Talk:MoSCoW method

Folks - MoSCoW is not a prioritization technique, it is a ranking technique that enables prioritization. Ranking goes to Importance; Prioritization goes to Urgency. These are separate concepts. MoSCoW goes to importance which makes it a Ranking Technique NOT a prioritization technique. It is perfectly acceptable for example to prioritize lower ranking items (e.g. Should-Haves) for a faster delivery than higher ranking item (Must-haves) if that suits some other constraint of your project; but doing so would not magically add business benefit to the Should-Have and somehow transform it into a Must-Have, it just gets prioritized earlier. Hope this is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.34.63 (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This process is named "MuSCoW." (Must -> Mu) I propose the alternate spelling be described at the least, change references from MoSCoW to MuSCoW at the most. I believe mentioning the alternate spelling is the way to go because I think many people have accidentally fallen into spelling Moscow the city and so this situation is common enough that we live with two spellings.

I'm just putting the stub in during class. I don't have time during class to expand on it, but I will later. Feel free to add to it. Also, this should be added to the Moscow disambiguation page once it's been expanded on a little bit -- CloudedIce 23:02, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Merge MoSCoW List

Agree Merge MoSCoW List here . This should be the main article . Keep redirect at MoSCoW List. Never heard it called by that name. Lumos3 21:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree They are obviously the same thing, a redirect should suffice. Adam Forster 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

I improved the article a bit, but the second reference seams a bit advertisement-ish. I recommend removing it, but I'm not sure if everyone agrees? Van der Hoorn (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Now that W is no longer described as nice to have, and there are so many responses, I have moved the criticism and responses to this discussion area. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some feel that by classifying a requirement as "nice to have" it make it no longer a requirement, but more of a nicety. Therefore it no longer fits the scope of the requirements document.

Ice-Soft-Eng 05:40, 7 December 2004 (added a criticism section)

Since the priority of requirements is fuzzy (and even varies over time) it is quite appropriate to consider "nice to have" items to still be "requirements". A "nice to have" item is generally one that has some return/payback but isn't part of the "minimum useable subset" required to deliver the product.

68.250.187.112 (Eric Kramer) 02:10, 13 October 2005 (added Response #1)

Stakeholders in a new computer system will often come up with a wish list of every thing they can think might possibly be of use. To implement the whole wishlist would be wasteful in time and money. MoSCoW is a way to work with that list so that a compromise is reached between what is most useful and can be built in a short timescale of 3 to 6 months and what can be put off to a future development cycle.

Lumos3 18:54, 9 January 2006 (added Response #2)

Iterative development can also lead to re-prioritisation which can sometimes convert nice-to-have-s into could-haves.

194.72.110.12 15:19, 27 March 2006 (added Response #3)

Iterative development can also lead to re-prioritisation which can sometimes convert nice-to-have-s into should-haves.

62.189.135.170 10:05, 3 November 2006 (update to Response #3)

The only way to determine whether "nice to have" items have a place in a requirements document is to define the purpose of that document, and not be fooled by the common English definition of a requirement as "something required or obligatory" [1].

Chard 17:55, 20 February 2007 (added Response #4)

In defence of the W: many stakeholders contribute requirements that exceed the scope of a project; cannot be delivered in the initial implementation; or that the project board consider frivolous in budgetary terms. It is the Business Analyst's role to analyse these and work with the project's sponsor to determine what can be funded. It can damage stakeholder engagement if such requirements are subsequently excluded from published documents, as it can appear as if they have just not been captured, so it is better to retain them and classify them as 'W'.

Greyskinnedboy 09:40, 13 December 2007 (added Response #5)

MoSCoW prioritisation seems to force some customers to be defensive about their requirements, with the result that the use of this methodology can encourage a disproportionate number of requirements to be classified as "Must". This potentially places the customer in a stronger negotiating position if the supplier has to 'persuade' them to reduce the priority of some of their requirements.

82.33.227.210 08:38, 19 August 2008 (added further comment under criticism)

The description of Must have is correct, however, the description of Should have is inconsistent, Could have is misguided and Won't have is duplicit. We have to look at MoSCoW in terms of requirements management in project management terms. This is my read on MoSCoW: M is Must, Project is failure if one misses any, as article correctly states. S is Should, meaning NOT essential in terms of Must, so what is the operational meaning of this? It means Shoulds are subject to time-box prioritization. You make an estimate in hours for all items on the Should-pool and let the client-team prioritize to an enumerated list that will be worked top-down. When the time is up all Shoulds above the cut make it in to the system and all others not, until a new timebox is funded. There will be Shoulds that won't make it into the first release. Estimation-weighted prioritization maximizes built value. Musts by definition all have to be built-in and therefore canot take part in prioritization. Could is exactly Nice-to-Have, minor effort items that create goodwill. No impact on project success if they are skipped, otherwise they would be Shoulds. Would have is BS. No clear status on work list, obfuscating. No, W is Won't have, it is OUT for all to see and to be reminded of during the project. Obviously a Won't is interesting functionality, or it wouldn't be mentioned. Rationeles why Specs were ruled Won'ts have to be documented, lest we forget or need to reconsider later on (why did we say that?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.58.16.59 (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with defining W as Won't is that often the solution that fulfils the requirements is based on COTS software. If this product already meets the Ws out of the box, then they will no doubt be implemented. Hence W=won't can mislead. - Adrian Putley, 15/12/2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roscalen (talk • contribs) 10:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this usage "won't" is more like "must not." A "won't" requirement is one that the system must not do in the future state. In the case presented above, if a piece of software purchased does something that is on the "won't" list, then either the software is unacceptable or further development is required to disable / toggle off the necessary features. Anything on the "won't" list should have well documented reasons for being there. If an item is just not practical for the time / budget then it should be considered "could have" just in case there serendipitously becomes a way to do it. Most typically a "won't" is there for some hard reason e.g., legality, compatibility with existing systems, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.15.27 (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOSCOW

"MOSCOW"

The article states:

 MOSCOW is an acceptable variant, with the 'o's in upper case (see CamelCase for discussion)

This is vague:

What constitutes "acceptable"? Better replace it with examples of uses in prominent literature.
What does this have to do with CamelCase?

Rp (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article completely confuses the difference between ranking and priority. I do not have the time or interest to correct it myself and you may criticise me for that but the fact remains that the conflation of rank and priority is not accurate and just muddies the water and confuses the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.56.23.164 (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's Special?

Isn't this just a linear (and much less useful) version of the much more useful two-axis important-unimportant urgent-not urgent diagram?109.156.184.202 (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'disagree'The usefulness of this comes from the simplicity. It is easy to grasp and implement. MoSCoW is often used to rank a list (backlog) of features. In this context a linear method is easier to apply than a 2-axis model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcintyrj (talk • contribs) 07:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background section needs review

MoSCoW requirements rating system predates Agile methods by many years. If my memory serves me, the system was developed by the US DoD in 60s or 70s and written into their MIL STAN or DEF STAN documentation standards. Many countries simply used the MIL STANs and DEF STANs, others like the UK had their own and added a similar definition to replace other rating systems.

I don't know whether the US DoD invented it or had a contractor develop the concepts as part of a pilot project. Around that time, IBM had some huge mainframe computer projects at the time and were innovative in software development management techniques. The DoD would have been a customer. The struggle to get a decent set of requirements and control better the cost of developing IT systems has been a long one. Loudraspberry (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct: MuSCoW

Correct should be MuSCoW, it is a wordgame and contains the right letters: Mu(st)S(hould)Co(uld)W(ould). 2A02:908:4C24:93C0:30BD:53D3:D9A0:8E4F (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]