T.

The Near Impossible Task of Defining an MVP

By In Technology

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?

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  1. Basic User Management: Ensuring the system can handle user registration, login, and basic user profile management.
  2. Payment Handling: If the application involves transactions, it must handle payments from day one. Keep it simple and avoid novel payment systems.
  3. Performance: The application must perform well on its main targeted platform, device, or browser.
  4. Core Value: It should offer one really interesting, killer, or useful feature to the user. That’s it. Just one.
  5. 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.

Previous ArticleNext Article
I help companies turn their technical ideas into reality.

CEO @Sourcetoad and @OnDeck

Founder of Thankscrate and Data and Sons

Author of Herding Cats and Coders

Fan of judo, squash, whiskey, aggressive inline, and temperamental British sports cars.

Leave a Reply

The Internet Doesn’t Have Enough Love In It (And How We Can Fix It Easily)

In Technology

I’ve been thinking about all the wrong things when it comes to AI writing code.

Everyone else seems to be too. Job displacement. Security vulnerabilities. The ten-times-faster developer who now bills the same and delivers four times as much. These are real conversations worth having, just not the one I want to have right now.

The one I want to have is about teaching a six-year-old multiplication.

Here’s what I mean. Imagine you’ve been sitting with your kid every night for two weeks trying to explain multiplication. You’ve tried drawing rows of dots. You’ve tried songs (don’t judge me). You’ve tried the “just think of it as groups of things” approach that works for literally every other math concept but, mysteriously, not for your kid. Then one night, something clicks. You found the explanation, YOUR explanation, the one that worked for your actual kid with your actual kid’s brain, and it finally, beautifully, clicks.

Now imagine you could spend a Saturday morning turning that into a small web app. Not a startup. Not a SaaS platform. No login. No backend. No one’s going to hack it (there’s nothing to hack). Just a little thing that walks through multiplication the exact way you figured out it works, step by step, the way you’d explain it. You send it to the WhatsApp group for your kid’s class. Some of those other parents, also quietly losing their minds over multiplication, try it. And it helps.

You just made the world a tiny bit better. That’s it. That’s the whole thing.

Claude Code exists now, and a handful of other tools like it, and the reason I think this matters isn’t productivity. It’s access. The barrier between “I have an idea for something that could help people” and “I have a thing that helps people” used to require knowing how to code, or hiring someone who does, or talking a developer friend into your project over enough beers that their guilt exceeded their better judgment. Now it’s a Saturday morning and a good description of what you want to build.

The internet already has beautiful things in it that were built out of love. Free coding education for kids. Open-source video editors. Someone’s incredibly detailed home-brewing app with no monetization plan whatsoever. Artists making interactive experiences because they wanted to see if they could. These things exist because someone cared more about making the thing than making money from the thing. I think that ratio is about to shift dramatically in favor of the people who just want to make something good.

I’m not saying we should all stop paying for Salesforce (we should probably keep paying for Salesforce, there’s a reason that thing costs what it costs). I’m saying the category of software that was previously not worth building because it wasn’t commercial enough to justify the cost, that category just got a lot more interesting.

What’s in that category? Things like:

  • An app that helps beginning judo students understand the concepts behind a throw, not just the mechanics, because judo is where I learned confidence and discipline and I want other kids to find that
  • A private family memory vault (not Instagram, not Facebook, not anything with an algorithm deciding what matters), just a place where the people who love my son can send photos and stories somewhere safe, for him to open when he’s older (Maybe I’ll turn this into something?)
  • A system that reminds companies to send their employees gifts on the days that actually matter to them, because I know from running a company that it fills the cup of the person giving just as much as the person receiving (Thankscrate, if you’re curious, and yes, that one is turning into something real, but that is genuinely not why I built it)

None of those were commercial ideas first. They were just things I cared about.

I think the most interesting software that gets built in the next few years won’t come from developers moving faster. It’ll come from people who previously had no path from “I care about this” to “I built something about this,” and now they do. Parents. Coaches. Teachers. The person in your office who could explain that one complicated process better than anyone and has always secretly wanted to turn it into something.

The stakes are low. The bar to launch is low. The cost is low. The only thing required is that you actually give a damn about what you’re building.

One small caveat before you go off and change the world. If your passion project involves storing the medical records, credit card numbers, or personal information of vulnerable people (childhood leukemia patients, say, or really anyone who has enough going on without also becoming the victim of a data breach), please, for the love of God, do not take that on as a Saturday morning vibe-coding exercise. That is not a passion project, it’s a terrifying lack of judgment and a huge liability. Please hire professionals, follow compliance frameworks, and treat the security of people’s sensitive data with the seriousness it deserves. The whole spirit of what I’m describing here is low stakes, and nothing raises the stakes faster than a database full of information that could ruin someone’s life if it leaks. Build the multiplication app. Build the judo app. Do NOT build the “I’ll just store some PHI real quick” app.

So… What do you give a damn about?

Go build it. I still sometimes have to count on my fingers, but I’m told the app helps.