Thread by @varun_kirti

Building an MVP

A thread... 🧵 (1/22)

#Product #ProductManagement #ProductManager #innovation #technology #startups

One aspect that PMs often struggle with is 'What should be the MVP version of a 0-1 product?'

The common way of thinking about this is that we should launch an MVP fast and then iterate on it to get to product-market fit (PMF). (2/22)

Given it's a 0-1 product, even estimating the potential impact of different features within the product is often guess work. So, what to include in the MVP scope becomes just what can be built within the set launch deadline. (3/22)

PMs would typically make a list of all the features needed in the full-fledged product, and then prioritize the ones that can be built within the timeline, and scope that out as the MVP. (4/22)

This approach rarely ever works in the quest for product-market fit (PMF), and stems from a lack of understanding across 3 dimensions - (a) Nature of user problems, (b) Nature of market dynamics, and (c) Long-term product vision. (5/22)

The biggest reason why most MVPs don't work is because not all user problems are created equal. There are broadly 2 types of user problems - painkillers (must-solve), and vitamins (good to solve). (6/22)

A product built to solve painkiller problems needs to be thought very differently from the one acting as a vitamin. For products that are painkillers, even a quick/lightweight MVP can find traction and can be iterated upon to find PMF. (7/22)

Whereas products that are vitamins need to have a strong differentiator (e.g., great UI/UX, network effects) even in the MVP version else they struggle to find any traction. (8/22)

For e.g., a product that helps you find a cab reliably to go to work in the morning is a painkiller. When Uber launched as a ride-hailing app for black cabs, it instantly found traction even though the MVP version was very lightweight in terms of features. (9/22)

Alternatively, a product that helps you aggregate reward points for making bill payments, or an app that entertains you through short videos are all vitamin products. (10/22)

Cred is a vitamin product, and hence had great UI/UX even in the MVP version to act as a differentiator without which it might have struggled to find traction. (11/22)

Tiktok is a vitamin product that had a great personalization algorithm that exploited users' interest graph to show them addictive short videos. This analogy extends even to features within a single product. (12/22)

In an e-commerce app - searching items, placing orders, and tracking order status are painkiller features whereas getting reward points for shopping, being able to purchase on credit, etc. are all vitamin features. (13/22)

Another common pitfall is not understanding the competitive dynamics of the market your product is entering. When a product is creating a new market, a quick MVP might find good traction as there would be no available alternatives that are solving that problem.(14/22)

But in a crowded market, even the MVP needs to have a compelling differentiator else it fails to find any traction. (15/22)

For example, Flipkart found instant traction in India when it launched in 2007 even though it had limited product features in its MVP version. (16/22)

Alternatively, Superhuman was an email product in a market that had entrenched products like Gmail, Outlook, etc but was still able to find traction because it had a strong differentiator in terms of being lightning fast in managing your email backlog. (17/22)

It was definitely not a lightweight MVP that was iterated upon quickly. So, having an understanding of whether your product is creating a new market or is attempting to disrupt an existing one is an important factor to consider while scoping out the MVP. (18/22)

The third common pitfall is not having a clear long-term product vision. Having this vision enables you to make the right choices in the MVP, and prevents one from succumbing to the mentality of outsourcing product thinking to A/B testing. (19/22)

For example, when Amazon launched Prime in the US in 2005, there was a clear vision of a subscription-based loyalty program driving customer retention with free & fast shipping as the core benefit. (20/22)

Shipping charges in the US are very high, and are often the biggest source of friction in e-commerce. Prime was meant to solve this problem by offering a subscription program where shipping becomes free for most purchases. (21/22)

While Prime has evolved a lot since then, the core benefit still continues to remain the same. So, having a clear vision enables one to make the right choices early on that enable faster iterations later on instead of reinventing the wheel in every product iteration. (22/22)