, we should let market dynamics inform the modern definition of an MVP. To punch through, products cannot just be what’s built first. We need to take bets (some of which might be big) that are informed by thoughtful consideration. If you do not think deeply about your product iterations, you may very-well be iterating your product to a slow death.
We also need to learn how to recover from bets that do not turn out as we expect. Recovery is easiest when teams have an idea where to go next, a guiding north star (h/t Henrik Kniberg). Only with a north star vision can teams know how to respond on behalf of the business to challenges they face. Ultimately, this shared vision is how you connect the MVP-focused product development process with the business and the market, as a whole.
Perhaps it is time to recover the insight that is it better to be loved by a few than liked by many.
Instead of shots in the dark, perhaps we can strive to release products only when we believe they can be loved by a specific, addressable customer segment.
In a swipe left/swipe right world with ever-increasing competition, we can no longer expect users to give products a second look. For until a product is focused with a core value proposition, it is not really a product — it is just a demo.
Something to think about.
