Minimum viable products (MVPs) are new product versions which barely encompass a range of targeted features. Developers can strategically use them to emphasize learning integrations in development while minimizing resource use. The MVP approach helps developers address traditional business strategy factors including investment requirements amid stakeholder concerns, market demands, and general risk minimization. They can potentially minimize risk while optimizing outcomes.
MVP development facilitates data recording regarding customer interest and market demands as features are created, and can potentially be expanded upon followed such testing. Information processing across these stages is commonly referred to as validated learning, and observers can record product purchase decisions while relating their findings to developmental strategy. Developers resultantly produce products or services that have automatic appearance, but are actually manual in nature. MVPs are inherently small in concept, and potentially big in impact.
The strategic focus of MVP development is to minimize inclusion of any aspect which does not have a direct contribution towards learning objectives. This many include initiatives and processes in addition to traditional features. Following introduction to the market, consumer reactions may guide alteration directions, or the product may be deemed less than sufficient for the market segment. This allows developers to learn about market potentials without having to fully create the product, which can be strategic with successfully applied market research and entry strategies. Early testing of this nature is commonly deemed as sufficiently advantageous, and beyond the resources saved, it is further possible to gain some competitive advantage in simultaneously researching and addressing other organizations within the industry.
MVPs therefore allow developers to experiment with minimal resource use and testing amid creation phases, potentially allowing optimal information gathering and implementation. Some developments may be regarded as insufficient as per the “sunk cost” logical fallacy (or presuming that investments should not be preserved simply because they have been extensive), while others may be improved. This has potential for minimizing risk and outcomes in traditional high-risk developmental scenarios, and optimizing strategic direction precision with guided caution.