You launch. Everything technically works. But no one’s excited. No one shares it. No one stays. That’s the MVP trap.
We’ve seen it firsthand and if we’re honest, we’ve built a few of those ourselves. Products that hit every milestone on the roadmap but still felt empty the moment they reached the real world.
The Minimum Viable Product (MVP) was meant to help teams learn quickly. But too often, it becomes an excuse to ship half-finished ideas where “viable” just means barely usable.
You hit your deadlines, you deliver what was scoped. But the product feels cold, users bounce, and feedback is lukewarm. The truth is: functionality isn't the same as value and most MVPs aren't minimum or viable, they're just forgettable.
Avoiding that means asking a better question than “Does it work?” It means asking: “Would anyone miss this if it disappeared tomorrow?”
This post is a call to rethink the MVP mindset and explore how product managers can lead the shift from building quickly to building meaningfully. From validating ideas to shaping something that sticks.
From Minimal Viable to Minimal Valuable
A Minimal Valuable Product isn’t just about shipping fast. It’s about shipping with intent. While an MVP asks, “What’s the least we can build to test this idea?” An M*VP asks, “What’s the smallest thing we can build that users will actually care about?” That means picking one or two things that solve a real problem or spark trust.
We try to lean into this mindset early. We ask more questions than we answer at first. We challenge assumptions. And we don’t celebrate launches just because something technically works; we want it to resonate. Whether we’re working on a startup’s first release or evolving a mature platform, the goal is the same: build something small and meaningful.
The M*VP mindset requires more than just execution. It requires ownership, care, and space to focus on the details users actually feel. That’s where you make a difference as a product manager. You’re not just managing timelines, you’re shaping how the product lands.
This Is What Valuable Looks Like
Big ideas are easy to agree with but what does "valuable over viable" actually look like in practice? Let’s talk about what might have happened if Slack and Figma had played it safe, if they’d gone the classic MVP route.
Slack, in its earliest days, could’ve focused on enterprise readiness: SSO, access control, audit logs. Instead, they bet everything on one simple thing: making team chat feel natural. It felt like IRC but with polish. Just a fast, searchable interface and a sense that you were in the room with your team. That wasn’t just viable, it was valuable. It made email feel old overnight.
Figma could’ve easily chased feature parity with Sketch and Photoshop: layer styles, asset libraries, keyboard shortcuts. But it didn’t. Instead, it launched with one defining trait: multiplayer. Live collaboration in the browser. That one move made it feel like a different species.
A checklist-driven MVP would’ve made both of these products technically functional. But it would’ve stripped them of what made them memorable. Viability through engineering alone does not guarantee value through experience.
We rely on both Slack and Figma, not because they do everything, but because they do one thing so well it makes everything else feel easier.
How Product and Project Leaders Drive Real Value
The difference between viable and valuable often comes down to someone speaking up early — whether that’s a product manager defining the vision or a project lead safeguarding the quality that users actually feel.
The people shaping early product decisions aren’t just there to hit deadlines. You’re the connective tissue between vision and execution which means you’re often the last line of defense between a product that works and one that lands.
You’re the person in the room who can say: “Let’s pause … does this version give users something they’ll care about?” That’s not hesitation. That’s leadership.
Here’s how you can do it without slowing your team down:
Start with a user pain, not a product wishlist
Most MVP planning kicks off with a feature list. Flip that. Ask: “What’s the most frustrating or broken part of the user’s day?” That’s your anchor. If the MVP doesn’t solve that, it doesn’t matter what else it includes.
Question the “just ship it” reflex
Every team hits a moment where someone says, “Let’s just get something out.” That moment needs a pause. Ask: “Will this version create confidence or questions?” Because shipping something that feels off can cost more than waiting another week.
Schedule time for reactions, not just results
Plan for iteration like it’s part of the release. Set aside time for feedback, and fix what’s unclear or unexpected; not just what’s broken.
Scope for confidence, not coverage
Most MVPs try to do too many things just okay. Instead: “If we delivered one moment users would rave about, what would it be?” Shape the first version around that. Let the rest come later.
Povio doesn’t just provide the specs — we shape outcomes. We’re collaborators in the product’s direction, not just keepers of the delivery timeline. We know when to zoom in on flow details and when to ask bigger questions about what we’re building and why. That’s how value gets built into the product, not just on top of it.
There’s Value in the “Shoulds”
One of the most practical ways to shape value early is during scope planning. When conversations turn to prioritization, one tool that can help when used thoughtfully is MoSCoW, a prioritization method used to help teams sort scope into four levels of priority, from essential to intentionally out of scope:
- Must: critical requirements, the product doesn’t function without them
- Should: important, but not essential for launch
- Could: nice-to-haves, often cut when time is tight
- Won’t (for now): intentionally out of scope
Teams often lock in on the “Must” bucket, the things that have to be delivered. That’s understandable. But it’s also where many MVPs fall short. Musts make the product function, not necessarily feel right. You can hit every Must and still end up shipping something cold, confusing, or forgettable.
The “Should” bucket is where things actually get interesting. It often contains features that aren’t strictly required, but make the experience work: smoother onboarding, a confirmation state that reduces anxiety, or the ability to invite a teammate. You don’t need all of them. But you might need one of them to keep the whole thing from feeling hollow. Try this during scoping: “If we remove all Shoulds, does this still feel like a product or a wireframe?”
At Povio, we use MoSCoW occasionally; not as a checklist for speed, but as a conversation tool when it fits the context. It helps align teams around what truly matters, especially when timelines are tight and trade-offs are on the table. If you only ship the Musts, you might meet the spec but miss the spark.
Don’t Just Ship It, Shape It
The MVP isn’t broken, it’s just often misunderstood. You don’t need to build more, you just need to build what actually matters. That might be a single feature that solves a real pain, something that makes a user say, “This is exactly what I needed.”
Because in the end, it’s not about checking the box. It’s about creating something people care about. Even in version one.
We work with startups and scale-ups to do exactly that. We help teams ship lean without cutting corners on care. We ask the uncomfortable questions early, so no one’s disappointed later. If you’re building something new and want a partner who’s focused on value from day one — let’s talk.
Viable is fine. Valuable is unforgettable.
