IVP: Making the Case for Initial Viable Product

The Importance of a Strong Initial Product Launch

First impressions are critical; you will invariably be evaluated based on your initial product release. While explaining that a launch represents merely a minimum viable product (MVP) and isn’t fully polished can sometimes be accepted, it frequently serves as a decisive negative factor.

This is because perceptions of “minimal” differ significantly between creator and observer. The definition of minimal is subjective and tends to favor the expectations of those receiving the product.

The Evolution from MVP to IVP

The MVP concept has inherent advantages and disadvantages. However, the pressures of tight deadlines, competitive landscapes, and agile development methodologies have consistently positioned the MVP as the default approach.

My proposed initial viable product (IVP) isn’t simply an enhanced iteration of an MVP. It represents the first genuinely functional product you decide to release to the public. Positioned on the spectrum from initial concept to a fully realized product, the IVP signifies the launch of something beyond a minimal offering.

An IVP should preempt any debate regarding the product’s functionality. To illustrate, if your IVP is a fully prepared pepperoni pizza, your MVP would be presenting sauce, cheese, a Slim Jim, and a drawing of an oven.

Real-World Examples and Considerations

I recall a discussion in Beijing with an entrepreneur aiming to revolutionize taxis. The focus wasn’t on the service itself – with Didi and Uber emerging – but on reimagining the traditional Beijing taxi. The goal was to enhance safety, fuel efficiency, and environmental responsibility.

A launch point further along the development continuum than an MVP proved logical, as a minimal redesign of a taxi was inherently ambitious. Presenting a rudimentary concept in Beijing a decade ago likely would have been met with skepticism. A lack of resources to develop a true IVP signaled potential business instability.

Y Combinator accurately describes the MVP as a process, not merely a product, which is suitable for theoretical discussion. However, the inherent instability of the MVP can often create more challenges than it resolves. While YC correctly points out that an MVP isn’t a one-time build, your initial offering must be viable, and sometimes, minimizing simply isn’t sufficient.

Academic and Legal Perspectives

During a senior-level entrepreneurship course at McGill University, we explored Alex Osterwalder’s Business Model Canvas and determined the minimum product required for viability. The students consistently advocated for what I define as an IVP.

They found the MVP too flexible and desired a more concrete form. While the MVP is conceptually sound, practical application often proved problematic for the students.

Legal professionals also favor the IVP. Jeff Zenna, a New Jersey attorney, asserts that more developed concepts offer greater legal protection. “The more advanced an idea is, the better a lawyer can safeguard any proprietary elements, including copyrights, patents, and other intellectual property.”

Shifting the Startup Mindset

The practice of releasing the first available product, justified as “minimally viable,” can ironically contradict the core startup ethos. The mantra of “just ship it” shouldn’t equate to launching an incomplete product, such as an airplane consisting only of a metal tube and engines. It emphasizes focusing from the outset on delivering something exceptional, or at least satisfactory. Striving for the minimum often results in falling short of even that standard.

Carefully considering what we release, even for limited public consumption, allows us to intentionally shape how our product is perceived, discussed, and utilized.