If I had a huge company, I would probably try to operate the departments like little startups. It is probably really hard to avoid the drudgery of bureaucracy and whatnot in big companies. Having more resources could be a curse.
Therefore I think MVP might have merit even for large corporations.
Also, studies seem to show again and again that nobody can predict the future success of a product, which would speak in favor of MVPs even for big corps.
This is very tricky to do. Once you are part of a big company you are risking more than just your small startup.
There is brand risk - if a startup makes a bad product, then petfud.ly looks bad. If MS Startup Division does, MS looks bad.
If a startup makes a bad product that kills people (or they take on risky contracts with a big downside), they get sued out of existence. If some small division of MS does, MS gets sued out of existence.
Big companies are less agile for a good reason. They have a lot more to lose.
I think there's a way around this. For example, YouTube has remained a relatively separate brand from Google so I think things they do wouldn't reflect back on Google as much.
One company I think is really good at this is Amazon. IMDB, dpreview, Audible, Zappos, Woot, and Endless all have maintained their brand fidelity while also benefitting tremendously from Amazon's technology and assets.
Even negative press for Amazon's Web Services doesn't really impact the Amazon brand in most consumers eyes, which is pretty amazing in my opinion.
This leads to the conclusion that big companies should not innovate this way, rather foster own startups (with major or exclusive ownership) which are not associated with the brand (at least initially, while in risky phase).
OTOH buying a successful startup in the same field may be the simpler way to go?
If I had a huge company, I would probably try to operate the departments like little startups.
I was in a company that tried this. Sometimes, you get a group with all the disadvantages of being in a small company combined with the disadvantages of being in a big one.
Exactly. Having more resources and more experience doesn't mean that the company can't use Lean methodologies. It actually should to avoid waste and false/overrated convictions about self. And especially in case of very fresh products like these Glasses.
> If I had a huge company, I would probably try to operate the departments like little startups.
I think that was the case with a project like Wave, which IMHO could certainly have done with a little love from Google Marketing/PR as the concept needed to be sold to organisations.
I actually think part of the problem with Wave was too much marketing. There was a TON of fanfare in the tech world when that was released.
I think the main problem with Wave was a crappy product. The tech was amazing and the interface was cool, but the product was buggy and unresponsive at times. It was a geek's dream though.
They tried to release a full product with the full power of the Google brand behind it when they should've spun it off into a side project and introduced each feature in an iterative way until it gained enough traction. That's the whole point of treating each department as a startup: develop your product alongside your customers one MVP at a time.
Even Apple does this, they could just take bigger leaps because whatever people say about him, Jobs was a fucking genius when it came to designing technology.
Therefore I think MVP might have merit even for large corporations.
Also, studies seem to show again and again that nobody can predict the future success of a product, which would speak in favor of MVPs even for big corps.