LSM DA2

Topic: MVP

18BME2110
KARTIKEY SINGH
Creating Minimum Viable Products in
Industry-Academia Collaborations Conference
Paper ·
December 2013

OBJECTIVE
The main objective of the project was to validate a value hypothesis given by a customer.
The project was initiated as a rapid-feedback development effort that would proceed from an
initial value hypothesis to an initial MVP that could then be subjected to separate evaluation
with real users. Consistently with the objective, there were no requirements to use any
legacy code or perform potentially dicult integration into existing systems.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study can be characterized as a single-case study using multiple-researcher
triangulation . Case studies can be said to study “contemporary phenomena in their natural
context” and to “generalise from specific contexts” . There are several types of case studies
, some of which have been used and described specifically for software engineering.
However, case studies do not constitute a homogeneous class of studies, but display
considerable variation. Since cases can vary arbitrarily, researchers must adapt their
designs and methods to truthfully represent the case, while balancing considerations of
generalisability. In this study, we took an open-ended, participatory approach. Two persons
from the Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki, and one person from the
case company, were present and participated to varying degrees in the project. Data
sources included participatory and direct observation, notes taken during the course of the
project, and analysis of project artefacts such as produced software, documentation, and
other materials. In particular, the project coach kept a diary of project events and provided
substantial input for this study. The other participating researcher organised meetings and
performed open-ended, interview-like discussions with the project participants in the
beginning, middle, and end of the project. The company representative was the project’s
product owner and interacted closely with the student team.
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This paper presents experience with creating an MVP in the context of an industry-academia
collaboration. The experience is based on a concrete case study. In summary, rapid
prototyping for getting value-related feedback can be systematically conducted using a
simple framework process, in which the implementation team is given freedom to explore the
concept design space in short, incremental cycles in close cooperation with the customer.
Factors critical for success are i) the role of the product owner, who should come from the
customer organization, have enough technical and domain knowledge to make correct
design decisions, and be empowered to make those decisions, ii) taking the proper time to
investigate technology options with the goal of selecting an implementation technology that
supports rapid prototyping, iii) abstracting away parts of the target platform to keep the
project focused on testing the value proposition, not the integration into the platform, iv)
systematically employing a light-weight process in which the implementation team and the
product owner can prioritize high-levels features and the team has autonomy to decide on
feature decomposition into tasks, and v) having frequent demonstrations, including
demonstrations with an audience that is not directly taking part in the project.
A Lean Start-up approach for developing minimum

viable products in an established company

OBJECTIVE
The Lean Start-up approach has been promoted as a way to nurture product innovation in
established companies (Märijärvi et al., 2016). The Lean Start-up approach has received
some attention from established companies including 3M, Telefonica, and General Electric.
However, adapting an approach intended for a start-up context so that it can work effectively
in established companies with established operating policies and procedures is challenging
(Kirsner, 2016). For example, the development of an MVP, a fundamental concept of the
Lean Start-up approach, which enables companies to quickly start the learning process by
integrating feedback from early adopters (Blank, 2007) has been identified as a key
challenge for established companies.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The ‘desirability’ space develops the necessary collaboration with the stakeholders by asking
‘What do people desire?’ and ultimately ‘How do people decide on new products?’ A
company needs to start by determining what would deliver value to the stakeholders. The
‘viability’ space clarifies the answer to the question ‘What is a sustainable business model?’
The ‘feasibility’ space considers ‘What is technically and organisationally feasible?’ The
solutions that emerge at the end of this iterative process should be positioned at the
intersection of these three dimensions (desirability, feasibility, and viability). It is here that
sustainable innovation occurs as it is based on understanding and fulfilling the needs of the
customer, creating products that are technically feasible, and sufficient value is generated for
the company.
The MVP process map advocates a process that commences with gaining insights from
current or potential customers; this is the primary motivation for creating a new product and
forms the basis for developing the initial MVP. If the level of desirability is insufficient, then
the company must decide to either pivot the problem (by moving to an alternative problem)
or to end the exploratory phase completely. In most instances though, the desirability phase
reveals various problems that were not envisaged by the design team during the ideation
phase. Adding new features to the product, removing features not desired, or modifying
features that were problematic for users subsequently refine the MVP. This results in a new
version of the MVP and a second iteration of the evaluation process is required. This
iterative evaluation process is repeated until the MVP moves closer to the PMF. Once the
PMF is achieved, then evaluation is complete and a product launch is planned.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

We have observed how the MVP process map has strengthened the company’s mental
models of how to go about introducing new opportunities for learning from an MVP, although
the capability to do so is perhaps building up at a slower pace. It is fair to say that some
software product development team members have a greater appetite and capabilities need
to be developed within the company in order to leverage emergent opportunities. Changing
organisational culture: The cultural differences between the high-speed learning approach
clashed with the slower paced culture of Texuna. The agility of the innovation team and its
ability to make prompt decisions challenged the status quo, which created tensions.
Changing the organisational culture requires continued support of the organisational
leadership and in certain instances a compromise may be required to satisfy all
stakeholders. There is a strong rationale underpinning each component of the MVP-PMF
conceptual framework and the MVP process map. We would, therefore, strongly discourage
practitioners from adopting all components without reflection and tailoring. Instead,
companies should ensure that the Lean Start-up approach is considered within its wider
innovation management portfolio. Each component of the diagrams presented in this paper
may be more relevant and critical in certain product/software design contexts than others.
We encourage practitioners to reflect on each and to adopt or tailor as necessary in order to
determine whether the Lean Start-up itself is suitable in that instance.

What we learnt from the activity.

It’s important to keep in mind the V in MVP—the product must be viable. That means it must
allow your customers to complete an entire task or project, and it must provide a high-quality
user experience. An MVP cannot be a user interface with many half-built tools and features.
It must be a working product that your company should be able to sell, it tells us to use LSM
approach to a product development and launch. It tells us to include a broad spectrum of
audience containing critics and the people who are supportive so no angle is left unturned.