That is not a MVP !
There is a lot of confusion and diverging opinions around what an MVP (Minimum Viable Product) is. This term has been widely (mis)used and after dozen of conversations explaining what is and isn’t a MVP, I think it’s time to share my thoughts in an article (spoiler alert: this might be controversial)😉
MVP, POC, MMP, prototype, mockup… let’s see the differences
1. Viability
The term Viable is the source of all misconceptions here, a dual interpretation from the literal meaning vs the one from Lean UX.
Literally speaking, when something is viable, it means that it works, it is feasible/possible, technically and economically, capable of surviving. Viability is like the final step of the overall process of validation. On the other hand, the term MVP was first used in the 2000’s but really popularized by Eric Ries as a step of validation of a business hypothesis.
Let’s come back to that: “validation of a business hypothesis”. I can refer my previous article on the Opportunity Vacuum Framework, quoting the Adjacent Viable as the frontier for business / economic model innovation. Viable in this context means that “someone is willing to buy it”, that there is a business model behind the concept. It doesn’t have to work (not necessarily).
Let’s see some examples of MVP:
2. What defines each concept
Let’s try to simplify and put some logic and order into the different phases to try to position each concept and output: Mockup, UR, POC, MVP, Prototype, MMP, v0…
Things that do not work on their own, in the wild:
Things that actually work on their own:
Are they scalable?
In the world of UX and Design, some might also talk about MLP (Minimum Loveable Product) as a Minimum Product reaching the hedonistic layers (pleasurable and meaningful). But that’s a story for another day 😉
I hope you found this insightful, there is definitely no consensus on these terms, so there might be many interpretations and all of them are valid.
For me these are the ones that make sense, because each brings a different nuance and has a different purpose. Do you agree?
CPO @ 42 | Product & Innovation leader | Public speaker | Maker
2yTLDR; A spoiler of the article's content 😉