Once again I find myself coming back to Reid Hoffman’s quote about early products:
“If you’re not embarrassed by the product when you launch, you’ve launched too late.” Reid Hoffman, founder LinkedIn
Reid is articulating an idea that comes up again and again, whether called a prototype, technology demonstrator, proof of concept (PoC), steel thread or walking skeleton, or, the dreaded, minimally viable product (MVP) he is calling out the value gained by early feedback.
What is different here is Reid is directly challenging us to go below our own expectations and our own beliefs of what is truly needed. At the same time he is laying a trap: the need for more work is built in.
While PoC, walking skeleton, MVP (especially) and the others terms all have their own logic for going small, they are too often in used by those in power to get what they want while downplaying other people’s wants. Oddly, the person demanding the MVP is usually happy to pass over what others want while insisting the things they want is minimal.
What all these formulation are trying to do is learn and, perhaps, start the feedback loop.
A technology demonstrator or proof of concept aim to learn what the technology can do.
A walking skeleton, aka steel thread, aims to learn how all the pieces fit together.
An MVP, should, help us learn about what the market wants from the product.
Like doing a limbo dance, all these ideas are asking “How low can you go?”
Reid is saying the same thing, and at the same time saying “Don’t kid yourself or anyone else that it is done.” A useful addition.
Similarly, when I did Product Management training with Pragmatic they had a catch phase: “You opinion, while interesting, is irrelevant.” I even have that quote on mug from a grateful product manager!
Yet in the last few weeks I’ve been feeling guilty for my part in pushing this idea. I’ve used all these formulations over the years to say to people: “Lets do something small, see what happens and learn.” But this idea is being used wrong.
When challenged that this is irresponsible I’ve been happy to point out that this approach has limits: I won’t offer a cure for cancer to test market uptake. (This was particularly relevant with a client who was actively trying to cure cancer.)
I’ve been horrified by the actions of xAI as they released a product with no safeguards at all. This was going lower than I ever imagined possible.
Their product that removed the freedom of people, particularly women, to appear as they want to appear. I, and every other person on the planet, has the right and freedom to appear fully clothed, and the freedom to restrict images of ourselves.
The same is true in other fields recently. Copyright now only seems to apply to those with the money to enforce it – as was said about the English legal system: “justice is open to all – like the Ritz Hotel”. Or consider democracy: moving fast seems to have broken it and fixing it is hard.
While I have been challenging tech builders to build less and learn more for years I have always assumed there was a level of shared values, common understanding and simple decency that formed a lower limit. Something so common that it didn’t need spelling out.
Without shared values it is very likely that one side will feel cheated by the other. I’ve seen many engineers roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders when told to build a “minimally viable product.” Without shared values these engineers feel they are being asked to cut quality while stuffing the product with features. Akin to building a car with many cup-holders but no breaks.
I’d like to say the answer is shared values. On long lasting teams that can work, but often technology teams have only just met and share very little to start with.
The answer, as is often the case, is to step back and be clear about what you are trying to achieve, ask “why?” Be clear about what is minimal in the market and clear about what technology you are demonstrating. By all means challenge yourself and others but remember there are limited, don’t claim to cure cancer.