Project management-ABC: M like MOSCOW

Efficient prioritization of project goals with the MOSCOW method

What is the MoSCoW method?

The MoSCoW method was developed in the 1990s by Dai Clegg, a consultant at Oracle. It was developed in the context of the Rapid Application Development (RAD) methodology and was intended to support the identification and prioritization of requirements in rapid development cycles. Since its introduction, the MoSCoW method has become established in various industries and is often used in agile project management frameworks such as SCRUM and DSDM (Dynamic Systems Development Method), where it helps project managers to focus on the most important tasks or goals and ensure clear prioritization. This leads to a more effective use of time and resources, as the essential requirements are tackled first. The method also facilitates communication with stakeholders, as it is clear which requirements are critical and which can be postponed. This promotes realistic expectations and better planning.
The name “MoSCoW” is an acronym that describes the four main categories of requirements: Must-Have (M), Should-Have (S), Could-Have (C), and Won’t-Have (W) – the Os are just to create a nicer acronym and have no meaning.

The categories of the MoSCoW method

Must (M)

Must requirements are essential and must be fulfilled for the project to be successful. They are non-negotiable, as the project is deemed to have failed if these points are not met.

Examples:

• Core functions of a product without which the main purpose cannot be fulfilled.
• Safety functions that are necessary to comply with legal regulations.
• Minimum requirements for the performance or availability of a system.

Should (S)

Should requirements are also important and should be implemented wherever possible. Their absence impairs the quality or benefit of the project result. Nevertheless, the project can be considered completed with restrictions if they are not fulfilled. The priority of the target requirements is immediately after the mandatory requirements. This means that, in the worst case, these requirements can be postponed to a subsequent project if all the time and resources are needed to fulfill the mandatory requirements.

Examples:

• Additional functions of a product that increase the competitive advantage but are not critical.
• Enhanced user interfaces of software that improve the user experience.
• Efficiency improvements that are not necessary.

Could (C)

Could-have requirements are desirable because they offer greater benefits for the project or more convenience, for example. The aim is to fulfill these requirements, but they are not critical to the success of the project and are therefore only implemented if there is still time and resources available after the must-have and should-have requirements have been fulfilled. If resource conflicts arise, the can-do requirements are not implemented or are postponed to a subsequent project.
These requirements often make a big difference to stakeholder satisfaction. It is therefore important to keep an eye on them and list them. This way, they can be looked at more closely if they can be implemented without major additional effort.

Examples:

• Additional options or settings that are rarely used.
• Cosmetic improvements to the user interface of the software.
• Improvements to software that make maintenance easier or increase scalability but are not currently required.

Won’t (W)

The W in the method can be interpreted in different ways:

• Won’t refer to requirements that are not implemented.
• Would are requirements that would be nice to have but cannot be implemented in this project.
• Want are requirements that are wanted but will not be implemented in this project, but in subsequent projects.

What all these interpretations have in common is that these requirements will not be implemented in the current project cycle. However, they are listed to avoid misunderstandings and to consciously defer them or consider them for future projects. In this way, this category helps to control the scope of the project and to keep an eye on requirements that could be important for later collaboration with the client.

Examples:

• Functions that are interesting but not relevant at the moment.
• Requirements that may only be relevant in later versions of the product.
• Improvements that cannot be implemented due to resource constraints or lack of time.

How should the categories be distributed?

The distribution of categories in a project should be balanced and realistic to ensure that the project is completed successfully without overburdening the team or neglecting important aspects. If you do not pay attention to the distribution, it can happen that all requirements end up in the “must” category, and then again no prioritization can be made. A rule of thumb states that a maximum of 60 to 70 percent of all requirements may be critical and can therefore be categorized as “must” requirements. This ensures that the focus is really on the essential requirements for the project. 20 to 25 percent of the requirements are important and contribute significantly to the quality and benefits of the project and are therefore assigned to the “Should” category. 5 to 10 percent of the requirements can fall into the “Could” category, while only 0 to 5 percent should be assigned to the last category.

Advantages of the MoSCoW-Method

• Clear prioritization: The strong focus first on must-haves and then on should-have requirements ensures that the project goals are achieved. At the same time, the project team is not distracted by less important requirements.
• Efficient use of resources: As the most important requirements are processed first, this ensures that the key project objectives are achieved with the available resources. At the same time, the method makes it possible to consider less important requirements (could-have) if additional resources are available.
• Improved communication: The clear categorization facilitates communication with stakeholders and team members about priorities and project goals and thus helps with transparent decisions. At the same time, categorization ensures that stakeholders better understand what they can expect, which requirements are realistically achievable, and which are deferred.
• Flexibility and adaptability: The method is flexible and can be adapted to changing requirements and framework conditions. This is particularly advantageous in agile projects. It enables an iterative approach to project goals, whereby priorities can be continuously reviewed and adjusted.

Challenges and disadvantages of the MoSCoW method

Despite its many advantages, there are also some challenges and potential disadvantages that should be considered when using the MoSCoW method:

• Subjectivity in prioritization: different stakeholders may have different views on which requirements are must-haves or should-haves, which can lead to conflict. It can be time-consuming to reach a consensus on prioritization, especially in large or heterogeneous teams.
• Overloading the must-have category: There is a risk that too many requirements are classified as must-haves, which makes prioritization less effective. At the same time, an excessive number of must-have requirements can overwhelm the team and jeopardize the success of the project.
• Lack of consideration of dependencies: The method does not automatically take into account dependencies between requirements, which can lead to planning problems, especially in complex projects.
• Static prioritization: In agile projects in particular, priorities can change and need to be adapted to new findings. In such cases, the priority list should not be rigid but should be reviewed regularly, even if this means additional effort.

Conclusion

The MoSCoW method offers a structured and effective way of prioritizing requirements in project management. Through clear categorization, a project team can ensure that the most important goals are achieved first without wasting resources or losing focus. Despite some challenges, such as the potential subjectivity in prioritization and the need for regular adjustments, the MoSCoW method enables transparent and flexible project planning that improves both efficiency and communication within the team and with stakeholders.

Learn more about the project and portfolio management software myPARM:

Would you like to get to know myPARM in a demo presentation? Then make an appointment with us right away!