“MVP” stands for Minimum Viable Product and was coined by Frank Robinson in 2001 and later popularised in the Lean Startup movement. Its goal was to validate business ideas quickly, with minimal cost, testing assumptions before going on to build the final product.
In our opinion, the problem with the term ‘MVP’ lies in the emphasis on ‘viable’, which results in completely overlooking usability.
Viable vs usable
A ‘viable’ digital product is a product that works as it should, and doesn’t crash. What viable doesn’t mean is that the product solves a real problem, is enjoyable and easy to use, or meaningfully supports the business outcome it exists to enable.
Focusing on building a minimum viable product could leave teams with a technically working product, but it doesn’t mean people want to or can use it, and it may not move the dial on the organisation’s goals.
Originally, building a MVP meant to build the smallest thing that delivers real value, put it in front of users, and learn from their behaviour. Today, MVP is often used to describe a stripped back version of the real product, something the team can tidy up later. The issue we’ve found is that this approach overlooks usability and weakens clarity on which business objectives the product is actually meant to support.
When usability is treated as optional in an MVP, the user journey can be confusing and the interactions inconsistent, and neither users nor the business get the feedback or traction they need.
The bike analogy (and where it falls down)
You’ll often hear MVP explained using the bike analogy: you don’t start by building a car, you start with a skateboard, then a scooter, then a bike, and eventually a car. Each version is “viable” and helps you learn something along the way.
The problem is that this analogy quietly sidesteps usability, and user intent.
If the user actually wants a car (to travel long distances, carry passengers, stay dry, feel safe), a skateboard isn’t a usable stepping stone. It technically moves them forward, but it doesn’t solve their real problem. Neither does the scooter. Or the bike. Each version is viable, but none of them are what the user wants or needs.
What we mean when we say MVP at Rareloop
At Rareloop, when we talk about an MVP, we mean:
The smallest product that is genuinely usable by real users, and supports the core business objective behind building it.
We’re not alone in wanting to rethink ‘MVP’. Over the years, product teams have introduced ideas like:
- Minimum Usable Product (MUP), the smaller version users can successfully adopt
- Minimum Lovable Product (MLP), which aims to spark delight from day one
We agree with the intent behind these definitions: build something people can and want to use. Our approach keeps the focus grounded, usable, valuable and able to evolve, even if it’s basic on day one.
So, instead of a skateboard → bike → car, you start with a very basic car.
It has:
- an engine that works
- steering and brakes you can trust
- a clear purpose (getting from A to B safely)
It doesn’t have:
- heated seats
- Touch screens
- Self-parking
- Automatic lights
But crucially, it’s still a car and delivers the outcome the user wants, in a way they can understand and rely on.
From there, you can improve:
- comfort
- performance
- features
- efficiency
You’re learning from real driving behaviour, not from people trying to use a skateboard when they need a car.
If you’re thinking of developing a MVP, think:
- Minimum scope, not minimum effort
- Clear, intentional user journeys
- Thoughtful design, even if it’s simple
- Engineering decisions that don’t undermine future progress
When we help teams define an MVP, we focus on four things:
- One core user problem. If a user can’t clearly achieve the primary goal of the product, nothing else matters. Everything in the MVP exists to support that outcome.
- Friction as a design Constraint. We actively look for moments where users might hesitate, get confused, or make mistakes. Reducing friction is fundamental to a well designed and usable product.
- Business value you can measure. A feature set that’s intentionally aligned to a real organisational goal.
- Foundations That Respect Future Users (and Developers). Usability isn’t all about the design or the interface, it’s also about performance and reliability. We’ll aim to build a product that can evolve over time.
A Better Definition of MVP
A good MVP should:
- Be easy to understand
- Be satisfying to use
- Deliver real value, not just functionality
- Give you trustworthy feedback from users
Viability might get you out the door. Usability tells you whether you should stay there.
That’s the difference between launching something and building something worth growing. If you’re looking to develop a MVP, or wondering if it’s right for you in the first place, get in touch.
