What are the benefits of using MoSCoW for requirements prioritization?

It's important to distinguish what each piece of MoSCoW actually means. I find that the basic MUST, COULD, SHOULD, WOULD phrases cause confusion with teams what want everything, so everything becomes a high priority. Most teams have a goal of building the least possible to maximize value, and it becomes more important to get prioritization right! Here is an example of some more detailed criteria: MUST - We must do this as part of a initial release to learn more about our users needs. SHOULD - We should do this, but have x constraint and can release without it. COULD - We could do this if we end up having more time or resources WOULD - We would do this, but will wait until the next release Repeat the process for each release you plan.

1. Focus on What's Urgent (Must-Haves): When everything seems important to existing customers, dig deep. Talk with them to figure out what they really need urgently. Prioritize those things – it's about what they can't do without. 2. Iterative Refinement (S, C, W): Embrace the iterative nature of MoSCoW. As the project unfolds, continuously reassess priorities. Regularly engage with customers to refine the 'Should-Haves' based on evolving needs, keeping the project aligned with dynamic customer expectations. MoSCoW technique provides a common language for stakeholders to communicate and understand project priorities. This clarity reduces misunderstandings and aligns everyone toward common goals.

I've used MoSCoW with varying degrees of success, as find its dependant on the maturity of requirement management and those involved. For many, they understand at crunch time, it will often be the "Musts" delivered and dependant on how they are implemented can even make "Should" items more difficult for future release if consideration isn't given. Like Angela mentioned, having everyone bought in to the definitions and not only their meanings, but their implication goes a long way to making it successful. Personally, I prefer "Won't" over "Would" as it provides a clear statement that it will not be considered at this time. This allows the focus to move on to managing the other elements up to the point they are locked in.

MoSCoW is a grouping technique to prioritize. I also like to then take the MUSTs, and force rank them in order from highest to lowest. The highest are the ones that will either: - Lower risk and/or reduce assumptions - Provide the most value to defined outcomes Continuously assess your groupings and ranked list, keep your list defined in increments of value that are releasable. Try to work on one item at a time, less WIP will create more focus, speed, and higher quality. Learn from the what you release and adjust priorities often based on learning, market conditions, feedback, and feasibilty.

One additional benefit is that MoSCoW helps teams make informed decisions and trade-offs when faced with conflicting or competing requirements. By clearly identifying which requirements are "must-haves" versus "should-haves" or "could-haves," teams can make strategic decisions about how to allocate their limited resources and ensure that they deliver the highest value to stakeholders. Another benefit of using MoSCoW is that it enables teams to prioritize requirements based on their impact on the overall project goals and objectives. This can help teams avoid the trap of focusing solely on technical requirements or features and instead prioritize requirements that directly contribute to achieving the project's strategic objectives.

I find MoSCoW works better on Waterfall projects over Agile otherwise you risk a constant stream of debating the categorisation of the lower rated items, rather than the focus being on business value on what needs refined in time for the next sprint.? On Agile projects, I prefer High/Med/Low prioritisation to keep the backlog refinement focused on items that need to be refined ready for the next sprint.

Having done a lot of MoSCoW in my early years, I'm afraid I'm convinced that it's not effective. So many requirements end up as Ms or Ss that you don't end up with a helpful prioritisation. The only way to get past this is forming your requirements into a stack ranked backlog with a strict 1...n priority. This is what most organisations are doing these days.

I agree with Dan, I’ve met very few stakeholders that want to have any of their requirements prioritised as anything but ‘must’. I tend to find that the use of ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ is more practical. That said, anything other than ‘high’ usually gets chopped from the scope. Rationale for prioritising a requirement would help - the equivalent of the ‘so that….’ statement in a user story. That way you have some documented evidence for the rating which will be needed further down the line if the scope is under review (especially by different people).

MoSCoW itself isn’t a bad technique but like Dan and Andrew said, it’s not effective at most companies. It may be followed for a few months but the challenge is that new requirements will come up and added to the existing Moscow requirements list. Very few organizations want to keep prioritizing their requirements every release cycle, so instead a new prioritization is implemented.