Most of us are familiar with the concept of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP): the idea of delivering the smallest set of features while still providing something useful to users.

In many projects, especially those with tight timelines, the concept of an MVP often comes up during planning or early implementation. It might be raised as a way to manage scope or as a response to delivery pressure.

“We probably won’t be able to deliver everything, so let’s aim for an MVP.”

This framing is understandable. MVPs are often seen as a way to move quickly and reduce effort. But is that really what they’re for? Can they reliably help teams meet fixed launch timelines?

In my experience, while MVPs are incredibly valuable in the right context, using them as a delivery tactic can introduce new risks. Let’s take a closer look at what MVPs are meant to do, where they work best, and how they can be applied more effectively.

What Are MVPs Good For?

The MVP concept emerged from the Lean Startup movement as a way to reduce waste and increase learning when developing new products. At its core, an MVP is a way to explore whether a product or feature idea has value before committing too many resources to building it.

Imagine you have an idea, but you’re not sure whether your target audience will use it, pay for it, or even understand it. Or perhaps you’re seeking investment and need to show early signs of traction.

In these cases, an MVP allows you to explore your idea with minimal upfront effort. If it doesn’t connect with your audience, you can adjust or walk away with little lost. And if it does resonate, you can build on that foundation using real feedback from early users.

This approach helps teams focus their energy on what matters most, reduce the risk of building the wrong thing, and support continuous improvement.

The key idea: Put your concept in front of users early, observe how they engage with it, and use what you learn to guide your next steps.

That said, MVPs are most effective when used for discovery. When used outside of that context, especially in delivery-focused settings, challenges can arise.

Where MVPs Can Be Misapplied

MVPs are flexible by design, which is part of their appeal. Here are a few common situations where MVPs may not serve their original goal.

Treating the MVP as the final product

Some teams release an MVP and immediately move on to the next initiative. If no iteration follows, what’s left is often the simplest version of an idea, which may have accrued some technical debt. Without refining based on what users actually need, the result may fall short.

An MVP is meant to start a process of learning and improvement, not end it.

Using the MVP to meet a fixed deadline

This can be problematic for several reasons: - External timelines may not provide the flexibility needed for meaningful testing. - Work estimates are often optimistic. If parts of the MVP are more complex than expected or unplanned issues arise, the timeline can easily slip. As Douglas Adams once wrote, deadlines often make a “whooshing sound” as they pass by. - Teams may have competing responsibilities, like supporting live systems, which limit available capacity.

MVPs are sometimes associated with speed or simplicity, but they can still require significant effort and coordination. That may not align well with fixed delivery expectations.

Confusing MVPs with Phase 1 of a roadmap

A roadmap communicates direction and planned features. An MVP, on the other hand, is an experiment to test whether a concept is worth pursuing.

While a roadmap assumes you know where you’re going, an MVP asks whether you’re heading in the right direction.

MVP or MMP?

Sometimes a project goal is mis-labeled as a “Minimum Viable Product” when what we are really talking about is a “Minimum Marketable Product (MMP)” - this is an important difference as features that may be cut from and MVP would not be cut from a MMP.

An MVP is the smallest number of features required to test a product, while an MMP is the minimum number of features to make a useful product.

Using MVPs Effectively

As stated above, an MVP is a tool for learning.

To use MVPs well:

• Define a clear hypothesis and use the outcome to guide your next step.
• Avoid tying MVP work to hard deadlines — discovery takes time and flexibility.

If your team is operating within a firm delivery window, it may be more effective to use other techniques that are better suited for execution.

Approaches for Fixed-Deadline Projects

When your primary goal is to deliver a specific outcome by a set date, you need strategies that support execution. Here are some approaches to consider:

Clarify the scope early

These projects are about commitment, not exploration. Make sure everyone agrees on what is being delivered.

Prioritize with intent

Use a method like MoSCoW to identify what is essential and what is optional. If everything is a priority, nothing is. Focus on the must-haves first.

Surface foundational work early

Coordinate with engineers to identify infrastructure or technical decisions that need to be addressed up front to prevent roadblocks later.

Use prototypes and proof-of-concepts to reduce uncertainty

These can be effective ways to explore technical options quickly. Just remember: they are not production-ready and may need to be rebuilt.

Run a RAT (Riskiest Assumption Test)

If a key dependency or unknown could affect the project, run a focused experiment to understand it early and adjust plans as needed.

Let’s take a closer look at how RATs work and when they make sense.

When to Use a RAT Instead of an MVP

A Riskiest Assumption Test (RAT) is a simple way to test the most important unknown in your plan. If this one thing turns out to be false, the entire idea could be in trouble.

Rather than building a full product or even an MVP, a RAT helps you focus on just that one critical question.

If there is a single assumption that would cause the entire idea to fall apart, it is worth testing that first.

MVP vs. RAT: What’s the Difference?

Both tools are useful. The key is knowing what you are trying to learn, and choosing the best approach for that purpose.

Conclusion

MVPs are most effective when they help teams learn. When used as delivery tools, they can lead to confusion, misalignment, and missed opportunities.

Instead of asking, “What’s the smallest thing we can build?”, try asking, “What’s the most important thing we need to learn?”

Use MVPs for discovery. Use delivery planning for execution. And if there is a high-stakes risk, consider testing it first with a RAT.

When teams share clarity on their goals and assumptions, they are better equipped to build something valuable and meaningful, together.