Arnetta technologies: minimum viable product. Issue 1 (20th April 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Singh, Puran; Sinha Ray, Suryani
• Is Part Of: Case journal. Volume 17:Issue 1(2021)
• Page Start: 117
• Page End: 145
• Publication Date: 2021-04-20
• Subjects: Entrepreneurship -- Startups -- Minimum viable product -- Product development -- New venture creation -- Go-to-market strategy -- BML loop -- Lean startup; Business -- Case studies -- Periodicals; Business -- Case studies -- Periodicals; Management -- Case studies -- Periodicals; Management -- Case studies -- Periodicals; Management -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; Business; Management; Management -- Study and teaching; Case studies; 658.00722
• DOI: 10.1108/TCJ-08-2019-0076
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1544-9106

Abstract

Abstract : Theoretical basis: The case fosters discussions on basic concepts of entrepreneurship that include building a minimum viable product before launching a finished product, the importance of doing market research for early-stage startups, challenges in understanding an unfamiliar domain or industry and understanding the dynamics of business to business market. Research methodology: Team Arnetta's founders were interviewed in relation to the case. After the initial round of interviews, a product demonstration was given by Arnetta. Follow up interviews were conducted to delve-deeper into the problem while secondary research was conducted to understand the market dynamics and competitive landscape at the point in time in the case. Case overview/synopsis: The four founders of Arnetta Technologies debate go-to-market timing for Integrated Breeding and Research Management Software, a data handling software for the R&D process followed by seed enterprises in India. The founders had spent over US$75, 000 on the product development on which they had been working for more than one year. Two of the founders had given up their full-time jobs to work dedicatedly on the venture. The product was being customized to the requirements of their only client. Product development was taking longer than anticipated. To add to the challenges, international competitors had started capturing the Indian market. The founders had two options. First, they could wait and finish the product development before reaching out to their prospective clients – leading to delays and losing out on the market. Second, they could reach out to prospective clients and convince them to use the work-in-progress version of the product – which could turn out to be a deal breaker. The founders had to come to a consensus soon. Complexity academic Level: The case is intended for students in undergraduate or graduate-level courses related to entrepreneurship, new venture creation, innovation management and business management.