The words we use: MVP & WVP

Since its birth in 2001, the word MVP gets used/discussed very often by folks involved in software building; particularly product building.

Let me share my observations about how MVP is understood and used. Everybody knows the full form of MVP (Minimum Viable Product).

But here is the catch.
Many go under the spell that their MVP has to be "VIABLE”. Quickly the focus shifts
from “Let us discover if this is Viable”
to “Let us make this Viable”.
And soon enough this mindset drags the team into “Let us make this Viable, even though it will be bigger than Minimum”.

I think the original idea behind MVP (what Frank Robinson & Eric Ries had in mind) was... “Let us do a bare minimum prototype / crippled down prototype / maybe even crude prototype to showcase it to market/buyers/users so that from their reaction we can judge whether there would be takers for the solution we are building. (A crucial input to decide whether this will be commercially viable)”. 

I am sure the most important thing Frank & Eric had in mind about MVP was Learning & Discovering & Litmus-Testing & Course Correction. 

The last thing they had in mind about MVP was Building; Building something that can actually be put to use.

If the majority of product builders (Smart People, BTW), for a considerably long duration have been treating MVP as a small and early release of their product, maybe it is because the acronym itself communicates a wrong notion. 

Maybe it communicates that “Even though this is Minimum, this must be Viable”. This type of thinking results in spending enormously big time on building MVP, which defeats the very purpose of testing viability. 

In fact, Reid Hoffman hammered this idea when he said… “If you are not embarrassed by the first version of your product you’ve launched too late”.

Now that may sound like a bit of exaggeration to some, but it drives the point. 

So, the way we stopped using “Estimate” & “Roadmap” (and replaced them with these words), we also stopped using the acronym MVP and started using WVP in place of that.

WVP stands for “Whether Viable Prototype”. 

The acronym WVP clearly communicates…

(1) It is a prototype. So don’t be shy of making it small/intentionally crippled-down/minimal/crude as long as it is quick.

(2) It is a prototype. It could be, but need not be, a working software. It can be low-fidelity sketches, even sketches on paper.

(3) It is a prototype, so better use it to get some feedback from market / buyers / prospects / users. 

(4) The word “Whether” in WVP, hammers the point that...
“You are seeking feedback in the first place, because you are not sure whether it is viable or not. So, even if you get negative feedback, don’t lose heart, take it as a large waste of time/money successfully avoided."