Common wisdom from YCombinator and friends is to build a Minimum Valuable Product, or MVP, with the goal of getting to market as fast as possible. This often means cutting corners and shipping a subpar product so you can begin a cycle of iteration after testing the waters. While this is definitely effective for determining what you should actually be building, many products from my experience remain in this pseudo-minimum state and are simply built upon for years. This can result in a forever-subpar product that would likely require a colossal effort to achieve true excellence, paradoxically going against another piece of common startup community advice.
My proposal, as difficult as it may sound, is to build for excellence from the start rather than the minimum.
Think before you step
An ever-present example of this problem is an Electron application, where the full stack JavaScript architecture enables founders and their team to deliver and iterate super fast with minimal context switching between frontend and backend. In the end, though, these apps are prone to very noticeable performance issues and clunky behavior, resulting in a lackluster experience for everyone. The intention by the founders is pure, but that doesn’t take away from the resulting reality.
This issue extends to the design of the product as well, which is sometimes determined on-the-fly by engineers. Taking more time to research the UX of similar products and designing hi-fi mockups before even starting development can to help achieve a more refined product rather than one that simply meets the minimum requirements.
Many technical founders and team leads overlook the potentially substantial long-term costs of early, crucial decisions. I’ve repeatedly witnessed startups I’ve worked for prioritize speed-to-market, only to grapple with significant consequences for years afterward. The hidden expenses of extensive workarounds and, occasionally, complete rewrites become increasingly evident over time. You can find yourself struggling for every minor product improvement because the codebase is chaotic and the user experience is abysmal. But hey, at least you beat everyone to market, am I right?
Redefinition
Ironically, I actually love what Weebly founder David Rusenko had to say about this topic during an old YC talk, stating how founders should aim for building a Minimum Remarkable Product rather than the traditional notion of an MVP (Minimum Viable Product). Although it may just sound like semantics, this change in thought can result in a far better product that truly is better than any other solution on the market.
I implore engineers specifically to consider redefining their approach to building end-user software using this new definition. This could mean using a more error-resilient and high-performance tech stack, such as one written in Go or Rust. Or if you don’t have the bandwidth to learn a new technology, you could simply take more time to architect your solution before diving in to the code.
For design-savvy founders, I heavily recommend spending a good deal of time exploring different ideas on how to solve the problem at hand rather than going the ad-hoc route and hoping it’s good enough. Create collections of inspiring designs from existing products, even those outside of your industry, and build functional design prototypes, such as those in Figma or Sketch, where you can rapidly iterate on user experience before starting development.
Counterarguments
This is absolutely a two-faced problem. Intentionally putting more effort into the product before initial launch will obviously increase time-to-market and result in potentially higher development costs. You run the risk of building something incredibly refined but that nobody actually wants or needs. To prevent this, it’s still vital to spend time determining your customers personas, conducting proper customer interviews, and sending prototypes to others for them to try out and provide you with feedback.
Final thoughts
I probably recall this photography quote I heard somewhere at least once a week, and one I believe is just as relevant to engineers as it is to creatives:
“To create something of beauty is reason enough.”
The context being, of course, that no matter who sees, likes or comments on your works of art, creating the art itself is enough to warrant it’s existence.
This sentiment resonates deeply with the philosophy of building for excellence. When we approach our work with the mindset of creating something truly remarkable, regardless of immediate recognition or success, we inherently push ourselves to higher standards. This pursuit of excellence not only satisfies our creative drive but can also lead to products that stand out in the market. By focusing on crafting something beautiful and refined from the start, we set ourselves up for long-term success and satisfaction.
Now go build something beautiful.