The Maximum Viable Product
Last week we drove from San Diego, CA to Portland, OR. We stopped off in Redding, California, specifically to experience the Calatrava designed pedestrian bridge that crosses the Sacramento River and connects two portions of the Turtle Bay Exploration Park. All thanks to my wife and partner, Kristina, who plans all of our travel. Not only is the bridge stunning like all Calatravas, it is also the world's largest functioning sundial. Did the town of Redding need to hire an internationally renown architect to build this bridge? No they didn’t. Could it have cost less? I’m sure it could have cost much less. Would Kristina and I have stopped with our dog Enzo to have lunch and enjoy the town if it was just a regular old bridge connecting two parts of a park? No we wouldn't have. The Turtle Bay Exploration Park was packed on a 90+ degree day. Much of this foot traffic seemed to be for that bridge.
It isn't likely that making a functional sundial was part of the brief sent to Santiago Calatrava. We don't even know if the sundial function was part of his original intent. It is possible that during the iterative process Calatrava realized it started to look like a sundial and he perhaps ran with it. This is the benefit of hiring a well trained, experienced, and high skilled professional for a project and giving them a little room to run. This bridge is not the MVP (Minimum Viable Product). If it was, no one would be there. This is the Maximum Viable Product. This is the most he could get through the system, not the least.
As designers we need to not only know how to get things made (#realdesignersship), and not only solve problems for real users (#usercentereddesign) we also have to convince those that hold the final decision making power in the process that they should help us to build things that people love. The goal is to make something of value not only for its immediate utility, but also something that engages that aspirational side of the human psyche. As designers we can do that a bit more than anyone else in the product development process.
We can never forget to advocate not only for industry. Our products have to be profitable and made within the context of commerce. We have to of course design products for users. If we are not solving real problems for real people, what are we actually doing? To those two things I'd like to add a third defining principle, we have to design for culture. We should at least strive to create things that are embraced by the culture as a whole and encourage people to look up toward the horizon. It is a difficult thing to test for and hard to predict, but we can try. By naming and defining it as a goal we at least have a higher chance of achieving that. I talk about some of these thoughts on the about page of michaelditullo.com but seeing the Sundial Bridge last week really drove it home again... on the flip side, the glass and metal floor of the bridge gets so hot there is a sign warning about dog paws, so I had to carry Enzo across, but we didn't mind :-)
For more than 20 years Michael has been designing iconic products and brand experiences for some of the best brands in the world including Nike, Google, Motorola, Honda, and Hasbro. Located in Portland, Oregon, his studio focuses on industry leading halo projects across autonomous automotive, consumer electronics, travel, mobile devices, wearables, toys and conceptual Hollywood entertainment projects. Learn more about his studio at michaelditullo.com
Sanitaryware Chief @ Organizacion Corona | Product Development, Industrial Design
5 年Getting the "most" out of the system should be the final goal of any good design. MVP seen as a quick iteration during early design stages to reduce uncertainty in a limited resource system is a rational way of working towards that MaxVP. I really find your point of view refreshing. We tend to forget MaxVP is the real goal. Calatrava's work is highly inspiring but from my point of view more akin to art than to design. I suggest this article to get a clearer view. Design should be responsible. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/jun/09/santiago-calatrava-defends-record-architect-spain
Industrial Designer, 9+ yrs, looking for new opportunity!
5 年I wonder if the solution is a mix of both: the maximum viable *design*, with the minimum viable *product*. The former, I think, is more what you're writing about--connecting with the human psyche, which doesn't need to add cost or complexity. For example, I've heard you mention certain shoe design details before. That stuff is great. Let's call that the Maximum Viable Design. Those details are free and easy to implement, and can really strengthen the emotional bond with the user. The Minimum Viable Product, in my mind, is more about reducing functional features and complexity so that you can get to market faster and cheaper, then see what customers think and iterate. This is especially important for startups or new ventures within corporations. I think a good MVP can (and should!) have an MVD. The MVD, as you say, is "the most you can get through the system." Maybe I'm splitting hairs here?
Associate Director, Engineering Strategy & Disruptive Technology at Carrier Corporation
5 年Thinking of the MVP as the most that you can get through the system is a challenge that would benefit many projects.
Retired loudspeaker innovator.
5 年Now I have another cool place for a weekend visit. Wise thoughts, as always, Michael.?
Career Strategist & Coach for UX Professionals | Writer, Speaker, & Podcaster | Personal Growth Nerd | Anti-Capitalist | Radically Inspired by People
5 年Refreshing reminder!