Talk:Minimum viable product

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bad example[edit]

While an example may be useful in this section, The Rippa robot example doesn't illustrate a minimum viable product, because the creators of the product are not testing a business hypothesis, such as if there is a need for a weed picking robot. This example illustrates a quality control test, not a minimum viable product release.

LaughingIshikawa (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition[edit]

The definition of "minimum viable product" in ""The Dynamic Balance Between Cost, Schedule, Features, and Quality in Software Development Projects" is clearly for a product that ships (likely for revenue). The definition of an MVP that is a "smoke test" or "fake page" is clearly at variance with this definition as the feature/product is not actually deployed/shipped (or paid for). I also offer another citation from 2002 at http://www.productdevelopment.com/CutTimetoMoney.htm this aligns with the W. S. Junk paper definition from 2000. Skmurphy (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree and generalise. The definition given was for the "optimum profitable" product which is almost the exact opposite of the "minimum viable". The aim of "minimum viable" is to avoid developing expensive features which are thought to much increase profit, but might be useless if the whole product is a failure for other reasons (such as too strong competition). I edited the introduction to the article. StacksofHoy (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed "smoke test" and fake page. Clearly these are not viable products 141.168.147.45 (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inc magazine[edit]

I thought it might be useful to include this perspective about MVP from Inc magazine (disclaimer: I'm part of the story): http://www.inc.com/magazine/20091001/the-bootstrappers-guide-to-launching-new-products.html --Ericries (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the link. There are some junk (non-authoritative) links in there that I'd like to see removed and some more authoritative links I'd like to see as citations. jason (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, thanks. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. --Ericries (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Test-driven development[edit]

The comparison with TDD at the end of the page does not make much sense to me: I see what the author implies, but the approaches are really not the same. Indeed, in both cases, code comes after the fact, but that is all they have in common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.109.113.147 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference 4[edit]

Problem: reference 4 is put directly into the references section. --Mortense (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reference Bill Junk[edit]

http://www2.cs.uidaho.edu/~billjunk/Publications/DynamicBalance.pdf does not exist anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.87.222 (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change title[edit]

Shouldn't the article name be Minimum Viable Product, in captial vs. Minimum viable product ?

I don't know how to change it though

Take a look in Minimum Marketable Feature article, it has see also for Minimm Vaiable Product but the link is broken because of the capitalization problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.37.158 (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Emerging applications" is a stretch[edit]

Calling "minimum viable cofounder" and "minimum viable team" "emerging applications" seems like quite a stretch to me. I couldn't find any other references to "minimum viable cofounder" other than the linked article and secondary articles just referring to the first one. The cofounder/team is also philosophically different from the product. An MVP is designed from the outset to be replaced as soon as it has served its learning purpose. Its probably not a good idea to use that philosophy for your team. Ultimately, I think a couple writers were just using buzzwords to generate clicks for their articles rather than actually developing useful ideas. Not very encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericksonla (talkcontribs) 14:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Removing that whole section would do nothing but improve the article.2605:6000:F343:F300:88A7:19D9:E941:1FC (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minimum viable product. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illustration removed[edit]

I'll remove the misleading illustration. Clearly, if you are a car maker, you do not go to market with a skateboard, then somehow evolve that into a car by morphing it via a bicycle. Bjornte (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MVP and BVP[edit]

I plan on contributing to the discussion by providing a discussion on billable viable products, which serve the same purpose as MVPs (to test business hypotheses) but confirms or refutes the viability of the business model by testing whether people would buy it (testing by revenue/profitability) rather than the viability of the product itself Salazovar (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Key Elements of an MVP[edit]

"To Reis, an MVP wasn’t necessarily an application prototype; it was a market test.". By far it isn't meant to have production quality aspects. "An MVP must include these key elements in production quality:". The only reference to these elements are on the linked blog, of whom the author is not a recognized thought leader, subject matter expert of Lean UX. A true MVP is something to test your hypothesis, to get an answer on something you need to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.235.113 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]