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?
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?