Re:A Minimum Viable Product Is Not a Product, It’s a Process
by paulddraper on Saturday January 23, 2016 @03:43PM
(#10959997)
If you are correct, they basically fail at English language/marketing.
That's like saying the Most Valuable Player is the fan that provided the most value to a player. You named it wrong.
Re:A Minimum Viable Product Is Not a Product, It’s a Process
by edanm on Saturday January 23, 2016 @05:34PM
(#10960445)
Well, that's one way to look at it. Another is to say that it was perfectly clear what it meant when it was coined - redefining the idea of "product" to mean "something that gives you feedback on your plan", rather than "something people can use". It was the idea that you don't need anything more at this stage, not a "real" product.
Sure, without the history people won't understand it, but then that's true of most terms in most fields, and I'm really not sure if there is a way to prevent it.
Remember, naming things is hard.
Re:A Minimum Viable Product Is Not a Product, It’s a Process
by paulddraper on Sunday January 24, 2016 @02:17PM
(#10963600)
Not that hard.
Minimum useful experiment
Minimum viable prototype
That's the problem with coining a phrase that gets popular. It starts out as one thing that is not necessarily 100% correct. Then it's too late to change it once you understand it better and understand how to implement it.