Can MVP Impede Good Design

As more and more organization adopt an Agile approach to product development it is important to avoid the pitfalls of poor practices. A case in point is the concept of the Minimum Viable Product (MVP).

MVPs are a good way to get a complex project off to a productive start. Since Agile Sprints are typically two to three weeks in length it is important to produce something demonstrable to make the Sprint Review worthwhile for stakeholders. But in all-to-often cases teams may use the MVP to actually impair a long-term vision for the product.

To be effective an MVP should provide a glimpse of where the overall development effort is going. It is not simply a part of the whole, but mores a glimpse of the whole. This is a fine line to follow when engaging teams in product design.

I often hear teams express concern about scope creep when Sprinting toward a MVP. The team is anxious about the deadline. This can lead teams to cut corners. Some teams will avoid discussion of the completed product to save time and ask their team mates to only focus on the part of the product that is under development for the MVP.

This myopic approach to product design can lead to critical design flaws that become technical debt in the longer term release cadence. If the simplicity of the MVP is too narrow then teams may lose site of what is required for a good product.

The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) has defined a process for Potential Shippable Increments (PSIs) These increments of work encapsulate a series of Sprints into a release plan. While one Sprint may lead to an MVP, the overall mandate and vision for a "shippable" product is never lost.

Thinking long-term, even while working on short-term goals is necessary and ensuring that MVPs are an incremental and demonstrable part of a greater product is key to making them successful. Cutting corners to make a deadline is never the true aim of an Agile process.