theonline.mba
← Back to ENT 402

ENT 402 · Unit 1 of 6

MVP Strategy and Assumption Mapping

Product-Market Fit and Startup Experimentation

Start unit · 4 lessons →

Learning objectives

  • Scope an MVP that tests riskiest assumptions, not feature completeness
  • Apply "MVP Strategy and Assumption Mapping" to a real venture decision
  • Contribute to your MVP experiment log deliverable

Unit overview

#LessonCore idea
1Foundations of MVP Strategy and Assumption MappingCore frameworks for this unit
2Key Concepts and Vocabulary in MVP Strategy and Assumption MappingCore frameworks for this unit
3Frameworks for Analyzing MVP Strategy and Assumption MappingCore frameworks for this unit
4MVP Strategy and Assumption Mapping: Applied Business DecisionsCore frameworks for this unit

Complete all four lessons, then finish unit assessments on this page.

Unit assessment

Complete each section below. Score 80%+ on the quiz to finish this unit's assessment.

50% applied project30% case work20% knowledge checks

Exercises

Apply what you learned in this unit with structured practice.

ExerciseApplied practice: MVP Strategy and Assumption Mapping45 min
Complete a focused practice exercise on **MVP Strategy and Assumption Mapping**. 1. Choose a real company, product, or situation you know. 2. Apply one core framework from this unit to analyze it. 3. Write your analysis in 300–500 words with a clear recommendation. 4. Cite at least one credible source.

Deliverable

300–500 word analysis document saved to your portfolio under ENT 402.

Rubric

  • Framework applied correctly (not just named)
  • Specific evidence from a real example
  • Clear recommendation with tradeoffs acknowledged
  • Professional writing with source citation
ExerciseDrill: MVP Strategy and Assumption Mapping30 min
Work through the practice problems in the unit lesson without looking at notes. Then check your work against the lesson and write a short reflection: - What you got right - One mistake you caught - One concept to review before the next unit

Deliverable

Problem solutions + 150-word reflection in your ENT 402 workbook.

Rubric

  • Attempted all practice items before checking answers
  • Honest reflection on errors
  • Identifies a specific review action

Case analysis

Analyze a case using frameworks from this unit.

CaseCase analysis: MVP Strategy and Assumption Mapping60 min
Analyze a real business case through the lens of **MVP Strategy and Assumption Mapping**. Choose a public company event, HBR-style case, or documented decision. **Deliverable structure:** 1. Situation summary (150 words) 2. Analysis using this unit's frameworks (400 words) 3. Recommendation (150 words) 4. Risks and what would change your mind

Deliverable

2-page case write-up in your portfolio.

Rubric

  • Case facts are accurate and sourced
  • Analysis uses unit frameworks explicitly
  • Recommendation is justified with tradeoffs
  • Risks are specific, not generic

Knowledge quiz

Check your understanding before marking the unit complete.

1. RelayOps scored assumption A3 (dispatchers enter jobs into software during live calls) at impact 5 and uncertainty 5. What is the risk score, and why does it rank above A1 (buying authority at 20)?

2. After ENT 401, RelayOps knows dispatch managers describe 12-minute emergency routing as unacceptable. Why is that discovery evidence insufficient to skip an MVP?

3. HeatRoute launched with 12 LOIs after a 9-month feature-complete build. After 90 days only 2 pilots stayed active. What mistake does this illustrate?

4. Which RelayOps MVP scope choice best matches 'low scope, high reliability on the chosen job'?

5. RelayOps has $400,000 runway and estimates $90,000 for MVP build plus pilot support over two months. What share of runway does the test consume?

6. Jordan proposes deferring AI routing for 8 extra weeks (~$72,000 burn at $9,000 per week) until manual MVP proves dispatcher adoption. Which assumption does AI routing least directly de-risk?

7. A pilot customer signs at a discount and uses RelayOps once in week one, then returns to the whiteboard. The founder calls this validation. Which stakeholder misread is this?

8. RelayOps publishes kill criteria before build: no median-time improvement after four weeks. Why does this matter more than adding ServiceTitan API integration day one?