The Green Grass Dilemma: When MVPs Fall Short

Why it matters: MVPs are meant to move teams forward—but too often, they trap users in limited, half-built experiences that fall short of the original vision.

Key takeaways:

MVPs disappoint when there’s no clear vision guiding what comes next.
Budget limits and rigid Agile can turn “viable” into barely usable.
A strategic track alongside delivery ensures MVPs become meaningful products.

The promise of green pastures

I’ve often encountered some version of the following scenario during my time designing software products:

A company tasks us with improving or reimagining an experience for their customers or their employees. Leadership knows that current tools and processes are outdated and cumbersome, and they want to start the journey of pulling their user-base into the present-day. We paint a picture that shows the pain points and inefficiencies, and we promise an escape from the proverbial desert: more features, better data, automations, and even AI. We’re pledging that the grass will be greener on the other side, if we can just cross the river of human-centered design. We’re designers, after all. We’re geared toward optimism.

But then the time comes. Let’s cross that river and make our way to the flourishing field: design it, build it, and deliver something. And you hear that age-old three-letter acronym:

M.V.P.

Minimum. Viable. Product.

“Let’s focus on delivering an MVP, and then we’ll worry about the rest (that big ol’ field of green grass we talked about) later.”

Why don’t MVP’s feel like greener grass?

Few terms in the software industry have been both as inspiring and deflating as the MVP. It means delivering a product in the short-term, with just enough features to be useful to early adopters. Something simple that holds the framework of the product vision, that will evolve over time. Some MVP experts say, “if your end goal is delivering a car, your MVP might be a skateboard.” They both operate on four wheels, so it seems logical enough. You can minimize the risk of a heavy investment, while collecting feedback for iteration down the line. Helpful, right?

As we carry out this plan, our idea of MVP can get distorted. It becomes what we deliver, yes, in the near-term. A quick-to-market experience to get in front of users. But in doing so, we take them out of the desert (the cumbersome set of tools and processes built up over years), we shepherd them across the river of design, and we swiftly lock them in a 10ft x 10ft MVP playpen (brand new tech with some impressive features, but far less capabilities.) We say, “you’re welcome,” and, “the playpen may get bigger and better with time,” and then leave.

Now instead of frolicking in the glory of the green field, our users are left wanting the freedom they had to wander in the desert. Alas, this is what many MVP experiences have become. Our precious optimism now looks like naiveté. The green grass is wilting before our eyes.

Moving from Viable to Valuable

Seeing this go down, you can’t help but wonder, how did we go from dreaming big to constraining our user? How can we avoid it? A lot can contribute to this dynamic, but I have some thoughts on why MVPs have become something of a misnomer, and how we can do better. Let’s break it down:

Blurry Vision

It’s incredibly tempting to see issues and dive into implementing “MVP” features without deciding on the overall framework or end-game. Because of this, our quick solutions can form an unintentional, incorrect foundation that might be built upon for years. This causes new issues, and prevents real transformational change.

How we improve:

We need a solid ground to build on as we iterate and evolve. Without deeply understanding user needs beyond the system they work in and designing the guiding vision for a better experience, we won’t know if our MVP points users toward long-term value. It may be viable in that it’s “functioning,” but it doesn’t set us down the right path. In sprint planning, design reviews, and development demos, we should take the time to ask: *How will this work support our evolution beyond the MVP?

Dive deeper on design-Led approaches: Why Features Won’t Fix Your Product*

Budget Straight-Jackets

For some design and software teams, the “minimum” that can be accomplished in the MVP is defined by a small budget and quick turnaround. There is no promise of funding for a broader vision or future iteration. With these constraints, teams are focused on delivering what they can with the resources available to them, starting with the near-term and hoping against hope that they’ll have the opportunity and permission to turn an MVP into something grander. Many times the MVP is the end product.

How we improve:

Early on, leaders and purse-holders should reckon with the implications of tightly funding an “MVP” project. If there is no broader vision cast for the long-term, we shouldn’t put pressure on the short-term. If we don’t know how to solve the problem, we shouldn’t push out a half-baked (spaghetti-on-the-wall) solution. Telling our users the grass could be greener, then constraining them and branding it as a new and improved experience is only causing damage to the perception of our organization or brand.

Learn more about UX impact on strategic discussions: Why UX Belongs at the Leadership Table

Agile Gone Rigid

Once an MVP is rolled out, some teams find themselves in a constant loop of addressing user feedback on miniscule bugs and requests in that experience. Because our users only react to what’s in front of them, their feedback will always direct us back into tinkering on what exists today. We forget that the MVP we rolled out was supposed to be something grander than an endless laundry list.

How we improve:

When we collect user feedback, we should attach it to our aforementioned deep understanding of user needs. The way we react to this feedback should align with the vision we’re evolving toward, and help us avoid spinning our wheels on side-quests. Visual Logic recommends integrating UX with an Agile approach that works along three tracks:

A strategic track (3-6 months ahead of release) that will allow your team to research and ideate around a guiding vision.
A delivery-focused track (1-2 month ahead of release) that will allow your team to focus on designing and handing off high-fidelity features that support the established vision.
A continuous improvement track (ongoing) that will allow your team to assess feedback on fielded features, and feed relevant items in track 1 or 2 within the guardrails of the broader vision.

Conducting the right activities at the right time will ensure that your team doesn’t get tunnel vision on the MVP.

Find out more: The UX Timeline

Finding perspective in an MVP world

An MVP can still be a good thing. But we have to be aware of the context we’re delivering in. Yes, shipping a “skateboard” that will evolve into a “car” can seem logical. They have similar foundational elements that allow someone to travel from point A to point B. But what if our user has a long commute on a rainy day? How will they feel when we deliver a skateboard? Can they still accomplish their goals with a skateboard? Are we delivering a skateboard while trying to compete in an automobile market?

In today’s age, even users who are happy with a low-capability MVP may expect your product to evolve quickly. Taking the time to establish your vision will enable you to meet or exceed those expectations. Ultimately, rewarding user patience with real solutions will help them continue to look for the green grass. And for designers and developers, it means we can confidently promise that the grass truly can be greener on the other side.