MosCow Analysis: Understanding the Prioritasation Method

Are you struggling to prioritise project requirements effectively? Enter the MoSCoW Analysis method—a straightforward yet powerful tool designed to streamline your decision-making process in Agile projects. By categorising requirements, MoSCoW Analysis enables your team to focus on what truly matters, ensuring efficient resource allocation and enhanced stakeholder collaboration.  

This blog is a comprehensive follow-up on MoSCoW Analysis and how your projects can achieve better outcomes and increased value for your organisation. 

Table of Contents 

1) What is MoSCoW Prioritisation? 

2) History of the MoSCoW Method 

3) MoSCoW Prioritisation of Requirements 

4) Advantages of the MoSCoW Method 

5) Drawbacks of MoSCoW Prioritisation 

6) Best Practices for Using MoSCoW Prioritisation 

7) Conclusion 

What is MoSCoW Prioritisation? 

The MoSCoW Prioritisation method focuses on prioritising project requirements to maximise Return on Investment (ROI). It refers to Must have, Should have, Could have, and Will not have — with the "o"s added for easier pronunciation. The method has other names as MoSCoW technique, MoSCoW prioritisation, and MoSCoW rules. 

It is widely used in various business disciplines as it helps teams identify activities to prioritise for increasing ROI, minimising costs, boosting productivity, or improving customer satisfaction. For business stakeholders, it aids conversations on key product features when choosing a software vendor. In Agile Project Management, MoSCoW leads teams in prioritising story points. 

By defining priorities, teams better understand the effort and resources needed for each project element. This enhances Time Management, streamlines project execution, improves the chances of meeting deadlines, and optimises ROI.
 

History of the MoSCoW Method 

MoSCoW Prioritisation first appeared in the 1990s to tackle the challenges and shortcomings of Project Management and requirements gathering. A British consultant, Dai Clegg, developed it to present a clear framework for prioritising project features and prerequisites in dynamic environments.  

The method received huge popularity within the Agile and Software Development domain, offering a systematic approach to handling stakeholders’ expectations effectively. The acronym decodes to Must have, Should have, Could have, and Won't have and was designed to improve clarity and communication among project teams.  

Today, MoSCoW is used globally in various industry sectors, including IT, business analysis, and Product Management, helping organisations optimise resource allocation and offering better project outcomes. Its flexibility facilitates relevancy in modern Product Management. 

MoSCoW Prioritisation of Requirements 

Once the stakeholders and team come to an agreement after collecting requirements, they can start with these four categories. 

1) M: Must Have 

The first category deals with all requirements essential for project success. These elements are non-negotiable and create a minimum usable subset of project requirements. 

Key Statements: 

a) Project completion by the deadline is useless without this requirement 

b) The product lacks compliance or legality without requirements 

c) The product is unsafe without this requirement 

d) The product fails to give an effective solution without it 

If the requirements work out, they should be classified as a ‘Should have’ or ‘Could have’. Labelling requirements in these categories doesn’t mean the team won’t deliver them; it simply implies they are not vital for project completion. 

2) S: Should Have 

The 'Should have' is the second category of requirements, and it's below 'Must have'. These requirements prepare organisations for future releases without interfering with the current project. While 'Should have' elements are vital in project completion, they are not essential; the product still functions well without them. However, including 'Should have; features greatly improves the product's value.  

Some examples include minor bug fixes, performance enhancements, and new functionalities. 

Teams can distinguish 'Should have' elements from ''Could have' by assessing the consequences of excluding the requirement. The result is often calculated in terms of business value, or the number of people impacted by its absence. 

3) C: Could Have 

The 'Could have' category consists of requirements that have a negligible impact on projects if omitted. Consequently, 'Could have' requirements needs to be deprioritised firstly, as 'Must have' and 'Should have' requirements hold importance due to their greater impact on the product. An example of a 'Could have' is a desirable yet non-essential feature like customisable feature.  

Meet your stakeholder’s expectations with our Requirements Gathering Training – Register now! 

4) W: Will not Have 

This final category, 'Will not have,' encompasses requirements with low priority for the project’s timeline. Categorising elements under 'Will not have' helps the team focus on the requirements in the other three categories and set realistic goals regarding the final product.  

Additionally, this category presents scope creep, which expands project requirements beyond the team’s initial expectations during development. 

Advantages of the MoSCoW Method 

The MoSCoW method offers various benefits to project teams and individuals. Let's explore some of them: 

a) User-friendly: Easy to understand and implement for individuals and teams 

b) Stakeholder Engagement: Solve disputes and foster mutual agreements among stakeholders 

c) Minimum Viable Product: Ensures the production of a feasible product with essential features 

d) Prioritisation: Sets priorities at various levels of the development pipeline 

e) Expertise Utilisation: Categories requirements as per the team's expertise 

f) Versatile Application: Appropriate for both new and existing projects 

g) Resource Allocation: Allows for the assignment of specific percentages of resources to each category, improving resource management 

h) Productivity Optimisation: Supports effective productivity analysis by prioritising crucial requirements 

Become a certified Project Manager with our Project Management Certification – Join now! 

Drawbacks of MoSCoW Prioritisation 

Let’s explore some of the drawbacks of MoSCoW prioritisation in brief: 

1) An Inconsistent Scoring Process can Lead to Tasks Placed in the Wrong Categories 

A common drawback of the MoSCoW method is that it fails to offer an objective framework for ranking initiatives against one another. Your team must create this methodology during the analysis. The MoSCoW approach ensures a uniform scoring system is applied to all initiatives. 

Solution: Use a weighted scoring technique to assess each initiative in the backlog under a standardised set of cost and benefit conditions. 

2) Not Including all Relevant Stakeholders can Lead to Items Placed in the Wrong Categories 

To find which initiatives come under 'Must haves' and which are 'Should- haves' for your product, collect as much context as possible. 

For example, sales input can clarify how buyers know about a new feature of your project.  

A potential drawback of the MoSCoW method is that with input from all relevant stakeholders, your team may make better decisions about where to categorise each initiative. 

Solution: Mitigate it by incorporating regular communication and collaboration with stakeholders using a prioritisation process.  

3) Team Bias for (or against) Initiatives can Undermine MoSCoW's Effectiveness 

Since the MoSCoW method doesn't comply with an objective scoring system, team members can depend on their personal opinions and suggestions regarding the initiatives. 

One of the potential risks of MoSCoW prioritisation is that the team might need to perceive the method correctly in an objective way to assess their list. They may discuss an initiative, agree it is as a "Should have," and quickly move on. 

Solution: To remove biases, your team require an objective and uniform framework for ranking all initiatives, ensuring a suitable evaluation process. 

Best Practices for Using MoSCoW Prioritisation 

MoSCoW technique will aid your team in gaining an understanding of project prioritisation. Here are some best practices to follow while using it: 

1) Choose an Objective Ranking or Scoring System 

MoSCoW Analysis will help the team in categorising initiatives from ‘Must have’ to form a wish list; however, it doesn’t offer any guidance. You will require a ranking methodology like 

a) Value vs Complexity 

b) Weighted Scoring 

c) Buy-a-feature 

d) Opportunity Scoring 

e) Kano Model 

2) Seek Input From all key Stakeholders 

Your team will require context to ensure that each requirement is accurately categorised as a must-have, should-have, could-have, or won’t-have. 

While starting the MoSCoW analysis, find which stakeholders offer the most valuable insights on sales, executive staff, customer success, and product managers from other business areas.  

Engaging these stakeholders in your initiative scoring process can help uncover opportunities or threats that your team might overlook. 

3) Share Your MoSCoW Process Across Your Organisation 

MoSCoW provides a straightforward technique for prioritising initiatives for your products or projects within the organisation. 

This approach can encourage company-wide consensus on your work and help stakeholders understand the rationale behind your decisions. 

Effectively communicating your prioritisation strategy also sets realistic expectations across the business. When stakeholders use the methodology to choose one initiative over another, they’ll understand why your team has made a specific decision. 

If the stakeholders' opinions differ from your team's decision, they will present evidence to justify a change in direction. 

Conclusion 

MoSCoW Analysis is a valuable prioritisation tool that enhances decision-making in Project Management. By categorising requirements into must-haves, should-haves, could-haves, and won’t-haves, teams can focus on delivering maximum value. Success depends on stakeholder collaboration and aligning project goals. Despite its limitations, unbiased ranking methods help reduce biases and support informed decisions, ensuring clarity and effective project outcomes. 

Learn to identify risk with our comprehensive Project Risk Management Course today!