Cited by 168Business Strategies and InnovationSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MVP Explained: A Systematic Mapping Study on the Definitions of Minimal Viable Product

Lenarduzzi, Valentina, Taibi, Davide·2016·2016 42th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)

Abstract

Context: One of the most important steps of the Lean Startup methodology is the definition of Minimum Viable Product (MVP), needed to start the learning process by integrating the early adopters' feedbacks as soon as possible. Objective: This study aims at identifying the common definitions of MVP proposed and the key factors identified to help entrepreneurs efficiently define their MVP, reducing errors due to unconsidered unknown factors. Method: We identified the MVP definitions and key factors by means of a systematic mapping study, defining the research questions and the protocol to be used. We selected the bibliographic sources, the keywords, and the selection criteria for searching the relevant papers. Results: We found 97 articles and, through inclusion and exclusion criteria, removed 75 articles, which reduced the total to 22 at the end of the process. The results are a classification schema for characterizing the definition of Minimum Viable Product in Lean Startups and a set of common key factors identified in the MVP definitions. Conclusion: The identified key factors are related to technical characteristics of the product as well as market and customer aspects. We found a positive improvement of the state of the art of MVP and the definition of Minimum.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/seaa.2016.56

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.1109/ESEM.2007.58 · DOI
  2. 10.1145/1414004.1414076 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.infsof.2005.08.009 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lenarduzzi, V., & Taibi, D.
Affiliations
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (IT)
Venue
2016 42th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2016-08
Pages
112-119
OpenAlex
W2539177311
Cited by
168
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5
FWCI
36.93
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Innovation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Entrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Keywords
minimum viable product, lean startup, product development, classification schema

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review