In our upcoming book, The Ultimate Startup Guide, we address a major consideration for many clients: how to develop and release their products. The concept of Minimal Viable Product (MVP) and its role in a startup’s early success was popularized in the last few years by tech leaders and authors like Steve Blank and Eric Ries. Adherents of MVP have strong opinions that this is the only way to go to market; others caution more restraint in the process, ironing out more of the product before pushing it out into the fast-moving stream.
Here’s what we had to say:
The decision on what you’re going to sell may be the most important one you make in the early stage of your company. This may seem like a stupid question—or at least one with an obvious answer: ‘the product we’ve been working on all this time.’ Duh.
But wait. It’s extremely rare that what a company is developing is exactly what the market wants—or thinks it wants. So what do you do with the ‘delta’, the difference between the two?
The MVP (Minimal Viable Product): Let’s start with the definition provided by one of its inventors, Eric Ries: “the version of a new product which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort.” Those last two words are what some people seize on, leading them to portray the MVP process as a lazy one: ‘throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.’ But that’s hardly the case: MVP is a structured approach, one that requires a lot of discipline and diligence to be effective. Once you’ve created and released a ‘minimal’ product, you have to then be in constant contact with the market and then constantly iterating the product in line with that feedback. Done right, MVP can be very effective.
ASIDE: A good friend of Crowded Ocean—and of many people featured in this book—is associated with a concept known as the “Sales Ready Product” (SRP) in the same way that Steve Blank and Eric Ries are associated with MVP. The late Don Templeton perfected not just the SRP process but a means of shortening it so that it was at least competitive with, if not superior to, the MVP. In Don’s honor the folks at Sequoia named his process “The Templeton Compression Factor”. The process, executed correctly, could shrink an enterprise-level sale (which normally takes 180 days) to 30-60 days. (To learn more about Don’s Compression Factor and SRP, please see the link at the end of this chapter.)
So which approach—Minimal Viable Product (MVP) or Sales-Ready Product (SRP) is right for you? It depends on your product team and your market. The younger/newer you are as a company, the more forgiving the market—as long as your product group revs the product, quickly and accurately. But we’ve also had established companies who try to practice MVP and their Sales department complains that they’re getting killed out there—that their customers expect something more fully-baked from them. And if your product is (to use a phrase that has been done to death) mission-critical, then SRP is probably the route to go.
We saw this difference of approach play out with our most recent client—a 14 year-old open-source player moving from a professional services model to a product/service focus. Their core constituency in the past has been the open-source community, which expects its product for free and is tolerant of early product flaws. But the new targets—government agencies and enterprises—while appreciating all the benefits of open source, are not as forgiving. For the money we’re talking about here, they’re expecting a more finished product and have little interest in being part of the testing and development process.
Who’s right? If the client can convince their customers that they are now functioning as a startup (with the major shift into the product area) and inviting the customer under the tent, then the MVP approach can work. But if they get pushback, they should pivot quickly to the more traditional SRP approach.