Minimum Lovable Product for the win!

I am currently supporting a large omni-channel eCommerce project for a retailer. We are in the middle of the discovery phase, discussing thousands of requirements with various stakeholders at the customer and trying to bring together many loose ends. In one of the first sessions, in which we also analyzed the risks, someone formulated the risk of “doing what is feasible instead of doing what would be right”. I had to smile, as I have seen too often in such large, rather rigid companies that they had outstanding visions at the beginning, but later in the project they really only implemented what was feasible.

(Reading time: 4 minutes)

The perception of what is possible

So someone had understood and formulated this. Now, by definition, you cannot do more than is already feasible. What therefore remains is to change the definition of what is feasible.

I have often experienced, for example, the ERP department rejecting a certain requirement on the grounds that it was simply not technically feasible. As a consultant or PO, you can either rely on such statements or question them. By questioning them, I question the limits of what is feasible. If this is successful and a better and different solution can be developed as a result, I shift this feasibility in favor of the product. It becomes better for the customer. More Lovable.

Mindset

In the following workshops, we repeatedly used the term Minimum Lovable Product. Rather jokingly at first. Later more concretely. It became increasingly clear that we were developing a corresponding mindset in the project: Can we change the perception of what is feasible in favor of the customer(and therefore ourselves)?

Surprisingly, this is possible in many cases. A few people have to leave their comfort zone, usually to do some homework that has been left behind for a long time. In the end, this would not have happened without asking again.

Visionaries…

As is always the case with larger companies that have already gathered a bit of organizational and administrative dust, there are also two camps in this project: the visionaries and the legionnaires.

While visionaries, as the name suggests, have a vision and want to take the company and its products forward by driving change and taking risks, legionnaires are more concerned with safeguarding what already exists or, if necessary, developing it slightly.

Asking the visionaries again usually opens doors. Or you can address things that have been bothering you for a long time and, as an external team member, you can question entrenched issues.

… and legionnaires

The legionnaires sometimes find such an approach insulting. This is not surprising, because basically you are questioning the person’s competence and authority. I try to prevent this by pointing out what would be possible if the restriction were removed. The legionnaires then usually come up with new suggestions on their own initiative. It’s always good when people come up with solutions themselves.

Plea

I think it is the duty of us in the digital economy to offer exactly this kind of rather persistent advice and support. No, not everything goes like butter. It’s more strenuous. But we owe these efforts to our customers. After all, they pay us for it. And it’s what turns mediocre solutions into good solutions. Minimal Lovable Products instead of Minimal Viable Products. And btw, it’s also what turns mediocre consultants into really good consultants. So give yourself a jolt next time and persevere. It pays off.