Conference PaperPDF Available

MVP Explained: A Systematic Mapping Study on the Definitions of Minimal Viable Product

Authors:

Figures

Content may be subject to copyright.
MVP Explained: A Systematic Mapping Study on the
Definitions of Minimal Viable Product
Valentina Lenarduzzi, Davide Taibi
Faculty of Computer Science
Free University of Bolzano/Bozen
39100 Bolzano/Bozen - Italy
{valentina.lenarduzzi; davide.taibi}@unibz.it
Abstract
Context: One of the most important steps of the Lean Startup
methodology is the definition of Minimum Viable Product (MVP),
needed to start the learning process by integrating the early
adopters feedbacks as soon as possible.
Objective: This study aims at identifying the common definitions
of MVP proposed and the key factors identified to help
entrepreneurs efficiently define their MVP, reducing errors due to
unconsidered unknown factors.
Method: We identified the MVP definitions and key factors by
means of a systematic mapping study, defining the research
questions and the protocol to be used. We selected the
bibliographic sources, the keywords, and the selection criteria for
searching the relevant papers.
Results: We found 97 articles and, through inclusion and exclusion
criteria, removed 75 articles, which reduced the total to 22 at the
end of the process. The results are a classification schema for
characterizing the definition of Minimum Viable Product in Lean
Startups and a set of common key factors identified in the MVP
definitions.
Conclusion: The identified key factors are related to technical
characteristics of the product as well as market and customer
aspects. We found a positive improvement of the state of the art of
MVP and the definition of Minimum.
KeywordsMinimum Viable Product, Lean Startup, Startup,
Entrepreneurship
I. INTRODUCTION
The definition of Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is a
fundamental concept of the Lean Startup methodology. The
definition of MVP is an iterative process based on continuous
feedback obtained from the early adopters.
The term MVP was defined by Frank Robinson [S1] in 2001
and then disseminated by Eric Ries from 2009 [S2] and Blank
[S3] from 2010. MVP is a continuously evolving concept,
defined by Eric Ries in 2011 [6] as “a version of a new product,
which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated
learning about customers with the least effort”. Starting from
this definition, a lot of different proposals have been made. In
order to understand the differences, we propose a systematic
mapping study of the literature. In this work, we want to identify
the different MVP definitions proposed and the key factors
considered in the definitions itself.
For this reason, the mapping study is intended to answer the
following main research question: What are the common
definitions of Minimum Viable Product (MVP)?
This paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we present
the background of this work, briefly describing the systematic
mapping process and the Lean Startup methodology. In Section
3, we describe the research questions and the systematic
mapping protocol. In Section 4, we show the systematic
mapping results and in Section 5, we explain the threats to
validity of the study. Finally, in Section 6, we draw conclusions
and sketch future work.
II. BACKGROUND
In this Section, we will briefly introduce the background.
First, we will outline the domain, focusing on the Lean Startup
methodology and the role of Minimum Viable Product (MVP).
Second, we will summarize the systematic mapping procedure
underlying the relevant steps.
A. Lean Startup Methodology
Eric Ries [6] proposed an innovative methodology for
developing businesses and products called Lean Startup.
According to Ries, the product development process can be
reduced by combining business-driven hypothesis
experimentation and iterative product releases. Building a
product iteratively based on the needs of early customers could
lead to reduced market risks such as expensive product launches
and failures.
The Lean Startup methodology is based on the following
five core principles:
Entrepreneurs are everywhere;
Entrepreneurship is management;
Validated learning;
Build-Measure-Learn;
Innovation accounting.
Build-Measure-Learn is the fundamental activity where the
entrepreneur must turn ideas into products, then measure how
customers respond, and finally learn whether to give up or
persevere. The fundamental aspect of Build-Measure-Learn is
the Minimum Viable Product (MVP), defined as: “a version of
a new product, which allows a team to collect the maximum
amount of validated learning about customers with the least
effort”. Several others definitions have been proposed since
then, and entrepreneurs and researchers usually face the problem
of selecting the most appropriate definition of MVP.
B. Systematic Mappings
According to Kai Petersen et al. [1], a systematic mapping
study is a useful method for getting an overview of a particular
research area and for identifying the quantity and type of the
research and the results available within it. Unfortunately,
systematic mapping studies are not taken into account by
software engineering researchers often enough, compared with
other research fields [3][4]. In Fig. 1, we show the process
adopted in this work. More details on the systematic mapping
process can be found in [1].
Fig. 1. The Systematic Mapping Process
III. STUDY DESIGN
In this Section, we will describe the study design, defining the
research questions and the systematic mapping protocol. We
selected the bibliographic sources, the keywords, and the
selection criteria so as to retrieve the most relevant papers.
A. Research Question definition
In this step of the systematic mapping process, we
formulated the Research Questions (RQ) so as to define the
protocol to be followed. We structured the RQ based on the
PICO structure [5], PICO being the acronym of Population,
Intervention, Comparison and Outcome. This structure makes it
easier to identify the keywords in the next steps. Our research
question is:
In the field of Lean Startups (P), what are the common
key factors (I) that characterize the Minimum Viable
Product (MVP) (O) compared with the original definition
(C)?
We refined the general RQ into four sub-questions:
RQ1.1: What is the chronological overview of the research
on the definition of Minimum Viable Product (MVP)?
RQ1.2: How has the definition of Minimum Viable Product
(MVP) evolved compared to the original one?
RQ1.3: What are the common definitions of “minimum”
and their related main MVP purposes?
RQ1.4: What are the common key factors that characterize
the definitions of Minimum Viable Product (MVP)?
B. The protocol
In this step of the systematic mapping process, we defined the
bibliographic sources, the keywords used, and the selection
criteria for identifying the relevant papers.
1) Identification of bibliographic sources
The search process can be conducted automatically or manually
among specific journal and conferences. In order to better
address this step, we decided to combine both procedures. As
source engines, we selected:
ACM digital Library
IEEEXplore Digital Library
Springer Link
Google Scholar
Science Direct
2) Keywords used
We defined the keywords used based on the PICO [5] terms of
our Research Questions. From the terms Population (P) and
Intervention (I), we identified different acronyms as keywords
as shown in Table I in order to retrieve the relevant papers from
the selected source engines.
TABLE I. THE KEYWORDS USED
P: Lean Startups
P1 terms: “Startup” ,“Lean Startup”,
Entrepreneurship”, “Entrepreneur”
I: MVP definition
I1 terms: “Minimum Viable Product”
(“Startup” OR “Lean Startup” OR “Entrepreneurship” OR
“Entrepreneur”) AND “Minimum Viable Product”
3) Selection criteria
The search was conducted after defining the selection criteria
in order to identify those articles in the bibliographic sources
that are closest to our research questions. We conducted a
manual search over title, abstract, and keywords. We selected
the papers first by keyword, then by title, and finally by
abstract. After retrieving the results, we applied the selection
criteria to refine the identified papers:
General selection criteria: We included only papers
published in journals and at conferences. We excluded
not peer-reviewed papers not written in English and
works that are clearly obsolete. We also considered the
contributions of gray literature and blogs so as to
consider possible opinions reported in non-scientific
papers.
Selection by title and abstract: We removed all papers
that do not provide a potential definition of MVP.
Selection by full papers: We removed those papers that
did not correctly satisfy our research questions: (1)
showing a definition of MVP in the paper and (2) clearly
defining MVP.
IV. STUDY RESULTS
Starting from the keywords defined in Table I, we retrieved
97 papers including the gray literature. Then we selected the
papers based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria both for
title and abstract. With this selection, we removed 75 papers;
and through a detailed review of each article, we finally reduced
the set of papers to 22 main articles. In Fig. 2, we show the
number of articles remaining after each step of the process.
Bibliographic sources
identification Study results
Research Questions
definition Keywords used Selection criteria
definition
Fig. 2. Exclusion of articles and number of primary
studies [1]
We report the distribution and type of relevant publications
in the source engines used for the search in Table II. Among the
studies selected, only 22 focus on the goal; the other papers are
aimed at analyzing the Lean Startup process underlying the
business aspect and the role of the entrepreneur. We found the
22 papers from the most relevant journals and conferences as
shown in Table III. However, as reported in Section 3, since
there is a lot of work on MVP reported in the gray literature
such as blogs and websites, here we also analyze this and report
it in Table III.
TABLE II. DISTRIBUTION OF RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS PER SOURCE
ENGINE AND PUBLICATION TYPE
Source Engine
Number
ACM
1
Google Scholar
89
Springer Link
4
IEEEXplore Digital Library
9
Science Direct
3
Publication Type
Number
Conferences
21
Journals
31
Workshops
3
Gray Literature
45
TABLE III. PUBLICATIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE SYSTEMATIC MAPPING STUDY
Title Type Study Id.
Year
A Proven Methodology to Maximize Return on Risk
[S1]
2001
Minimum Viable Product: a guide
[S2]
2009
Perfection By Subtraction The Minimum Feature Set
[S3]
2010
Developing a Minimum Viable Product
[S4]
2010
Scaling Agile @ Spotify
[S5]
2012
Minimum Viable Product and the Importance of Experimentation in Technology Startups
[S6]
2012
Global Mindset: An Entrepreneur’s Perspective on the Born-Global Approach
[S7]
2012
An Ecosystem-Based Job-Creation Engine Fuelled by Technology Entrepreneurs
[S8]
2013
Lean Product Development in Early Stage Startups
[S9]
2013
Now and Later? Mentorship, Investor Ties and New Venture Performance in Entrepreneurial
Seed-Accelerators
Gray Literature [S10] 2013
Course Development and Sequencing for Interdisciplinary Entrepreneurship Education
[S11]
2013
Customer Development, Innovation and Decision-Making Biases in the Lean Startup
[S12]
2014
Development of a Mobile Application Using the Lean Startup Methodology
[S13]
2014
From Agile Software Development to Mercury Business
[S14]
2014
Developing Entrepreneurial Skills in IT Courses: The Role of Agile Software Development
Practices in Producing Successful Student Initiated Products
Conference [S15] 2014
Creating Minimum Viable Products in Industry-Academia Collaborations
[S16]
2014
Minimum Viable Product (MVP) for Product startup: A in Indian perspective
[S17]
2014
Maximizing Product Value: Continuous Maintenance
[S18]
2014
The Relationship Between Business Model Experimentation and Technical Debt
[S19]
2015
Lean Startup: Why Large Software Companies Should Care
[S20]
2015
The Lean Start-up Approach versus Scrum A case study of German startup Student Couch
[S21]
2015
Accelerating Web-Entrepreneurship in Local Incubation Environments
[S22]
2015
1) RQ1.1: What is the chronological overview of the
research on the definition of Minimum Viable Product (MVP)?
The 97 papers identified by keywords and selection criteria
were published between 2001 and 2015, as shown in Fig. 3. The
results show an improvement of the research in terms of
quantity from 2012 to 2015. The selected papers were mainly
published between 2012 and 2015.
RQ1.2: How has the definition of Minimum Viable Product
(MVP) evolved compared to the original one?
As reported in Table IV and Fig. 4, the first definition of
MVP was proposed by Frank Robinson [S1] in 2001, with a
strong focus on the economic point of view. Then, in an
interview for Venturehacks in 2009, Eric Ries proposed a new
definition of MVP [S2], then confirmed this in his book in 2011
[6] and adopted as is, or rephrased, in eleven other works. In
ACM digital Library
IEEEXplore Digital Library
Springer Link
Google Scholar
Science Direct
Search Databases Exclusion and
Inclusion (Abstract)
Detailed Reading and
Data Extraction
97 articles 75 articles 22 articles
ti
2010, another new definition was proposed by Steve Blank
[S3], which was then rephrased in 2014 [S18], extended with a
partially new contribution in 2015 [S22] and partially adopted
in five works. In 2011, [S4] reported a definition of MVP
considering the sum of the three previous ones [S1], [S2], and
[S3]. In 2012, two completely new definitions were reported
([S5] and [S7]).
In 2013, another new definition appeared in the literature
[S11], with a small influence, only on the minimum point of
view from Blank [S3]. However, it has never been considered
or extended any further by other works.
In 2014, [S17] proposed a definition of MVP based on the
sum of the definitions by Ries [S2] and Robinson [S1] and
influenced also by Blank [S3].
Table IV lists the different definitions of MVP. When the
definition is based on the sum or on the extension of an existing
one, the original definition is referenced and not copied.
Fig. 3. Distribution of identified and selected
publications per year
TABLE IV. RQ1.2 RESULTS MVP DEFINITIONS
Year
Study ID
Definition
2001 [S1] MVP is not a minimal product, it is a strategy and process directed toward making and selling a product to customers.
2009 [S2]
MVP is a version of a new product, which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about
customers with the least effort. It is an iterative process of idea generation, prototyping, presentation, data collection,
analysis and learning.
2010 [S3] A MVP has just those features (and no more) that allow the product to be deployed.
2011 [S4] [S1] + [S2] + [S3]
2012 [S5]
MVP means releasing early and often, and validated learning means using metrics and A/B testing to find out what really
works and what doesn’t.
2013 [S6] MVP is a product with a minimum feature set targeting market opportunities while profitably solving customer pain points.
2012 [S7]
A MVP is an offer that generates revenue for the company and that motivates customers to provide feedback and
recommend it to other potential customers.
2013 [S8] MVP is the minimum value organization to accelerate sales to first customers.
2013 [S9]
A MVP is typically the first version of a product released to customers, and should contain only the absolute minimum in
terms of features and design for it to become viable to the customer.
2013 [S10]
MVP represents the minimum functionality or set of features within the product, allowing the firm to test the product in
the market and gather customer feedback, consistent with the second principle.
2013 [S11]
MVP is a product with a minimum feature set targeting market opportunities and validate its value and growth hypotheses
as soon as possible.
2014 [S12] MVP is a set of “minimal requirements,” which meet the needs of the core group of early adopters or users.
2014 [S13]
MVP starts the learning and building process quickly. It allows the start-up team to collect as maximum validated learning
about customers with least effort. The goal is to test the fundamental business hypothesis. It is not meant to be perfect-
meant for Early Adopters.
2014 [S14] MVP aims at defining the smallest possible implementation that brings added value to customers.
2014 [S15] MVP is a product capable of being deployed to a subset of customers for evaluation.
2014 [S16] MVP is an experimental object that allows for empirical testing of value hypotheses.
2014 [S17] [S1] + [S2] + MVP is a product that includes just enough features to allow useful feedback from early adopters.
2014 [S18] MVP is a key concept. The goal is to identify the most valuable features by iteratively experimenting the market.
2015 [S19]
MVP is used to test the business model by gathering and measuring customer feedback. Create a viable product with
minimum effort. Requires the generation and testing of numerous ideas
2015 [S20] MVP is a tool to collect customer feedback on the product in order to improve the product.
2015 [S21] MVP is a product with low quality, early prototype.
2015 [S22] [S3] + allow to reason with early adopters; some of whom will pay you money or give you feedback.
Fig. 4. Genealogical Tree of MVP Definitions
TABLE V RQ1.3 RESULTS MVP MINIMUM DEFINITION AND PURPOSE
Minimum
Main purpose of MVP
Minimum
Functionalities/Feature
To allow the product to be deployed
To target market opportunities
To create a viable product for the customer
To test the fundamental business hypothesis
To allow to test the product in the market
To gather customer feedback
To identify the most viable features by iteratively experimenting the market
[S3] [S4] [S22]
[S6]
[
S9] [S11]
[S11]
[S10] [S18]
[S
10] [S17] [S22]
[S18]
Minimum
Requirements
To meet the needs of early adopters
[S12]
Smallest possible
implementation
To motivate customers to provide feedbacks and recommend it to other customers
To bring added value to customers
[S7]
[S14]
Minimum Effort To collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers
To test the fundamental business hypothesis
To develop a product that includes just enough features to allow early adopters feedbacks
To gather customer feedback
[S2
] [S4] [S13] [S17]
[S13
]
[S17
]
[S17] [S19]
Minimum Value
Organization
To accelerate sales to first customers [S8]
Fig. 5. Genealogical Tree of Minimum Definitions
RQ1.3: What are the common definitions of minimum and
their related main MVP purposes?
Starting from the MVP definitions, reported in Table IV, we
identified the definitions of minimum and their purpose, as
reported in Table V.
Only fifteen works clearly state the meaning of minimum in
the MVP definition, while the remaining seven ones only report
the purpose of the MVP. Among those fifteen works, there are
five different definitions of minimum: minimum effort,
minimum functionalities, minimum value organization,
minimum requirements and the smallest possible
implementation.
As reported in Figure 5 and Table V, the first definition of
minimum has been formulated by Ries as “minimum effort”
[S2]. The same definition has been reused by two other works
[S4][S17] in combinations with [S3] while two other ones used
the same definition extending the main MVP purpose
[S13][S19].
In 2010 Blank [S3] defined the minimum as “minimum set
of features. This definition has also been mentioned as is in
other six works [S6][S9][S10][S11][S18][S22] while, as
reported before, it has been combined with [S2] in [S13] and
[S19]. This definition is associated with seven different MVP
purposes. More details can be found in Table V.
In 2013 a new definition of minimum has been proposed by
Bailetti [S8] as the minimum value for the organization.
However, this definition has never been extended or reused.
Finally, two new definitions have been proposed in 2014
[S12] and [S14]. Those definitions are not explicitly referred to
any previous one.
RQ1.4: What are the common factors that characterize the
definitions of Minimum Viable Product (MVP)?
Starting from the MVP definitions presented in Table IV we
identified the main key factors that characterize the definitions
of MVP reported in the papers we considered. In Table IV the
key factors are highlighted in bold.
In the Eric Ries definition [S2], two main key factors:
“minimum effort” and “maximum customers validated
learning”. We found these factors in three papers (13.6%),
whereas in the remaining contributions, (86.4%) are
identifiable other key factors.
In terms of technical characteristics, we also found
Minimum in the sense of “minimum set of features”, as
proposed by Blank [S3], in seven papers (31.8%) and
“minimum effort” as proposed by Ries [S2] in four papers
(18.2%).
Taking into account the market and customer aspects, we
identified the key factor “customer feedback / evaluation
mentioned in seven papers (31.8%). We also found the key
factor “early adopters” in three papers (13.6%).
The remaining factors such as “minimum design” and “low
quality product” are considered only in one paper (4.5%).
B. Discussion of the Results
Several definitions of MVP have been proposed in the last
fifteen years. However, only few have been used or extended.
Most of the new definitions were published from 2012 to 2015.
However, none of them have later been extended or used as a
standard definition. The remaining recently published work
mainly adopts and rephrases the existing definitions[S2] and
[S3].
Among the initial definitions provided by Robinson [S1],
Ries [S2] and Blank [S3], [S2] is the most frequently reused as
is or rephrased (36.3%) while [S3] is reused as is or rephrased
in 18.18%. In 9% of the selected works [S2] is combined with
[S3] while in other 9% of works [S1] is combined with [S2] and
[S3]. Other two new definitions [S5] and [S7] have been
proposed in the grey literature but they have never been reused
or extended.
Considering the definition of Minimum, Blank’s one as
minimum features [S3] is the most recurring one (53.3%).
Ries’ minimum definition as “minimum effort” [S2] is reported
in 26.6% of the papers analyzed. Moreover, two other definition
of minimum could be referred to “minimum features” [S3]
(“minimum requirements” [S12] and “smallest possible
implementations” [S14]), increasing the percentage of Blank
definition of minimum to 66.6%.
Taking into account the key factors that characterize the
MVP definition “maximum customer validated learning” is
only reported in 26.6% of the papers analyzed, while it is
extended as “customer feedback/evaluation” in 31.8% of the
contributions. Moreover, early prototypeis also considered
to a limited extent (9%), whereas other factors cannot be
considered as relevant since they are reported only in one
contribution.
The results also show that the contributions of the gray
literature in recent years can be neglected since we did not find
any relevant contribution to the definition of MVP there.
V. THREATS TO VALIDITY
Next, we will analyze threats to validity, considering
construct validity, reliability, internal and external validity.
Construct validity reflects to what extent the phenomenon
under study really represents what the researchers have in mind
and what is investigated according to the research questions.
The terms Lean Startup, Minimum Viable Product,
Entrepreneur, and Startup are sufficiently stable to be used as
search strings. In order to assure the retrieval of all papers on
the selected topic, we searched broadly in general publication
databases, which index most well-reputed publications.
Moreover, we also included gray literature, so as to consider
possible opinions reported in non-scientific papers.
Reliability focuses on whether the data are collected and the
analysis is conducted in a way that it can be repeated by other
researchers with the same results. We defined search terms and
applied procedures that can be replicated by others. Since this
is a mapping study and no systematic review, the
inclusion/exclusion criteria are only related to whether the topic
of MVP is present in a paper or not, as suggested by [1].
Internal validity is concerned with the analysis of the data.
Since our analysis only uses descriptive statistics, the threats
are minimal. External validity is about generalization from this
study. Since we do not draw any conclusions about mapping
studies in general, external validity threats are not applicable.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this work, we proposed a systematic mapping study on
the definition of Minimum Viable Product (MVP) in order to
obtain an overview of existing definitions and focusing on the
state of the art. We identified 22 main articles to be included in
our study and we found promising results in terms of state-of-
the-art definitions, definition of minimum and and key factors
that identify the MVP.
Starting from the definition of Robinson [S1], Ries [S2] and
Blank [S3], we found that Ries definition is the most
influencing one and its extensions are mainly rephrased without
adding extra details while, in few cases, the three definitions are
combined together.
Unexpectedly the definition of minimum as “minimum
features” [S3] is the most recurring one.
The main key factors identified are related to the technical
characteristics of the product and to market and customer
aspects such as “minimum set of features”, “customer
feedback”, “minimum effort” and “early prototype”.
In conclusion, we suggest to complement Ries MVP
definition [S2] with the “minimum features” proposed by Blank
[S3], as also adopted in several other works.
As regards future work, we want to understand the process
used by entrepreneurs to define MVP in practice.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Petersen, R. Feldt, S. Mujtaba and M. Mattsson,
“Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering,”
EASE’08, pp 68-77, 2008
[2] T. Dybå, V.B. Kampenes and D.I.K. Sjøberg, “A systematic
review of statistical power in software engineering
experiments,” Information & Software Technology, vol.48,
no. 8, pp. 745–755, 2006.
[3] R. Pretorius and D. Budgen, “A mapping study on empirical
evidence related to the models and forms used in the UML,”
ESEM, pp. 342-344.,2008
[4] J. Bailey, D. Budgen, M. Turner, B. Kitchenham, P. Brereton
and S. Linkman, "Evidence relating to Object-Oriented
software design: A survey," ESEM, pp. 482-484, 2007.
[5] B. Kitchenham and S. Charters, “Guidelines for Performing
Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering,”
Version 2.3, 2007
[6] E. Ries, “The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use
Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful
Businesses,” Kindle Edition, 2011.
APPENDIX: THE SELECTED STUDIES
[S1] F. Robinson, “A Proven Methodology to Maximize Return on
Risk” http://www.syncdev.com/minimum-viable-product.
2001 (Accessed March, 2016)
[S2] E. Ries, “What is the Minimum Viable Product” March.
http://venturehacks.com/articles/minimum-viable-product.
2009 (Accessed March, 2016)
[S3] S. Blank, “Perfection By Subtraction The Minimum Feature
Set”. http://steveblank.com/2010/03/04/perfection-by-
subtraction-the-minimum-feature-set/. 2010. (Accessed
March, 2016)
[S4] Dager, J. “Developing a Minimum Viable Product”
http://business901.com/blog1/developing-a-minimum-viable-
product. (Accessed March, 2016).
[S5] Kniberg, H. and Ivarsson, A. Scaling Agile @ Spotify.
https://ucvox.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/113617905-
scaling-agile-spotify-11.pdf. (Accessed March, 2016).
[S6] Moogk, D. R. Minimum Viable Product and the Importance
of Experimentation in Technology Startups.
http://timreview.ca/article/535. (Accessed March, 2016).
[S7] Poole, R. Global Mindset: An Entrepreneur's Perspective on
the Born-Global Approach. http://timreview.ca/article/617.
(Accessed March, 2016).
[S8] Bailetti, T. and Bot, S. D., “An Ecosystem-Based Job-Creation
Engine Fuelled by Technology Entrepreneurs”.
http://timreview.ca/article/658. (Accessed March, 2016).
[S9] Björk, J., Ljungblad, J. and Bosch, J. Lean Product
Development in Early Stage Startups.IW-LCSP@ ICSOB,
2013.
[S10] Mejia, J. and Gopal, A. “Now and Later? Mentorship, Investor
Ties and New Venture Performance in Entrepreneurial Seed-
Accelerators”.
https://www.scheller.gatech.edu/academics/conferences/anan
d-gopal.pdf. (Accessed March, 2016).
[S11] Hixson, C., Paretti, M., Lesko, J. and McNair, L. Course
Development and Sequencing for Interdisciplinary
Entrepreneurship Education. OPEN 2013: NCIIA’s 17th
Annual Conference.
[S12] York, J. L. and Danes, J. E. Customer Development,
Innovation and Decision-Making biases in the Lean Startup.
Journal of Small Business Strategy. Vol. 24(2), pp. 21-39,
2014.
[S13] Miski, A. Development of a Mobile Application Using the
Lean Startup Methodology. International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research. Vol.5(1), pp. 1743-1748,
2014.
[S14] Järvinen, J., Huomo, T., Mikkonen, T. and Tyrväinen, P.
“From Agile Software Development to Mercury Business.
Software Business”. Towards Continuous Value Delivery.
Vol.182, pp. 58-71, 2014.
[S15] Read, A. , Derrick, D. C. and Ligon, G. S. “Developing
Entrepreneurial Skills in IT Courses: The Role of Agile
Software Development Practices in Producing Successful
Student Initiated Products”. International Conference on
System Science. Pp. 201-208, 2014.
[S16] Jürgen Münch, J., Fagerholm F., Johnson, P., Pirttilahti, J.,
Torkkel, J and Jäarvinen, J. Creating Minimum Viable
Products in Industry-Academia Collaborations. Lean
Enterprise Software Systems. Vol. 167, pp. 137-151, 2013
[S17] Rao, A. S., “Minimum Viable Product (MVP) for Product
startup: A in Indian perspective”.
http://fgks.in/images/pdf/conf/ASRao.pdf. (Accessed March,
2016).
[S18] Mikkonen, T. and Systä, K. “Maximizing Product Value:
Continuous Maintenance”. Product-Focused Software Process
Improvement. Vol. 8892, pp. 298-301, 2014.
[S19] Yli-Huumo, J., Rissanene, T., Maglyas, A., Smolander, K. and
Sainio, L. M. The Relationship Between Business Model
Experimentation and Technical Debt. Software Business,
Springler. Vol. 210, pp. 17-29, 2015.
[S20] Edison, E., Wang, X. and Abrahamsson, P. “Lean Startup:
Why Large Software Companies Should Care”. XP '15
workshops Scientific Workshop Proceedings of the XP2015.
2015.
[S21] Jawanda, P. “The Lean Start-up Approach versus Scrum A
case study of German startup Student Couch”.
http://essay.utwente.nl/67330. (Accessed March, 2016).
[S22] Agostinho, C., Lampathaki, F., Jardim-Goncalves, R. and
Lazaro, O. “Accelerating Web-Entrepreneurship in Local
Incubation Environments”. CAiSE 2015 Workshops, pp. 183-
194, 2015
... A recent systematic mapping about the term MVP (Lenarduzzi and Taibi, 2016) showed that there are many definitions; the most popular one was provided by Ries, who defines an MVP as "a version of a new product, which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort". That mapping also reported that the key factors related to MVPs are technical characteristics of the product and market and customer aspects, such as "minimum set of features", "customer feedback", and "minimum effort" (Lenarduzzi and Taibi, 2016). ...
... A recent systematic mapping about the term MVP (Lenarduzzi and Taibi, 2016) showed that there are many definitions; the most popular one was provided by Ries, who defines an MVP as "a version of a new product, which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort". That mapping also reported that the key factors related to MVPs are technical characteristics of the product and market and customer aspects, such as "minimum set of features", "customer feedback", and "minimum effort" (Lenarduzzi and Taibi, 2016). ...
... Several other definitions have been proposed (Lenarduzzi and Taibi, 2016), and practitioners and researchers often face the problem of selecting the most appropriate one. Moreover, the influence of MVPs on software engineering practices is still poorly understood. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
[Background] The MVP concept has influenced the way in which development teams apply Software Engineering practices. However, the overall understanding of this influence of MVPs on SE practices is still poor. [Objective] Our goal is to characterize the publication landscape on practices that have been used in the context of software MVPs and to gather practitioner insights on the identified practices. [Method] We conducted a systematic mapping study and discussed its results in two focus groups sessions involving twelve industry practitioners that extensively use MVPs in their projects to capture their perceptions on the findings of the mapping study. [Results] We identified 33 papers published between 2013 and 2020 and observed some trends related to MVP ideation and evaluation practices. For instance, regarding ideation, we found six different approaches and mainly informal end-user involvement practices. Regarding evaluation, there is an emphasis on end-user validations based on practices such as usability tests, A/B testing, and usage data analysis. However, there is still limited research related to MVP technical feasibility assessment and effort estimation. Practitioners of the focus group sessions reinforced the confidence in our results regarding ideation and evaluation practices, being aware of most of the identified practices. They also reported how they deal with the technical feasibility assessments and effort estimation in practice. [Conclusion] Our analysis suggests that there are opportunities for solution proposals and evaluation studies to address literature gaps concerning technical feasibility assessment and effort estimation. Overall, more effort needs to be invested into empirically evaluating the existing MVP-related practices.
... This approach has been widely adopted in software development and other digital products, where the ability to quickly iterate based on user feedback is critical. Lenarduzzi and Taibi (2016) conducted a systematic mapping study on MVP approaches, highlighting the variety of MVP types and their effectiveness in different contexts. For physical products, Thomke and Bell (2001) proposed a framework for optimal product testing that balances the costs of testing against the potential benefits of product improvements. ...
... prototype that satisfies the requirements in the requirements matrix (Lenarduzzi & Taibi, 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper outlines the continuous improvement enhancements of a two-semester multidisciplinary capstone program tailored for senior students within the School of Engineering Technology. These courses revolve around collaborative teamwork and focus on the development of innovative solutions for industry-sponsored projects. The overarching goal of these courses is to facilitate a seamless transition for students into their professional careers. One area that students often struggle with is developing professional skills (including communication and teamwork), which are required components evaluated in ABET accreditation and are necessary for graduates as they begin and progress across their careers. The Plan-Do-Check-Act continuous improvement process was used to develop, deploy, and evaluate a series of interventions to enhance the overall Capstone Education experience. This design case will particularly focus on interventions related to fostering professional skills.
... In this context, this study aims to develop a web-based tool to support the management process of OAs in outreach programs and projects. For this purpose, the following objectives have been defined for this study: (i) Create a working Minimum Viable Product (MVP) of the system which implements at first the most critical collected and refined requirements for the system to become usable by early users to provide feedback for the product's further development [Lenarduzzi and Taibi 2016]; (ii) Conduct a Group-based Expert Walkthrough [Pan and Mitchell 2020] study to evaluate the software usability, and gain a better understanding of the needs of the target users; (iii) Analyze the results obtained based on meaningful insights based on user experience in the learnability and ease to use. The study's main contribution is a web application MVP that automates and supports the OA process in HEIs. ...
Conference Paper
Due to Resolution Nº 7 of 2018 by the National Council of Education (CNE) of Brazil, outreach curricularization is mandatory since 2023. This study aims to evaluate the usability of our tool, which is designed to support the management of academic outreach activities, projects and programs. A Groupbased Expert Walkthrough was conducted with potential users from our university’s academic community. The goal is present our proposal web-based tool as well as how we evaluating the usability in our tool, while allowing subjects to offer suggestions for improvements and new ideas. Valuable qualitative feedback was obtained, guiding the development of the tool, prioritizing and validating requirements. The usability evaluation provided insights to enhance the tool’s learnability and user-friendliness for the academic community.
... The app developers suggested creating a minimal viable product, which is the simplest form of an app and is less expensive and quicker to develop. This model often results in more trial and error market testing (Lenarduzzi & Taibi, 2016), which does not always fit with researchers who have one opportunity and a time-limited funding source. The best version of the app is needed as part of the contract, to evaluate effectiveness in a clinical randomized controlled trial. ...
Article
Full-text available
This descriptive manuscript describes challenges, solutions, and recommendations to provide a supportive framework for clinician researchers striving to develop a clinical app. The Back2Play app aims to support youth in concussion recovery through mobile health monitoring. Developed in Phase 1 of a randomized control trial, the app intends to prevent re-injury and improve recovery by integrating evidence-based return-to-school and activity guidelines with biological monitoring. Methods outline the stages of successful app development. Identified challenges include defining app requirements, database hosting, development, and legal procedures. Results of usability testing show that the Back2Play app was highly acceptable to 66% of youth and none found it unacceptable. Successful clinical app development hinges on understanding the scope of the app, data management and exportation. Adequate funds should also be allocated for potential delays. These recommendations provide a framework for clinical researchers hoping to develop a clinical app that achieves their envisioned outcome.
... The lack of progress outlined above in the domain of the automation of the shortloading cycle is surprising as the potential benefits of an autonomous solution are high. This serves as motivation to explore the reason behind the slow progress and from this identify a way forward towards a plausible defined minimal viable product (MVP) [12]. An MVP is the idea of creating a product with a minimal amount of features to solve a given problem, allowing for early adopters to provide feedback for further development. ...
Article
Full-text available
The short-loading cycle is a construction task where a wheel loader scoops material from a nearby pile in order to move that material to the tipping body of a dump truck. The short-loading cycle is a vital task performed in high quantities and is often part of a more extensive never-ending process to move material for further refinement. This, together with the highly repetitive nature of the short-loading cycle, makes it a suitable candidate for automation. However, the short-loading cycle is a complex task where the mechanics of the wheel loader together with the interaction between the wheel loader and the environment needs to be considered. This must be achieved while maintaining some productivity goal and, concurrently, minimizing the used energy. The main objective of this work is to analyze the short-loading cycle, assess the current state of research in this field, and discuss the steps required to progress towards a minimal viable product consisting of individual automation solutions that can perform the short-loading cycle well enough to be used by early adopters. This is achieved through a comprehensive literature study and consequent analysis of the review results. From this analysis, the requirements of an MVP are defined and some gaps which are currently hindering the realization of the MVP are presented.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose Entrepreneurial practice often relies on the minimum viable product (MVP) to test business model hypotheses, yet the conceptualization of its makeup remains inadequately defined, particularly in uncertain startup contexts. This paper aims to clarify how entrepreneurs should think about MVPs in terms of their uses, goals and essential components to enhance their effectiveness as a tool for navigating uncertainty. Design/methodology/approach Existing literature on MVPs is broad and often overlapping, leading to confusion regarding essential components and best practices for MVP development. Through a systematic analysis of existing published definitions, this paper offers clarity by proposing a framework that breaks the MVP concept up into process, goals and the fundamental elements necessary to launch an MVP. By doing so, it provides actionable guidance for entrepreneurs seeking to utilize MVPs in their business model testing endeavors. Findings This conceptual paper critically examines the lean startup approach, seeking to disentangle the complexities surrounding MVP development. Drawing on existing literature and practical insights, the study identifies and articulates a framework that clarifies the MVP concept along with the core elements required for creating a viable MVP, including (a) artistic elements, (b) a robust distribution channel and (c) an effective user feedback mechanism. Originality/value This paper contributes to theory development and pedagogical practices by providing a structured framework for understanding and implementing MVPs in entrepreneurial contexts. By identifying the minimal category elements of an MVP, it offers practical insights into entrepreneurs and educators alike, facilitating effective business model hypothesis testing in varied and uncertain environments.
Conference Paper
This paper provides comprehensive insights into deploying and operationalizing an Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based well integrity monitoring solution. The paper's central objective is to present the successful implementation of the advanced monitoring solution, focusing on the insights collected from employing Machine Learning Operations (MLOps) principles within the oil and gas industry. Following a successful Proof of Concept (PoC) phase, the project progressed to developing the Minimum Viable Product (MVP), involving the deployment of selected AI models through stages consisting of live data connection, pre-processing, inferencing, post-processing, suppression rules, and email notification, complemented by the development of a user interface to facilitate visualization and validation of notifications, with user feedback stored in a database for continuous model enhancement. Drawing from the conclusions derived from the project, several key insights are provided. Firstly, the strategic architecture of the MVP emerges as a pivotal factor for transitioning from the PoC phase to the final product. The MVP must be carefully crafted to facilitate rapid learning through iterative user feedback while ensuring technical feasibility and economic viability. Secondly, introducing the "AI factory" concept is identified as a fundamental enabler of efficiency in both model development and deployment process, particularly relevant as project teams expand. Thirdly, incorporating MLOps principles and best practices provides invaluable guidance in constructing a scalable AI solution without pre-existing architecture. Fourthly, integrating the "Human-In-The-Loop" concept underlines the importance of continuous feedback in refining and maintaining the continuous operation of AI solutions. Fifthly, central to user adoption is the emphasis on user experience, with specialized suppression rules and an intuitive user interface pivotal in facilitating user validation of detections. Sixthly, explainable AI methodologies play a crucial role in fostering trust in the tool's performance by explaining the rationale behind AI model decisions. Seventhly, the deployed tool performs robustly detecting annulus leakage incidents with high accuracy and minimal false alarms, significantly reducing engineers’ response time. Eighthly, challenges encountered during the scaling process across different assets, such as data availability and quality variations, were addressed through tailored data pre-processing methods and feature engineering techniques. Ninthly, leveraging expertise in real-time data analytics, the tool was extended to address additional use cases, including automatic leak rate test analysis and liquid loading detection and prediction. Finally, counterfactual explanations for LSTM (Long Short-Term Memory) autoencoder models are introduced. It represents a significant technical advancement and is qualitatively evaluated for its impact on user experience. This paper contributes valuable insights into deploying and operationalizing AI-based well integrity monitoring solutions, with practical implications for industry practitioners.
Article
Full-text available
Countries which innovate and build products lead and rule this global economy. The search for an Indian identity in global market place continues with heightened nationalistic fervor. India missed first industrial revolution, large machines do not represent India. Second wave with public sector leading the way built a wide industrial base though only few public sector units survived liberalization. Acquired Technology pushed private sector ahead on learning curve but with MNCs preferring fully owned units, joint ventures faded away. Indian talent from NIIT to IITs got global recognition with Y2K and Indian software firms emerged as large employers in Europe and USA. But the question why there is no Google or Apple coming from India confounds media and public. Will the fourth push, startup surge, result in a product developed in India made for the world? This paper looks at the lean startup model and critical role of Minimum Viable Product (MVP). Is this fast track with MVP feasible for product startups based in India? An attempt is made to analyze gaps in eco-system and suggest agenda for researchers.
Article
Full-text available
The objective of this report is to propose comprehensive guidelines for systematic literature reviews appropriate for software engineering researchers, including PhD students. A systematic literature review is a means of evaluating and interpreting all available research relevant to a particular research question, topic area, or phenomenon of interest. Systematic reviews aim to present a fair evaluation of a research topic by using a trustworthy, rigorous, and auditable methodology. The guidelines presented in this report were derived from three existing guidelines used by medical researchers, two books produced by researchers with social science backgrounds and discussions with researchers from other disciplines who are involved in evidence-based practice. The guidelines have been adapted to reflect the specific problems of software engineering research. The guidelines cover three phases of a systematic literature review: planning the review, conducting the review and reporting the review. They provide a relatively high level description. They do not consider the impact of the research questions on the review procedures, nor do they specify in detail the mechanisms needed to perform meta-analysis.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The use of lean software development methodology and business model experimentation has become popular in software companies in recent years. Business model experimentation is used to validate assumptions made on a product from real customers before the actual product is created. A minimum viable product is used to test the business model by gathering and measuring customer feedback. However, in many cases creating a minimum viable product requires the development team to take shortcuts and workarounds in the product. This phenomenon in software development is called ‘technical debt’, where companies trade long-term software quality to short-term gain in time-to-market. We investigated four software companies and conducted nine interviews to understand the relationship between business model experimentation and technical debt. The goal was to study how business model experimentation is affecting to technical debt. The results showed that business model experimentation has a clear relationship to technical debt.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Software industry has been shifting from traditional, plan-based software development to agile software development. Agile seems able to prescribe on how to develop a working software faster, but is still unable to give answer what product should be developed. This paper aims to investigate why large companies should adopt Lean startup to seek for radical innovation. This understanding could be used as a basis to confront disruptive innovation where the problem and the solution are both unknown. A single case study was conducted in a large software company. Eight practitioners with different roles were interviewed. We identified the characteristics of internal startups and the lessons learned on practising Lean Startup inside the large software company.
Article
This paper reviews current research relevant to new product development, customer development, and the lean startup. Customer development and the lean startup are a new and increasingly used form of entrepreneurship process, which rely on hypothesis testing but not in the traditional sense; the entrepreneur is encouraged to scan the environment, collect information, and form and evaluate educated guesses so as to make accurate judgments and decisions. The present research provides a review of the customer development model for entrepreneurial activities and a critique of this hypothesis testing methodology. We then consider ways in which to improve decision making within the startup via a systematic study of System 1 (intuition) and System 2 (reasoned and rational) decision-making styles. This paper has significant implications for entrepreneurs, entrepreneurship support organizations, such as incubators and accelerators, and entrepreneurship educators, all of whom are increasingly practicing and teaching this process.
Conference Paper
This paper explores novel forms of technological and digital societal innovation putting the full potential of the Future of Internet into Web-based innovation, web-Entrepreneurship and Internationalization (IEI) of businesses. It introduces an approach to extend and complement existing incubation environments, which are no longer sufficient to deal with the dynamicity of the Web-Entrepreneur. Based on personal and professional relations, and new business models empowered by social media and the Web 2.0, together with a set of interoperable ICT services supporting virtual or agile enterprises, the authors propose a federation of open-source platforms for the to-be born and existing enterprise life-cycle management, instantiating the Unified Digital Enterprise concept. The novel approach ensures full reuse of existing solutions, developing targeted research to support web-entrepreneurship with cooperation between people, businesses, and assets, namely focusing on innovative methods and architectures for competitive intelligence; crowd-based market sensing; idea incubation and simulation; knowledge intensive team building; as well as interoperability to enable internal federation and external platform integration.
Conference Paper
A frequent software related claim is that the initial development costs are 30% and that 70% more is needed in maintenance. However we claim that in today’s software industry, software maintenance and the development of new features are intimately tangled, and it is impossible to separate them in a reliable fashion. We demonstrate this by showing how some modern software engineering approaches address maintenance and the development of new features, and we describe a concept of continuous maintenance to manage frequent changes both in software and business.