An Analytical Framework for Planning Minimum Viable Products

  • Anh Nguyen-DucEmail author


For early-stage high-tech startups, Minimum Viable Products are the most important artifacts for both business development and product development. In an entrepreneurial journey with build–measure–learn loops, startups need to be certain about what they learn to be closer to a product–market fit. Grounded from insights of 40 active digital startups, we proposed the 6W3H framework that captures a comprehensive set of context factors for developing an MVP. The framework represents an effectual MVP development with the relationships among the existing competence (Who question), business ideas (Why question) and current customers (For Whom questions), MVP’s features (What to build question), Startup metrics (What to measure question), and the development processes and practices (How questions). We demonstrate how 6W3H framework can be used for visualizing startup development, supporting decision-making, and mitigating product risks. The benefits of using the framework are highlighted when MVPs associating with significant uncertainty and fast-changing requirements and team resources.


6W3H framework Minimum viable product MVP context MVP development Multiple case study 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Robinson, F.: A Proven Methodology to Maximize Return on Risk (2001). Accessed Mar 2019
  2. 2.
    Ries, E.: What is the Minimum Viable Product (2009). Accessed Mar 2019
  3. 3.
    Blank, S.: Perfection by Subtraction – The Minimum Feature Set. (2010). 2010. Accessed Mar 2019
  4. 4.
    Duc, A.N., Abrahamsson, P.: Minimum viable product or multiple facet product? The role of MVP in software startups. In: Sharp, H., Hall, T. (eds.) Agile Processes, in Software Engineering, and Extreme Programming, pp. 118–130. Springer International, Cham (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    What Is A Minimum Viable Product, and Why Do Companies Need Them. (2018). Accessed Mar 2019
  6. 6.
    Definition of “Minimum Viable Product”. (2019). Accessed Mar 2019
  7. 7.
    What is a Minimum Viable Product and How to Build an MVP for Your Startup. (2018). Accessed Mar 2019
  8. 8.
    Guthrie, G.: How Minimum Viable Products Can Kick-Start Your Startup. (2018). Accessed Mar 2019
  9. 9.
    Boyatzis, R.E.: Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lenarduzzi, V., Taibi, D.: MVP explained: a systematic mapping study on the definitions of minimal viable product. In: 2016 42th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 112–119. (2016).
  11. 11.
    Münch, J., Fagerholm, F., Johnson, P., Pirttilahti, J., Torkkel, J., Jäarvinen, J.: Creating minimum viable products in industry-academia collaborations. In: Fitzgerald, B., Conboy, K., Power, K., Valerdi, R., Morgan, L., Stol, K.-J. (eds.) Lean Enterprise Software and Systems, pp. 137–151. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson, E., Lim, S.Y., Joglekar, N.: Are More Frequent Releases Always Better? Dynamics of Pivoting, Scaling, and the Minimum Viable Product. HICSS (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fagerholm, F., Sanchez Guinea, A., Mäenpää, H., Münch, J.: The RIGHT model for continuous experimentation. J. Syst. Softw. 123, 292–305 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nguyen-Duc, A., Khalid, K., Shahid Bajwa, S., Lønnestad, T.: Minimum viable products for internet of things applications: common pitfalls and practices. Future Internet. 11(2), 50 (2019). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hyrynsalmi, S., Klotins, E., Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., Tripathi, N., Pompermaier, L.B., Prikladnicki, R.: What is a minimum viable (video) game? In: Al-Sharhan, S.A., Simintiras, A.C., Dwivedi, Y.K., Janssen, M., Mäntymäki, M., Tahat, L., Rana, N.P., et al. (eds.) Challenges and Opportunities in the Digital Era, pp. 217–231. Springer International, Cham (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Agile Prototyping for technical systems–Towards an adaption of the Minimum Viable Product principle. Accessed Mar 2019Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nguyen-Duc, A., Wang, X., Abrahamsson, P.: What influences the speed of prototyping? An empirical investigation of twenty software startups. In: Baumeister, H., Lichter, H., Riebisch, M. (eds.) Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming, pp. 20–36. Springer International, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dybå, T., Sjøberg, D.I.K., Cruzes, D.S.: What works for whom, where, when, and why? On the role of context in empirical software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 19–28. (2012).
  19. 19.
    Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: Goal question metric paradigm. In: Marciniak, J.J. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Software Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 528–532. Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nguyen-Duc, A., Shah, S.M.A., Ambrahamsson, P.: Towards an early stage software startups evolution model. In: 2016 42th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 120–127 (2016).
  21. 21.
    Aquinas, T.: In: Sullivan, D.J. (ed.) The Summa Theologica (Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province). Great Books of the Western World. 19, pp. Q7. Art. 3. Obj. 3. Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago (1952)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business and ITUniversity of South-EasternBø i TelemarkNorway

Personalised recommendations