#lean model

In his model, experiments are more than theoretical exercise – they are the “first” product.  The difference is that you are selling to live customers which allows you to engage with real users, solve real problems and draw up detailed specs for what actually needs to be built.

Based on feedback – crucially from paying customers rather than interviews etc - you then apply Validated Learning, that is learning that is specifically measurable and verifiable.  Based on that you decide whether to Pivot or persevere.

 I say counterintuitive, but given that so many of the cases he cites are major brands, including those whose reputation is based on design quality, functionality and the end user experience including Apple, he does succeed in making me put a question mark after that.

 What is interesting is that in certain sectors e.g. consumer electronics, the Innovators / Early Adopters are clearly willing to buy just such MVPs, test them and give the necessary feedback, be forgiving, and eventually become influencers / evangelists. Interestingly, in certain markets, this approach seems to feed into the early / late majority also, without damaging the brand.  I’m unclear at this stage to what extent acceptance of a MVP approach is limited to certain sectors.

 There is no such thing as bad feedback – the absence of responses may indicate disinterest in certain features, while negative feedback may mean that the issue in question is important – ultimately all feedback helps identify which features are important / unimportant..

In the end, perhaps, properly applied, his model may be particularly appropriate in an era of mass customisation – where customers ultimately demand products that are highly configured, made-to-order, or come with additional and increasingly specialised features. 

His model builds in the ability to Pivot quickly in response to feedback, to be both Lean and Agile.  Ever-shorter product life cycles require new strategies for the most Lean and Agile - efficient and effective  - means of reducing the critical “time-to-market” window – getting this wrong means missed profit opportunity, less time to recoup investment, and higher risk of obsolescence.