@bradstokes I want to say we’ve talked about this before but I could be confusing channels. That article is a great piece with some interesting thoughts.
I think the curious part for me is figuring out why people keep trying to improve on the concept of MVP. Do we truly understand what it means? If so, what are the challenges to achieving it? While RAT is a fun concept that can open up new lanes of conversation I go back to why is MVP not working?
Just like rewriting the manifesto or principles. I’m fine if we want to try but I’m more curious as to why the original doesn’t work for people as is.
I believe we are very much on the same page here. The post you were talking about was Great Read: SLC vs MVP. Part of the reason, I left the original post quite empty was to see the reaction.
I’m intrigued as why people perceive such a lack with MVP. My favourite quote on the subject is by Cory Bryan of Deliver It Cast fame, “just because it is MVP, doesn’t mean it has to be crap!” I agree.
I feel that core idea that MVP was used to express is still relevant today. The push back against it seems to be due to the dilution of the term through misuse. Much the same way that “Agile” has been used and abused.
At its core, MVP is about validated learning. RAT and SLC do not really change this. What we are really talking about is semantics. I might be wrong and would love for people to show me how MVP can be improved or refined. If people think we need to start again, does Lundy’s law apply (given enough time, developers will find a reason to rewrite the code from scratch)?
The real question is: do we need to revisit MVP and start again or can we work forward from our current position? I’m more interested in the discussion here than picking a clear winner. It could be an interesting topic for the show.
Maybe it is like royalty passing on “The MVP is dead. Long live the MVP!”
Agreed complete. Ask 5 stakeholders the meaning of (Choose any one: MVP, RAT, SLC, MVE, MLP), and you’ll get 10 different answers.
I’ve even seen MVP 1, MVP 2, MVP 3… !!! Talk about misuse…
Revisit MVP? For me the concept is sound. Nothing to improve. Instead, I’d like to focus on a shared understand, a common meaning.
I forget who said “To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan, and not quite enough time.”
And to me, that’s the essence of MVP, RAT, SLC, MVE, & MLP
I love it!
It was Leonard Bernstein
Agree. Seems to me like confusion accelerated when Eric Reese redefined MVP as just enough to test an assumption. Similar to an Epic being a big story, I’ve found it useful to describe RATs as smaller elements that contribute to the MVP.