By Martin H. Morrissette, Sirocco CMO – Book time with me
Effective prioritisation is essential to achieving project goals, especially as agile methodologies continue to reshape the way teams work. With 91% of organisations now recognising agile adoption as a strategic priority and agile usage in software teams skyrocketing from 37% in 2020 to 86% in 2021, prioritisation frameworks have proven their value. Even if your team hasn’t fully adopted agile, the following techniques can help bring structure to your workflows, keeping projects on track and aligned with strategic objectives. Here, we’ll explore popular prioritisation frameworks, their real-world applications, potential challenges, and insights on selecting the right approach for maximum impact.
Common prioritisation frameworks in Agile workflows
Understanding the strengths and limitations of each prioritisation framework is essential to making informed, strategic choices. The following methods are widely respected across agile teams, each with its own approach to balancing urgency, impact, and resources. By exploring these frameworks, you’ll gain a clearer perspective on which might best suit your project’s unique needs – and how to apply them practically to maximise your results.
Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF)
WSJF offers a calculated approach to prioritisation by focusing on cost of delay relative to job size. The “job size” reflects the level of effort or resources required to complete a task. The WSJF formula—cost of delay divided by job size—helps you identify high-impact, low-effort tasks that should be completed first, optimising both speed and value. This is one of Sirocco’s preferred methods. For more info see here.
How to apply WSJF: For example, in software development, tasks like resolving a critical bug (high cost of delay, low job size) might take priority over new feature development (moderate cost of delay, higher job size). To apply WSJF, list tasks and estimate their cost of delay based on user impact, revenue, and risk reduction. Then, evaluate the job size based on resources and time. WSJF shines in high-stakes projects where delaying critical tasks can lead to significant losses.
Potential challenges: WSJF can be subjective if there’s no clear formula for estimating job size or cost of delay. For complex projects with multiple stakeholders, aligning on these metrics can require additional effort.
MoSCoW Method
The MoSCoW method is straightforward, breaking down tasks into Must, Should, Could, and Won’t categories. This simple approach enables rapid decision-making, ideal for projects where clarity is essential and consensus is needed quickly.
How to apply MoSCoW: Start by listing all tasks and categorising them. Must-haves are critical for project completion, Should-haves are high-priority but not essential, Could-haves are optional, and Won’t-haves are future considerations. For example, in a marketing campaign, essential deliverables like campaign messaging might be marked as Must, while optional design enhancements could be in the Could category.
Potential challenges: The simplicity of MoSCoW can limit its effectiveness in highly complex projects, where more nuanced prioritisation is necessary. Additionally, deciding what counts as a “Must” versus a “Should” can sometimes lead to subjective debates.
RICE Scoring Model
RICE—Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort—provides a structured, data-driven approach to prioritisation. By assigning a score to each factor, you can make more objective prioritisation decisions, making this framework ideal for teams who rely heavily on quantitative data.
How to apply RICE: For instance, a product team deciding which feature to develop next could score each option based on how many users it might impact (Reach), its benefit to users (Impact), confidence in these estimates (Confidence), and the time/resources required (Effort). Multiply Reach, Impact, and Confidence, and divide by Effort for a final score. RICE is beneficial when balancing multiple priorities based on measurable factors.
Potential challenges: RICE can introduce subjectivity, particularly around Reach and Impact, if there’s limited data. It’s also a time-consuming process, which may not suit teams with tight deadlines.
Eisenhower Matrix
The Eisenhower Matrix is widely used for personal productivity but is equally effective in agile prioritisation. It categorises tasks by urgency and importance, allowing teams to focus on what truly matters.
How to apply the Eisenhower Matrix: Divide tasks into four quadrants: Urgent-Important, Not Urgent-Important, Urgent-Not Important, and Not Urgent-Not Important. An urgent customer request may be prioritised in the Urgent-Important quadrant, while long-term strategic improvements go under Not Urgent-Important. The matrix helps keep teams from being overwhelmed by immediate demands at the expense of strategic goals.
Potential challenges: While effective for task management, the matrix may fall short in larger projects requiring complex, multi-factor prioritisation. Some people end up with all projects in the same quadrant, defeating the purpose.
Together, these frameworks provide a toolkit for prioritisation that is adaptable to diverse project demands. Whether your team needs a structured, data-driven model or a rapid, consensus-based approach, there’s a method here to help bring clarity and focus to your workflows. With the right choice, you’ll be well-positioned to drive meaningful results, keep stakeholders aligned, and respond proactively to evolving priorities.
Choosing the right framework: A context-driven approach
Each framework brings unique advantages, and often, the best choice depends on your project’s specific requirements. High-impact, delay-sensitive projects may benefit most from WSJF, while simpler projects with quick deadlines might call for MoSCoW’s categories. RICE provides precision for data-driven prioritisation, and the Eisenhower Matrix helps balance immediate tasks with long-term strategy. In many organisations, a blended approach offers flexibility, allowing teams to adapt their prioritisation techniques as project needs evolve. This balance can enhance both productivity and alignment, ensuring every decision is made with the project’s broader goals in mind. Choosing the right prioritisation framework can make a significant difference in meeting your objectives, delivering value, and maximising resources. Whether your organisation uses WSJF, MoSCoW, RICE, or a hybrid, our teams at Sirocco are adept at working within your chosen framework. Our agile approach enables us to deliver value efficiently, regardless of the prioritisation method applied. We invite you to share your experiences and insights on agile prioritisation in the comments – let’s explore these strategies together and keep the conversation going. Contact us if you have questions or need help with your projects!
