2. Prioritization Frameworks - MoSCoW

In this section, we will explore one of the most common prioritization frameworks known as MoSCoW. This framework helps break down priorities into four distinct categories: Must Have, Should Have, Could Have, and Won’t Have (at least not for now). It is a simple and effective way to prioritize features or initiatives based on their urgency and impact on the business and users.

The MoSCoW Method Explained

1. Must Have

This category represents initiatives that are critical to the product’s success and delivery of value. They are non-negotiable and must be completed for the product to function effectively. To determine if something is a “must-have,” consider the following questions:

• What is the impact of not implementing this initiative?
• Is there a simpler way to deliver this value to the user?
• Does the product still deliver its value proposition and function properly without this initiative?

If the answers suggest that the impact of not implementing is high, there is no simpler solution, and the product suffers greatly without it, then this initiative is a "must-have."

2. Should Have

Initiatives in this category are important but not critical. They are not essential for the core functionality or value delivery of the product but will still enhance the product. To determine if an initiative is a “should-have,” ask:

• What is the impact of delaying this initiative?
• How well does the product function without this feature or improvement?

If delaying the initiative results in minor issues or the product continues to function reasonably well, it is likely a "should-have."

3. Could Have

These initiatives are classified as “nice-to-have” features. They are not essential for the product’s functionality or value delivery, but they can add value if implemented. When categorizing something as "could-have," consider:

• What is the impact of not implementing this compared to “should-have” items?

The idea is that delaying or omitting "could-have" initiatives should have a smaller impact on the overall product experience. If it turns out that a "could-have" feature has more impact than expected, it may need to be reprioritized.

4. Won’t Have (At Least Not Now)

These are initiatives that, for the time being, will not be implemented. However, this doesn’t mean they are permanently discarded. As contexts, technologies, or market trends change, these items might be reconsidered. To categorize something as "won’t have," ask:

• Does the effort justify the impact?
• Is the initiative aligned with the current product strategy?

It’s essential to revisit this category regularly to see if changes in business needs, user insights, or technological developments might elevate an item from "won’t have" to a higher priority.

Alternative MoSCoW Terminology

An alternative version of the MoSCoW method uses slightly different terminology:

• Business Critical (equivalent to “Must Have”)
• Should Do (equivalent to “Should Have”)
• Nice to Have (equivalent to “Could Have”)
• Maybe Later (equivalent to “Won’t Have”)

This variation can be used if it fits better within your team or company’s workflow.

MoSCoW in Action: A White-Label Course Platform Example

Let's apply the MoSCoW method to a fictional scenario involving a white-label course platform. This platform provides the infrastructure for organizations to offer online courses, but it doesn't create the courses itself. We need to prioritize the following four initiatives:

1. Implementing Pix Payment – Allowing customers to pay using Pix.
2. Enabling Marketing Email Scheduling – Providing the ability for customers to schedule marketing emails.
3. Adding More Automation Triggers – Offering more triggers for automation workflows within the platform.
4. Improving the Home Screen Usability – Enhancing the usability of the main interface for end users (students).

Must Have: Email Scheduling

We’ve identified scheduling marketing emails as a "must-have" because it’s critical to the business. Currently, marketing teams must manually send emails, which creates inefficiencies. Competitors already offer this feature, and failing to do so may lead to churn. If we don’t implement this, our product could lose customers and fail to deliver core functionality.

Should Have: Home Screen Usability Improvements

The usability issues on the home screen impact the end-users, i.e., the students. While it’s not critical to the platform’s functionality, improving this will enhance the user experience and create differentiation in the market. It’s an important feature, but the platform still works without it, making it a “should-have.”

Could Have: Automation Triggers

More automation triggers would help B2B customers improve user journeys and engage better with their students. However, compared to email scheduling and usability, the impact is lower. Therefore, this is categorized as a “could-have.”

Won’t Have: Pix Payment

Finally, while some customers have requested Pix as a payment option, the demand is low, and the current impact is minimal. As a result, this initiative is placed in the “won’t have” category for now. We will revisit it later when demand increases.

Conclusion

The MoSCoW framework offers a straightforward way to prioritize features based on their necessity and impact. It helps product teams make informed decisions, ensuring that high-impact features are delivered while avoiding unnecessary distractions. However, it’s important to continually reassess priorities as business needs and market conditions change.