Complete firstPrioritised assumptions
Desirability, viability, feasibility, or adaptability is clear for each claim.
Without a risk dimension, the test type cannot be matched.
Method guideProduct Discovery
MVP Test Matrix
A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.
ComplexityMedium
Time45-75 min
Participants2-8
FormatWorkshop
MaturityEstablished
01
Prerequisite
What needs to be finished first
Complete firstNext investment stage
The decision and required evidence strength are named.
Without a stage, the test becomes overbuilt or too weak.
02
Preparation
What needs to be ready before start
Materials
Assumption portfolio, test-type catalogue, audience access, cost and time constraints, analytics plan, and ethics review.
People / roles
Product · Research · Engineering · Analytics · experiment owner
Pre-read
Prepare top assumptions, current evidence, and the next irreversible investment.
Time needed
45–60 minutes for selection and protocol
Setup
Compare test types by evidence strength, setup time, run time, cost, and realism.
03
Core question
The one question this method answers
Which smallest test provides enough evidence for each critical assumption to support the next investment decision?
04
Flow
Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall
The matrix prevents MVP from automatically meaning a small product. A fake door can test demand, concierge can observe value in a workflow, Wizard of Oz can test use of a manually delivered service, and a functional prototype can test feasibility. A test only answers the assumption it was designed for.
MVP Test Matrix
Fictional worked example
Connect assumptions to test type, evidence strength, effort, and a pre-set decision.
| Assumption | Critical assumption | Suitable test type | Observation and evidence | Effort and guardrail | Threshold and next test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review useDesirability before automation | Project leads use audit-ready exports in monthly reviews. | Concierge: manually prepared export for 12 suitable teams. | Observed review use; stronger than stated intent, no self-service evidence yet. | 5 working days; no sensitive production data; stop on compliance objection. | Pass ≥8 in review and ≥6 using a chart; then clickable prototype, else revisit segment/job. |
1. Critical assumption
- Review use
- Project leads use audit-ready exports in monthly reviews.
2. Suitable test type
- Review use
- Concierge: manually prepared export for 12 suitable teams.
3. Observation and evidence
- Review use
- Observed review use; stronger than stated intent, no self-service evidence yet.
4. Effort and guardrail
- Review use
- 5 working days; no sensitive production data; stop on compliance objection.
5. Threshold and next test
- Review use
- Pass ≥8 in review and ≥6 using a chart; then clickable prototype, else revisit segment/job.
An MVP test validates only the assumption its measure actually addresses.
- 1
Assumptions
Bound decision and assumptions
Goal
Expose critical desirability, viability, feasibility, and adaptability assumptions.
Inputs for this step
- Upcoming investment decision
- Product or business model
- Current evidence
Actions
- Name the decision and irreversible cost.
- Write discrete assumptions and assign a risk dimension.
- Mark current evidence and the largest gap.
Output
Assumption portfolio
Dimension · assumption · evidence gap · decision
Quality check
Is it clear which decision each test supports?
Pitfall
The team starts with a preferred MVP type and then searches for a question. State decision and assumption first; choose test type afterwards.
Timing: 10–15 minutes
- 2
Match
Match test type to evidence need
Goal
Choose a test type with suitable evidence strength and realism for each top assumption.
Inputs for this step
- Prioritised assumptions
- Available test types
- Audience access and constraints
Actions
- Distinguish discovery and validation evidence.
- Compare fake door, concierge, Wizard of Oz, prototype, and technical spike against the measure.
- Assess cost, duration, reversibility, and deception risk.
Output
Test matrix
Assumption · test type · evidence strength · effort · limit
Quality check
Does the test measure the claimed dimension?
Pitfall
A landing-page click is treated as evidence for retention, willingness to pay, and feasibility at once. Assign one primary assumption and one suitable observable metric to each test.
Timing: 15–20 minutes
- 3
Protocol
Make the test decision-capable
Goal
Document population, procedure, metric, threshold, and guardrails before launch.
Inputs for this step
- Selected test type
- Audience and channel
- Baseline or comparison
Actions
- Specify exposure, duration, and data capture.
- Set numerator, denominator, minimum data, and threshold.
- Add guardrail and decisions for pass, fail, and inconclusive.
Output
Test protocol
Population · procedure · metric · threshold · guardrail · decision
Quality check
Can the team evaluate results without inventing new rules?
Pitfall
The test starts before threshold, minimum data, or stop rule is set. Freeze the protocol before recruiting or launching.
Timing: 15–20 minutes
- 4
Sequence
Plan evidence ladder and next test
Goal
Set the next test and the condition for moving to stronger evidence.
Inputs for this step
- Test protocols
- Investment stages
- Time and cost budget
Actions
- Run the cheapest sufficient test first.
- Define which result justifies the next stronger test.
- Set owner, date, and learning review.
Output
Sequenced test plan
Now · threshold · next · owner · review
Quality check
Does evidence strength increase only after a viable result?
Pitfall
Many tests run in parallel although later tests depend on earlier findings. Make dependencies explicit and sequence tests as an evidence ladder.
Timing: 10–15 minutes
05
Artifact
What comes out at the end
Sketch: what the artifact looks like
Form
MVP Test Matrix with protocols, guardrails, decision rules, and evidence ladder.
Versioning / ownership
Retain date, author, source state, and decision status for each revision; do not overwrite earlier results.
Tool alternatives
- MVP Test Matrix
- Test Card per selected test
- Evidence ladder and learning log
mvp-test-matrix-working-template.md
Plan MVP Test Matrix with real scope, suitable roles, and a clear decision objective.
MVP Test Matrix: Worksheet
Question
To be confirmed
Desired outcome
To be confirmed
Scope
Plan the full workshop Time: 45–60 minutes for selection and protocol
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
Preparation for this scope
Method setup
- Materials: Assumption portfolio, test-type catalogue, audience access, cost and time constraints, analytics plan, and ethics review.
- Roles: Product · Research · Engineering · Analytics · experiment owner
- Advance information: Prepare top assumptions, current evidence, and the next irreversible investment.
- Overall time needed: 45–60 minutes for selection and protocol
- Setup: Compare test types by evidence strength, setup time, run time, cost, and realism.
Prepare for the work steps
Assumptions: Bound decision and assumptions
- Upcoming investment decision
- Product or business model
- Current evidence
Match: Match test type to evidence need
- Prioritised assumptions
- Available test types
- Audience access and constraints
Protocol: Make the test decision-capable
- Selected test type
- Audience and channel
- Baseline or comparison
Sequence: Plan evidence ladder and next test
- Test protocols
- Investment stages
- Time and cost budget
MVP Test Matrix
| Assumption | assumption · dimension | fake door/concierge/wizard/prototype/spike | behaviour · strength · limit | duration · cost · guardrail | pass · fail · next |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Review use |
- Review use: Desirability before automation
Choose test type after assumption and decision; record the evidence limit.
Strategyzer: Select the Next Best Test
Assumptions: Bound decision and assumptions
Expected artifact: Assumption portfolio
Dimension · assumption · evidence gap · decision
Entry:
...
- Is it clear which decision each test supports?
Match: Match test type to evidence need
Expected artifact: Test matrix
Assumption · test type · evidence strength · effort · limit
Entry:
...
- Does the test measure the claimed dimension?
Protocol: Make the test decision-capable
Expected artifact: Test protocol
Population · procedure · metric · threshold · guardrail · decision
Entry:
...
- Can the team evaluate results without inventing new rules?
Sequence: Plan evidence ladder and next test
Expected artifact: Sequenced test plan
Now · threshold · next · owner · review
Entry:
...
- Does evidence strength increase only after a viable result?
Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/mvp-test-matrix/run-sheet
06
Example output
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.
mvp-test-matrix-beispiel.md
Concrete filled scenario, fictional example
Fictional example: assumption 'Project leads use audit-ready exports in monthly reviews'. Selected test: concierge, because actual review use should be observed before automation. Twelve suitable teams receive manually prepared exports. Success: at least eight bring it into the review and at least six use one chart. If successful, build a clickable prototype; otherwise revisit segment or job.
07
Pitfalls
Recognize symptoms and steer against them
Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow
- Bound decision and assumptionsThe team starts with a preferred MVP type and then searches for a question.View in phase
- Match test type to evidence needA landing-page click is treated as evidence for retention, willingness to pay, and feasibility at once.View in phase
- Make the test decision-capableThe test starts before threshold, minimum data, or stop rule is set.View in phase
- Plan evidence ladder and next testMany tests run in parallel although later tests depend on earlier findings.View in phase
Trap
Bound decision and assumptions
Symptom
The team starts with a preferred MVP type and then searches for a question.
What to do
State decision and assumption first; choose test type afterwards.
Trap
Match test type to evidence need
Symptom
A landing-page click is treated as evidence for retention, willingness to pay, and feasibility at once.
What to do
Assign one primary assumption and one suitable observable metric to each test.
Trap
Make the test decision-capable
Symptom
The test starts before threshold, minimum data, or stop rule is set.
What to do
Freeze the protocol before recruiting or launching.
Trap
Plan evidence ladder and next test
Symptom
Many tests run in parallel although later tests depend on earlier findings.
What to do
Make dependencies explicit and sequence tests as an evidence ladder.
08
Stop criteria
When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach
Every entry follows the method and links to evidence or explicitly marked uncertainty.
The next decision, owner, and review date are visible where required.
Where to go next?
Product Discovery
Smoke Test
Implements the matrix's cheapest test stage as the first real demand test.
Product Discovery
Fake Door Test
Uses a fake door as an early, evidence-rich test stage for desirability.
Product Discovery
Concierge MVP
Implements a more elaborate, realistic test stage for validated assumptions.
Finished the method guide?
Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.