name: prioritization-methods description: "Requirements prioritization techniques including MoSCoW, Kano Model, WSJF (SAFe), and Wiegers' Value/Cost/Risk matrix. Provides scoring frameworks, trade-off analysis, and priority visualization. Use when ranking requirements by business value, customer impact, or implementation efficiency." allowed-tools: Read, Write, Glob, Grep, Task

Requirements Prioritization Methods

Comprehensive guide to prioritization techniques for requirements and features.

When to Use This Skill

Keywords: prioritization, priority, MoSCoW, Kano model, WSJF, weighted shortest job first, value cost risk, Wiegers, priority matrix, must have should have, delighters, basic needs, performance features, cost of delay

Use this skill when:

Ranking requirements by business value
Choosing between competing features
Allocating limited development capacity
Communicating priority decisions to stakeholders
Balancing customer satisfaction vs implementation effort
Making trade-off decisions in product planning

Prioritization Methods Overview

Method	Best For	Complexity	Stakeholder Input
MoSCoW	Quick categorization, MVP scope	Low	Low
Kano Model	Customer satisfaction analysis	Medium	High (surveys)
WSJF	Agile/SAFe environments, flow optimization	Medium	Medium
Wiegers' Matrix	Quantitative value/cost analysis	High	Medium
Opportunity Scoring	JTBD-aligned prioritization	Medium	High (surveys)

MoSCoW Method

Application

moscow_process:
  1. List all requirements
  2. Start with MUST - be strict (if everything is MUST, nothing is)
  3. Move to WON'T - explicitly exclude
  4. Distribute remaining between SHOULD and COULD
  5. Validate: MUSTs should be ~60% of capacity

  warning_signs:
    - "All requirements are MUST" → Be stricter
    - "No WON'Ts" → You're avoiding hard decisions
    - "MUSTs exceed capacity" → Re-evaluate or reduce scope

Kano Model

Feature Categories

kano_categories:
  basic:
    name: "Basic (Must-Be)"
    description: "Expected features - absence causes dissatisfaction"
    examples:
      - "Website loads without errors"
      - "Login works correctly"
      - "Data is saved reliably"
    satisfaction_curve: "Only prevents dissatisfaction, doesn't create satisfaction"

  performance:
    name: "Performance (One-Dimensional)"
    description: "More is better - linear satisfaction"
    examples:
      - "Page load speed"
      - "Storage capacity"
      - "Number of integrations"
    satisfaction_curve: "Linear relationship to investment"

  excitement:
    name: "Excitement (Delighters)"
    description: "Unexpected features that create delight"
    examples:
      - "AI-powered suggestions"
      - "Personalized experience"
      - "Innovative shortcuts"
    satisfaction_curve: "High satisfaction, low expectation"

  indifferent:
    name: "Indifferent"
    description: "Features users don't care about"
    examples:
      - "Technical implementation details"
      - "Over-engineered features"
    action: "Deprioritize or remove"

  reverse:
    name: "Reverse"
    description: "Features some users actively dislike"
    examples:
      - "Mandatory tutorials"
      - "Intrusive notifications"
    action: "Make optional or remove"

Kano Survey Method

kano_survey:
  question_pair:
    functional: "How would you feel if [feature] was present?"
    dysfunctional: "How would you feel if [feature] was absent?"

  answer_options:
    - "I would like it"
    - "I expect it"
    - "I'm neutral"
    - "I can tolerate it"
    - "I dislike it"

  interpretation_matrix:
    # Functional → Dysfunctional → Category
    "Like → Dislike": "Excitement"
    "Like → Neutral": "Excitement"
    "Expect → Dislike": "Basic"
    "Neutral → Neutral": "Indifferent"
    "Like → Like": "Questionable (inconsistent)"

Kano Visualization

SATISFACTION
    ↑
    │           ╱ Excitement (Delighters)
    │         ╱
    │       ╱
    │     ╱
────┼─────────────── Performance
    │     ╲
    │       ╲
    │         ╲
    │           ╲ Basic (Must-Be)
    │
    └─────────────────────────────→ FULFILLMENT
         Not implemented    Fully implemented

WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First)

Formula

wsjf:
  formula: "WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Size"

  cost_of_delay:
    components:
      user_value: "Value to end users/customers"
      time_criticality: "How much value decays with time"
      risk_reduction: "Risk/opportunity enabled by feature"

    formula: "CoD = User Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction"

  job_size:
    definition: "Relative effort to implement"
    scale: "Fibonacci (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13)"

WSJF Scoring Template

wsjf_example:
  feature: "Mobile App Offline Mode"

  cost_of_delay:
    user_value:
      score: 8
      rationale: "Highly requested by field workers"
    time_criticality:
      score: 5
      rationale: "Competitor launching similar feature in Q2"
    risk_reduction:
      score: 3
      rationale: "Reduces support tickets for connectivity issues"
    total_cod: 16

  job_size:
    score: 5
    rationale: "Moderate complexity, known patterns"

  wsjf_score: 3.2  # 16 / 5

  interpretation: "High priority - good value for effort"

WSJF Comparison Table

Feature	User Value	Time Crit	Risk Reduction	CoD	Size	WSJF	Rank
Offline Mode	8	5	3	16	5	3.2	1
Dark Theme	5	1	1	7	2	3.5	2
Export PDF	6	3	2	11	8	1.4	3

Wiegers' Value/Cost/Risk Method

Scoring Dimensions

wiegers_method:
  dimensions:
    value:
      question: "What relative benefit does this provide?"
      scale: 1-9
      perspective: "Customer/business value"

    penalty:
      question: "What's the relative penalty of NOT having this?"
      scale: 1-9
      perspective: "Risk of omission"

    cost:
      question: "What's the relative cost to implement?"
      scale: 1-9
      perspective: "Development effort"

    risk:
      question: "What's the relative technical risk?"
      scale: 1-9
      perspective: "Uncertainty, complexity"

  formula: |
    Priority = (Value × ValueWeight + Penalty × PenaltyWeight) /
               (Cost × CostWeight + Risk × RiskWeight)

  default_weights:
    value: 2
    penalty: 1
    cost: 1
    risk: 0.5

Wiegers Template

wiegers_example:
  feature: "Two-Factor Authentication"

  scores:
    value: 7      # High security value
    penalty: 9    # Major penalty if missing (compliance risk)
    cost: 5       # Moderate implementation effort
    risk: 3       # Known patterns, low risk

  calculation:
    numerator: (7 × 2) + (9 × 1) = 23
    denominator: (5 × 1) + (3 × 0.5) = 6.5
    priority: 3.54

  interpretation: "High priority due to strong penalty for omission"

Opportunity Scoring (JTBD)

Importance vs Satisfaction

From the JTBD framework:

opportunity_scoring:
  formula: "Opportunity = Importance + (Importance - Satisfaction)"

  data_collection:
    survey_questions:
      importance: "How important is it to [outcome]? (1-10)"
      satisfaction: "How satisfied are you with current ability? (1-10)"

  interpretation:
    score_15_20: "High opportunity - underserved"
    score_10_15: "Moderate opportunity"
    score_5_10: "Low opportunity - well served"
    score_below_5: "Over-served - deprioritize"

  example:
    outcome: "Quickly find relevant products"
    importance: 9
    satisfaction: 4
    score: 14  # 9 + (9-4)
    interpretation: "Moderate-high opportunity"

Choosing a Method

method_selection:
  use_moscow_when:
    - "Quick decisions needed"
    - "Stakeholders familiar with method"
    - "Defining MVP scope"
    - "Binary in/out decisions"

  use_kano_when:
    - "Understanding customer satisfaction drivers"
    - "Product differentiation focus"
    - "Have access to customer surveys"
    - "Balancing basic vs delighter features"

  use_wsjf_when:
    - "Agile/SAFe environment"
    - "Flow-based delivery"
    - "Economic decision-making"
    - "Comparing features of varying sizes"

  use_wiegers_when:
    - "Need quantitative justification"
    - "Multiple stakeholder perspectives"
    - "High-stakes prioritization decisions"
    - "Want to weight multiple factors"

  use_opportunity_when:
    - "JTBD-based product development"
    - "Customer research available"
    - "Finding underserved needs"
    - "Outcome-focused roadmap"

Combining Methods

combined_approach:
  step_1: "Use MoSCoW for initial categorization"
  step_2: "Apply Kano to understand SHOULD/COULD items better"
  step_3: "Use WSJF or Wiegers to rank within categories"
  step_4: "Validate with Opportunity Scoring against customer data"

  example_workflow:
    - "All MUSTs go to backlog (non-negotiable)"
    - "Kano analysis on SHOULDs reveals 3 delighters"
    - "WSJF ranking of delighters prioritizes by value/effort"
    - "Final backlog ordered with business justification"

Output Format

Priority Report Template

priority_report:
  domain: "{domain}"
  method: "{method used}"
  date: "{ISO-8601}"

  summary:
    total_requirements: 25
    high_priority: 8
    medium_priority: 10
    low_priority: 7

  detailed_ranking:
    - rank: 1
      requirement_id: "REQ-001"
      title: "Two-Factor Authentication"
      method_score: 3.54
      rationale: "High penalty for omission, compliance requirement"

    - rank: 2
      requirement_id: "REQ-015"
      title: "Mobile Offline Mode"
      method_score: 3.2
      rationale: "High user value, competitive pressure"

  visualization: |
    [Mermaid or ASCII chart showing priority distribution]

  recommendations:
    - "Immediate focus on top 5 high-priority items"
    - "Consider deferring low-priority items with high cost"
    - "Re-evaluate in 2 weeks based on new information"

Related Commands

/prioritize - Apply prioritization methods to requirements
/gaps - Identify missing requirements before prioritizing
/export - Export prioritized requirements

References

For detailed guidance:

MoSCoW Details - Full MoSCoW application guide
Kano Survey Templates - Survey design and analysis
WSJF Worksheets - Scoring templates

External:

Karl Wiegers' "Software Requirements"
SAFe Framework WSJF guidance
Noriaki Kano's research on customer satisfaction

Version History

v1.0.0 (2025-12-26): Initial release - Prioritization Methods skill

Last Updated: 2025-12-26

prioritization-methods

$ Installieren