The concept of MVP is one of the most frequently used — and most misunderstood — ideas in the software world.
It is often described as “fast”, “cheap”, or a “small product”. In reality, an MVP is none of these things.
An MVP is a deliberately designed step to test the right assumptions.
For this reason, not every idea, team, or project is ready for an MVP at the same time. MVPs started at the wrong moment can lock even the right idea too early.
In this article, we explore when teams are truly ready to start MVP development and why this question is far more important than it may seem.
An MVP is not a development method — it is a decision stage
MVPs are often treated as a technical topic.
Questions like “Which technology should we use?” or “How long will it take?” are asked far too early.
Before an MVP, the questions that really matter are:
- What are we trying to learn?
- Which assumption are we testing?
- Which decision will this test influence?
If these questions are not clear, what is being built is not an MVP, but an incompletely defined product development effort.
Is the problem truly clear?
The first requirement for being ready for an MVP is having a clearly defined problem.
Clarity here does not mean that the problem is already solved — it means that the problem is correctly defined.
If statements like these are still circulating:
- “There are actually several problems”
- “This could also be useful for something else”
- “It depends on the user”
then the MVP is usually premature.
An MVP is not built to remove uncertainty, but to test a specific uncertainty. If what you are testing is unclear, the MVP will be unclear as well.
Do we know which assumption we are testing?
At the core of every MVP lies an assumption.
If that assumption cannot be clearly stated, the MVP is poorly framed.
Example assumptions might include:
- Do users see this problem as a priority?
- Are they willing to invest time in this solution?
- Will they repeat this behavior regularly?
- Would they pay to solve this problem?
If it is not clear which of these questions we are trying to answer, the MVP becomes a way to “do something” rather than to learn something meaningful.
Are we trying to learn, or to validate?
This distinction is critical and often overlooked.
- Learning applies when we do not yet know what is true.
- Validation makes sense once an assumption has largely taken shape.
If the question “Do users want this?” is still open, you are in a learning phase — not a validation phase.
MVPs built at this stage are often burdened with misaligned expectations.
Being ready for an MVP also means knowing which questions no longer need to be asked.
Are we willing to accept that the MVP may fail?
This can be an uncomfortable question — but it is an important one.
Sometimes, the purpose of an MVP is to fail.
But that failure should be:
- fast
- controlled
- educational
If an MVP is expected to produce a “successful product” no matter what, then it is not an MVP — it is a small full product.
Being truly ready for an MVP means accepting that a negative result can still be used to make a decision.
Do we know what happens after the MVP?
A very common situation looks like this:
The MVP is built, results are gathered — and then everything stops.
- Do we continue?
- Do we pivot?
- Do we stop entirely?
If these questions are asked for the first time after the MVP, it is already too late.
Before starting an MVP, one thing must be clear:
Which outcome will trigger which decision?
Without this clarity, MVP results often go to waste.
The most common mistake: locking the MVP too early
An MVP is meant to be flexible.
But when designed poorly, it becomes the most rigid version of the product.
- poor architectural decisions
- early technical commitments
- unnecessary features
can leave the product unable to move forward from the very beginning.
That is why, before starting an MVP, it is important to think about how much we are locking in.
So when should you move to an MVP?
In summary, to be truly ready for an MVP:
- the problem must be clearly defined
- the assumption to be tested must be explicit
- it must be clear whether the first goal is learning or validation
- negative outcomes must be acceptable for decision-making
- post-MVP steps must be considered in advance
MVPs started without these conditions rarely increase speed. Instead, they often lead to major corrections later.
An MVP does not exist to start — it exists to start correctly.
