MiDUD (Part 3)
I doubt that’s what MVP means... why “good enough” isn't good enough for public health infrastructure
Will there be accountability? Will there be a functional way for people to find evidence-based addiction treatment in Michigan? Stay tuned to find out!
While there’s a bunch that has stood out from Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services's (MDHHS) response to our FOIA about MiSUD, the line referring to MiSUD as a minimum viable product (or MVP) tickled my techie brain. 🤓
In one sense, it is a throwaway comment that I probably shouldn’t be so obsessed with as to write 2000 words about…but I believe that this framing is part of an ongoing attempt to convey that MDHHS followed a deliberate design process. They were thorough! These are people with technical expertise and the infrastructure to get this done! They are connecting people with addiction treatment!
Well…as you know by now, that’s not true at all.
Let’s break down the MVP concept and explore why, even if MDHHS did an MVP approach (they didn’t), the MVP approach is not appropriate for public health infrastructure.
A brief background on minimum viable products (MVP) in tech design
Planning
MVPs are from the tech startup world. Startups often don't have a ton of resources (relatively) to build the thing they want to build. Therefore, before spending resources on developing a product, it is recommended to start with a landscape analysis. That way you can evaluate what is out there, what is missing, and how you can improve upon it with your approach. This is called planning.
A lack of basic planning is the first massive crack in MDHHS’s “MiSUD is an MVP” framing.
