These scales are used when UX, art style and usability are major focuses.
These are qualitative goals. You're right, projects are never done. These
targets help teams set qualitative goals and quality bars.
I can't relay the specific implementations from other companies and I left
out one key idea
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:14 AM, David Strine
wrote:
> Is the current usage of MVP in context with other levels of "done"?
>
>- MVP - truly MVP, barely consumable by users
>- Competitive - meets or slightly exceeds competitors
>- BATMAN - yes, all caps. this should be so cool it ma
Ok, I am persuaded that MVP has won the war, despite my ongoing
reservations about its overloading. I think it then falls upon us to always
spell out what it means the first time we use it within a context.
Minimum Releasable Feature (MRF) is another one I have seen, but it sounds
like that wouldn
Kevin Smith, 15/06/2015 18:07:
Am I alone in preferring an acronym that isn't overloaded?
Ambiguity seems comparable?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMP#Computing_and_video_games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVP_%28disambiguation%29#Computing
Nemo
_
Is the current usage of MVP in context with other levels of "done"?
I have seen 2 definitions of done in agile systems:
- Done for a user story is defined by acceptance criteria and is a bit
more discrete
- Done on a system/product level is more nuanced and managed at the org
level.
+1 to what Max said.
MVP is an industry standard.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Max Binder wrote:
> FWIW, in my (limited) experience, MVP is an industry term widely used, and
> I haven't encountered MMP. There is something to be said for unified
> industry lingo.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 a
FWIW, in my (limited) experience, MVP is an industry term widely used, and
I haven't encountered MMP. There is something to be said for unified
industry lingo.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:14 AM, James Douglas
wrote:
> Joking aside, I'm not too concerned with the overloadedness of terms we
> use, a
Joking aside, I'm not too concerned with the overloadedness of terms we
use, as long as we have consensus on what they mean.
I'd be much more excited to define the thing that we're designating as MMP,
i.e. "the bundle of features that satisfy user stories X, Y, and Z".
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:1
Model View Presenter? :]
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Kind of a small issue, but I find myself leaning toward MMP (Minimum
> Marketable Product) rather than MVP (Minimum Viable Product). Although I
> prefer "viable", and MVP is catchy, it is also confusing an
"Marketable" does not sound appropriate given our context...
On 15 June 2015 at 17:07, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Kind of a small issue, but I find myself leaning toward MMP (Minimum
> Marketable Product) rather than MVP (Minimum Viable Product). Although I
> prefer "viable", and MVP is ca
Hi all,
Kind of a small issue, but I find myself leaning toward MMP (Minimum
Marketable Product) rather than MVP (Minimum Viable Product). Although I
prefer "viable", and MVP is catchy, it is also confusing and ambiguous,
thanks to MVP (Most Valuable Player).
Am I alone in preferring an acronym t
11 matches
Mail list logo
