PMLC Model

(Supersedes v1. The chosen model does not change — we remain Adaptive. Only the goal statement and the supporting evidence are updated after the pivot. In fact, the pivot itself is the strongest proof yet that Adaptive was the right choice.)

What is a PMLC model?

PMLC stands for Project Management Life Cycle: the approach we choose for how we run the project — the overall shape of how work flows from start to finish. Different projects need different approaches. Building a bridge, where everything must be planned before a single beam is laid, needs a very different approach from developing a product nobody has built before, where you discover what works as you go. Five common models exist, from most rigid to most flexible: Linear, Incremental, Iterative, Adaptive, Extreme.

The model we chose: Adaptive (confirmed)

We chose the Adaptive model in v1, and the first months have validated that choice. Early feedback — from consumers and from our Tetra Pak advisor — showed that our original value proposition ("DPP as a marketing asset for brands") wasn't felt strongly enough by the people who'd have to use it. Under a Linear plan, that discovery would have arrived after months of building. Under Adaptive, it arrived early, cheaply, and reshaped the backlog instead of killing the project.

Why Adaptive still fits

  • Our goal is clear (and now sharper). Help a defined consumer group (20–30) buy food that fits their goals, stay adherent, and waste less — with brands paying for anonymized insights downstream. We know where we're going, so Extreme doesn't apply.
  • Our solution is still only partially known. Open questions remain: which "fit for me" guidance actually changes behavior at the shelf? What makes us durably different from Yuka? Will brands pay for the insights? The coming months are built around answering them.
  • We expect — and have already experienced — significant change. We pivoted the value proposition and cut gamification from the MVP after one advisory meeting and early validation. In the Adaptive model this isn't the project losing its way; it's the model working as intended.
  • We still can't afford to build the wrong thing. Part-time team, ≤€500 budget, six-month horizon. Validation before construction remains our core protection.

How our work is structured (unchanged)

  1. Short, fixed two-week cycles — each starts by choosing the most valuable tasks and ends with something usable plus a review. A wrong guess costs two weeks, not two months.
  2. A living, prioritized backlog — re-ordered after every cycle based on what we learned. (Applied: gamification items have been removed from MVP scope; consumer-interview and RAMI tasks moved to the top.)
  3. Smallest valuable version first — the thinnest end-to-end experience: scan → personalized fit + expiry tracking; one simple brand view. Then expand.
  4. Real feedback every cycle — our "client" is twofold: target consumers (20–30) first, brands second. Every cycle, progress goes in front of at least one of them.
  5. Validate before we build — consumer interviews and the RAMI differentiation analysis come before new feature work.
  6. Scope changes are welcome — adaptation is progress.

Our operating rhythm (unchanged, plus one fixed milestone)

  • Weekly: short team sync.
  • Every two weeks: cycle — plan, work, review, re-prioritize.
  • Monthly: higher-level review against the success criteria.
  • Fixed milestone: Startup Day pitch on June 24 — preparation (pitch practice with Davide, Tetra Pak slide review) is scheduled into the cycles before it.
  • Three-month checkpoint: decide, on validation evidence, whether to move from discovery into full product building — or adapt direction again.

This structure lets a small, part-time team move carefully and avoid the single biggest risk we face: investing limited time and money into building something before we know it's worth building.