Some digital product design deliverables get a bad rap. Often the criticism is valid though.

Take personas for example. They're often biased, disconnected from reality, not well-researched, just UX theater, etc. But, when done — and used — right, personas can be a valuable tool*.  Please don't get me started on NPS (Net Promotor Score) though. As a UX professional, that number is meaningless to me. 

Let's take a look at MVPs (Minimum Viable Products, not Most Valuable Players). I have a love-hate relationship with MVPs. At times, they can be a great way to test a concept, get client buy-in, or scale the project to the budget**. Too often though, I see an MVP become the final product. Once you have something that actually works and looks good — even if it's by definition minimally viable — there's a risk you'll keep it as-is.

The better we do our job as digital product designers and engineers, the stronger the MVP will be. However good it is — it might even be good enough — it's not as fully-featured or good as it can be. And that's where we get into trouble. Good enough often means the user isn't getting the experience they deserve. Features might be stripped out, corners might be cut, and findings from research might be pushed out to be dealt with later.

As I said, I still see the value in creating Minimal Viable Products. But over the years, I've spent too much time, energy, and persuasive power on convincing stakeholders to keep going and take the MVP from Minimum Viable Product to Most Valuable Product.

* In the many years I've been doing this, I've seen (and helped create) great personas. But I've also seen them misused, under-used, or just straight-up forgotten about.

** I know, the budget shouldn't drive what we create. But we live in the real world, and it's far from perfect out here.