How Do I Decide What Gets Built First in My App?

Every app starts with too many ideas. I see this all the time—clients come to me with pages of features they want to build, convinced that their app needs everything from social sharing to AI chatbots to gamification before it can launch. And look, I get it. When you're excited about your app, its hard to know what should come first and what can wait. But here's the thing—trying to build everything at once is exactly how projects run out of money, miss their launch dates, and end up never seeing the light of day.

Feature prioritisation is probably one of the most important skills you'll need when building an app. It's not just about picking what sounds coolest or what your mate down the pub said would be "absolutely brilliant"—its about understanding what your users actually need, what your business requires to succeed, and what's technically possible within your budget and timeline. Get this wrong and you'll spend months building features nobody uses whilst the core functionality that people actually care about remains half-finished.

The hardest part of building an app isn't the code—it's deciding what not to build.

I've seen startups burn through their entire funding building a feature-rich app that nobody wanted, whilst their competitors launched with three basic features and captured the market. I've also worked with companies who stripped their app down so much that it didn't do enough to be useful. Finding that balance is tricky, but its absolutely doable when you have the right framework for making these decisions. That's what this guide is about—giving you a practical approach to MVP development and creating a product roadmap that actually makes sense for your situation, not just copying what some successful app did years ago in a completely different market.

Understanding the Core Problem Your App Actually Solves

Right, so before we even talk about features or wireframes or any of that technical stuff, we need to figure out what problem your app is actually solving. I mean genuinely solving—not what you think it solves, but what users will actually care about.

Here's the thing: most apps fail because they're solutions looking for problems. Someone has an idea and thinks "wouldn't it be cool if..." and then builds this whole thing without ever stopping to ask whether anyone actually needs it. I've seen it happen more times than I can count, and its always the same story.

When you're deciding what to build first, you need to nail down your core problem in one clear sentence. If you cant explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough yet. Take Uber—their core problem was "getting a taxi is difficult and unreliable." Everything else they built after that stemmed from solving that one specific problem.

The mistake people make is thinking their app solves multiple problems at once. Sure, it might eventually, but at the start? You need laser focus on one thing. One problem. One solution. Otherwise you'll spread yourself too thin and end up building features that nobody asked for.

So sit down and write out: "My app helps [specific type of person] do [specific action] because [current situation is problematic]." If you're struggling to fill in those blanks without using vague words like "better" or "easier", that's a red flag. Get specific. Really specific. Because once you understand the exact problem you're solving, deciding what to build first becomes so much clearer—you build whatever addresses that problem most directly.

The MoSCoW Method for Sorting Your Features

Right, lets talk about one of the most practical tools I use when helping clients figure out their feature prioritisation—the MoSCoW method. Its been around for ages and honestly? It still works brilliantly because it forces you to make actual decisions instead of just saying "everything is important" which I hear way too often.

MoSCoW stands for Must have, Should have, Could have, and Won't have (for now). Simple as that. The beauty of this approach is that it makes you categorise every single feature idea into one of these buckets, and you cant cheat by putting everything in the Must have category because then you havent actually prioritised anything have you?

How the Categories Actually Work

Must haves are the features your app literally cannot function without—these are non-negotiable for your MVP development. If you remove them, the core problem your app solves disappears. Should haves are important but not critical; your app works without them but its noticeably worse. Could haves are nice additions that add value but users wont really miss them if they're absent. Won't haves are features you've agreed to park for later releases—and this is key, because saying no to things right now is just as important as saying yes.

When I work through this with clients we usually start with about 50 feature ideas and by the time we're done with MoSCoW, we've got maybe 8-12 Must haves. That's a healthy number for a first release. If you've got 30 Must haves you haven't been honest with yourself about what really matters. I mean it—go back and be more ruthless.

Making It Work in Real Life

The trick is getting everyone who has a stake in your development priority to agree on these categories before you start building. I usually run a workshop where we put all the features on virtual sticky notes and move them around until theres consensus. Its a bit messy sometimes (people get attached to their ideas!) but its worth doing properly because it prevents arguments later when someones favourite feature gets pushed to phase two of your product roadmap.

One mistake I see constantly? People treating Should haves as Must haves because they're worried about launching with too little. But here's the thing—its always better to launch with fewer features that work perfectly than loads of half-baked ones. Users will forgive a limited first version if what you do offer actually solves their problem well. When you're deciding whether to build a custom app or use existing platforms, this same principle applies—focus on what truly matters to your users first.

Get your entire team to vote independently on each feature before discussing them together; you'll avoid groupthink and get more honest assessments of whats really needed for launch.

Building Your Minimum Viable Product the Right Way

Right, so you've sorted through your features using MoSCoW and you know what's important—but here's where most people mess it up. They try to build everything in the "Must Have" category all at once, which defeats the entire purpose of an MVP. An MVP isn't just your app with fewer features; it's the absolute smallest version that proves your core idea works.

I mean, the clue is in the name really. Minimum. Viable. Product. But here's the thing—people get so attached to their vision that they cant bear to strip it back. I've seen clients add features to their MVP spec that are clearly nice-to-haves, and when I push back they say "but users will expect this!" Maybe they will eventually, but not on day one.

Your MVP should do one thing brilliantly rather than ten things poorly. Think about what that one core action is that makes your app valuable. For a food delivery app, its ordering food and getting it delivered—not loyalty points, not saved favourites, not even multiple payment methods. Just the absolute basics that let someone order food. If you're considering whether to learn coding or use no-code platforms for your MVP, the key is choosing the approach that gets you to that minimum viable version fastest.

Start With the Happy Path

When we build MVPs at Glance, we focus on what we call the "happy path"—the simplest possible user journey with no complications. No edge cases. No error handling beyond the basics. Sure, in the real world things go wrong constantly, but your MVP is about proving the concept works when everything goes right.

You can add all the error states and alternative flows later. For now? Just prove that people want what you're building and that the core mechanic actually solves their problem. Everything else can wait.

User Research and What People Actually Want

Here's something I've learned the hard way—what users say they want and what they actually need are often two completely different things. I mean, if we built apps based purely on feature requests, we'd end up with bloated monsters that nobody uses.

The trick is getting out there and watching people interact with similar apps (or even paper prototypes of yours). You see, people are terrible at predicting their own behaviour. They'll tell you they want 50 customisation options, but then you observe them using an app and they get frustrated when they cant find the basic functions quickly. Its a bit mad really. Understanding what can stop users from overthinking their purchases is crucial when designing these user flows.

User interviews are great—but you need to ask the right questions. Instead of "would you use a feature that does X?" try "tell me about the last time you tried to solve this problem." You'll get much more honest answers; people will show you their workarounds, their pain points, the stuff that genuinely bothers them enough to find solutions.

The best feature prioritisation comes from understanding the job your users are trying to do, not just listing what they think they want

Analytics from existing apps or websites give you proper data too. Look at where people spend their time, where they drop off, what features get ignored. This stuff doesn't lie—user behaviour tells you exactly what matters to them, even if they cant articulate it in an interview.

And honestly? Sometimes you need to trust your expertise over user feedback. People told Henry Ford they wanted faster horses, right? But combine that expert intuition with real research data and actual observation, and you've got a solid foundation for deciding what features make it into your MVP and what gets pushed to version two or three down the line.

Technical Dependencies and What Has to Come First

Right, so you've got your feature list sorted and you know what's important—but here's where things get a bit tricky. Some features simply cannot exist without other features being built first. It's like trying to paint a wall before you've actually built it, you know?

I mean, this is where a lot of first-time app builders get stuck. They want to build the flashy bits first, the stuff that looks impressive in a pitch deck or demo. But here's the thing—if you don't have the foundation in place, those flashy features wont work at all. And then you're basically rebuilding everything from scratch, which is bloody expensive and wastes a ton of time.

Understanding Your Technical Foundation

Let me break this down properly. Every app has what I call foundational features—the boring stuff that users never see but that makes everything else possible. We're talking about user authentication, database architecture, API connections, and server infrastructure. Sure, its not sexy work. But without these pieces in place first, nothing else can function properly.

Take push notifications as an example. Loads of clients want them because they boost engagement and bring users back to the app. But you cant just bolt on push notifications at the end; you need a proper notification system, user preferences stored in your database, server-side scheduling, and permission handling all set up first. That's at least three or four dependencies right there.

Mapping Your Dependencies

The best way I've found to tackle this is creating a dependency map. Basically, you list out every feature and then identify what needs to exist before that feature can work. Here's a typical example of how features build on each other:

• User registration system (must come first—nothing else works without users)
• User profile storage (depends on registration being complete)
• Social features like following or messaging (depends on both registration and profiles)
• Personalised content feeds (depends on user preferences, which depend on profiles)
• Analytics tracking (can be added anytime but ideally early to gather data)

See how each layer builds on the previous one? You literally cannot skip ahead without breaking things. I've seen teams try to build the third layer before the second one exists and... well, let's just say it never ends well. You end up with code that doesn't work, frustrated developers, and a project that's running way over budget.

Another thing people miss is third-party integrations. If your app needs to connect to payment processors, mapping services, or social media platforms, those integrations need their own authentication and error handling built first. Each integration is essentially its own mini-project with it's own dependencies, and they all need to be factored into your build order. Understanding how third-party integrations impact your app budget is crucial for planning these dependencies properly. You'll also want to be aware of which third-party integrations cause app store submission issues to avoid delays later in the process.

Business Goals vs User Needs

Here's where things get tricky—and honestly, its where I see most apps struggle early on. You've got investors or stakeholders pushing for features that drive revenue (fair enough, right?) while your users just want the app to do what they downloaded it for. Both sides are important, but balancing them? That's the real challenge in feature prioritisation.

I mean, let's be honest about this. Your business needs to make money. Whether that's through subscriptions, ads, in-app purchases or whatever monetisation strategy you've chosen, you cant ignore that reality. But—and this is a big but—if you prioritise business goals over user needs too early in your MVP development, you'll end up with an app nobody wants to use. I've seen it happen more times than I can count; apps packed with premium features and upgrade prompts before they've even proven their core value to users.

The trick is finding the overlap. What features serve both your business objectives and your users actual needs? Those should sit at the top of your product roadmap, no question. For example, if you're building a fitness app, a feature that tracks workouts serves users directly but also creates engagement data you need for retention. That's a win-win situation right there. If you're working in a regulated industry, like building an app for healthcare that patients trust, this balance becomes even more critical as compliance features must serve both business requirements and user confidence.

You also need to think about timing when it comes to app features. Some business-focused features (like that fancy analytics dashboard for B2B clients) can wait until after launch. Your users wont care about those in the beginning anyway. Focus first on proving the core value proposition—that thing that made people interested in your app in the first place. Once you've got traction and people genuinely love using your app, then you can layer in the features that drive your business forward.

Always ask yourself this question during development priority discussions: "Will this feature make users come back tomorrow?" If the answer is no, it probably shouldn't be in your first release—even if it looks great in investor presentations.

Creating a Realistic Product Roadmap

Right, so you've got your features sorted using MoSCoW, you understand your technical dependencies, and you know what your MVP needs to include. Now comes the bit where we actually map this out over time—and this is where a lot of projects start to fall apart if we're being honest.

A product roadmap isn't just a list of features with dates next to them (though I've seen plenty of clients try that approach). Its a living document that shows how your app will grow from its initial release through to becoming the fully-featured product you've envisioned. The trick is making it realistic, because I can tell you from experience that an unrealistic roadmap is worse than no roadmap at all.

Think in Releases, Not Features

Here's what works: break your development into clear releases. Your first release is your MVP—bare minimum to get users in and solving that core problem. Then plan your second release for maybe 2-3 months later, your third release another 2-3 months after that. Each release should have a theme or focus area rather than just being "the next batch of features we had time to build". When planning your roadmap, make sure you're also considering how to find the perfect app launch date for each release to maximise your chances of success.

I usually tell clients to plan no more than 3-4 releases ahead because honestly? Things change. User feedback will tell you what actually matters; your business priorities might shift, and new technical constraints might pop up. A roadmap that tries to plan 2 years into the future in detail is basically fiction.

Build in Buffer Time

This is the part nobody likes but everyone needs to hear—add buffer time to your estimates. Things take longer than expected. Always. If your developer says a feature will take 2 weeks, assume 3 weeks in your roadmap. Its not that developers are bad at estimating (though some are!), it's that software development involves solving problems we haven't seen before, and unknowns are... well, unknown.

Your roadmap should also account for what happens after each release. You need time for bug fixes, for responding to user feedback, for monitoring how people actually use the new features. I've seen too many roadmaps that pack releases back-to-back with no breathing room, and the team ends up exhausted and the product ends up buggy. If you're working with external developers, understanding how to verify app developer expertise before hiring becomes crucial for realistic timeline planning.

One more thing—share your roadmap with your development team before you share it with anyone else. They're the ones who have to deliver it, so their input on timing and feasibility is absolutely critical; you can't just decide features and deadlines in isolation and expect everything to work out. Whether you're considering hiring a technical co-founder or development agency, involve them in the roadmap planning process from the start.

Conclusion

Look, I'm not going to pretend that deciding what to build first is easy—it isn't. Its one of those things that keeps development teams and product owners going back and forth for weeks sometimes. But here's the thing: you dont need to have all the answers right from the start. You just need a solid process that helps you make smart decisions based on what actually matters for your app.

Throughout this guide, we've covered the main approaches to feature prioritisation, from understanding your core problem to building an MVP that actually works. We've looked at the MoSCoW method (which honestly is my go-to for most projects), talked about user research and why it matters more than your own opinions, and we've tackled the tricky balance between business goals and what users genuinely need. Sure, there are technical dependencies to consider too—some things simply have to be built before others can exist.

The truth is, every app is different. What works for a fintech startup won't work for a healthcare app or an e-commerce platform. But the principles stay the same: solve a real problem, build the minimum features needed to solve it well, test with real users, and then iterate based on what you learn. Don't try to build everything at once...it never works and it always costs more than you think.

Your product roadmap isn't set in stone—mine never are, and I've been doing this for years. Things change, users surprise you, markets shift. The apps that succeed are the ones that stay flexible enough to adapt while keeping their core purpose clear. Start small, validate early, and build based on evidence rather than assumptions. That's really all there is to it.

Frequently Asked Questions