Prioritisation Techniques

The Methods

Prioritisation matrix methods are essential tools for the teams to make informed decisions about where to focus their efforts. There are numerous methods available, and we can choose one depending on the specifics of the situation. Some of the most common prioritisation methods include:

1. The Eisenhower Matrix: This method divides tasks into four categories: urgent and important, important but not urgent, urgent but not important, and neither urgent nor important. Tasks that are both urgent and important should be done immediately, while others can be scheduled or delegated.
2. Value vs. Effort Matrix: This matrix plots tasks based on their value (the benefit they'll bring) and effort (the resources they'll require). High-value, low-effort tasks should be done first, while low-value, high-effort tasks should be done last or not at all.
3. RICE Scoring: RICE stands for Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort. Each task is scored based on these four factors, and the ones with the highest total score are prioritised. This method is beneficial when you have a large number of potential tasks and need to choose the most impactful ones.
4. MoSCoW Method: This method stands for Must have, Should have, Could have, and Won't have. It helps teams differentiate between the essential and the nice-to-have features or tasks.
5. Kano Model: This model helps teams understand how different features contribute to customer satisfaction. Some features (performance features) increase satisfaction the more they're improved, while others (basic features) are expected by customers and will only cause dissatisfaction if they're absent.
6. Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF): This is a prioritisation model used in SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework). It is computed by dividing the Cost of Delay (CoD) by the job size. Jobs with the highest WSJF are implemented first.

Let's delve into each prioritisation method in detail.

The Eisenhower Matrix

The Eisenhower Matrix, also known as the Urgent-Important Matrix, is a time management tool that helps individuals prioritise tasks based on their urgency and importance.

The matrix consists of a 2x2 grid:

• Quadrant 1 (Urgent and Important): These are tasks that need to be done immediately. They're both important for your goals and urgent, often involving impending deadlines.
• Quadrant 2 (Not Urgent but Important): These tasks are not urgent but contribute significantly towards your long-term goals. This is where long-term strategising and development happens.
• Quadrant 3 (Urgent but Not Important): These are tasks that need to be done soon, but they don't necessarily help achieve your long-term goals. Often, these involve matters where others are waiting for you. Delegation is often appropriate for these tasks.
• Quadrant 4 (Neither Urgent nor Important): These tasks don't contribute to your goals and are not time-sensitive. They should be minimised or eliminated.

Situation to Apply

The Eisenhower Matrix is ideal when you have numerous tasks at hand, and you need to determine which tasks require immediate attention, which ones could be planned for later, which ones could be delegated, and which ones could be ignored. It is a useful tool for personal time management and in team settings where multiple tasks compete for attention.

Advantages

1. Prioritisation: The matrix helps you focus on tasks that are crucial for achieving your goals.
2. Delegation: By identifying tasks that are urgent but not important, you can delegate effectively.
3. Time Management: The matrix helps identify time-wasters and allows you to make conscious decisions about how to spend your time.
4. Stress Reduction: The system can help reduce stress by providing a clear plan of action.

Disadvantages

1. Subjectivity: The classification of tasks can be subjective. What may seem important and urgent to one person might not be the same for another.
2. Over-Simplification: The matrix could oversimplify tasks. Some tasks are complex and require a more nuanced approach.
3. Neglect of Quadrant 2: It's easy to focus too much on urgent tasks and neglect important tasks that are not urgent. These tasks often have a greater impact on long-term goals.
4. It does not take into account the size or duration of tasks. A task might be important and urgent but might take only a few minutes to complete, while another task in the same quadrant might take days.

?

Value vs. Effort Matrix

The Value vs. Effort Matrix is a simple yet effective prioritisation tool that allows individuals or teams to decide on what tasks to work on based on the value they bring and the effort they require.

The matrix is a 2x2 grid:

• Quadrant 1 (High Value, Low Effort): These are the quick wins. The tasks that fall into this quadrant should be prioritised because they require low effort but deliver high value.
• Quadrant 2 (High Value, High Effort): These tasks are major projects. They require a lot of effort but also bring significant value. These should be planned and scheduled carefully.
• Quadrant 3 (Low Value, Low Effort): These tasks are fill-ins. They don't bring much value, but they don't take up much time either. These can be done in between other tasks.
• Quadrant 4 (Low Value, High Effort): These tasks are thankless tasks. They require a lot of effort but bring little value. These should be avoided or eliminated if possible.

Situation to Apply

The Value vs. Effort Matrix is a great tool when you're juggling multiple tasks or projects and need to determine which ones to start first, which to schedule for later, which to do when you have spare time, and which to avoid completely. It can be applied in various settings, from personal task management to team projects or even strategic business decision making.

Advantages

1. Simplicity: The matrix is easy to understand and use.
2. Clear Prioritisation: It helps to identify tasks that should be prioritised (high value, low effort) and tasks that should be avoided (low value, high effort).
3. Facilitates Discussion: When used in a team setting, it can spark discussion and ensure everyone is on the same page.

Disadvantages

1. Subjectivity: What constitutes "value" and "effort" can be subjective and may differ among team members.
2. Over-Simplification: Some tasks may require a more nuanced approach, especially complex tasks with multiple stages or dependencies.
3. Doesn't Account for Dependencies: Some tasks, despite being high effort and high value, might be dependent on other tasks being completed first.
4. Doesn't Consider Urgency: The model does not take into account how urgent a task is.

?

RICE Scoring

RICE Scoring is a method used to prioritise tasks or projects based on four factors: Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort. The acronym RICE stands for:

• Reach: How many people will this task or project impact over a certain time period?
• Impact: To what extent will this task or project influence the people it reaches?
• Confidence: How confident are you about your estimates for Reach and Impact?
• Effort: How many “person-months” will this project require from your team?

How The RICE score is calculated?

Situation to Apply

RICE Scoring is particularly useful for product managers and project teams when they are facing a large number of potential features, projects, or tasks that they need to prioritise. It works best when you have quantitative data to estimate the reach, impact, and effort.

Example: Suppose you're a product manager with three potential features to add to your software product.

• Feature A is expected to reach 10,000 users, with a high impact (scored 3 on a scale of 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3), you are 100% confident in these estimates, and it will take 2 person-months of effort.
• Feature B is expected to reach 8,000 users, with a medium impact (scored 2), you are 80% confident in these estimates, and it will take 1 person-month of effort.
• Feature C is expected to reach 5,000 users, with a low impact (scored 0.5), you are 90% confident in these estimates, and it will take 1 person-month of effort.

By the RICE scoring formula, Feature A would have a RICE score of (10,000 * 3 * 1.0) / 2 = 15,000, Feature B would have a score of (8,000 * 2 * 0.8) / 1 = 12,800, and Feature C would have a score of (5,000 * 0.5 * 0.9) / 1 = 2,250. Therefore, according to the RICE scoring model, you should prioritise Feature A, then Feature B, and finally Feature C.

Advantages

1. Balanced View: The RICE method provides a balanced view of each task, considering both the potential benefits (reach and impact) and the costs (effort), as well as the certainty of the estimates (confidence).
2. Facilitates Discussion: It encourages discussions among team members to reach a consensus on the scoring parameters.
3. Quantitative: It can help bring objectivity to the decision-making process, especially when comparing a large number of potential tasks or projects.

Disadvantages

1. Subjectivity: Although it's quantitative, it can still involve a degree of subjectivity, especially when estimating impact and effort.
2. Data Requirement: It requires a reasonable amount of data or well-grounded estimates to work effectively, which might not always be available.
3. Doesn't Consider Dependencies: The RICE method doesn't account for dependencies between tasks.
4. Doesn't Consider Urgency: Just like the Value vs. Effort Matrix, the RICE scoring model doesn't consider the urgency of a task.
5. Lack of Nuance: It may not fully capture the complexity of some tasks, particularly for larger, more complex projects.

?

MoSCoW Method

The MoSCoW Method is a prioritisation technique used in business analysis and project management to reach a common understanding with stakeholders on the importance of each requirement or task. The acronym stands for:

• Must have: These are critical requirements that the project must deliver to be considered successful. If even one of these is not included, the project is likely to be considered a failure.
• Should have: Important but not critical requirements. While these are high-priority items, the project can still be successful without them if necessary.
• Could have: These are desirable requirements that are considered less important. The project's success doesn't depend on these, and they're typically included if time and resources permit.
• Won't have (but Would like in the future): These requirements are the least critical and are typically not scheduled for a current release cycle. They can be considered for the future.

Situation to Apply

The MoSCoW method is ideal for projects where the scope needs to be defined clearly and agreed upon by stakeholders. It is frequently used in agile projects and project management, software development, and business analysis.

Example: Suppose you are managing an app development project, and you have a list of features that could be included in the next release:

• User authentication (Must have)
• In-app purchases (Should have)
• Dark mode (Could have)
• AR functionality (Won't have but Would like in the future)

The MoSCoW method allows you to classify these features based on their priority, letting your team know that they must focus on user authentication before moving onto in-app purchases. Meanwhile, dark mode and AR functionality are desirable but not necessary at this stage.

Advantages

1. Clear Prioritisation: The MoSCoW method provides a simple and clear structure for stakeholders to understand the priority of each requirement.
2. Flexibility: It helps manage scope and adapt to changes by understanding what is flexible (Could have, Won't have) and what isn't (Must have, Should have).
3. Stakeholder Alignment: It encourages discussions among stakeholders, helping everyone agree on the project priorities.

Disadvantages

1. Subjectivity: Determining the category for each requirement can be subjective and might lead to conflicts among stakeholders.
2. Risk of Ignoring Lower Priority Tasks: There's a risk that 'Could have' and 'Won't have' tasks are consistently deprioritised, and they may never be addressed.
3. No Indication of Sequence: MoSCoW doesn't provide guidance on the sequence of work, it only helps categorise tasks based on their importance.
4. Doesn't Consider Effort or Complexity: The method doesn't account for the effort or complexity of individual tasks - a 'Must have' could be a massive task, while a 'Could have' might be quick and easy.

?

Kano Model

The Kano Model is a theory for product development and customer satisfaction developed by Professor Noriaki Kano. It classifies customer preferences into five categories:

• Must-be Quality: These are the basic features that customers expect from a product. If these requirements are not met, the customer will be dissatisfied. However, even if they are met, they don't increase customer satisfaction as they are expected as a given.
• One-dimensional Quality: These features result in satisfaction when fulfilled and dissatisfaction when not fulfilled. They are directly correlated with how satisfied or dissatisfied a customer is.
• Attractive Quality: These are features that exceed customer expectations and provide satisfaction when achieved, but do not cause dissatisfaction when not achieved because the customer does not expect them. These are often the features that can differentiate a product from its competitors.
• Indifferent Quality: These features do not result in either customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction whether they are present or not. They do not contribute to the product's value proposition significantly.
• Reverse Quality: These features result in dissatisfaction when fulfilled and satisfaction when not fulfilled. They are often features that a segment of customers do not require or may even dislike.

Situation to Apply

The Kano Model is useful when you're designing a product or feature set, and you need to understand what will drive customer satisfaction and differentiate your product from the competition. It is often used in product development, customer experience improvement, and service design.

Example: Consider a smartphone.

• Must-be Quality: Reliable signal reception, being able to make and receive calls, a functioning battery.
• One-dimensional Quality: Camera quality, screen resolution, processor speed. Improving these will increase customer satisfaction.
• Attractive Quality: Augmented reality features, health tracking technologies. These are unexpected features that can delight customers.
• Indifferent Quality: The phone's colour might not affect the purchase decision of some customers.
• Reverse Quality: A pre-installed app that can't be uninstalled may annoy some users, causing dissatisfaction.

Advantages

1. Customer Focus: The Kano Model helps to understand customer preferences and expectations better, ensuring that the product is customer-centric.
2. Innovation: By identifying Attractive Quality features, companies can differentiate their products and exceed customer expectations.
3. Prioritisation: It can aid in decision-making and prioritisation during the product development process.

Disadvantages

1. Subjectivity: Classifying features into categories can be subjective and depends on deep customer understanding.
2. Dynamic Model: Customer perceptions can change over time. What is considered an Attractive feature today might become a Must-be feature tomorrow as customer expectations evolve.
3. Requires Constant Research: To be effective, it requires ongoing customer research and may involve considerable time and effort.
4. Does not account for cost or feasibility: The model does not consider the cost or feasibility of implementing each feature. Some features might be highly desirable but too costly or impractical to implement.

Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF)

Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF) is a prioritisation model that is used in Lean software development and the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) to sequence jobs (features, capabilities, and epics) to produce maximum economic benefit. It's based on the principle of 'Cost of Delay' which quantifies the impact of time on the outcomes we hope to achieve.

WSJF is computed by dividing the Cost of Delay (CoD) by the job duration (usually the size or effort). The job with the highest WSJF should be implemented first.

WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Duration

Cost of Delay combines three primary elements:

1. User-Business Value: The value of the feature/capability to the user and business.
2. Time Criticality: The urgency of the job or how much the value decays over time.
3. Risk Reduction-Opportunity Enablement (RROE): Capturing the opportunity and reducing the risk for future value.

Situation to Apply

WSJF is particularly effective when applied to a program backlog in agile development scenarios, where you're working with larger bodies of work, such as features or epics. It can be used to sequence a backlog to provide the maximum economic benefit in the shortest amount of time.

Example: Suppose you're managing a software development project, and you have three features to implement. Each has a different CoD and job duration:

• Feature A has a CoD of 100 and takes 5 days to implement, giving it a WSJF of 100/5 = 20.
• Feature B has a CoD of 80 and takes 2 days to implement, giving it a WSJF of 80/2 = 40.
• Feature C has a CoD of 60 and takes 3 days to implement, giving it a WSJF of 60/3 = 20.

According to WSJF, you should implement Feature B first, then either A or C (assuming all other factors are equal).

Advantages

1. Economic Prioritisation: WSJF allows teams to prioritise their backlogs based on economic impact, focusing on delivering value quickly.
2. Reduces Time to Market: By focusing on shorter jobs with higher cost of delay, WSJF can help reduce the time to market for features or products.
3. Encourages Breaking Down Features: Since WSJF naturally favours shorter jobs, it encourages breaking down features into smaller, manageable pieces.

Disadvantages

1. Estimation Difficulty: Estimating CoD and job size accurately can be challenging.
2. Potential Over-emphasis on Short Jobs: WSJF might cause teams to focus excessively on short jobs, at the expense of larger, possibly more impactful initiatives.
3. Complexity: It's a more complex method than some others, which can be a hurdle for teams new to the concept.
4. Doesn't Account for Dependencies: WSJF doesn't consider the dependencies between jobs. A high WSJF job might depend on a lower WSJF job.