Skip to main content

C1. PMF Unit (local and gradual)

Construct: PMF is a degree of alignment valid only for an explicit unit: (ICP/segment + whole offer + alternatives/market conditions). Relevant alternatives include the status quo and the set of options perceived and considered by the customer (not only by the team).

Application​

PMF is always for a specific unit (ICP/segment + whole offer + alternatives/conditions perceived by the customer) and comes in degrees (weak → strong), not as “have/don’t have” — and the “degree of PMF” is valid only for that unit, not for “the product” in the abstract.

Examples​

Example 1 — Vertical SaaS (healthcare) Works (C1 closed):

  • ICP/segment: 2–5-chair dental clinics with reception (decision-maker: owner/manager)
  • Whole offer: scheduling + automatic confirmations + appointment slots + basic billing; R$X/month; 1-day implementation; WhatsApp support
  • Status quo / perceived alternatives: WhatsApp + spreadsheet + secretary; generic scheduling software; “leave it as is”
  • Relevant conditions: low IT maturity; low switching cost (you can go back to spreadsheets in 1 day)

Does not work (C1 open):

  • “Scheduling for healthcare” (mixes dentistry, aesthetics, physiotherapy, low-cost clinic) without fixing alternatives/status quo for each subsegment.

Example 2 — “Simple” tool competing with informal workflows Works (C1 closed):

  • ICP/segment: solo creators (Instagram) selling 1–3 digital products/month with no e-commerce
  • Whole offer: checkout + file delivery + email automation; take rate or low subscription; 15-minute setup; async support
  • Status quo / perceived alternatives: Instagram DM + Pix + Google Drive; Hotmart; Shopify; “link in bio” with manual payment
  • Relevant conditions: zero implementation time; individual decision; switching is easy (low lock-in)

Does not work (C1 wrong due to “team alternatives”):

  • “Competitors = Hotmart/Shopify” (ignores DM+Pix as the main perceived status quo). This breaks C1 because the “option set” was defined by the team, not by the customer.

Example 3 — Same product, two units (true locality) Works (C1 closed — Unit A / self-serve):

  • ICP/segment: dev squads in startups (decision-maker = tech lead)
  • Whole offer: monitoring + alerts; monthly card payment; trial; guided onboarding in 30 min
  • Perceived alternatives: logs + internal scripts; open source; “accept the risk”
  • Relevant conditions: low bureaucracy; easy switching; lightweight integration

Works (C1 closed — Unit B / compliance):

  • ICP/segment: regulated company (DMU: IT + Security + Procurement)
  • Whole offer: SSO/SAML + audit logs + SLA + annual contract + assisted implementation
  • Perceived alternatives: incumbent suite already approved; internal solution; keep as is due to risk
  • Relevant conditions: high perceived risk; vendor assessment; high switching cost

Does not work (C1 collapsed):

  • “API monitoring for companies” combining A+B as if they were the same unit.