That product development flashlight approach is interesting, as the approach reinterprets viability. Most people see viability as binary (does the feature work or does the feature not work). However, this approach says viability is really about how "good" (really, how reliable) a feature is. The less bright the flashlight, the worse the feature. No brightness means the feature is cut.
So "minimally viable" is then translated to a different level of quality for different features. Is that an appropriate interpretation?
Yes, that's spot on and captures the key insight we were hoping to convey: viability is not a binary and, in most cases, we'll have more success if we recognize that it's a continuum where we can choose the tradeoffs.
That product development flashlight approach is interesting, as the approach reinterprets viability. Most people see viability as binary (does the feature work or does the feature not work). However, this approach says viability is really about how "good" (really, how reliable) a feature is. The less bright the flashlight, the worse the feature. No brightness means the feature is cut.
So "minimally viable" is then translated to a different level of quality for different features. Is that an appropriate interpretation?
Yes, that's spot on and captures the key insight we were hoping to convey: viability is not a binary and, in most cases, we'll have more success if we recognize that it's a continuum where we can choose the tradeoffs.
Thank you for reading and commenting!