The Minimum Viable Product
We now have access to near immediate feedback from whoever we want to get feedback from. A repetitive theme wafts through tech product circles that we should focus on the "minimum viable product" (MVP) so that we can be re-informed about whether we need to make more choices about whether to adjust our trajectory. A concept that was used in the U.S. Air Force called the OODA loop has gained popularity due to the conceptual parallels even though it's original usage has been re-contextualized.
Some thoughts and questions:
Is "MVP" now and forevermore the best way to do all things?
What about for building a nuclear reactor?
Before MVP was en vogue, the term was "prototyping". So, we have always done this, but I guess now the cycles are shorter because the data to make the cycles shorter exists.
Defining "viable" is central to the decision making process. If "viable" means "highly unlikely it will break and spew radiation into the atmosphere." we have to be supremely judicious with who is opining on that viability. In fact, defining "Minimum" is pretty important too. What does a "good enough" nuclear reactor look like? Nevermind. I don't want to know.
If "viable" is "Will remove this customer's pain point in their daily workflow", then we can tolerate that it's missing the spinning rims and hydraulics and rely on the customer's collective opinion that "This is Awesome!"
This post is my attempt at an MVP to express this idea, so I will get pedantic for a moment:
Minimum: A single page in less than 30 minutes
Viable: The post sparks interest in at least 1 person
Product: It has been published to the world
Done.