The MoSCoW prioritization categories are:

• Must-Have – Critical requirements
• Should Have – Important but not essential
• Could Have – Desirable but not necessary
• Won’t Have – Agreed to postpone for now
• Won’t Do – Explicitly rejected requirements

It’s a useful technique, but like any tool, it has its strengths and limitations. 

MoSCoW Strengths:

1. Clarity and focus: MoSCoW helps bring clarity to priorities, allowing teams to focus their efforts on the most critical requirements first.
2. Effective resource allocation: By categorizing requirements, teams can allocate resources (time, budget, personnel) more effectively towards high-priority items.
3. Stakeholder alignment: The prioritization process encourages input and alignment from various stakeholders, ensuring their needs and expectations are considered.
4. Risk mitigation: Addressing the “Must Have” requirements first mitigates the risk of delivering an incomplete or ineffective product/project.
5. Flexibility: The method allows for reprioritization as circumstances change, enabling teams to adapt their plans accordingly.

MoSCow Weaknesses:

1. Subjectivity: The requirements categorization can be subjective and may involve negotiation and compromise among stakeholders.
2. Over-simplification: Reducing complex requirements to simple categories may oversimplify the nuances involved.
3. Scope creep: Without proper discipline, the “Could Have” and “Won’t Have” categories may accumulate too many items, leading to scope creep in future iterations.
4. Potential conflicts: Stakeholders may disagree on prioritizing certain requirements, leading to conflicts or delays.
5. Time investment: The prioritization process itself can be time-consuming, especially for large projects with numerous requirements.

It’s important to note that while the MoSCoW method provides a structured approach to prioritization, its effectiveness depends on several factors.

These include the complexity of the project, is this one person who is very organized or a team with a level of expertise and ability to follow through, not to mention alignment with stakeholders and the ability to maintain discipline throughout the process.

MoSCow is like creating hyper-targeted to-do list on steroids

In general, the pros of MoSCoW include improved focus, resource allocation, and stakeholder alignment, while the potential cons involve subjectivity, oversimplification, and the risk of scope creep or conflicts. Organizations need to weigh these factors based on their specific project needs and team dynamics.

The MoSCoW method is a technique used by very on-the-ball people, project managers, and people who require considerable prioritization. 

The MoSCoW method is often used in agile project management methodologies, such as Scrum and Kanban, where teams work in iterative cycles and must prioritize work effectively.

It helps teams prioritize requirements or product backlog items into different categories based on their importance and potential impact. 

The name “MoSCoW” is an acronym derived from the following prioritization categories:

1. Must Have (Mo): These are the critical requirements that must be delivered for the project or product to be considered a success. Failure to include these would render the project or product incomplete or ineffective.
2. Should Have (S): These are important requirements that should be included if possible, but the project or product can still be delivered without them. They are high-priority items but not crucial for delivery.
3. Could Have (Co): These are desirable requirements that could be included if there is time and resources available, but they are not necessary for the initial delivery. They are considered nice-to-have features.
4. Won’t Have (W): These are the requirements that have been agreed upon by stakeholders to be left out of the current project or product release. They may be reconsidered for future releases or versions.
5. Won’t Do (WD): Yes, MoSCoWWD wouldn’t make any sense, but the Won’t Do is important because, as always, productivity is often subtractive, not additive.

By categorizing requirements into these five buckets, teams can focus their efforts on the most critical items first and then work their way down the priority list as time and resources permit. 

This method helps ensure that the most essential features are delivered first while also providing a structured way to manage expectations and trade-offs.

The anti-Nike, JUST DON’T Do It!

I cannot stress enough that you have a “Won’t Do” (WD) category!

As said above, and I will repeat to any and everyone—productivity, to-do lists, and personal growth, in general, are quite often subtractive.

Think Marie Kondo, a Japanese cleaning expert, and author, is known for saying that people should only keep things in their homes that “spark joy”. 

Kondo’s KonMari method of decluttering and organizing involves holding an item and asking if it makes you happy. If it does, you should keep it, and if it doesn’t, you should throw it away. 

Yes, not everything in a project will bring you joy, but it does move you forward, which, to reframe what I’m saying, if it holds you back, throw it away!

There are only so many hours in the day and only so much you can do regarding goals, regardless of what they may be.

You sometimes need reject or say no to things for any idea, project, goal, system, or product, and the reasons are numerous but often will be due to constraints like time, budget, or being out of scope.

Adding the “Won’t Do” category helps clearly separate requirements that are simply deferred from those that are rejected outright. This provides more clarity during prioritization.

How to prioritize using MoSCoW.

Let’s examine some use cases to get a better idea of MoSCoW and how we use it in the real world.

The Food Delivery App

Imagine you are part of a team tasked with developing a new mobile app for a food delivery service. 

During the initial planning phase, you gather a long list of potential features and requirements from various stakeholders, including customers, business analysts, developers, and executives.

To effectively prioritize and manage these requirements, your team decides to use the MoSCoW method. Here’s how you might categorize the different requirements:

Must-Have (Mo):

• Enable users to browse restaurant menus and place orders
• Integrate secure online payment processing
• Allow users to track order status and delivery location
• Support multiple cuisine types and dietary preferences

Should Have (S):

• Implement a user rating/review system for restaurants
• Enable order scheduling for future dates/times
• Provide recommended dishes based on user preferences
• Offer multiple delivery options (e.g., standard, express)

Could Have (Co):

• Include social sharing features for popular dishes
• Integrate with wearable devices for hands-free ordering
• Offer loyalty/reward programs for frequent users
• Provide AR-enabled menu browsing experience

Won’t Have (W):

• Develop a dedicated customer loyalty app (postponed for future release)
• Implement advanced AI-based food recommendation engine (requires more research)
• Support voice-based ordering (lacks resources for proper integration)

Won’t Do (WD):

• Offer in-house cooking/meal kit services (out of scope for a delivery app)
• Develop a separate app for restaurant partners (decided to focus on customer app first)
• Integrate with third-party food delivery services (conflicts with business goals)

By categorizing the requirements this way, your team can clearly see which features are essential (Must Have), which ones should be prioritized if possible (Should Have), which ones are nice-to-have but not critical (Could Have), which ones can be postponed for a future release (Won’t Have), and which ones should be explicitly rejected (Won’t Do).

With this clarity, your team can focus on delivering the core functionalities—Must-Have and Should-Have—within the designated timeline and budget. 

If there are remaining resources, the Could Have features can be considered, while the Won’t Have items can be re-evaluated for a future release. 

The Won’t Do requirements are off the table for this project, ensuring your team doesn’t waste time on out-of-scope or conflicting features.

This prioritization approach helps your team manage stakeholder expectations, align with business goals, and deliver a valuable product within the given constraints. 

It also provides a structured way to revisit and re-prioritize requirements as the project progresses or circumstances change.

A Solopreneur Pet Business

Let’s use an example of how the MoSCoW prioritization system could be applied to someone launching a dog-walking and pet-sitting business:

Imagine you’re an entrepreneur starting a new dog walking and pet-sitting service in your local area. During your business planning phase, you’ve identified various potential features and requirements for your operation. To prioritize these effectively, you decide to use the MoSCoW method:

Must-Have (Mo):

• Develop a website/online booking system for customers to schedule services
• Implement secure payment processing for online bookings
• Hire and train reliable pet care professionals
• Obtain necessary business licenses, insurance, and certifications
• Establish clear policies and procedures for pet care services

Should Have (S):

• Create a mobile app for easy booking and status updates
• Offer additional services like pet taxi, grooming, or overnight boarding
• Implement a customer review/rating system
• Develop a loyalty program for repeat customers
• Establish partnerships with local vets, pet stores, or animal shelters

Could Have (Co):

• Integrate GPS tracking for real-time pet location updates
• Offer specialized services for specific breeds or pet needs
• Provide pet photography or video updates for owners
• Develop a pet care education/training program
• Implement a subscription-based service model

Won’t Have (W):

• Open a physical retail storefront (initially focusing on mobile services)
• Develop an advanced AI-based pet care matching system (lacks resources)
• Offer international pet travel services (limiting to local area first)

Won’t Do (WD):

• Provide veterinary medical services (out of scope for a pet care business)
• Operate a pet boarding facility or kennel (focusing on in-home services)
• Sell pet products or supplies (sticking to services only)

In this scenario, the Must-Have requirements are crucial for launching your core pet care services, such as establishing an online presence, hiring staff, and obtaining necessary licenses and insurance. 

The Should-Have items are important for enhancing your service offerings and customer experience but not absolutely essential for the initial launch.

The Could Have features are desirable but can be considered for future expansion if resources permit. 

The Won’t Have requirements have been identified as not feasible or necessary for the initial launch but could be revisited later. 

Finally, the Won’t Do category clearly defines the services or operations that are outside the scope of your pet care business model.

By prioritizing your requirements this way, you can focus your limited resources on the critical Must-Have and Should-Have items, ensuring a successful launch of your dog walking and pet-sitting services. 

The additional Could Have, Won’t Have, and Won’t Do categories provide a structured way to manage stakeholder expectations, align with your business goals, and plan for future growth or expansions.

Should You Use the MoSCoW + WD Prioritization System?

My cop-out answer is let’s talk, go to my calendar and schedule a time to go over what you’re trying to accomplish. 

The MoSCoW method is absolutely a good way to provide a structured way to prioritize requirements, tasks, or features by categorizing them into Must-Have, Should-Have, Could-Have, wo-n’t-have, and wo-n’t-do buckets. 

Using it, you can clearly identify critical items versus the nice-to-haves and out-of-scope elements, teams can focus their efforts on delivering the most essential components first while managing stakeholder expectations, even if that stakeholder is just you, and align everything with your personal or professional goals. 

We explored hypothetical scenarios illustrating how MoSCoW could be applied, such as developing a food delivery app or launching a pet care business. 

While the method offers advantages like clarity, effective resource allocation, and risk mitigation, potential downsides include subjectivity, oversimplification, and the risk of scope creep. 

Of course, there are many alternative methods, each with its pros and cons. Some are robust, maybe too robust for others, and some may hit the spot.

Alternatives to MoSCoW and other systems based on your needs:

• 1-3-5 Rule
• Eisenhower Matrix
• Covey Time Management Matrix
• Action Priority Matrix
• SWOT Analysis
• The Pareto Principle
• The RICE Scoring Model
• The Ivy Lee Method
• ABCDE Method
• Kano Model
• Value vs. Effort Mapping
• Weighted Scoring

And many, many more I’ve worked with, deployed, taught, and have used enough to know there is no one-size-fits-all solution. 

To be fair and truthful, I prefer some on the above list and others that are not mentioned above.

Ultimately, the MoSCoW method, along with its variations and alternatives, provides teams with a valuable tool for effectively prioritizing work and ensuring the most important tasks are addressed first.

Are you or your team looking to crush some goals?