MVP or minimum viable product is one of the more commonly misunderstand concepts in lean entrepreneurship. And it’s no wonder. The term “viable” means different things to different people and “minimum” is often misinterpreted to mean, “requiring the least amount of effort possible”. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Creating a quality MVP requires quite a bit of research, planning, and effort. But, properly implemented, an MVP is one of the best methods available to entrepreneurs to deliver quality products that customers want.
How things used to be done (And why you shouldn’t do them this way anymore)
To understand what a minimum viable product is we first need to establish some context. Before MVPs became commonplace most start-ups spent their time, often years, developing in secret fully realized, fully functional applications, which they then released and attempted to sell.
This approach is, at first blush, quit rational. If you were building a car wouldn’t you make certain every single system needed to make the car function as optimally as possible was in place before you sent models out to dealerships? You wouldn’t include wheels but no engine. You wouldn’t install a driver’s seat but leave holes in the floor where passengers might sit. You would build a finished car and then attempt to sell it.
The problem with this approach is that, assuming you don’t run out of seed money before bringing your product to market, you have no idea whether the product you’ve built for your potential customers is the product they want. Developers are smart people, certainly, but they’re not mind readers. It’s entirely possible that after years of development that shiny new product they’re proudly parading out to customers is a lemon, a spiffy, feature-rich failure that no one wants and that no one will ever buy.
MVP to the rescue!
A minimum viable product attempts to short circuit this quagmire of uncertainty by getting something in front of potential customers as quickly as possible in order to learn as much as possible about exactly what sort of product these customers need.
Put simply, the first version of your product doesn’t need to have every single possible feature implemented fully. It just needs to have a minimum subset of features that allow it to be useable by a portion of your potential customer base. This group, generally early adopters, is capable of understanding your vision for the product even in an incomplete form. As long as it possesses a rich enough feature set to allow it to address the central problem your product is designed to solve these power users are willing to overlook missing functionality. They’ll use your product and give you feedback. You can then use this feedback to improve your MVP, add features and then iterate.
Building a product through iteration
In order to understand how this works let’s return to our car analogy. Imagine they don’t exist and your start-up is trying to solve the problem of how to move people around quickly from place to place. Instead of designing an entire car from the ground up as we did earlier in the article we could instead develop a car MVP. We need only build a product with a minimum feature set to solve the proposed problem. We might take a plank of wood, screw axles onto the front and back and add some wheels.
Bingo! We have an MVP that moves people from place to place quicker than they could if they walked.
It’s car-like but not yet a car. It is a glorified skateboard at best. It fulfills the basic problem we’re trying to solve, so we roll it out to customers (no pun intended).
They buy it, try it out and give us feedback.
The early adopters generally like it but they tell us, among other things, it isn’t fast enough, it’s difficult to steer and they’re not fans of having to stand up.
We have feedback! We just learned very useful information about what our customers want without spending years building a fully realized car. So now we take that data and iterate. Maybe we add in a seat, attach the wheels to a steering mechanism and install pedals to allow faster movement. It’s still not a car. But Release. Get feedback. Iterate.
Are we done yet?
In the next version of our car MVP we replace the pedals with an engine. Release. Feedback. Iterate. We go from two wheels to four for increased stability. We enclose the passenger area to keep out the elements. Iterate. We improve the engine for greater horsepower. Iterate.
You get the idea. By the end of this process 
we have a function-rich, fully realized car built incrementally with constant feedback from our end users. By the time our car is released we’re about as certain as we can be that it’s exactly what our customers want because they’ve been involved throughout the entire development process.
In a nutshell, that’s MVP. Products are developed with only those features that are absolutely necessary for the savvy user to get it and give us feedback on how to proceed. After multiple iterations, each round improving existing features and adding new ones for testing we arrive finally at a finished product that does exactly what it needs to in exactly the right way. We know our customers will buy it because in a very real sense they helped develop it.
Should you build viable or build awesome?
We started this article off talking about how many people interpret “minimum viable” to mean, “requiring the least amount of effort possible”. This misunderstanding has led to some pretty lousy MVPs because their creators focused too much on “minimum” and not enough on “viable”. They didn’t put enough effort into thinking through exactly what their customers needed from a minimum viable experience in order to see the vision and appreciate what the product might eventually do for them.
As a result, a contingent of thought leaders in the industry have called for a nomenclature shift. Instead of “minimum viable product” they’ve coined the term “minimum awesome product” or MAP. This new way of thinking better captures the spirit of the MVP. It isn’t about delivering a barebones experience that leaves your customers confused and dissatisfied. It’s about providing them a great experience, built with just the features needed to test the current product hypothesis. Your MAP/MVP isn’t complete. That’s explicit in the idea. But it shouldn’t FEEL incomplete.
I am not a fan of this kind of visuals as example, because that is kind of cliché, however, like they say, it is a cliché because it is true!
And there’s another reason to consider MAP versus MVP. A minimum viable product is fine in situations where there’s little competition, where users have no pre-existing expectations.
But what about situations where products like the one being developed already exist?
In this case you need to include these pre-existing expectations in your design. It’s not enough to include only basic viability. You need to make sure your user experience stacks up to what users already imagine it should be. And the greater the density of competition, the more awesome you need to make your MAP. Otherwise even early adopters may ignore you.
Consider our car analogy again. Midway through our iterative process earlier we created an MVP product that functioned like a bicycle. If bicycles didn’t already exist then no one would have any expectations for how they should look and feel. You could get away with two wheels bolted roughly to a single metal bar with a plank on top for a seat. But ask yourself if that would satisfy a customer that already had experience with existing bicycles. The answer is a resounding, “no”. In order to satisfy these customers your design needs to be elevated to match their pre-existing expectations. This, in simple terms, is the difference between an MVP and an MAP.
The thing to remember about MAP is that it still agrees that an MVP, in terms of features, should only include those needed for minimum viability. What’s in question is the user experience, the look and feel of the product. With MAP, you need to give this more love than you might with a classic MVP implementation. But otherwise the concept is very much the same.
The market is saturated and there are hardly any new ideas. What that means is, your product needs to kickass, and has to offer a better user experience than other products out there.
Again, think of the car companies. Every company tries to lure customers by offering a better model than their competition at an almost similar price. If they don’t do it, how long do you think they can survive?
The same logic applies to your startup. If you are trying to build a product where competition exists, you have no choice but to make it awesome. Now, that doesn’t mean that you need to spend drastically more efforts, time and money on making your product awesome. It all starts with planning and research. You need to keep your user in the center and then start thinking around their pain points and possible solutions. In other words, listen to your users and focus on delivering an awesome user experience. It won’t cost a lot, but the number of users adopting for your product will definitely be significantly higher.
So, what are you waiting for? Get iterating!
MVPs, or MAPs if you’re feeling saucy, are the best way for a start-up interested in controlling costs to deliver quality products that they know their customers are interested in. And now that you understand exactly what goes into an MVP you’re ready to get your team working on one for your customers. So get started, and happy iterating! If you need help defining your MVP, feel free to schedule a call with our experts.
The post Build minimum viable or minimum awesome? appeared first on OCDLAB.
]]>IoT done right!
If you are reading this post, I would like to assume that you already know what is “internet of things” (IoT) and there is a fair chance that you are working on some idea to bring an old fashioned stand alone device to the internet.
Being in this business, we learn about some brilliant innovations every other day, but then there are times when it just doesn’t feel right. So, let us try to understand what is important and how to make your next IoT idea successful.
While it is easy to slap in devices together and get them to talk, the real value of an implementation lies in how quickly users adapt to these solutions and for how long they can serve. When investing in a project, it is important to think about building an environment and not just a device.
-
1. Always start with “why.”
First things first, think carefully if IoT deployment is even required. Half the ideas are not successful because they lack fundamental research on whether the operational set-up even requires the connectivity.
-
2. Select a platform that is future ready.
IoT is usually a custom built application to suit very specific needs. That means the supporting hardware, around that need, is specially designed. Making sure that such components will be available and reasonable in the long term is essential for future planning.
-
3. Comply with regulations.
Connected hardware relies on a network communication via signal transmissions. Therefore, it is critical that all products be tested and meet regulatory requirements. Emission safety and cellular carrier certifications must be taken into account while designing for internet of things.
-
4. Make security your priority.
Building a device that is secure is often a challenge when device security is an afterthought. Design your product that has end-to-end security factored into it. Making security an add-on feature is promising data leaks at the very first step.
-
5. Extend usability beyond connectivity.
Users must be able to rely on their device. That means extending usability even when the device is not connected. Build your device so that it makes the users in total control of what they own, even when they are not able to connect to others in the network.
-
6. Don’t Skip the Research.
IoT devices change the way people live and communicate with their surroundings. That is precisely the reason why anyone will use your solution. Ensure that you have researched how your product will help your customers. Do your due diligence on the idea before you decide to bring it to the market.
-
7. Know what the app will do.
As these ecosystems develop, it is imperative to assume that these devices will last for long. Make your device scalable enough to be used even after years of being commissioned with little or no modification.
-
8. Make your designers and engineers sync in with the common objective.
Your IoT device is more than a hardware and software jig. Make it an experience. While your developers work hard to build functionality, the designers should ensure that it looks million dollars without compromising the UX. Human-centered designs are essential for a successful implementation.
-
9. Establish a useful data analytics system for your device.
The amount of data that an implementation can collect makes it important for you to know how to use that information to your advantage. The data define the value of your product that it receives from connected products to help business decisions.
-
10. Keep it simple yet powerful.
The internet of things is not only adding connectivity to existing products but to build an ecosystem that makes each of the connected devices more efficient, they would be in isolation. While the users want to enjoy this complex system of seamless integration and intuitive interfaces, but only as long as the application is simple. Your product cannot afford a long learning cycle of the customer.
The post IoT done right! appeared first on OCDLAB.
]]>How do Self-Service Kiosks transform your business?
Self-service kiosks save money and make your checkout more efficient. But that’s nothing compared to how they transform customer behavior.
Self-service kiosks are a growing trend in retail stores, restaurants and other customer-facing businesses. Many business owners look at kiosks as a simple choice between staff and technology, with all the potential cost savings that a smaller staff size brings. While this view is accurate, it only captures part of the picture—self-service kiosks actually change customer behavior, completely transforming your business.
To understand how this works, let’s take a look at a typical self-serve kiosk. Most involve a touchscreen interface and help customers check out without speaking to a cashier. The same setup can be adapted for clinics, law offices and other settings where customers may need to complete paperwork or sign in for an appointment. The technology allows the customer to do everything themselves—quickly.
That has some major changes on customer behavior:
- Customers get to be as picky as they want. Most of us have fairly specific preferences about the things we buy, especially food at restaurants. But when you order from a live person, placing a complicated custom order feels like inconveniencing someone. As a result, customers using self-service kiosks tend to choose more custom options and add-ons, even when they cost more money. This is an example of a win-win for the consumer and the business, increasing customer satisfaction while also driving sales.
- Customers choose options they might not consider with a live person. When restaurant customers place orders through a touchscreen at their table, they are more likely to order dessert after their meal. The reason is simple: the self-service model eliminates the chance of looking like a glutton in the eyes of the server. The kiosk allows them to have their cake and eat it too, without any guilt.
- There are lower barriers to customer transactions. Self-service kiosks mean shorter lines, less chit chat, and total freedom to text or listen to podcasts while buying your latte. Customers appreciate all three of these conveniences. The bottom line is that the kiosks make it easier to go into a business, get what you want, and get out again.
Other interesting case examples we’ve seen include:
- Liquor store customers bought more products with hard-to-pronounce names once the store when self-service.
- McDonald’s found that the average sale rose by €1.00 per order when customers were given a self-service checkout, with frequent upsells on beverages. This was a 30% increase.
- Cinemark theaters have seen concession sales increase every quarter for eight years since offering self-service.
These numbers aren’t proof that self-service is always good. There are times when a human touch, or the value of face to face interaction, improves service or makes the customer value your service more. There are also situations where a business will want to balance the use of technology with customers’ preferences—especially if your market skews toward an older audience. Overall, however, self-serve kiosks seem to remove a barrier between customers’ wants and closing the sale.
Should your business go self-service? It depends. It’s a powerful option to give customers, and it can often be deployed alongside traditional checkouts. But every business has its own unique needs. What would a self-service option look like for your business? Would it be an app, an online ordering feature, or a physical touchscreen in store? Could it deliver more value for your customers? Contact us today to discuss how Self-service kiosks can help your business.
The post How do Self-Service Kiosks transform your business? appeared first on OCDLAB.
]]>Technology Trends 2017
You blink, and you could have missed it. That is the speed of technology upgrades and innovations today. As new technologies continue to create new propositions for businesses, we look at some trends that are set to make waves in 2017. While IoT (Internet of Things), VR (Virtual Reality) and Smart Homes are going to get a lot more momentum in 2017, there are more.
Regardless of how you choose to adopt new technologies, your customers continue to remain your focus. If a technology is grabbing their bandwidth, it’s time for you to switch, too. Our advice, if you are starting a business, any of these is a low hanging fruit. And if you are already into a business, thinking about how to leverage these technologies is a good idea.
The post Technology Trends 2017 appeared first on OCDLAB.
]]>Graphic Design Trends 2017
The web is a unique environment which is always changing and evolving with new UI design trends. But the more users it attracts, the more essential it becomes to ensure an engaging UI and UX. UX design plays a huge role to make your app or website stand out, and keep your users happy. The good news is, this is not rocket science. You can follow some simple concepts to make sure your users are getting the best experience they deserve.
There is no rule book, no pattern, no logic, yet there is an unsaid code for graphics that trends. This trend is bound to have new avatars in the new year. From colors to dimensions, from graphics to silhouettes, from typography to layout, everything might just scale down or just blow up. But these design trends are set to dominate the world of digital disciplines in 2017.
The post Design Trends 2017 appeared first on OCDLAB.
]]>How Hexagons can make your life miserable
One of the days when your marketing collateral overhaul is a back burner project, you happen to come across a design that is just too impressive in your face. And then, when it comes to a design inspiration, you quickly raid your laptop’s history to find that great work of art that hasn’t left you yet. Voila! you find it, to assure yourself, that this is THE design you want your project to have.
One such thing happened to us while overhauling our website. And what hit us was an unassuming shape, we call a Hexagon. A typical hexagon is a six sided polygon, to define it simply. But, how does this harmless form of geometry become a nightmare.
Well it starts with that phase, when you appreciate some design. Then this admiration grows into fondness and Hexagons become the smartest thing to have happened in geometry.
The next phase is when you start noticing Hexagons everywhere. So the storyboarding of the project happens, our design is just a cluster of hexagons scrolling up and down the webpage. We are good to go. Then we add animations to them, fair enough. Now that is where the monster wakes up. How would you align a six sided figure, a bunch of them, to pop, slide, appear, or sway across the screen?
So you decide to animate each of them individually, while dancing to a common tune. That was too much music for a website design. Some hexagons jumped, some swayed, some slid etc. But it is not happening. The co-workers start giving their suggestions and inputs. We improvise, but the we are still not there. Stuck on a design we are lagging behind our deadline, numb on creativity, and a team of frustrated designers who just don’t understand what’s the big deal with Hexagons.
Our developers have started hating us, our designers think we are logic less individuals, aimlessly obsessed by a silly shape, our other key projects are getting hit, we are paying one big bunch for months together just to make a few hexagons glide elegantly from right to the left of the screen, and we still have the audacity to try, once more! Why? Because they are different, they represent complexity with a simple shape, and because you like them.
This is what hexagons can do to you. Well, this has happened with most of us, who work in creative environments. Those times, when you feel, was creativity really your calling, were you actually hired for it?
How do you shake it off:
- Look for inspiration outside of the area of design that you’re working on
- Walk away from your laptop
- Begin with the end in vision
- Doodle in your sketchbook
And if this is not enough, there are apps to help:
- The MindNode
- Moodboard
- OmniGraffle
- iDesign
The post How Hexagons can make your life miserable appeared first on OCDLAB.
]]>