prioritization

name	prioritization
description	Prioritization techniques including MoSCoW, Kano model, weighted scoring, and value-effort matrices. Ranks requirements, features, backlog items, and investment decisions.
allowed-tools	Read, Glob, Grep, Task, Skill

Prioritization

Systematically rank and prioritize requirements, features, backlog items, and initiatives using proven prioritization frameworks. Supports MoSCoW, Kano model, weighted scoring, and value-effort analysis.

What is Prioritization?

Prioritization is the process of determining relative importance and ordering of items to focus resources on what matters most. Effective prioritization balances:

• Value: Benefit to customers or business
• Effort: Cost, time, and resources required
• Risk: Uncertainty and potential downsides
• Dependencies: Constraints and sequencing

Prioritization Techniques

MoSCoW Method

Categorical prioritization for timeboxed delivery:

Category	Definition	Guidance
Must	Non-negotiable, required for success	Without these, delivery is a failure
Should	Important but not critical	Significant value, workarounds exist
Could	Desirable if resources permit	Nice to have, enhances experience
Won't	Explicitly excluded this time	Not now, maybe later

When to Use: Sprint planning, release scoping, MVP definition, timeboxed projects

Rules:

• Musts should be ~60% of capacity (leave room for unknowns)
• Won'ts are explicitly stated (not silently dropped)
• Categories are relative to the timebox, not absolute

Kano Model

Customer satisfaction-based classification:

Category	If Present	If Absent	Detection
Basic (Must-Be)	No increase in satisfaction	Major dissatisfaction	Customers assume these exist
Performance (Linear)	Proportional satisfaction	Proportional dissatisfaction	Customers explicitly request
Delighter (Excitement)	High satisfaction	No dissatisfaction	Customers don't expect
Indifferent	No impact	No impact	No reaction either way
Reverse	Dissatisfaction	Satisfaction	Segment prefers absence

When to Use: Product feature prioritization, understanding customer needs, differentiating from competitors

Kano Questionnaire:

• Functional: "How would you feel if this feature was present?"
• Dysfunctional: "How would you feel if this feature was absent?"

Responses: Like it, Expect it, Neutral, Can tolerate, Dislike it

Weighted Scoring Matrix

Multi-criteria quantitative comparison:

Step 1: Define Criteria

Criterion	Weight	Description
Customer Value	40%	Impact on customer satisfaction
Strategic Fit	25%	Alignment with goals
Effort	20%	Development cost (inverse)
Risk	15%	Uncertainty/failure potential (inverse)

Step 2: Score Items

Item	Customer Value (1-5)	Strategic Fit (1-5)	Effort (1-5)	Risk (1-5)	Weighted Score
A	5	4	3	4	4.15
B	3	5	4	3	3.75

Step 3: Calculate Weighted Score

Score = Σ (Weight × Score)
Item A = (0.40×5) + (0.25×4) + (0.20×3) + (0.15×4) = 4.20

When to Use: Complex trade-offs, multiple stakeholders, defensible decisions

Value vs Effort Matrix

2×2 prioritization for quick decisions:

quadrantChart
    title Value vs Effort
    x-axis Low Effort --> High Effort
    y-axis Low Value --> High Value
    quadrant-1 Big Bets (Plan carefully)
    quadrant-2 Quick Wins (Do first)
    quadrant-3 Fill-ins (Do if time permits)
    quadrant-4 Money Pits (Avoid)

Quadrant	Value	Effort	Action
Quick Wins	High	Low	Do first
Big Bets	High	High	Plan carefully
Fill-ins	Low	Low	Do if time permits
Money Pits	Low	High	Avoid or deprioritize

When to Use: Fast initial triage, backlog grooming, stakeholder alignment

RICE Scoring

Product management prioritization:

Factor	Definition	Calculation
Reach	Users/customers affected	Number per time period
Impact	Effect on each user	0.25 (minimal) to 3 (massive)
Confidence	Certainty of estimates	0.5 (low) to 1 (high)
Effort	Person-months required	Number

RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort

When to Use: Product roadmap prioritization, feature comparison

WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First)

SAFe/Lean prioritization for flow:

WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Duration

Cost of Delay = User/Business Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction

Factor	Score (1-20)	Description
User/Business Value	1-20	Benefit to users or business
Time Criticality	1-20	Urgency, deadlines, decay
Risk Reduction	1-20	Risk/opportunity addressed
Job Duration	1-20	Relative size (inverted)

When to Use: Continuous flow environments, maximizing value delivery

Workflow

Phase 1: Prepare

Step 1: Gather Items to Prioritize

## Prioritization Session

**Date:** [ISO date]
**Scope:** [What's being prioritized]
**Stakeholders:** [Who's involved]
**Constraint:** [Timebox, budget, capacity]

### Items

| ID | Description | Owner |
|----|-------------|-------|
| 1 | [Item 1] | [Name] |
| 2 | [Item 2] | [Name] |

Step 2: Select Prioritization Technique

Situation	Recommended Technique
Sprint/release planning	MoSCoW
Product feature decisions	Kano + RICE
Trade-off decisions	Weighted Scoring
Quick triage	Value vs Effort
Continuous flow	WSJF
Multiple criteria	Weighted Scoring

Phase 2: Execute

Step 1: Apply Selected Technique

Follow the specific technique workflow (see above).

Step 2: Validate Results

• Do top priorities align with strategy?
• Are dependencies respected?
• Does the team have capacity?
• Are stakeholders aligned?

Step 3: Document Rationale

## Prioritization Rationale

### Top Priorities

1. **[Item A]** - Score: X
   - Rationale: [Why this is top priority]
   - Dependencies: [What it depends on]

2. **[Item B]** - Score: Y
   - Rationale: [Why this is second]
   - Dependencies: [What it depends on]

### Deferred Items

- **[Item C]** - Reason: [Why deferred]

Phase 3: Communicate

Step 1: Create Prioritized Backlog

## Prioritized Backlog

| Rank | Item | Priority/Score | Owner | Target |
|------|------|----------------|-------|--------|
| 1 | [Item A] | Must / 4.5 | [Name] | Sprint 1 |
| 2 | [Item B] | Must / 4.2 | [Name] | Sprint 1 |
| 3 | [Item C] | Should / 3.8 | [Name] | Sprint 2 |

Step 2: Communicate Decisions

• Share prioritization results with stakeholders
• Explain rationale for key decisions
• Address concerns about deprioritized items
• Set expectations for what's not included

Output Formats

Narrative Summary

## Prioritization Summary

**Session:** [Scope/context]
**Date:** [ISO date]
**Technique:** [MoSCoW/Kano/Weighted Scoring/etc.]
**Facilitator:** prioritization-analyst

### Results Overview

- **Total Items:** N
- **Top Priority:** [Count]
- **Deferred:** [Count]

### Priority Distribution

| Category | Count | % |
|----------|-------|---|
| Must/Quick Wins | X | Y% |
| Should/Big Bets | X | Y% |
| Could/Fill-ins | X | Y% |
| Won't/Money Pits | X | Y% |

### Key Decisions

1. **[Top Item]**: Prioritized because [reason]
2. **[Deferred Item]**: Deferred because [reason]

### Next Steps

1. Begin work on top priority items
2. Re-prioritize at [next review point]

Structured Data (YAML)

prioritization:
  version: "1.0"
  date: "2025-01-15"
  scope: "Q1 Feature Backlog"
  technique: "weighted_scoring"
  facilitator: "prioritization-analyst"

  criteria:
    - name: "Customer Value"
      weight: 0.40
    - name: "Strategic Fit"
      weight: 0.25
    - name: "Effort"
      weight: 0.20
      inverse: true
    - name: "Risk"
      weight: 0.15
      inverse: true

  items:
    - id: "FEAT-001"
      name: "User Dashboard"
      scores:
        customer_value: 5
        strategic_fit: 4
        effort: 3
        risk: 4
      weighted_score: 4.20
      priority: 1
      rationale: "Highest customer value, manageable effort"

    - id: "FEAT-002"
      name: "API Integration"
      scores:
        customer_value: 3
        strategic_fit: 5
        effort: 4
        risk: 3
      weighted_score: 3.75
      priority: 2
      rationale: "Strong strategic alignment"

  moscow_summary:
    must: ["FEAT-001"]
    should: ["FEAT-002", "FEAT-003"]
    could: ["FEAT-004"]
    wont: ["FEAT-005"]

Mermaid Visualizations

Value-Effort Matrix:

quadrantChart
    title Prioritization Matrix
    x-axis Low Effort --> High Effort
    y-axis Low Value --> High Value
    quadrant-1 Big Bets
    quadrant-2 Quick Wins
    quadrant-3 Fill-ins
    quadrant-4 Money Pits
    "Feature A": [0.2, 0.9]
    "Feature B": [0.3, 0.7]
    "Feature C": [0.7, 0.8]
    "Feature D": [0.8, 0.3]
    "Feature E": [0.2, 0.2]

MoSCoW Distribution:

pie title MoSCoW Distribution
    "Must" : 3
    "Should" : 4
    "Could" : 5
    "Won't" : 2

When to Use Each Technique

Technique	Best For	Team Size	Time Required
MoSCoW	Sprint/release planning	Any	30-60 min
Kano	Product features	Product team	2-4 hours
Weighted Scoring	Complex trade-offs	Cross-functional	1-2 hours
Value vs Effort	Quick triage	Any	15-30 min
RICE	Product roadmap	Product team	1-2 hours
WSJF	Continuous flow	SAFe teams	30-60 min

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall	Prevention
Everything is "Must"	Enforce category limits (60% capacity)
HiPPO (highest paid person's opinion)	Use objective scoring criteria
Ignoring effort	Always consider cost/effort dimension
Static prioritization	Re-prioritize regularly as context changes
Overcomplicating	Start simple, add complexity only if needed
Ignoring dependencies	Map dependencies before finalizing order

Integration

Upstream

• Requirements - Items to prioritize
• stakeholder-analysis - Stakeholder input on value
• swot-pestle-analysis - Strategic context

Downstream

• Sprint planning - Ordered backlog
• Roadmaps - Prioritized initiatives
• decision-analysis - Detailed option evaluation

Related Skills

• decision-analysis - For complex option evaluation
• stakeholder-analysis - Stakeholder input on priorities
• risk-analysis - Risk dimension of prioritization
• capability-mapping - Capability investment prioritization

Version History

• v1.0.0 (2025-12-26): Initial release