Evolution of Minimum Viable Product

原始链接: https://raspasov.posthaven.com/evolution-of-minimum-viable-product

The standard definition of an MVP emphasizes meeting minimum requirements for customer use, with future improvements based on feedback. A more robust definition should consider internal usage by the creators themselves. Truly viable products, especially in software, often benefit from the development team actively using them. The argument is that great software like map applications or music apps are typically built by people who are also active users. Conversely, poorly designed or clunky software, like slow kiosks or frustrating hospital systems, often suffer from a lack of internal use and understanding by the development team. In essence, "eating your own dog food" is crucial for a product to be truly viable and successful.

This Hacker News thread discusses the evolution and ideal definition of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP). Several commenters argue that the traditional MVP definition, focusing on minimal features, is flawed. "Minimum Learning Product" (MLP) is proposed as a better term, emphasizing learning from users and iterating. A key point is the importance of "dogfooding," where creators actively use their own product to identify issues and improve it. Commenters highlight examples of poorly designed software, emphasizing the need for creators to understand the user experience. Some argue for a "Minimum Sellable Product" approach, ensuring that the MVP is something customers are willing to pay for. Several point out the disconnect between early-stage investment and product development, criticizing the trend of funding ventures with weak or faked demos. Others comment that the definition of "viable" must take into account the competition and existing customer expectations. Ultimately, the thread emphasizes the importance of understanding user needs, continuous learning, and a commitment to building a product that truly solves a problem.

The Oxford dictionary definition of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is:

An early, basic version of a product (such as a piece of technology, a computer program, etc.) which meets the minimum necessary requirements for use but can be adapted and improved in the future, esp. after customer feedback;

Here's a proposed improved definition:

An early, basic version of a product (such as a piece of technology, a computer program, etc.) which meets the minimum necessary requirements for use by its creators and customers;

I think in practice, in order for a product to qualify as truly viable often requires the people who build it to use the product at least as much as any other person. This is especially true for great software. Think about the best software products you use every day: your favorite mobile maps application, favorite music app, or email client. It would be almost impossible to imagine that the people who build the products are not active users of the same apps!

Now think about a bad software product that you might encounter briefly or you are forced to use: a poorly designed electronic kiosk with 1000ms lag on every interaction, or a hospital electronic system. I think there's a high chance that the people building them rarely use them, or not at all.