Startups follow the start-fire-aim
approach to product definition as against the traditional start-aim-fire. Basically startups do not have the luxury of time
and resources to conduct focus group, gather requirements by interviewing users
and then build a product based on the sum of needs. Obviously, they have some
idea about the market needs and problems they are solving, but they have not
yet validated those assumptions with customers, apart from few visionaries. There
is of course the risk of ending up building a product which only appeals to
visionaries.
Startups first build a product (start-fire) and then look
for customers (aim) who are in need for solutions that this product attempts to
solve. Well, what they are building is a minimal viable product (MVP) and hence
they are very nimble both in terms of product strategy and technical
implementation. They can quickly iterate over the market feedback and adapt. I
will talk more about MVP later, but for now, it is sufficient to understand
that MVP should include only minimal set of features needed to demonstrate the
product solution to few customers (few being the operative word here).
Different dynamics are at play in large firms, as they are either
adding new features to existing products where the customers and needs are well
understood, or they are working on developing new products for existing market
and hence they have good understanding of their customers. They could be looking
to expand the existing products in new markets and hence they just need to add
few features to meet the needs of other market segments. In either case, they
have the luxury of time/resources and opportunity to follow the voice of customer
(start-aim-fire).
