The MoSCoW prioritisation model, explained
You've likely faced the challenge of juggling multiple tasks, projects, or features, all vying for your attention. How do you decide what to tackle first? Enter the MoSCoW prioritisation framework, a method that can help you cut through the noise and focus on what truly matters.
MoSCoW isn't a nod to the Russian capital; it's an acronym that stands for Must have, Should have, Could have, and Won't have. This framework provides a structured approach to categorising tasks or requirements based on their importance, which makes it easy to discuss what really matters as a group.
Click to enlarge. Right click to download. Just link back to this page if you use this diagram elsewhere!
Let's break it down:
Must have: These are non-negotiable. Without them, your project fails. Think of the bare minimum viable product or the core functionality that defines your offering.
Should have: Important, but not critical for immediate success. These items add significant value but could be delayed if necessary. If a ‘should have’ feature is missing, though, you might want to carefully consider the impact, and make adjustments elsewhere. Perhaps you need to market the product at an audience where this particular feature is less critical, or find a creative workaround that makes this feature’s absence less glaring.
Could have: These are all the nice-to-have features that would improve user experience or efficiency but aren't essential. It’s your wish-list – you’ll probably have lots and lots of ‘could haves’, but your time and energy will constrain how many you can accomplish.
Won't have: Items that aren't a priority for the current timeframe. They're either not that valuable or too resource-intensive to justify inclusion. Sometimes, you need to make it really clear that a theoretically ‘good’ feature is counterproductive to the overall strategy; for instance, a new ‘economy’ product should not have more luxurious-looking packaging than your current higher-end offering, even if your designers would love to create it!
The beauty of MoSCoW lies in its simplicity. By forcing you to categorize each item, it compels you to think critically about the true value and necessity of each element. This process often reveals insights about your project or business that might otherwise remain hidden.
You can also cnsider combining MoSCoW with other prioritisation methods. For instance, the Eisenhower Matrix, which categorises tasks based on urgency and importance, can provide a complementary perspective. Or you might integrate elements of the Kano model, which factors in customer satisfaction, to ensure you're not overlooking features that could delight your users.
As you apply MoSCoW, remember that context is key. A "must have" for a startup might be a "could have" for an established company. Your prioritization should align with your broader strategic goals and available resources.
In practice, you might find MoSCoW particularly useful when:
1. Planning a new product launch: Identify the core features needed for market entry versus those that can wait for future iterations.
2. Managing a backlog of tasks: Help your team focus on high-impact work rather than getting bogged down in less critical activities.
3. Communicating with stakeholders: Provide a clear, shared language for discussing priorities and managing expectations.
Remember, the goal isn't to eliminate all "could haves" or "won't haves." Instead, it's about making informed decisions about where to allocate your limited time and resources.
As you consider how to improve your decision-making process, you might find the MoSCoW framework to be a valuable addition to your toolkit. It's not a silver bullet, but when used thoughtfully, it can bring clarity to complex prioritiwation challenges and help ensure that your efforts are aligned with what truly matters.
MoSCow prioritisation table – example
Let’s say we’re developing a new always-on AI assistant that works via an earpiece, keeping the user up-to-date on their schedule, and offering subtle reminders and advice, as well as responding to requests and ideas on-the-fly.
We would want to combine insights from customers, market research, technical assessments, legal and compliance specialists and others to work out which features we absolutely need to ship, and which could be left for future versions.
The result might be something like the below…
| Must Have | Should Have | Could Have | Won't Have |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
