When teams talk about MVPs, many still mean the same thing:
“Let’s quickly build something and get user feedback.”
At first glance, this sounds reasonable.
But most of the problems we see in practice are related to how this approach is applied.
Because in MVPs, the real risk is not:
- missing features,
- rough interfaces,
- or even bugs.
The real risk is locking the wrong things too early.
Why are so many wrong decisions made during the MVP stage?
In early stages, three things happen at the same time:
- uncertainty is high
- there is constant time pressure
- the impact of decisions is larger than expected
Decisions made in this environment usually come with one intention:
“Let’s do it like this for now.”
The problem is that what we call “for now” during the MVP phase
often becomes permanent.
This is why many products lose their ability to maneuver
before they even begin to grow.
The most common mistake: designing an MVP like a product
One of the most frequent mistakes we see in practice is this:
The MVP is treated as a small but complete product.
However, the real purpose of an MVP is:
- not to work perfectly,
- but to learn.
MVPs built without clear answers to the following questions are risky:
- Which assumption are we testing with this MVP?
- Why are we deliberately leaving certain things out?
- What will we learn if this MVP fails?
When these questions are not addressed, the MVP turns into
an in-between form that tries to be a product
without being clear about what it actually is.
(→ Why Decisions in Software Projects Gradually Lock the Product)
“We’ll change it later” is the most expensive sentence
During MVP development, teams often say:
“We’ll change it later.”
This sentence is not wrong by itself.
But if the conditions for change are never defined,
it becomes very costly over time.
For example:
- authorization structures,
- data models,
- modularity decisions
These can be kept simple in an MVP.
But if when they should evolve is not defined,
teams start avoiding these areas as the product grows.
(→ Where Technical Debt Becomes a Real Problem as Products Grow)
Speed or flexibility?
MVPs are often associated with speed.
But what we see in real projects is this:
Fast MVPs do not survive.
Flexible MVPs do.
Flexibility does not mean doing everything right.
It means making decisions that can be reversed.
A good MVP:
- deliberately does some things poorly
- but knows which decisions are temporary
Without this distinction, an MVP stops being a first version
and turns into an early legacy system.
(→ Why Existing (Legacy) Systems Are Actually Hard to Deal With)
Why does the “what now?” question appear after the MVP?
After completing an MVP, many teams reach this point:
“Okay, it works… now what?”
This question should not be answered after the MVP is done,
but before the MVP even starts.
If, at the end of the MVP:
- which decisions will change,
- which areas will be revisited,
- what is required for productization
are not clear,
the MVP becomes just a “first version.”
It stops being a learning tool.
A shared reflex in healthier MVPs
In teams that move more healthily, we consistently see one shared reflex:
- MVP decisions are explicit (at least mentally)
- “This decision is temporary” is clearly understood
- growth scenarios are discussed early
These teams treat the MVP as:
- not something to rush through,
- but a deliberately constrained experiment.
This mindset leads to far fewer lock-in problems
as the product evolves.
Closing
The biggest risk of an MVP
is not that it is incomplete.
The real risk is this:
taking the wrong things seriously too early.
That is why the most important question during an MVP is:
“Which decisions are we deliberately postponing,
and under what conditions will we revisit them?”
Teams that can answer this clearly
do not just start fast,
they continue sustainably.
