UNIT III APPLIED DESIGN

THINKING TOOLS
OME354 APPLIED DESIGN THINKING

Dinesh R, AP, CSE

Stella Mary’s College of Engineering
UNIT III APPLIED DESIGN THINKING TOOLS
Concept of Minimum Usable Prototype [MUP] - MUP
challenge brief - Designing & Crafting the value
proposition - Designing and Testing Value Proposition;
Design a compelling value proposition; Process, tools
and techniques of Value Proposition Design
End User-Centric Innovation

User-centric innovation is an approach to problem-solving that starts

with consumer needs and work backward towards a solution.

It is an approach that starts and ends with the experience of the

user, encompassing every aspect of their interaction with your
product or service.

By crafting solutions from the point of view of the end-users,

user-centric innovation ensures that every feature resonates with the
needs, challenges, and desires users face.
3. 1 Concept of Minimum Usable
Prototype [MUP]
Minimum Usable Prototype (MUP)

● The Minimum Usable Prototype (MUP) is a

development concept that focuses on building a
functional prototype of a product that is just enough to
be usable by early adopters or testers.
● It emphasizes creating a version of the product with the
most essential and core features to test the viability
of the product and gather early feedback from real
users, but it is not a fully polished or feature-complete
product.
● While the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) concept is
more well-known, focusing on delivering just enough
functionality to validate a business hypothesis, the
MUP concept is more about delivering an early-stage
product that is usable in a practical sense.
● MUP strikes a balance between a raw prototype and a
fully operational product, offering a version that users
can interact with in a meaningful way, even though it
may not have all the bells and whistles of the final
product.
Key Aspects of the Minimum Usable Prototype (MUP)

1. Focus on Core Usability

2. Not Fully Polished
3. Gathering Feedback
4. Low Investment, High Learning
5. Iterative Improvement
1. Focus on Core Usability

● The MUP is focused on delivering the minimum set of

core features that make the product usable. These
features address the basic functionality and ensure
that users can accomplish the primary task or purpose
of the product. It’s not just about having the basic
features but ensuring those features work well enough
to allow real use.
2. Not Fully Polished

● The MUP does not aim to be perfect in terms of

design, scalability, or performance. Instead, it is an
early-stage product that gets the job done in a
functional way. There might be rough edges in terms of
UI design, performance, or additional features, but it
is sufficient for users to try out and provide valuable
feedback.
3. Gathering Feedback:

● One of the primary goals of the MUP is to gather

feedback from users based on their interactions with the
prototype. The feedback gathered can help the
development team refine the product and prioritize
features for the next iterations. Real-world feedback is
invaluable for understanding whether the product meets
user needs, works as expected, or requires significant
changes before further development.
4. Low Investment, High Learning

● The MUP approach encourages building a low-cost,

early-stage version of the product, which allows the
team to validate the core concepts without sinking too
much time or resources into development. It’s about
learning as quickly as possible by putting something
into users' hands without waiting for a fully developed
product.
5. Iterative Improvement

● Once feedback from the MUP is received, the

development team can iterate on the product to improve
usability, add more features, fix issues, and address any
concerns raised by users. This iterative approach
ensures that the product evolves based on real user
experience rather than assumptions made in
development.
Why is the MUP Concept Important?

1. Real-world Testing
2. Early Adoption
3. Resource Efficiency
4. Improved User Experience
1. Real-world Testing

● MUP allows companies to test a usable version of the

product with real users in the real world. It focuses on
practical, actionable feedback, unlike high-level
theoretical validation with mockups or wireframes.
2. Early Adoption

● By creating an MUP, companies can attract early

adopters who are willing to try new products in their
early stages. These users provide critical insights into
what works and what doesn’t.
3. Resource Efficiency

● The MUP requires less time and effort compared to

building a full-featured product upfront, reducing the risk
of over-investing in features or designs that may not
resonate with users.
4. Improved User Experience

● While an MVP may validate basic product-market fit, an

MUP improves usability by focusing on delivering a
functional experience. This makes it more likely to retain
early users and gather deeper insights into how they
engage with the product.
3. 2 MUP challenge brief
The Minimum Usable Prototype (MUP) approach has several
benefits, such as allowing for early real-world feedback and
efficient use of resources. However, it also comes with certain
challenges. Here’s a brief overview of the common challenges
associated with the MUP concept:
1. Defining “Minimum Usable” Features
2. Lack of Polish
3. Difficulty in Securing Early Adopters
4. Incomplete User Experience
5. Risk of Negative Perception
6. Scaling Feedback Effectively
7. Short-Term Usability vs. Long-Term Scalability
8. Transitioning from MUP to MVP or Full Product
1. Defining “Minimum Usable” Features
● Challenge: One of the biggest hurdles in developing an
MUP is determining what constitutes the "minimum
usable" version of the product. It’s not always easy to
strike the right balance between delivering essential
features that provide value and cutting non-critical
features that could improve usability.
● Example: A product might require more features to be
genuinely usable than initially anticipated, leading to
debates within the team about what should be included
in the MUP.
● Solution: Start by focusing on the core functionality that
addresses the primary problem your users are facing.
Use customer discovery techniques, such as interviews
and observations, to identify which features are truly
necessary for the first prototype.
2. Lack of Polish

• Challenge: The MUP, by definition, is not a fully

polished product. This can lead to early adopters
encountering rough edges, such as minor bugs,
incomplete designs, or missing features, which can lead
to negative first impressions or customer dissatisfaction.
• Example: A basic but functional app might be slow or
have a clunky user interface, which could frustrate
users even though the core functionality is present.
● Solution: Ensure that while the MUP doesn’t have to
be feature-rich, the core features that are implemented
should work smoothly. Focus on stability and usability
for those few key elements, and make sure the
prototype doesn’t break during real-world use.
3. Difficulty in Securing Early Adopters

• Challenge: Some users may be hesitant to try an

incomplete product, especially if they expect a fully
polished version. Without enough early adopters willing
to test the MUP, it becomes harder to gather sufficient
feedback and validate assumptions.
• Example: If the MUP lacks essential features that the
users expect, they may abandon the product early on,
making it difficult to get useful feedback.
● Solution: Target early adopters or users who are more
forgiving and open to testing new products.
Communicate clearly that the product is in its early
stages and that their feedback is crucial to shaping
future versions. Incentivize participation by offering
them early access, special features, or a sense of
contribution to product development.
4. Incomplete User Experience

• Challenge: While the MUP focuses on core usability,

other aspects of the product experience, such as
aesthetics, user interface design, or additional helpful
features, may be missing. This can lead to frustration if
users expect a more comprehensive experience.
• Example: In a product designed to streamline task
management, users might expect seamless integration
with their calendar apps, but the MUP may lack this
feature, causing them to feel the product is incomplete
● Solution: Clearly set user expectations that the MUP is
a functional prototype focused on core features. Make
sure the product’s key feature (or set of features) works
well, and use user feedback to improve the overall
experience in future iterations.
5. Risk of Negative Perception

• Challenge: If users encounter too many usability issues

or limitations in the MUP, it can create a negative
perception of the product. Even if the product is
improved in future iterations, it might be hard to win
back users who had a poor initial experience.
• Example: A fitness app MUP may allow users to log
workouts but lacks motivational elements, which could
make users feel the product is underwhelming, leading
them to abandon it early on.
● Solution: Make sure the MUP delivers clear, tangible
value to users, even if it is minimal. Focus on solving a
key pain point well and communicate the product’s
roadmap to users, letting them know improvements are
coming. Engage users who provide feedback to make
them feel part of the product’s evolution.
6. Scaling Feedback Effectively

• Challenge: While an MUP enables you to collect early

feedback, it can be challenging to process and act on all
the feedback received, especially when different users
provide conflicting suggestions. Prioritizing what to
implement or improve next can become difficult.
• Example: One group of users may want additional
integrations with existing tools, while another may focus
on improving the design, creating tension around what
to prioritize in the next development phase.
● Solution: Prioritize feedback that aligns with the
original problem your product is trying to solve. Focus
on the feedback that supports the most critical
improvements needed to ensure the core product
remains usable and valuable. Use frameworks like the
ICE (Impact, Confidence, Ease) scoring model to
prioritize features.
7. Short-Term Usability vs. Long-Term Scalability

• Challenge: When focusing on the MUP, the temptation

is to build something quickly that works in the short term
but may not scale well in the long term. For example, a
quick solution may work for a few users but won’t be
efficient or scalable when the user base grows.
• Example: A payment solution MUP might support
manual processing of transactions for a small number of
users, but this method won’t be scalable for a larger
user base, potentially requiring the re-engineering of
● Solution: While the MUP focuses on the immediate
usability, plan for scalability in the long term. Build the
foundation (in terms of architecture and design) in a
way that future scalability is not compromised, even if
you’re delivering a bare-bones product now.
8. Transitioning from MUP to MVP or Full Product

• Challenge: Once the MUP has been tested, it can be

difficult to determine the next step. What should the
product evolve into—a more feature-rich MVP or the full
version? Balancing the feedback from the MUP with the
product’s long-term vision can be tricky.
• Example: After testing an MUP, you may find that users
demand multiple features or additional functionality,
which may complicate the original product vision.
Deciding what to build next becomes challenging.
● Solution: After gathering feedback, identify the most
valuable and impactful improvements that should be
added next. Work closely with your development,
design, and product teams to decide on the most
strategic next steps—whether it's iterating on the MUP,
moving towards an MVP, or even a full-featured
product.
Thank you!