Prioritization techniques including MoSCoW, Kano model, weighted scoring, and value-effort matrices. Ranks requirements, features, backlog items, and investment decisions.
Apply proven frameworks (MoSCoW, Kano, weighted scoring, value-effort) to rank requirements and features. Triggered when prioritizing backlog items, planning sprints, or making investment decisions.
/plugin marketplace add melodic-software/claude-code-plugins/plugin install business-analysis@melodic-softwareThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
Systematically rank and prioritize requirements, features, backlog items, and initiatives using proven prioritization frameworks. Supports MoSCoW, Kano model, weighted scoring, and value-effort analysis.
Prioritization is the process of determining relative importance and ordering of items to focus resources on what matters most. Effective prioritization balances:
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:
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:
Responses: Like it, Expect it, Neutral, Can tolerate, Dislike it
Multi-criteria quantitative comparison:
| 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) |
| 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 |
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
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
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
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
## 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] |
| 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 |
Follow the specific technique workflow (see above).
## 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]
## 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 |
## 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]
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"]
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
| 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 |
| 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 |
decision-analysis - For complex option evaluationstakeholder-analysis - Stakeholder input on prioritiesrisk-analysis - Risk dimension of prioritizationcapability-mapping - Capability investment prioritizationUse when working with Payload CMS projects (payload.config.ts, collections, fields, hooks, access control, Payload API). Use when debugging validation errors, security issues, relationship queries, transactions, or hook behavior.
Applies Anthropic's official brand colors and typography to any sort of artifact that may benefit from having Anthropic's look-and-feel. Use it when brand colors or style guidelines, visual formatting, or company design standards apply.
Creating algorithmic art using p5.js with seeded randomness and interactive parameter exploration. Use this when users request creating art using code, generative art, algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems. Create original algorithmic art rather than copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.