The Journey to Product Market Fit and Beyond (Role of MVPs and MMFs)

https://youtu.be/p\_rI95YWo4U?si=wjBDdNOqRxtz04QM

The first step is to understand that for a new product to be successful, it should have a unique value proposition. This is the area where your product/service will be exceptional. Initially that is an hypothesis - a bet.

The next step is to test the hypothesis as efficiently as possible. We often use Minimum Viable Product (MVP) to test the product hypothesis. There could be cheaper ways. And there are more expensive ways.

A good MVP should focus on your unique value proposition but typically also provides some “Table stakes” features just to make sure it is “Viable” as a product.

Your MVP is also a hypothesis. It might be good enough to find Product Market Fit or not. The case where each potential customer you engage tells you “This is great BUT for me to use it I need X” and X is different for each customer/user is shown below. This shows you are not in a Product Market Fit yet.

On the other hand, if you are seeing more and more answers pointing to the SAME X, then it makes sense to revise your Customer/Problem/Solution Hypothesis.

You essentially are executing a Pivot. You are building MVP2 focused on the new hypothesis based on recent Customer Development learning generated by the previous MVP.

Let’s say MVP2 is successful and you are seeing real traction of early adopters. You want to increase growth and are looking for deeper penetration of your early adopters as well as bringing on new clients some of them beyond the early adopters crowd. Based on feedback you’ve been collecting and your product management research you have a couple of areas that can potentially bring this growth. Some of them, by the way, extend your unique value proposition and some of them make your current product more robust.

In the case of areas with a strong indication of value, you might go straight for Minimally Marketable Features (MMF). Finding the minimum piece that can start bringing in growth. The aim of the MMF is to bring in value. It assumes high certainty that there is value in this area and that we know what the product needs to be to provide this value. The reason to break a big feature into smaller MMFs is mainly time to market and the ability to bring in value in many areas, always keeping your option to move to another area and provide value in it rather than focusing for too long on a single direction. An indication that you are working on MMFs is that when one is being shipped you feel comfortable working on the next MMF in that area. If on the other hand, you want to wait and see if your first MMF sticks…

…then you are back in hypothesis land. But now your hypothesis is centered on a feature rather than your product. You have an area with high potential but also high uncertainty. The way to deal with it is to build a “pioneering” feature — the Minimum Viable Feature. The minimum feature that can still be viable for real use and learning from real customers.

If you learn that the MVF has hit gold you can develop more MMFs in that area to take advantage (if that makes sense). If not, you can pivot to another approach towards that feature area, or at some point look for alternative growth path. Essentially the MVF is a mini-me version of the MVP.

There you have it. The full model. Essentially my point is that you grow a product in uncertain markets by attempting various MVPs. Then once you achieve Product-Market Fit you mix MMFs and MVFs depending on the level of Business/Requirements uncertainty in the areas you are focusing on.

While MVPs/MMFs/MVPs are atomic from a business perspective (you cannot deploy and learn from something smaller) they might be quite big from an implementation perspective.

The dinosaur carpaccio now comes in as slicing each of those pieces here to smaller slices aimed at reducing execution/technology risk. (typically these are called User Stories) Those smaller slices might have tangible business value but on the other hand, some might not. It is more important for them to provide early implementation decision feedback along the way.

Here’s the thing…

On the way to Product Market Fit you are more focused. You have limited resources as well as a very clear goal.

Post-product market Fit, you often have a growing team with more options to explore. Some of these options can be exercised by adding new Features to your core product. Some require building product variants or even new products.

Leading a product organization post-PMF requires proactively managing this investment options portfolio. Weighing bets in new growth areas vs solidifying the PMF in your core.

Post-PMF you also start to have more customers, demands, and eventually a sales force that is struggling to sell your MVP and is resorting to promises along the lines of “If only we had X, we could close this $$$$ deal” that threat to shift the organization from being Product-led to being Sales-led.