What exactly is MoSCoW priority setting?
MoSCoW method, also referred to as the MoSCoW method or MoSCoW analysis, is a well-liked method for prioritizing requirements management.
The four types of initiatives that are represented by the acronym “Moscow Method”should have, could have, won’t have, or won’t have right now MoSCoW’s “W” can also be translated as “wish” by some businesses.
How did the MoSCoW Method come to be?
While working for Oracle, software developer Dai Clegg developed the MoSCoW method. He created the framework to assist his team with task prioritization during product release development.
The Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM) handbook provides a comprehensive explanation of MoSCoW prioritization. However, teams have adapted MoSCoW for a wide range of applications due to its ability to prioritize tasks within any time-boxed project.
How does the MoSCoW prioritize tasks?
A few things must take place before a MoSCoW analysis can be conducted. Prioritization factors and objectives need to be agreed upon by key stakeholders and the product team first. The next step is for all participants to agree on which initiatives should be prioritized.
Your team should also discuss how they will resolve any prioritization disagreements at this point. You can help stop disagreements from stalling progress if you can figure out how to settle disputes before they arise.
Last but not least, you’ll need to agree on a percentage of resources that should go to each category.
Once the foundation has been laid, you can begin selecting the category that is best suited to each initiative. But first, let’s further deconstruct each MoSCoW category.
Prioritization Categories for the MoSCoW:
Initiatives that are “musts” for your team are included in this category, as the name suggests. They are requirements that can’t be changed for the project, product, or release at hand. Security features that assist in maintaining compliance, for instance, may be a must-have initiative when releasing a healthcare application.
The team is required to complete a mandatory task in the “must-have” category. If you’re not sure if something falls into this category, ask yourself the following questions.
The initiative is probably a “must-have” if the product doesn’t work without it or the release doesn’t work without it.
Initiatives that should have been taken are just as important as must-haves. They are necessary, but not crucial, to the product, project, or release. The product or project continues to function even if omitted. However, the initiatives might make a big difference.
In contrast to “must-have” initiatives, “should-have” initiatives can be scheduled for a future release without affecting the current one. “Should-have” initiatives might include, for instance, performance enhancements, minor bug fixes, or new functionality. The product still works without them.
The term “nice-to-haves” is another way to describe “could-have” initiatives.
Initiatives that “could have” been taken aren’t necessary for the product’s main function. However, when compared to initiatives that are “should-haves,” their absence has a much smaller impact on the outcome.
Therefore, when a project in the “should-have” or “must-have” category grows beyond expectations, initiatives in the “could-have” category are frequently the first to be deprioritized.
Will not have (this time) The MoSCoW approach has the advantage of placing a number of initiatives in the “will-not-have” category. The category is able to manage expectations regarding what the team will or will not include in a particular release (or another timeframe you are prioritizing).
One strategy for assisting in the prevention of scope creep is to classify initiatives as “will not have. “The team is aware that initiatives falling into this category are not a priority during this time frame.
In the future, some initiatives in the “will-not-have” group will be given priority, while others are unlikely to take place. Some teams decide to create a subcategory within this group to distinguish between those.
How can MoSCoW be used by development teams?
The MoSCoW method works when a development team has constraints other than time, even though Dai Clegg developed it to help prioritize tasks based on his team’s limited time. For instance:
Prioritize based on available funds.
What if a company-imposed tight budget is the limiting factor for a development team rather than a deadline? The team can use MoSCoW first to decide which initiatives are must-haves and should-haves by working with the product managers. The team can then determine which tasks they can complete by following the development department’s budget.
Prioritize based on the skills of the team.
A cross-functional product team may also be constrained by its developers’ expertise and experience. In their MoSCoW analysis, this limiting factor will play a role if the product roadmap calls for functionality that the team lacks the skills to build.
Prioritize based on competing company requirements.
Additionally, other company priorities may place constraints on cross-functional teams. The executive team has set strict deadlines for subsequent product releases within the same time frame, despite the team’s desire to advance on a new product release. The team can use MoSCoW in this instance to prioritize everything else and determine which aspects of their desired release are essential.
What disadvantages does MoSCoW Prioritization have?
MoSCoW has been prioritized by numerous product and development teams, but there are potential drawbacks to the strategy. Here are a few illustrations.
1.Tasks that are placed in the wrong categories may result from an inconsistent scoring procedure.
The absence of an objective method for comparing initiatives is a common criticism leveled against MoSCoW. This method must be applied to your analysis by your team. The MoSCoW strategy is only effective in ensuring that your team uses the same scoring system for all initiatives.
Pro tip: Weighted scoring, in which your team compares each initiative on your backlog to a standard set of cost-benefit criteria, is one tried-and-true approach. The roadmap app from ProductPlan supports the weighted scoring method.
Items may be placed in the wrong categories
If they are not included from all relevant stakeholders.
You will need as much context as possible to determine which of your team’s initiatives are product must-haves and which are just should-haves.
For instance, you might require a member of your sales team to inform you of the significance—or lack thereof—of a proposed new feature to potential customers.
If your team doesn’t get input from all relevant stakeholders, you run the risk of making poor decisions about where to place each initiative using the MoSCoW method.
MoSCoW’s effectiveness may be compromised by team bias in favor of (or against) initiatives.
Your team members may succumb to their own opinions regarding particular initiatives because MoSCoW lacks an objective scoring method.
A team may mistakenly believe that MoSCoW itself
Represents an objective method of measuring the items on their list when using MoSCoW prioritization. They talk about a project, agree that it should have been done, and move on to the next one.
However, your team will also need a framework that is both objective and consistent for ranking all initiatives. That is the only way to reduce your team’s prejudices in favor of or against particular items.
When is the MoSCoW Prioritization Method Used?
When teams want to involve representatives from the entire organization in their process, MoSCoW prioritization works well. Participating participants from various functional departments can provide a broader perspective.
MoSCoW prioritization gives your team the ability to determine how much work goes into each category, which is yet another reason why you might want to use it. As a result, you can guarantee that each release contains a wide range of initiatives.
How can MoSCoW Prioritization be used to its fullest potential?
Here are some things to keep in mind if you want to try MoSCoW prioritization. Your team will benefit more from the MoSCoW method if you incorporate these into your process.
