The Fallacy of MVP Obsession — Why Not Every Innovation Should Start with a Minimum Viable Product
The concept of the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) has achieved an almost mythical status in recent years. Originally emerging from Eric Ries’s Lean Startup methodology, the MVP was intended to enable entrepreneurs to test their product ideas quickly and cost-effectively. The idea behind it: develop a marketable product with minimal effort, test it with real users, and learn from their feedback. This iterative approach has revolutionized how startups work worldwide and has become synonymous with agility and innovation.
However, as with many popular concepts, the MVP also has a shadow side: misunderstandings and misapplications are among the biggest problems of the MVP concept. In practice, the MVP is often misinterpreted. Instead of being used as a tool for targeted hypothesis validation, it is understood as a synonym for an unfinished product rushed to market. This assumption doesn’t arise from intention but from a misunderstanding of the method. The pressure to gather early customer feedback leads to neglecting the significance of “viable” — the minimum requirements for functionality and quality. The result is products that may irritate or deter customers instead of providing valuable insights. This is precisely where the risk lies when the MVP is applied too schematically and the actual target context is lost from view. Moreover, the hype around MVP leads to it being viewed as a universal solution, even in areas where it’s not sensible, such as deep-tech innovations or capital-intensive technologies.
This article examines why the MVP isn’t always the right choice. It’s about recognizing where MVPs make sense — and where other approaches might be more promising. Because a founder’s true strength lies not in blind pragmatism but in the ability to choose the right method for the right context.
What is an MVP Really?
A Minimum Viable Product (MVP) was originally developed as a pragmatic strategy: creating a product with minimal necessary features to test central hypotheses and obtain direct customer feedback. The focus is on quickly gaining insights about whether a market or customer need exists, and then feeding these insights back into the development process. The emphasis is on “viable” — the product must be minimal, yet functional and relevant enough to offer real value to the target audience. An MVP is therefore not an unfinished or half-finished product, but rather a targeted tool to validate assumptions before making larger investments.
The MVP approach works particularly well in areas where iteration — the repeated improvement of a product — is an integral part of development. Digital products like software applications, platforms, or apps are prime examples. Here, core functionalities can be set up with relatively little development effort to analyze user behavior. An early example of this is Dropbox: before the platform existed, the founders created a simple explanatory video that simulated the planned functionality. The video alone was sufficient to validate potential users’ interest — a clever, cost-effective MVP that didn’t require a single line of code.
However, the MVP approach shouldn’t be misunderstood as a universal solution for every type of innovation. In capital-intensive industries like deep tech, biotechnology, or hardware development, MVPs can quickly reach their limits. Here, developing a prototype often involves high investments in research, infrastructure, and materials, making an MVP simply impractical. Moreover, such products often only function in a finished or nearly finished state, as end users otherwise cannot experience any real value. An example is the development of new materials: a material that only works in theory provides no basis for obtaining feedback from potential customers.
In capital-intensive industries like deep tech, biotechnology, or hardware development, implementing a classic MVP can be challenging due to high costs and complex requirements. In such cases, founders often face the challenge that a product in an unfinished state doesn’t enable sufficient feedback from potential customers — whether because the user experience is inadequate or the core functionality isn’t yet tangible. An example is the development of new materials or technologies that only show their actual utility in a nearly finished state.
The conclusion: An MVP is not a panacea, but rather a strategic tool that shines where development can be iterative and flexible. The challenge for founders lies in using the approach consciously and appropriately for their specific industry and product type.
When “Minimal” Becomes a Risk: The Limitations of MVP in Breakthrough Innovations
In the world of breakthrough technologies — from deep tech to hardware to biotechnology — the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) approach can quickly become a stumbling block. The danger lies not only in the simplification of a complex product but especially in the long-term consequences of this simplification.
The Risk of Wrong Conclusions
MVPs are designed to generate quick feedback from users to test hypotheses. However, with highly complex innovations, whose functionality is often difficult to explain even for experts, this approach reaches its limits. A rudimentary or unfinished product in the hands of the target group can easily be misunderstood — not because the product lacks value, but because it may not be able to communicate this value clearly enough in its early phase.
An example: With an MVP of a hardware solution for CO₂ capture, potential customers might perceive the product as inefficient or too expensive because it hasn’t achieved economies of scale in its first iteration. This early assessment can lead founders to draw wrong conclusions — such as assuming there’s no market interest, when the real problem lies in inadequately demonstrating the long-term potential. In such scenarios, relying on early feedback often leads to wrong decisions that can slow down the development process or completely derail it.
Short-term Thinking vs. Long-term Visions
Another risk with breakthrough technologies lies in the discrepancy between short-term MVP feedback and a long-term innovation strategy. Deep tech developments are often based on scientific breakthroughs or highly specialized technologies that need deeper market development. The pressure to deliver an MVP can lead founders to abandon their long-term vision in favor of short-term market signals.
A prominent example is the development of quantum computers: A “minimally functional” quantum processor would demonstrate neither its potential performance nor its future applications. An MVP in this field could lead to a distorted perception — that the technology isn’t market-ready, when it actually just needs time to achieve scalability and applicability through scientific and technological advances.
It becomes even more problematic when MVPs distract from a long-term oriented business model. Breakthrough innovations are rarely self-explanatory: They require not only deep technical understanding but also a strategic narrative that communicates their value and scaling possibilities over years. MVPs, however, are designed for quick iterations and short-term market reactions. This can lead to neglecting crucial development and scaling approaches, particularly with technologies like new materials, molecular farming, or sustainable energy systems.
In contrast to an MVP that prioritizes short-term feedback, breakthrough technologies need a systemic approach that considers both scientific and economic potential. Laboratory tests, proofs of concept, or early strategic partnerships with key market players can be significantly more effective here, as they create a deeper understanding of the technology’s potential while allowing room for long-term planning.
The conclusion is clear: MVPs are a useful tool, but they’re not suitable for every type of innovation. In the world of deep tech and other disruptive sectors, the real challenge lies in mastering a balancing act between short-term feedback and long-term strategy — and this balance cannot be achieved with an approach that focuses on minimalism and speed.
Beyond Minimal: Strategies that Truly Drive Innovation
The development of breakthrough technologies requires methods that go beyond the MVP concept. Particularly in deep tech and hardware innovations, alternatives are needed that meet the specific requirements of complex systems. What approaches are suitable when a rudimentary product isn’t enough?
Prototyping: Iteration Instead of Reduction
Prototyping is a proven approach to develop and improve complex technologies step by step. The goal isn’t to create a marketable product, but to test functional models that reveal central technological challenges. Especially in deep tech innovations, such as new materials, sustainable energy systems, or robotics, prototyping enables precise analysis of strengths and weaknesses. The iterative process ensures that technological approaches can be efficiently refined before larger investments are made.
An example: In battery development, a prototype is often used to test the longevity and safety of new materials. This method provides valuable insights without the pressure of having to go to market early.
Proof of Concept: Proving Feasibility
The Proof of Concept (PoC) serves to validate technologies before they are developed broadly. Particularly with scientifically based innovations, such as in biotechnology or medical technology, the PoC shows whether the theoretical approach works under real conditions.
A PoC offers the opportunity to convince stakeholders of feasibility without focusing on marketability. In molecular farming — the biotechnological production of proteins for the healthcare industry — a PoC can demonstrate the transferability of laboratory results to industrial scales. This reduces risks and enables informed decisions for the next steps of development.
High-Fidelity Demos: Impressing with Quality
Unlike an MVP, a high-fidelity demo aims to present an innovation at the highest quality. These detailed demonstrations combine core functions with a high degree of realism, thus creating a clear vision of the future product.
Particularly in the quantum computing industry or with AI innovations, startups use high-fidelity demos to show potential partners and investors what problem-solving capabilities their technologies could offer. The advantage: Such demos don’t risk damaging a company’s reputation through unfinished products but instead showcase the long-term perspective of the innovation.
Controlled Market Tests: The Safe Path to Market
For products that have already reached a high level of development, controlled market tests offer another alternative to the classic MVP. The introduction is limited to a specific market segment or target group to gather feedback under real conditions without taking the risk of a full market launch.
This approach is particularly suitable for technologies where market data on pricing or acceptance is needed before larger scaling steps are taken. An example would be autonomous mobility solutions tested in selected cities before going to mass market.
Whether prototyping, proof of concept, high-fidelity demos, or controlled market tests — they all offer versatile alternatives to the MVP approach. The key is to adapt the choice of method to the specific requirements of the innovation. In a world where technological breakthroughs are becoming increasingly complex, strategies are needed that not only work in the short term but strengthen the long-term vision of a product.
MVP or Not? Why Choosing the Right Method Determines Success or Failure
The decision whether a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is the right starting point for an innovation requires careful consideration. There’s no universal answer, as the suitability of an MVP heavily depends on the goals, technology, and available resources of a startup. But how can founders ensure they make the right choice?
An effective decision framework starts with key questions:
· What is my goal? Is it about testing a hypothesis or verifying the market viability of a mature innovation?
· Who is my target audience? Are they end consumers who can provide quick feedback, or businesses that plan long-term?
· What resources are available? An MVP might seem cost-effective but often requires significant effort for further development and adjustments. The answers to these questions help clearly define the context and make an informed decision.
An MVP is particularly useful when the product is easily understood and the target group is accessible for quick feedback. A classic example is the Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) sector. Here, rudimentary versions of a product can often provide value early on and deliver targeted data to prioritize further developments. For instance, a task management platform could start with just a few core functions to validate demand and user preferences.
In contrast, MVPs are often problematic with deep tech innovations. The complexity of the technologies and high expectations of the target group can lead to wrong conclusions. An MVP of an autonomous vehicle that can’t navigate safely would hardly convince the market and would squander trust. Here, alternatives like prototyping or high-fidelity demos are better suited to demonstrate feasibility and generate interest.
However, an MVP doesn’t need to be viewed in isolation. In many cases, founders can benefit from combining different methods. For example, a team might first prove technological feasibility with a proof of concept and then develop an MVP to test user acceptance.
This hybrid approach allows leveraging the strengths of different approaches while minimizing their weaknesses. Particularly with more complex innovations like quantum computing or molecular farming, a staged approach combining prototypes, PoC, and MVP can significantly increase the chances of success.
The choice of the right tool is crucial. An MVP is not a panacea but one of many strategies, each with its specific advantages. Founders who carefully analyze their goals and framework conditions can choose the appropriate model and pave the way for their innovation’s success.
Beyond MVPs: How Venture Studios Enable Real Innovation
As emphasized previously, a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) isn’t always the best starting point for innovative ideas. This is precisely where venture studios come into play. They offer not just operational support but a strategic partnership that goes far beyond the MVP approach.
One of the central problems many founders face is uncertainty about which path is right. Venture studios bring clarity here: With their serial founder expertise, data-based analyses, and market research, they help startups choose the appropriate strategy — whether it’s an MVP, a prototype, or a proof of concept. Instead of pushing for quick results, venture studios emphasize well-founded decisions that carry long-term weight.
Innovations often fail due to lack of resources. Venture studios offer not only financial support but also access to a broad network of experts, investors, and potential partners. Whether it’s technological expertise, scaling strategies, or building partnerships in the ecosystem of accelerators and incubators — the studio acts as a multiplier and bridge to key stakeholders.
While the MVP approach often aims at quick iterations and short-term results, our venture studios focus on future viability and vision. The goal isn’t to bring a product to market quickly, but to develop technologies and business models that last. This includes not just scaling but also the integration of regenerative approaches to create innovations with real impact.
With a clear focus on strategy, resources, and long-term value creation, venture studios offer a solution to challenges that many startups can’t overcome alone. They are not just supporters but catalysts for breakthrough innovations that go beyond MVPs.
The hype around the Minimum Viable Product has undoubtedly found its place in the startup world, but it also carries risks. Founders who blindly rely on the MVP approach risk overlooking important technological and strategic aspects. Innovations aiming for profound changes often need more than just quick market tests — they require thorough research, robust planning, and a clear understanding of long-term goals.
Flexibility is key here: There’s no universal method that fits every innovation. Instead, founders must have the courage to critically question their approaches and select the tools that meet their specific requirements — whether it’s an MVP, a proof of concept, or detailed prototyping.
Now is the time to view the MVP hype more differentially and seize the opportunities that a well-thought-out, tailored approach offers. Because the real strength of innovation lies not just in speed but in the ability to create sustainable and transformative solutions that stand the test of time.
