The concept of a minimum viable product (MVP) has become a foundational part of digital product strategy. Usually, it means creating an initial version of a product or feature that includes just enough to be usable by customers, allowing for rapid validation and feedback. It is widely accepted as a smart strategy for getting something built and launched successfully without getting bogged down striving for perfection. While we completely agree that MVPs can be a valuable approach for product teams, our hot take is that it isn’t always the right approach. There are even instances where opting for an MVP may be more harmful than helpful. 

The danger of sacrificing user experience

You can probably think of a few examples of products that were rushed and released too early: maybe an ecommerce checkout which doesn’t notify you which fields are missing so you have to hunt through the form to find what you missed, or perhaps a restaurant loyalty app that constantly logs you out. While an MVP focuses on delivering a functional product quickly, it often sacrifices user experience in order to do so. The product might be usable, but it will lack the memorable interactions, delightful features and polish that would make it truly stand out to a user. If you are working on a product without many competitors, that might be an acceptable trade off for being first to market. But if your product will be just one of a plethora of options, a functional MVP may not be enough to make a mark. 

Consider the wider product strategy

Maybe you already have a product in the market and you are just introducing a new feature. It’s important to consider the impact of the feature and how it sits within your wider product strategy. If it is a small or even a medium-sized new feature, taking an MVP approach should be fine. It will have a minimal impact on the wider product as long as it's useable. However, if it's a large or high profile feature and its adoption is important to the future of the product, then it’s crucial to take the extra time and care to ensure it is going to wow users. An MVP may fall short in providing that compelling user experience and if users aren’t impressed on first usage, they may not give it a second chance.

Set a strong foundation

One additional consideration when it comes to MVP decisions, is whether you are setting a strong foundation for future improvement and growth. It’s fine to make sacrifices to get something live, but it’s important to consider which sacrifices will just end up costing you even more down the line. Make sure that what you are building is scalable and engineered for iteration. The core infrastructure of your product is not the place to cut corners in order to meet an MVP launch date. 

The MLP approach

Here at Furthermore, we often find ourselves pushing for a ‘minimum loveable product’ (MLP) rather than an MVP. Especially for a new product or those big showcase features, a small amount of additional effort to include elements that surprise and delight is key to long term success. When we first created Go Jauntly for example, we spent a long time working on the UI and the aesthetics of the app as that is one of the key differentiators between us and the other navigation apps in the market. Or in our work on the predictor game for Chelsea FC, we looked closely at the mechanics of entering your predictions. Sure a few dropdowns could have sufficed, but making the actual entry mechanics unique and fun added to the engaging experience and made it more addictive for users. 

The bottom line is that it’s important to consider all of these factors before choosing an MVP approach. It’s so ingrained in us now as designers, developers, and product managers that we often just default to MVP without truly considering the alternatives. But sometimes creating something loveable, not just viable, is a better way to go.