Define this 1 term when building MVP

We are continuing to onboard new clients while staying deeply engaged with the ones we already work with, and overall the rhythm has been steady and manageable.

The biggest variable, as it almost always is, remains communication - making sure timelines are clear, responses are timely, and expectations stay aligned as work progresses across multiple engagements.

One thing that has stood out to me recently is how reputation compounds quietly over time.

More lawyers are reaching out because of what I have been consistently sharing on LinkedIn, and while the growth feels slow on a day-to-day basis, it is undeniably real.

It reinforces a lesson I return to often: focus on your own path, do the work consistently, and define success on your own terms rather than borrowing someone else’s definition.

That same theme shows up repeatedly in IT projects, especially in the way teams talk about delivery and progress.

The Word “MVP” Is More Dangerous Than It Looks

The term “MVP” fools a lot of teams, even experienced ones. Everyone uses it confidently, and in meetings it often feels like a shared understanding has been reached.

But the moment the first build ships, that confidence tends to disappear.

The reason is simple: “minimum” means very different things to different people.

For clients, an MVP usually means something that feels usable and presentable.

They expect a clean interface, a complete user flow, and enough polish that the product can be shown to stakeholders, early customers, or investors without caveats or apologies.

From their perspective, an MVP should feel like a real product - not a prototype that needs explaining.

For delivery teams, an MVP often means the opposite. It is the core logic working as intended, just enough interface to test functionality, and a skeletal build designed to validate assumptions rather than impress users.

The goal is learning and speed, not refinement or presentation. Neither side is wrong. They are simply working from different definitions, and that gap is where most delivery disputes begin.

Where Things Start to Break

If the contract does not clearly define what belongs in the MVP, everything quickly becomes subjective.

Performance expectations turn vague, testing standards are assumed instead of documented, and milestone approvals depend on how someone feels rather than what was delivered.

By the time the demo happens, both sides are surprised but for opposite reasons. The client expected more. The team expected sign-off.

At that point, the conversation shifts away from progress and toward disappointment, rework, delayed invoices, and the familiar phrase: “This isn’t what we discussed.” The problem, of course, is that nothing concrete was ever written down.

Why “Obvious” Words Create the Most Disputes

In IT contracts, the most dangerous words are often the ones that seem obvious:

• “MVP”

• “Complete”

• “Production-ready”

• “Final delivery”

If a word can be interpreted in more than one way, it must be defined. Otherwise, the definition will be decided later - usually when tension is already high, and trust is already strained.

The Fix: Define Acceptance, Not Intent

The solution is not complicated, but it does require discipline. Teams need to move away from intent-based language and toward acceptance-based documentation.

Strong acceptance criteria should:

• List the exact features included in the MVP, and just as importantly, what is explicitly excluded.

• Define what “working” means for each feature, including performance benchmarks and supported environments.

• Specify which tests must pass and whose confirmation constitutes acceptance.

• Tie milestone payments to objective checks, not general satisfaction or goodwill.

When acceptance criteria are clear, the MVP stops being an opinion and becomes a checklist.

What Changes When “Done” Is Defined

Once expectations are written clearly, everything downstream improves. Timelines become predictable because scope is visible.

Quality assurance becomes measurable instead of negotiable. Phase 1 actually ends, allowing Phase 2 to begin without resentment or fatigue.

In my own work, I have learned that most communication problems are not caused by bad intent. They come from undefined assumptions that surface too late in the process.

Contracts are not meant to slow projects down - they exist to give everyone the same mental picture of what success looks like.

Final Thoughts

“MVP” means different things to clients and delivery teams, and that gap is the source of many IT disputes.

If acceptance criteria are not clearly defined in writing, expectations become subjective, and conflict is inevitable. Define scope, tests, and acceptance early so “done” is measurable, not debatable.

Defining “done” early is not about being rigid or pessimistic. It is about creating clarity while trust is still high and conversations are calm.

If you do not define what success looks like upfront, you will spend far more time later arguing about what it was supposed to mean, and that is a cost no project needs to carry.