Category Archives: Customer Development

The Top Strategies For Doing Customer Interviews That Get You Real Insights

We all know a core responsibility of a product manager is to constantly and consistently bring the customer perspective into the business.

That means customer interviewing is a critical skill for every product manager.

I must admit, earlier in my career I totally sucked at it.

I had no plan. I often just winged it. I asked the wrong questions. I was a poor listener. I talked more and listened less. I tended to get too excited about my product idea and go into pitch mode instead of focusing on the customer’s problems. And I was very guilty of confirmation bias.

Fortunately, with lots of practice, over time I got better. As I did, I accumulated a list of the best strategies that I use even today to conduct an interview that helps me extract real customer insights.

Get the Entire List of 25 Customer Interview Strategies >>

So in this video I share 5 of the best customer interview strategies:

Use these 5 powerful tips to supercharge your customer interviews to extract every ounce of goodness from them:

  1. Set an objective. Know what you want to get out of the interview — that is, what is it you want to learn and come away with?
  2. Have a script. Having a script will help guide your interview with the customer, be better prepared and purposeful in your interviewing, and make sure you achieve the objective you’ve set out.
  3. Ask “Why?” — a lot. This is by far the most important question in your arsenal. It allows you to go deep, get inside the mind of your customer, understand their motivations, get to the true nature of the problem they’re trying to solve, and how they actually value their solutions.
  4. Ask for examples. Asking for an example forces your customer to get specific rather than speak in generalities, giving you tangible evidence of a customer’s problem, and allowing you to momentarily “live in their world”.
  5. Focus on listening. Cannot stress this enough! The biggest thing you can do is to TALK LESS AND LISTEN MORE. Your purpose is to get THEIR perspective — not promote your point of view, explain yourself, defend your idea or debate. The only times you should look to speak is when you need to clarify something or need to ask a follow-up question.

Get the Entire List of 25 Customer Interview Strategies >>

Follow these strategies and you’ll become a pro at conducting truly insightful customer interviews.

Watch the video above, download the full list of customer interview strategies, and please share in the comments below what strategies you’ve developed to conduct truly insightful customer interviews.

The secret ingredient to getting product innovation done

So you’ve probably heard of “earlyvangelists”.

(No? Read this post by Steve Blank, who coined the term.)

In Lean Startup circles, we hear a lot about finding this special breed of customers. Why?

Because they’re the ones willing to make the initial bet on the startup. They’ve bought into the startup’s vision and potential. They’re not just buying a version of the product, but the entire vision of the startup. This is what keeps them committed even if the startup screws up a few times.

They are the true visionary customers talked about in the technology adoption lifecycle.

So a lot of focus is put in identifying, finding and nurturing these earlyvangelists in the form of testing customer and problem hypotheses, testing solution hypotheses, finding problem/solution fit, creating an MVP, and getting true customer validation by finding a handful of customers who are actually willing to pay you for your solution — the “earlyvangelists”.

Now, juxtapose this with traditional product management.

When I started out in product management, I was introduced to the technology adoption lifecycle. I read about it in books. People talked about it in conferences. “You must find those visionary customers and early adopters,” experts said in their presentations.Cool.

Cool.

Problem was: no one taught me how to get these magical customers.

Business school didn’t teach me how to get earlyvangelists.

Product management didn’t teach me how to get earlyvangelists.

Instead, what I was told was to develop a business case. Write an MRD. Create a business plan.

Business school told me I was supposed to do this. Smart consultants and well-meaning senior executives and mentors reinforced this. Elaborate PMO processes required this.

Want resources for your product idea? Show us your business case.

So what’s wrong with that? On the surface, it made sense. Unlike a startup, which is searching for a sustainable business model, a company is executing an existing business model.

On the surface, it made sense. Unlike a startup, which is searching for a sustainable business model, a company is executing an existing business model.

Shareholder returns, customer value, and employee paychecks depend on the successful execution of this business model.

So the company needs to evaluate its investments in terms of risk to this business model. A company needs to know whether to dedicate its resources to project A or B. To do that, it needs to know which has the better payoff.

Good intentions.

But here’s what actually happened.

Product managers began spending loads of time writing multi-page MRDs, crafting business case slideware, and crunching through multi-year financial “projections”. These documents were filled with unvalidated assumptions or HiPPO driven convictions.

“How the heck can I figure out whether customers will buy the product before it even exists?” they’d ask. “How can I figure out how much money it will make when no customer has bought it yet?”

The product manager would torture the spreadsheet, try and convince finance of adoption rates and growth trajectories based on mere guesses, and go to Engineering/IT for estimates.

“You need to give me requirements,” Engineering would say. “If they’re not documented, there’s no way I can give you estimates.”

So the product manager would then start writing an MRD / PRD / BRD / <stick your 3-letter acronym here>. Ah, the joy…

And under pressure to get “accurate” estimates, they’d pack in as much detail as possible, essentially guessing at the features and functionality that would be needed.

And every minute the product manager spent preparing the business case, writing the MRD/PRD or torturing the spreadsheet was valuable time not spent with customers.

So it’s no surprise that in a recent survey filled out by over 40 product managers who enrolled in my online course, Idea To Revenue Masterclass, they listed the following as their biggest product innovation challenges:

#1 Biggest Innovation Challenge: Testing product ideas without having a product.

Meaning testing with both customers and internally within their organizations. They need ways to test their understanding of the market, as well as evaluate the revenue potential for a product opportunity, but without having a product already.

“My number one product management challenge is creating business requirement documents on new products and demonstrating a return on investment for 1/3/5 years without releasing the product.” — survey response

#2 Biggest Innovation Challenge: Alignment, buy-in and communication.

How many people does it take to change a lightbulb?

(Or maybe the question is: how many people does it take to get approval to change the lightbulb? Ha!)

This challenge is a close second to the first. Product innovators are challenged with communicating product strategy to get buy-in, getting executive support for their product plans, aligning teams within the company to support new products, and managing communication across multiple stakeholders.

“In a growing organization, with lots of ‘people of interest’, communicating what you are building and why is a huge challenge.” — survey response

In a blog post titled, Why Internal Ventures are Different from External Startups, Henry Chesbrough argued:

The internal venture must fight on a second front at the same time within the corporation. That second fight must obtain the permissions, protection, resources, etc. needed to launch the venture initiative, and then must work to retain that support over time as conflicts arise (which they will).

#3 Biggest Innovation Challenge: Resources.

We can never have too many resources, can we? 🙂

Working with resource constraints is a fact of life. But product innovators feel this acutely so.

They’re pushed to accelerate time to market, yet are challenged with selling the business case for the right mix of resources to do just that.

And, of course, this leads to the chicken-or-egg dilemma from challenge #1:

We need a product to test whether customers value it…

But we need customer validation in order to get the resources to build the product!

“My #1 product planning challenge is getting and retaining key resources to minimize time to market consistent and aligned with company priorities.” — survey response

So what’s the solution?

This brings us back to “earlyvangelists”…

Lean practices can and should be adopted and adapted to pursue product innovation inside companies. But product innovators actually need to find two types of earlyvangelists:

  • Earlyvangelist customers.
  • Internal stakeholder advocates, a.k.a. “internalvangelists”.

One of the biggest factors that can derail any new product endeavor is lack of internal support. In product innovation, lack of stakeholder traction can often be a bigger roadblock than customer traction.

These stakeholders not only may have access to essential information and resources but also be able to influence key decision makers whose support is critical to the success of your product initiative.

The larger the organization you work in, the more stakeholders you’re likely to have. It’s important to identify who these folks are and make sure you’re not only bringing them along but in fact converting them into advocates — evangelists — for your product initiative.

Product management didn’t teach me how to get internalvangelists.

The good news is that a lean approach that fuses customer development methods with sound product management practices can be used to get early customers AND build the business case, create alignment, and cultivate internalvangelists iteratively.

Lean product management can get you “earlyvangelists” and “internalvangelists”.

Here’s an example:

Customer learning driven investment strategy

The approach calls for spending plenty of time with customers in a methodical way, systematically testing assumptions at each phase, while also having regular check-ins with folks internally.

Each stage is informed by learnings from the previous stage — “mini business cases”, if you will, at each milestone, instead of wasting time writing a big tome of a business case up front.

Requirements for delivery need only be done when there’s a clear signal to do so. For example, if you find there’s no problem/solution fit, no need to write detailed requirements to build out an MVP or do financial projections. Only on achieving problem/solution fit does it make sense to spend the time doing those activities.

This customer learning driven approach makes for a more market-informed investment approach to the product strategy. This makes it easier to garner, maintain and accelerate stakeholder buy-in, because:

(1) Each investment stage is grounded in real customer data, resulting in less assumptive and more empirically based investment asks.

(2) Smaller continual investments that deliver continuous tangible ROI throughout the process are easier for folks to digest and support than a large bloated one upfront.

(3) Stakeholders continually feel involved in the process, increasing confidence to persevere.

There are surely other variants to this approach. The point here is that lean principles can be fused with sound product management practices to:

  • Test product ideas without a product.
  • Build the business case iteratively.
  • Get alignment and buy-in, and create internalvangelists.
  • And get those magical earlyvangelists!

Why Products Fail [PODCAST]

Why do products fail?

What are the three important milestones for a new product?

Why is it so important to get to market fast?

How do you manage stakeholders when building a new product?

What is an MVP?

What are the key skills of a good product manager?

How do you stay in touch with current trends?

In 2015, I had the privilege of being interviewed on a podcast series called Yours Productly where we discussed not only these topics, but also:

  • The Product Canvas: why I created it, how to use it, and its growing popularity
  • Lean Startup and Customer Development
  • And what I’ve learned from mentoring over 100 product people around the world.

Frankly, I was amazed at how much ground we were able to cover!

 

You won’t be disappointed!

P.S. In the podcast I talk about a book I was planning to write. I’m not doing that anymore.

Yours Productly is a podcast series hosted by Ravi Kumar, founder of ProductCamp Singapore, where he talks about the business of building great software products with product rockstars and marketeers like Rich Mironov, Steve Johnson, Michael Eckhardt from Chasm Institute, Roman Pichler, and John Mansour, among many others.

Create Your Business Case Using Customer Development

The traditional product innovation process of writing a business case with long-term financial projections, then writing a big PRD, then doing development and launch your product doesn’t work.

At the 2015 Modev MVP and the Lean+Agile DC conferences, I presented an actual example of using Customer Development and Validated Learning to test a new product idea and build its business case, which produced far more impactful results.

Here my slides from those talks (same set used for both):

 

Time spent is not a VOC quality metric

A CEO and I were debating whether amount of time spent with a customer is a measure of the quality of the customer interaction.

His argument:

Just curious — do you see 23 touches for 5 mins the same as 23 touches for 1 hour each — I think it is different and material.

From my perspective, I need to allocate a certain number of hours per week with customers and believe that number in a normal week is likely 5 hours. I am not sure if that is right, but 5 hours out of 40 per se seems about right. To me, a 3-hour dinner with a customer will be very revealing.

Time matters… Speaks to quality, don’t you think?

His assumption here is that there’s no meaningful insight to be gained in a 5-minute conversation. He’s also arbitrarily picked 5 hours per week. (Why not 4? Or 2? Or 8?)

My response:

Here’s how we should think about it.

Why are we seeking VOC? What’s the purpose?

At the most fundamental level, in any situation, there are three kinds of customer insights we’re trying to gain:

  • Problem Discovery
  • Problem Hypothesis Testing
  • Solution Hypothesis Testing

There are many techniques to accomplishing these. The specific ones we use depends on the situation.

For problem discovery, onsite customer visits or a series of 1-on-1 interviews are best. These take time. 45-60 minutes an interview across 10, 20, 50 customers, for example. An onsite visit takes time to schedule and could be 2 hours or 20 minutes depending on the customer’s availability and how deep one wants to immerse oneself into the customer’s world.

For hypothesis testing a broad problem domain, 1:1 interviews are often the best. So in this case, I’ll opt for 23 phone conversations of 30-60 mins each, because I know neither email nor a survey nor a 5-min phone conversation will provide me the richness of insight I need.

For solution hypothesis testing, it can vary.

If I’m validating a mockup of a potential solution the customer has never seen before, a 20-60 min interview may be needed.

In all the above situations, I want the richness of the fluidity of the conversation, have an opportunity to ask follow-up questions and feel the customer’s emotional responses.

But let’s say I’m trying to validate the need or usefulness of a specific feature — i.e., will it or does it solve a specific, previously identified customer problem.

In this case, using an email or an automated tool would enable 23 touches in 5 minutes, and work perfectly. I could do it via phone calls, which would have taken longer, but ultimately would have given me the same quality of insight.

Another example is having weekly meetings with the Sales team.

The meeting doesn’t eliminate the opportunity for a Product Manager to get on sales calls and demos. However, there’s great efficiency and value to these meetings, because in 30 mins I get buyer feedback across all our products from 9-10 folks who are making a large number of customer calls every day.

Which technique to use in any given situation depends on the type of VOC one is seeking, the purpose of seeking it, the ability to access the customer quickly, and the time available to seek and act on it. And in all cases reasonable judgment, of course.

With respect to allocating time for yourself to obtain VOC, that’s a different thing.

You’re a busy person, so it’s understandable you need to figure out how much time to allocate for VOC vs. other tasks.

But that’s solving your problem — i.e., your problem of time allocation.

It’s different than the how, what and why of obtaining the VOC itself.

And provides no guarantee of the quality of customer insight that you may gain.

RIP PRDs. Long Live “Agile Conversations”

I don’t write PRDs.

Product Requirements Documents.

They take too long to write and are typically outdated by the time they’re “finished”, which, it turns out, they never are.

They’re never finished because the market changes. Customers’ needs evolve. Competitors change conditions. New technology changes everything.

Worse, they typically end up creating even more documentation.

Years ago, I worked in a company that followed a pretty typical waterfall process. Product Managers produced PRDs. (MS Word docs.) Big, multi-page docs that contained sections like “Product Overview”, “Business Objectives”, “Features”, “Personas”, “Use Cases and User Scenarios”, and a detailed itemized list of “Functional Requirements”.

Then Business Analysts translated them to “Functional Specifications”. (A bigger MS Word doc.) And then a System Designer translated those to “Technical Design Specifications”. (Yet another even bigger MS Word doc.)

Crikey, we weren’t building an aircraft carrier! We were just trying to build a software app.

Imagine if something had to change in the PRD? (Which it always did, of course.) That change had to get propagated down to each document.

More writing…

But here’s the funny thing: these documents never seemed to reduce the need for the humans involved in the project to talk to each other.

Each of these documents were typically followed by meetings. Meetings to discuss the very documents that were produced. To go over them page by page, line by line.

Going over such a large document takes time. So we’d schedule 3-hour, 4-hour, 6-hour meetings. (No kidding.)

But no one likes long meetings. So after a minor outcry, these meetings were reduced to 1.5 to 2 hours tops. The result was the poor Product Manager (or Business Analyst or System Designer) was now pressured to run through the same big document in less time.

Of course, it didn’t mean people had fewer questions, though!

So inevitably we’d run out of time and have to schedule a follow-on meeting to get through the rest of the document and answer questions we weren’t able to get to.

It’s not easy to coordinate the schedules of so many busy people…

Net was the original 3 or 4-hour meeting was now spread across multiple sessions that took place over several days or even weeks, and we ended up spending more time in total.

More time in writing and discussing documentation.

This could take weeks. Often, months.

And don’t get me started on the “change request” process!

And with so much time spent in writing and discussing the documentation, you’d think the output — the actual product that was delivered — was built as expected.

Nope.

It was amazing how often, despite all the effort invested in documentations and meetings, some particular piece of functionality wasn’t delivered as originally envisioned.

So often it would be due to some disconnect between the various documents everyone was trying so hard to keep synchronized.

I swear, it would make me want to rip my hair out (of which I seem to have less of with age!).

We spent so much time producing, coordinating, verifying, validating, and CYA-ing the documentation that we didn’t do the thing that was most important:

Delivering value to customers as quickly as possible.

Our time is better spent interacting with customers, testing solutions delivering product to them, getting their feedback, and acting on that feedback as quickly as possible.

After going through this one too many times, I vowed never to do it again. That’s when I began experimenting not only with agile software development practices, but customer development and other lean strategies to test, validate and iterate on the business planning aspects of delivering software and digital products and services.

Over time, I’ve developed a more lightweight, human-friendly, and — yes — agile approach to testing, building and launching products. One that has a proclivity toward action and conversations, is fueled by customer centricity, and is predicated on delivering business value and speed-to-market.

To be honest, this approach isn’t particularly revolutionary, and I certainly can’t lay claim to having invented any aspect of it. It’s all pretty much what’s covered in the manifesto for agile software development, and the good news is these practices are being increasingly adopted in different companies and industries for different types of software products and digital initiatives.

And yet, every week I get an email like this:

“As you preach, long MRD/PRD’s make no sense. However, there is some need to provide our business analyst with some form of requirement. What do you do in these cases? I have a Feature Requirements doc I created, but I sometimes feel it is overkill. What would you recommend?”

People are increasingly aware of agile and lean practices. The agile manifesto is in the public domain. There are books on Lean Startup and customer development practices. But what this email (and countless others I receive) shows is that it’s one thing to be aware of a thing, and it’s another to actually put it in practice.

In fairness, that’s understandable. For one, people have different learning curves, in aptitude and even willingness to change. Old habits can die hard. There are also different environments, organizational structures and cultures to consider. Innovating in a startup is different than innovating in a global enterprise company. And then there’s special snowflake syndrome.

I’m on a mission to help as many of these product managers as I can. In my reply to this product manager, I shared the specific practices, activities and tools my teams and I use to replace the overblown PRD process. And I want to share them with you.

Here’s my reply (almost entirely copy-pasted here):

  • I no longer write MRDs, PRDs, or any sort of traditional functional spec. Haven’t written one in years. I don’t have my teams write them either. They’re a total waste of time.
  • If we have time, budget and bandwidth, we’ll always get a Designer to create the screens before getting it to Engineering. Doing otherwise is a waste of Engineering’s time. Only caveat is I keep my Engineering Head / Chief Architect informed and involved.
  • Since the Designer is the initial recipient of the stories, we can write them at a fairly high level. We don’t get hung up too much on granular acceptance criteria — the use case, user goal or job story is much more important at this stage.
  • As such, at times we’ve provided just a 1-pager with bullets. Because design is iterative, we lean more heavily on interactive ongoing conversations than documentation.
  • If we don’t have time, budget or bandwidth for a Designer, PM just hacks the screens — Balsamiq, ppt, whatever. Not ideal, but sometimes you just have to make do. I’ve literally sent a photo of a whiteboard doodle, and written the story around it.
  • As much as possible, for major new features or flows, we will do customer validation. Yep: phone interviews with screen shares. 5 may be good enough.
  • We don’t have a Business Analyst, so PM writes the stories directly, including me. It’s not hard, and removes a middle man. Not saying a BA/BSA is never needed — just saying in our case we haven’t had the need for one, and have managed fine.
  • When ready to provide the stories to Engineering, we do write more granular level stories. Granularity is determined by the detail put into the screens. Let’s say we had a designer mockup every detail — every click, button placement, font, color, and even copy —then it’s just easier to add the mockup as support documentation and point to it in the acceptance criteria. If the design was more high-level, like a ppt hack or my silly whiteboard doodle, naturally I need to provide more specificity.
  • We use Aha.io to capture ideas, convert them to features, write stories, attach supporting artifacts, do prioritization, and map out an executable roadmap. It has some super cool features:
    • It will spit out a req doc from the stories you write. This is helpful if you’re using a 3rd party dev firm and need to provide them a written doc during the initial planning stages. So we no longer need to use MS Word.
    • It has an awesome Jira integration feature: I literally click a button and — boom — everything is automatically placed in the Jira backlog.
    • It allows me to publish out status on our roadmap execution to senior execs. This is extremely helpful, as it gets me away from PowerPoint and Excel crap.

Ultimately what matters most is joint understanding between Product Management and Engineering (and Design, if you have it). If there’s a good relationship, all sides can come to an agreement on how the reqs should be delivered. And remember: regardless of how the reqs are documented, ongoing conversations between PM and Engineering is the key.


Are you still writing PRDs/MRDs? Or have you moved on to more effective processes? Share in your experience in the comments below.

Using customer development to create the business case for your product idea

I talk to so many product folks who are frustrated with being able to pursue a new product in an existing company.

They complain about how difficult it is to secure resources and garner internal stakeholder buy-in.

If you find yourself in this position, congratulations!

As painful and frustrating as it is, trust me, you’re not alone. Many successful product people have gone through exactly what you’re experiencing — including me!

The problem is we haven’t been taught the right way to pursue this.

We jump headlong into writing a business case, business plan or MRD.

But this doesn’t work.

It’s no wonder then that most folks think writing a business case is a waste of time and hate it.

Furthermore, we were never taught how to cultivate stakeholder support.

Like it or not, every project in an existing company, regardless of the size of the company, needs an internal champion or sponsor.

Lack of stakeholder buy-in can be the biggest impediment to your product no matter how good your product idea may be.

So it’s no surprise that product people are frustrated.

So here’s a new process I’ve been following for a few years now that’s worked much better for me:

Using customer development to create the business case for my product idea

In a nutshell, I deferred asking for major dollars and resources until I absolutely needed to. I used a series of validated learning milestones to build momentum internally and to build the case for investing in my product idea.

Here’s what I did:

1. I quickly sketched out my product strategy on a 1-page Product Canvas. No wasting time writing a multi-page document no one is going to read.

2. I decomposed the product strategy into critical learning milestones meant to answer the most important questions in my product strategy:

  • How does our target customer describe the problem?
  • How are they solving it today?
  • Why is that solution not working for them? In other words, why is the problem still a pain for them?
  • How can we know before we invest a lot in development, sales, and marketing that the solution we’re thinking of building really solves the problem?
  • How quickly can we get our first customer?
  • What are the most important features we need to have in our go-to-market product?

3. I figured out what’s the least amount of work I need to do to maximize my learning for each milestone.

4. I broke down my investment need into these milestones, showing how ROI could be tangibly achieved based on measurable results.

Here’s what the investment plan looked like:

validation_workflow

In the past, I would have asked to spend money on 3rd party market research (four to five figures), a design agency to craft the user experience (five to six figures — ugh!), a usability study (five figures), and a large development team (many figures).

This would be costly and take a long time before I would have delivered the product to a single customer.

And it’s a tough business case to make.

Instead, because I had broken down the plan into these learning milestones, I was able to easily accomplish the first two milestones by spending little to no money at all.

The first was simply my time, so required no money.

To validate our solution hypothesis, I used Balsamiq to sketch a handful of the key screens of our solution. Total cost was $79 for the tool and my time.

When we were ready to design the user experience, since we didn’t have an in-house designer, we commissioned a cracker-jack freelance designer — way cheaper than hiring an expensive design agency, and way faster. It got the job done.

(If you happen to have an in-house designer or design team, awesome — use them. Your investment “ask” may only be some of their time.)

In this way, I was able to use the resources I had at my disposal for as long as I could to create traction.

This approach not only allowed me to conserve precious funds and resources but also allowed me to be less assumptive and more data-driven in identifying my investment ask at subsequent stages.

It also enabled me to build early traction with customers and have them help me define the minimum feature set we’d need to develop to go to market — labeled as the Minimum Sellable Product (MSP) in the picture above.

Here are the benefits that resulted:

  • Instead of writing a massive business case based largely on guesswork, I needed only to sell a bunch of mini-business cases. Way quicker and easier to do.
  • Each mini-business case was informed by the learnings from the previous stage, making each subsequent mini-business case better informed, more robust, and an easier sell.
  • The product strategy was informed by real market insights. (What a product manager needs to do anyway!)
  • I had a customer driven product roadmap that was tough for anyone to dispute as it was informed directly by tangible customer insights, which defined what went in our MVP vs. MSP vs. roadmap vs. nice-to-have.
  • This enabled our product development efforts to be more focused, as I had all the ammunition I needed to fend off arbitrary new feature requests that risked derailing our product development.
  • Because of our “co-innovation” approach with our customers, we were able to get “earlyvangelists” that we could leverage to generate momentum for our broader market launch. Customer Development in concert with Product Development!
  • All of this made it much easier for me to garner, maintain and accelerate buy-in from my internal stakeholders, because:
    1. My plan showed a clear milestone-based investment plan with the ROI to be gained at each phase.
    2. Smaller continual investments are easier to digest and support than a large upfront one.
    3. Each investment stage was grounded in real customer data, increasing confidence in pursuing the product.
    4. My stakeholders felt involved in the process, as I made sure to keep them informed and provide them an opportunity to provide feedback.
    5. This, in turn, kept me one step ahead of any potential concerns they may have had, and I could make sure to address them at a future stage.

Yes, Startup Products Can Take A Village

Thomas Pichon is the Founder of The Collaborative Startup. He advocates building a community to gain traction for a startup, and I thought the advice could equally apply to an “internal” startup. The article below is re-posted with his permission from his free e-course.

By Thomas Pichon

I am helping an entrepreneur build a yoga retreat, and I asked her how she was going to build her project. She said:

“I guess I’m going to concretely build the service, which means finding where we’re going to host the retreat, build the program, etc… Then, I’ll try to advertise it.”

I used to build products with this kind of strategy for years. Results have never been extraordinary. However, I have discovered one which brought me much more success:

  1. Build your community. Share helpful content related to the service you want to provide in order to attract people.
  2. Ask them what is their biggest frustration. Build a service around this problem.
  3. Get pre-orders. Start collecting credit card numbers before you have built the service. If you have created trust with your community by providing helpful content from day 1, you will see that this step is much easier than it looks now.

Hope these lines help you understand how to start your business. Do not build your product, then try to sell it. Sell it, then build it. And the better way to sell it before having the product ready is by building trust within a community.

So start now! Write helpful content about your topic in order to start building trust! Share it where your target audience hangs out online.

If you need any advice on this topic, or more generally about startups, you can schedule a call with me anytime, or ask your questions on my forum.

Thomas Pichon is the Founder of The Collaborative Startup, an innovative initiative designed to help entrepreneurs by leveraging the power of community development, Lean Startup and crowdsourcing.

How To Define An MVP: A Case Study

In my last post, I talked about how a minimum viable product (MVP) is not the smallest collection of features to be delivered. An MVP is basically an in-market experiment of a product idea that involves delivering real product to actual customers to get their feedback.

An MVP can be tested whether your idea is a brand new product or a new feature for an existing product.

And even if your product is software, your MVP doesn’t necessarily have to be software too.

Folks may be familiar with how Groupon started as a WordPress blog, called “The Daily Groupon”, on which the team posted daily discounts, restaurant gift certificates, concert vouchers, movie tickets, and other deals in Chicago area.

Food On The Table, a family meal planning and grocery shopping site eventually acquired by the Food Network, started by working with their customers individually, creating meal plans and shopping lists for them on spreadsheets and email, and then bought and delivered food items themselves.

So how do you go about defining an MVP for your product idea?

It starts with having a hypothesis for what features or capabilities you believe need to be delivered to your target customer in order to provide them value.

This is predicated on having done the hard upfront work of validating your customer’s problem (that it exists, it’s urgent, and pervasive), and then maybe even having tested a prototype of your solution vision.

If you feel you have a good enough understanding of your customer’s problem (pain point, job to be done, etc.), use that as a basis to identify what you believe are the must-have features for your MVP that are aligned with your solution vision.

Then test that MVP with real customers. Evaluate your results. Rinse and repeat.

To make this more tangible, here’s an example from my own experience.

For a product idea we had, we wanted to test our understanding of our customers’ top problems and get directional feedback on our solution approach. Directional feedback meant identifying the “right” handful of features to build first for early customers.

Based on some early customer conversations and market research, we developed a view of the problem domain. We sketched out our product vision on the Product CanvasTM, which allowed us to break down the problem domain into discrete problems and formulate testable falsifiable hypotheses around what we believed to be the top problems that our solution absolutely had to solve for first.

We built a clickable mockup defined by the key elements of our solution captured in our Product Canvas exercise. To keep things simple, we built a screen for each discrete problem to represent our solution vision — real html and css, in color, no lorem ipsum, with clickable interactions to represent the primary workflow through the screens.

We didn’t build out every interaction — just the main ones. We formulated a testable falsifiable hypothesis around the ability of each screen to solve a specific problem.

We then set up a number of customer interviews to test our problem hypotheses. During these customer conversations, we listened carefully to fully understand our customers’ world views and their current work flows, even noting the emotions in their voice and their body language (during in-person meetings, when we could do them) as they discussed their challenges and reacted to our screens.

We were deliberate and meticulous about documenting the results.

It turned out that while we had identified a viable problem domain, our view of what early customers considered as their chief problems was invalidated. We also learned that while our solution approach was generally in the right direction, there were features that we had not envisioned that early customers considered as must-have’s in the initial delivery.

As a massive bonus, we were actually able to garner a handful of very early customers who were willing to co-test the solution with us, further validating the fact that we had pricked a real pain point and were directionally correct in our solution approach.

As a primary outcome of this work we were able to understand our customers’ problem at a granular level, which helped prioritize the initial set of features to build. That drove the definition of the minimum viable product version of our solution.

And that’s what we did. We built just those features, and nothing else, and delivered it to those handful of early customers.

In fact, our first MVP wasn’t software. Our first MVP was more a concierge type service, sort of like what Food On The Table did — we “manually” delivered the service to each customer individually.

We learned a ton of really useful stuff. Things like what was really important to the customer, what features of the service they used more often than others, real insights into their workflow and how our solution could help improve it, and — crucially — what they were willing to pay for.

We used these learnings to then define a software MVP, and deliver it to early committed customers. The learnings from our “concierge” MVP experiment helped boost our confidence in defining the requirements for our software MVP. In other words, it was much less of a guess than it otherwise would have been.

We didn’t really bother with calling the software MVP a “release 1.0” or “version 1.0”, because that was irrelevant. We just focused on testing the solution until we received customer validation that it was truly providing value.

That gave us the confidence to know our product idea was “good to go” to scale up, put some real sales and marketing muscle behind it, and sell to more customers.

There’s no one way necessarily to approach an MVP. This is just one example of an approach. As Eric Ries states, defining an MVP is not formulaic: “It requires judgment to figure out, for any given context, what MVP makes sense.” Hopefully, this example gives you a template to define and test your own minimum viable product for your next great product idea.

I’ve created a handy primer on what is a minimum viable product. Download it below. I hope it helps you to become a pro at defining an MVP for your next great product idea!

 

An MVP is not the smallest collection of features you can deliver

Source: Spotify

Source: Spotify

There’s a lot of discussion and confusion about what is and isn’t a minimum viable product (MVP).

Worse, many execs have latched on to the term without really understanding what truly constitutes an MVP — many use it as a buzzword, and as a synonym to mean a completed version 1.0 ready to be sold to all customers.

Buzzwords are meaningless. They represent lazy thinking. And using “MVP” to mean “first market launch” or “first customer ship” means you’re back to the old waterfall, traditional project-driven software development, sales-focused approach. If that’s your approach, fine. Just don’t call what you’re delivering an MVP.

On the flip side, lots of folks in the enterprise world, including in product management, over-think the term. It gets lost in the clever nuances of market maturity, and a long entrenchment in the world of release dates and feature-based requirements thinking.

Many folks think of MVP as simply the smallest collection of features to deliver to customers. Wrong. It’s not.

The problem with that approach is it assumes we know ahead of time exactly what will satisfy customers. Even if we’ve served them for years, odds are when it comes to a new product or feature, we don’t.

Now, the challenge with the concept of a minimum viable product is it constitutes an entirely different way of thinking about our approach to product development.

It’s not about product delivery actually — in other words, it’s not about delivering product for the sake of delivering it or to hit a deadline.

An MVP is about validated learning.

As such, it puts customers’ problems squarely at the center, not our solution.

Reality check: Customers don’t care about your solution. They care about their problems. Your solution, while interesting, is irrelevant.

So if we’re going to use the term “MVP”, it’s important to understand what it really means.

Fortunately, all it takes to do that is to go back to the definition.


Download The Handy Primer “What Is An MVP?” >>


Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is a term coined by Eric Ries as part of his Lean Startup methodology, which lays out a framework for pursuing a startup in particular, and product innovation more generally. This means we need to understand the methodology of Lean Startup to have the right context for using terms like “MVP”. (Just like we shouldn’t use “product backlog” from Agile as a synonym for “dumping ground for all possible feature ideas”.)

Eric lays out a definition for what is an MVP:

“The minimum viable product is that version of a new product which allows a team to collect the maximum amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort.”

Eric goes on to explain exactly what he means (emphasis mine):

MVP, despite the name, is not about creating minimal products… In fact, MVP is quite annoying, because it imposes extra overhead. We have to manage to learn something from our first product iteration. In a lot of cases, this requires a lot of energy invested in talking to customers or metrics and analytics.

Second, the definition’s use of the words maximum and minimum means an MVP is decidedly not formulaic. It requires judgment to figure out, for any given context, what MVP makes sense.

Let’s break this down.

1. An MVP is a product. This means it must be something delivered to customers that they can use.

There’s a lot that’s been written about creating landing pages, mockups, prototypes, doing smoke tests, etc., and considering them as forms of MVPs. While these are undoubtedly worthwhile, and certainly “lean”, efforts to gain valuable learnings, they are not products. Read Ramli John‘s excellent post on “A Landing Page Is NOT A Minimum Viable Product“.

A product must attempt to deliver real value to customers. So a minimum viable product is an attempt — an experiment — to deliver real value to customer.

Which leads us to…

2. An MVP is viable. This means it must try to tangibly solve real world and urgent problems faced by your target customers. An MVP must attempt to deliver value.

So it’s not about figuring out the smallest collection of features. It’s about making sure we’ve understood our customers’ top problems, and figuring out how to deliver a solution to those problems in a way that early customers are willing to “pay” for. (“Pay” in quotes as it depends on your business model.)

If we can’t viably solve early customers’ primary problems, everything else is moot. That is why an MVP is about validated learning.

3. An MVP is the minimum version of your product vision. A few years ago, I had to build an online form builder app that would allow customers to create online payment forms without the need to write any HTML or worry about connecting to a payment gateway. Before having our developers write a single line of code to build the product, we first offered customers the capability as a service: we would get their specs, and then manually build and deliver each online payment form one-by-one, customer-by-customer. Customers would pay us for this service.

This “concierge” type service was our MVP version of our product vision. Of course, it wasn’t scalable. But we learned a heck of a lot: most common types of payment forms they wanted, what was most important to them in a form, frequency of wanting to make changes, reporting needs, and how they perceived the value of the service.

We parlayed these learnings into developing the software app itself — which, by the way, we delivered as an MVP to early customers to whom we had pre-sold the software product. (Yes, we delivered two different types of MVPs!)

Whether you take a “concierge” approach or your MVP is actual code, it most definitely does NOT mean it’s a half-baked or buggy product. (Remember viable from above?)

It DOES mean critically thinking through the absolute necessary features your product will need day 1 to solve your early customers’ top problems, focusing on delivering those first, and putting everything else on the backlog for the time being. It also means being very deliberate about finding those “earlyvangelists” that Steve Blank always talks about.

Ultimately, the key here is “maximum amount of validated learning”. This means being systematic about identifying your riskiest assumptions, formulating testable falsifiable hypotheses around these, and using an MVP — a minimum viable product version of your product vision — to prove or disprove your hypotheses.

Now, validated learning can certainly be accomplished via a landing page, mockup, wireframes, etc. And it may make sense to do these things. Super. But don’t call them MVPs, because while they may deliver value to you and your product idea, they’re not delivering actual value to the customer.

At the same time, the traditional product management exercise of identifying all the features of a product, force ranking them, and then drawing a line through the list to identify the smallest collection to be delivered by a given timeframe is not an MVP. Why? Because this approach is not predicated on maximizing validated learning. If you’re going to pursue this approach, go ahead and call it Release 1.0, Version 1.0, “Beta”, whatever. But don’t call it an MVP.

An MVP is about not just the solution we’re delivering, but also the approach. The key is maximizing validated learning.

I’ve created a handy primer on what is a minimum viable product. Download it below. I hope it helps you to become a pro at defining an MVP for your next great product idea!


Download The Handy Primer “What Is An MVP?” >>