mvp: minimum viable product vs. maximum value product with adam smith

liquidrealitydesign for humans


MVP: Minimum Viable Product vs. Maximum Value Product

Adam R.T. Smith, CEO / Director of Experience DesignLiquid Reality



Adam R.T. SmithC.E.O. / Director of Experience Design

@liquidreality



state of mobile today



"The global apps business is expected to make $25 billion inrevenue this year, up 62% from a year ago, according to Gartner.To put that in perspective, movie theaters sold less than half thatdollar amount at the box office in 2012." - WSJ: Business of Apps / Gartner Research

crazy money



phenomenal growth

iOS App Store Google Play

Downloads 50 Billion + 48 Billion +

Total Apps 850,000 + 800,000 +



seems like we’re doing great, right?



that’s misleading...



Too many apps with poor quality, flawed UX, thoughtless design

Another photo app, another social app, another game

Me-too’s, also-ran’s, and flat out imitators are crowding themarket

And users are noticing...

•

•

•

•



"Canalys estimates that just 25 developers accounted for 50% ofapp revenue in the US in these stores [Apple App Store & GooglePlay] during the first 20 days of November 2012. Between them,they made $60 million from paid-for downloads and in-apppurchases over this period." - Canalys, December 2012



most apps fail...



most apps suck.



minimum viable product



in 2009, Eric Ries coines the term“Minimum Viable Product”

based on the unconventional processused to build IMVU

developed the methodology after acouple his previous startups failed

made a name for himself through hisbook, speaking & helping entrepreneurs

•

•

•

•



MVP methodology asks us to reach out to the market soonerthan ever before

private beta, a landing page, or an AdWords text ad

tries to get actionable feedback from the market as soon aspossible, as cheaply as possible

intended to validate a companies assumptions early & often

•

•

•

•



traditional roadmap

Learn

Analyze

Testing

Internal External

Build

Release 1.0



mvp roadmap

Learn

Analyze

Testing

Internal External

Build

Release 1.0



positioned as sitting in the middle of two opposing extremes:•



product development extremes

Blue Sky Super Build

Release Fast,

Release Often


liquidrealitydesign for humanswhere mvp fits

Blue Sky Super Build

Release Fast,

Release Often

Minimum Viable

Product



unique in the way that it combines market testing right into theearliest prototyping and validation stages

intended to let the market tell you at each iteration, what they likeand don’t like, qualitatively and quantitatively

via in-product analytics tools like Flurry, Google Analytics, andLocalytics

solicited and unsolicited direct user feedback

•

•

•

•

MVP is:



suggests you create something that can measure interest in theproblem you are trying to solve

and the way in which you are attempting to solve it

before you’ve solved it

it’s a learning process, in theory, with the primary goal ofgathering as much data, metrics, and analysis possible to figureout what works and what doesn’t

•

•

•

•



note: purist view of MVP is not intended to cater to the whims ofyour customers, but rather to run experiments on them and deriveyour own conclusions

•



the experiment, or series of experiments, in a Build-Measure-Learn loop, allows you to continually evolve your

product until it satisfactorily solves yourproblem, or your idea fails...



whichever comes first.



benefits touted for MVP include:

the cost of user acquisition for traditional product launches can betremendously expensive, so adopting MVP lowers the cost of failingwith a product the market doesn’t want

benefit from testing with real, organic use cases. It’s out there inthe wild, used by real people in the real ways they will use yourproduct

low-hanging fruit is identified and checked off early. Easy pickingsfor quick fixes and obvious missteps

•

•

•



brings clarity to your business goals: re-prioritize and re-evaluaterealistic milestones

allows you to test your marketing initiatives: value propositions,and messaging at very early stages, and with each iteration.

allows you to generate early revenue, because nothing speakslouder than people giving you their hard earned money.

allows you to fail fast and often, and learn from your failings.

•

•

•

•



not proven to provide any more value thanany other methodology, and can in fact

cause more harm than good.



problems with MVP as a methodology



going to market too soon in order to validate your ideas andsolutions is lazy and disrespectful

a way to avoid facing the hard problems head on, workingthrough them to uncover the right solution, and building a greatproduct for your future customers.

•

•



do your homework

really GET the problems your trying to solve

really GET what your target audience wants and needs at thedeepest level

are willing to put in the effort to really figure out what it is thatNEEDS to be solved

•

•

•

•

if you:



you are far better equipped to solve those problems than randomusers who click on smoke-tests or sign up for private betas

•

then:



with a minimal product that is incomplete,in flux, and doesn’t yet stand up to usersmaturing expectations, you’re asking themto have a lot of unsupported faith in yourcompany and your dedication to solving

their problems on their behalf



MVPs attract 3 types of users

the people that want to hate you from the get go, no matter whoyou are or what your product does

the people that want to love you and will tell you how much theyappreciate where your products going, but, won’t bother you withthe negative feedback

•

•



MVPs attract 3 types of users

in the middle, there’s those that genuinely care about the problemyou’re solving, your product and really want to help you help them.

this middle group is often the smallest, and their data is obscuredby the overly polarized data from the previous groups

•

•



actionable feedback doesn’t come from beta testers who wantto feel like they’re “in the loop”

it comes from users who care about your product, who believe inthe solution you are offering, who see that you’ve put in the timeto build something that caters to their needs

valuable feedback is inseparable from genuine care for theproduct

making product decisions based on the input from users thataren’t invested in the success of your product is potentiallydangerous.

•

•

•

•



WANT your product

DESIRE your product

find it hard to imagine how they got by without it before it existed

can’t be done with a bare bones product cobbled together to testyour ideas

•

•

•

•

users, even testers, need to:



In mvp, the user experience is oftenmissing, downplayed, or relegated to a

“future enhancement”



in creating something minimally viable,something that doesn’t feel whole, andopenly testing it in the market, you are

establishing a brand association with anincomplete, unfinished and unpolished

product



in order to get people in sufficient numbersto actually get valuable feedback, you have

to announce that you’re working onsomething so early in the process that it

alerts your competitors



“A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you showit to them.” - Steve Jobs

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have saidfaster horses.” - Henry Ford (although, it’s not proven he said this)

“Some people use research like a drunkard uses a lamppost: forsupport, not illumination.” - David Ogilvy

“The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to gobeyond them into the impossible.” - Arthur C. Clark

•

•

•

•



worse still, is the misinterpretation of MVP



minimum viable product vs. minimum viable product



as a means to reduce time-to-market

many startups that look at MVP, see a fast, easy way to validatetheir ideas as cheaply as possible.

problem is, unless you find that your ideas fail REALLY early on inthe process, it is certainly not faster - it’s quite the opposite.

building in all this testing, analysis and learning into each iterationcan dramatically extend the development process - if you areactually learning from your inputs.

•

•

•



as a means to reduce costs

similarly, using the mvp methodology isn’t cheaper, again, unlessyou fail early and abandon your idea.

in the long run, if you’re doing it right, you still have to do all thesame work you always do to create a new product.

including strategy, UX, design, and development.

but with the additional and potentially exponential costs of doing itin continuous iterative Build Measure Learn loops.

•

•

•

•



as a go-to-market strategy

MVP is a validation and market testing strategy. It is not a go-to-market strategy.

in the long run, if you’re doing it right, you still have to do all thesame work you always do to create a new product.

including strategy, UX, design, and development.

but with the additional and potentially exponential costs of doing itin continuous iterative Build Measure Learn loops.

•

•

•

•



intentional or not, MVP has created anenvironment where it's ok to fail



“Failing sooner is cheaper”.

“Failing on each iteration gives us insight to what users don’twant”.

“Sure we failed, but, we didn’t waste that much money”.

“Failing on v1.0 can’t be our fault, we’ve been testing this idea inthe market since day one. They must have lied to us”.

moves accountability for success off of the company, the startup,the team and onto the market itself.

•

•

•

•

•



methodology of excuses

it wasn’t my idea.

it wasn’t built very well.

at least I knew when to call it a day.

•

•

•



The pressures on startups & thepressures on new products are

significantly higher today than even just oneyear ago



aim for awesome



maximum value product



why?



Because the iPhone solved3 critical problems, and

solved those 3 problemsexceptionally well.



They chose to release the device withoutthe feature not because it wasn’t important

to the product, they chose to omit thefeature because it wasn’t “just right”.



The iPhone delivered the maximum valueproduct possible within the constraints

Apple faced by focussing only on what itcould do exceptionally well, and setting

aside that which it couldn't.



A product is like an ecosystem. Every feature or function youintroduce, or remove, has a direct impact on every other part ofyour product.

Being able to cut something when it doesn’t stand up to yourquality standards is more difficult than cutting a feature when yourun out of time or budget.

You are consciously removing something from your product thatyou may have working in some fashion, but is bringing theexperience and quality of everything else you have done down.

•

•

•



Cut it like cancer. You’re product is only asgood as its worst interaction.



Diving in deep, and digging until no more can be dug to uncoverthose 3 or 4 fundamental problems that your product needs tosolve is fundamental to creating maximum value products.

Every product starts with an idea, but that idea is usuallyamorphous, and leans more towards the solution end of thespectrum.

You have to really uncover what those problems that generatethe need for that solution are, and they are not always obvious, oreven logical.

•

•

•



How do you know when you’vediscovered one those fundamental

problems?



Once you have your fundamental problems, it is usually quite clearwhich ones are your critical pillars.

Those are the ones you focus on, those are the ones you put yourall into solving and solving completely.

•

•

critical pillars



Maximum Value is not about creating valuethrough building more features



it’s about maximizing the value within thefeatures you do build.



Whereas minimum viable productpromotes doing only what is necessary to

be viable



maximum value product promotes doing only that which you can

do exceptionally well.



MVPs compared

Minimum Viable Product Maximum Value Product

places focus on validating the solutionsto your problems

places focus on validating the problemsyou are trying to solve

tells you to use the market to solveyour problems

maximum tells you to solve yourproblems FOR your market

aims to create an environment whereyou can fail safely

aims to create an environment whereyou can face the hard problems head on



MVPs compared

Minimum Viable Product Maximum Value Product

is doing only what is necessary to beviable

is doing only that which you can makeawesome

often sidelines the small things, theniceties, the polish

specifically focusses on the small things,the niceties, the details the polish



Maximum Value Product is

about spending the time and effort upfront to distill the problemsyou are hoping to solve down to their most fundamental cores. Then solving those, and nothing more.

about respecting your customers by putting in the time, putting inthe effort, and facing the hard problems head on before you ask fortheir time or money.

about having the passion, the love, the willingness to sacrifice, andthe faith in yourself and your team to persevere in the face of whatseems impossible.

•

•

•




about finding the right product gestalt, it’s soul, and neverwavering.

about knowing which solutions you can execute phenomenally,and focussing your efforts on those.

about knowing what you can’t execute phenomenally. And beingwilling to hold back anything that isn’t. Including your entireproduct if need be.

•

•

•




about sweating the small stuff. Obsessively.

about believing that quality trumps features in the long run.

about Not using your customers as lab rats.

•

•

•



Because you sweat the small stuff. And when you do something,

you do it right.



You need to be obsessively concernedabout the small things, the in-betweens,the transient states - these are the areas

where greatness hides.



when it all comes down to it, it’s all about the details, theniceties, the design, the user experience, the optimizations, theperformance.

these are the things that create desirability, these are the thingsthat create loyalty, these are the things that tell your customer yourespect them.

these are also the things that are generally the first to getsidelined in an MVP, because they are intangible, hard to quantify,and even harder to measure.

•

•

•



doing anything exceptionally well is hard. and doing it exceptionally well takes time,dedication, love, passion and a touch of

insanity



working towards maximum value



Slow down. People want to start working too soon. Figure outwhat core problems you’re really solving first.

Focus on your problem, not your solution.

Set your bar high and early. Always be working towardsawesome, even if you don’t get there, you’ll be better off than ifyou’re focussed on the minimal.

Face the hard problems head on. Attack them. Dissect them.Get everyone talking about them.

•

•

•

•



break down the walls created by roles & disciplines and just besmart people trying to solve the same problem together

involve all key team members as early as possible andcontinuously, especially when uncovering the problems you aretrying to solve, and the ways you intend to solve them

•

•



Embrace your constraints (time / money / resources) todetermine what problems you can solve in a complete andawesome way.

You don't have to solve every problem, but you do have to solveevery problem in the most amazing and holistic way you can.

If you can't do something awesome, don't do it at all.

•

•

•



Critical Pillars•

critical pillars



Staged Roadmap•

staged roadmap



Staged Roadmap•

cut, kill, can ruthlessly