We set out with the best intentions: we want to be lean and agile, and we are going to put something out into the world that we are “slightly embarrassed by” and we’re going to pivot and iterate from there. Right? That’s how it’s supposed to work.
But in reality, stakeholders never, ever seem to remember what that agreed MVP was. They fixate on a roadmapping session from six months ago or have a visual design comp stuck in their head that shows three features that were agreed to be post-MVP items.
Why Does This Happen?
- Memory is Fallible: We can remember talking about something, and knowing it was important, but not remember that we agreed it was out of scope or budget.
- Stakeholder Tactics: Some stakeholders might want to squeeze as much as they can out of development teams. They might agree to a smaller scope initially, hoping developers don’t remember the negotiation, or they might be unethically disingenuous.
- Lack of Experience: Stakeholders might not have enough experience in product management or development processes. They see software as infinitely changeable and might not grasp why certain features were deferred.
How Can We Stop It?
- Do Everything Waterfall: Agile just might not be the best approach for first-time founders, especially non-technical ones. Having clear visual comps of EVERYTHING can ease them into the fast-paced world of tech businesses, though this has many disadvantages.
- Hyper-Organization Mode: Developers and PMs can track every decision meticulously. A “Git for decisions” tool would be ideal, where every choice branches out with roadmaps and budgets, showing stakeholders how their decisions impact the project. Without such a tool, a detailed decision journal could work as a good alternative.
- Selective Client Engagement: Developers might choose to avoid working with first-time, non-technical founders. For products like platforms, where the technology is integral, having a technically savvy founder is crucial. For tech-enabled services, like an app to schedule plumbing appointments, the tech isn’t the core value, so non-tech founders might manage better.
What Can We Replace “MVPs” With?
I’m not sure. We have to launch with something, and that should have some level of definition, but I have three ideas:
Idea 1. Time Based MVPs
Maybe MVPs should be time-based, like launching something after a set period, regardless of what we have. Launch dates could drive everything in this way. Imagine a 90 day launch window after design/discovery has been performed. Then you would have weekly sprints, where the stakeholders are hyper engaged for a short period of time. The theory here is that this focus would cut out all the need for the “who said what when” arguments and everyone would only work on what was needed.
Idea 2. The 5-feature Rule
This is something I’m making up (desperately) on the spot. Perhaps the way we should be working to MVP should have some over arching philosophy about what an MVP even is.
- Basic User Management: Ensuring the system can handle user registration, login, and basic user profile management.
- Payment Handling: If the application involves transactions, it must handle payments from day one. Keep it simple and avoid novel payment systems.
- Performance: The application must perform well on its main targeted platform, device, or browser.
- Core Value: It should offer one really interesting, killer, or useful feature to the user. That’s it. Just one.
- Baseline Analytics: Include basic analytics from day one to track user engagement and system performance.
Idea 3: The Walking Skeleton Approach
Another approach to replace the traditional MVP is the “Walking Skeleton.” This method focuses on creating a fully clickable interface, essentially a complete UI, built with code, before any underlying logic is implemented. Acting as a pre-MVP, the Walking Skeleton allows stakeholders to interact with the prototype, providing a tangible sense of the final product without the complexity of backend functionality. This method helps stakeholders learn agility by iterating on this version, refining the user experience, and understanding the project’s scope more clearly. Once the interface is polished and aligns with the stakeholders’ vision, features can be prioritized and integrated based on what needs to launch first. Building out the application this way could be a lower stakes method for learning collaborative development, but it also doesn’t throw the baby (or code) out with the bath water.
Conclusion
By simplifying the MVP to these core elements, maybe we can mitigate the confusion and ensure everyone is on the same page about what the initial product will deliver. I prefer to end my posts the same way ChatGPT does, with a positive conclusion. But today, I’m less sure I can do that. I’ve read countless books, articles, and posts on how to define an MVP. I’ve helped launch hundreds of tech companies, and I’ve launched a couple of my own as well. So why is so difficult to launch when working with well-intentioned, intelligent, well-funded, people who are going through this process for the first time? I’m going to at least try Time Based MVPs and my new 5-Features rule on my next two projects and see if that helps. Wish me luck.
