allocate job synonyms

• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day
• Synonym of the Day
• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips
• Pop culture
• Writing tips

Advertisement

verb as in assign; divide among

Strongest matches

• appropriate

Strong matches

Weak matches

Discover More

Example sentences.

The capital allocated to the investment bank as a percentage of risk-weighted assets was around 75% when I joined UBS.

With this information, we can do a better job of allocating media dollars going forward.

Gannon also said that this summer, for the first time, state funding had been allocated to help recruit and train MAT teams.

Learning how to wisely allocate your resources can both save and earn you a lot of money.

Though the money is allocated by neighborhood, it’s all “city money,” said Tomlinson.

Also, our house will be paid off so we can allocate those savings to other investments.

And we can talk about whether we want to allocate fewer resources to the aged.

I recommend you allocate 30% to a broad international stock fund, and 70% in a broad US index fund, such as an S&P500 fund.

Why allocate education dollars to a community perceived to be off the charts with spelling-bee winners and academic scholars?

While this frees up resources the Romney camp can allocate elsewhere, it could prove costly if it lets Santorum on the board.

And we have been able to allocate all the haloes so far investigated to one or the other of the known radioactive families.

I once intended to allocate a pocket especially for greenbacks, but found it unnecessary.

My specimens also showed these intermediate tendencies and I am unable at present to allocate the specimens to subspecies.

It was accordingly arranged to allocate yards or separate sections of yards, so that one class of tonnage only would be produced.

Some will have two, some three, some a number of members; and on what system will you allocate the members to these divisions?

Related Words

Words related to allocate are not direct synonyms, but are associated with the word allocate . Browse related words to learn more about word associations.

verb as in bring into agreement or to a standard

• fiddle with
• standardize
• systematize

verb as in allot

• measure out

verb as in carry out

verb as in assign; give portion

• cut the pie

Viewing 5 / 53 related words

On this page you'll find 70 synonyms, antonyms, and words related to allocate, such as: allot, apportion, appropriate, designate, earmark, and give.

From Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Copyright © 2013 by the Philip Lief Group.

Related Words and Phrases

Bottom_desktop desktop:[300x250].

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of allocate

transitive verb

Examples of allocate in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'allocate.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

borrowed from Medieval Latin allocātus, past participle of allocāre "to place, stow, hire out, place on hire, allow, admit, credit," from Latin ad- ad- + locāre "to place, situate" — more at locate

1616, in the meaning defined at sense 1

Phrases Containing allocate

• sub - allocate

Dictionary Entries Near allocate

Cite this entry.

“Allocate.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allocate. Accessed 21 May. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of allocate, more from merriam-webster on allocate.

Nglish: Translation of allocate for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of allocate for Arabic Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

More commonly misspelled words, words you always have to look up, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, more commonly mispronounced words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), popular in wordplay, the words of the week - may 17, birds say the darndest things, a great big list of bread words, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), games & quizzes.

Definition of 'allocate'

allocate in British English

Allocate in american english, allocate in accounting, examples of 'allocate' in a sentence allocate, cobuild collocations allocate, trends of allocate.

View usage for: All Years Last 10 years Last 50 years Last 100 years Last 300 years

In other languages allocate

• American English : allocate / ˈæləkeɪt /
• Brazilian Portuguese : destinar
• Chinese : 分配
• European Spanish : asignar
• French : attribuer
• German : zuteilen
• Italian : assegnare
• Japanese : 割り当てる
• Korean : 배당되다
• European Portuguese : destinar
• Latin American Spanish : asignar
• Thai : จัดสรร

Browse alphabetically allocate

• allocatable
• allocate a budget
• allocate a portion
• allocate a seat
• All ENGLISH words that begin with 'A'

Related terms of allocate

• allocate land
• allocate time
• allocate assets
• allocate funds
• allocate money
• View more related words

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

Wordle Helper

Scrabble Tools

• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day
• Synonym of the Day
• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips
• Pop culture
• Writing tips

Advertisement

[ al - uh -keyt ]

verb (used with object)

to allocate funds for new projects.

/ ˈæləˌkeɪt /

• to assign or allot for a particular purpose
• a less common word for locate

Discover More

Derived forms.

• ˈalloˌcatable , adjective

Other Words From

• al·lo·ca·tor noun
• de·al·lo·cate verb (used with object) deallocated deallocating
• re·al·lo·cate verb (used with object) reallocated reallocating

Word History and Origins

Origin of allocate 1

Synonym Study

Example sentences.

The capital allocated to the investment bank as a percentage of risk-weighted assets was around 75% when I joined UBS.

With this information, we can do a better job of allocating media dollars going forward.

Gannon also said that this summer, for the first time, state funding had been allocated to help recruit and train MAT teams.

Learning how to wisely allocate your resources can both save and earn you a lot of money.

Though the money is allocated by neighborhood, it’s all “city money,” said Tomlinson.

Also, our house will be paid off so we can allocate those savings to other investments.

And we can talk about whether we want to allocate fewer resources to the aged.

I recommend you allocate 30% to a broad international stock fund, and 70% in a broad US index fund, such as an S&P500 fund.

Why allocate education dollars to a community perceived to be off the charts with spelling-bee winners and academic scholars?

While this frees up resources the Romney camp can allocate elsewhere, it could prove costly if it lets Santorum on the board.

And we have been able to allocate all the haloes so far investigated to one or the other of the known radioactive families.

I once intended to allocate a pocket especially for greenbacks, but found it unnecessary.

My specimens also showed these intermediate tendencies and I am unable at present to allocate the specimens to subspecies.

It was accordingly arranged to allocate yards or separate sections of yards, so that one class of tonnage only would be produced.

Some will have two, some three, some a number of members; and on what system will you allocate the members to these divisions?

Related Words

• appropriate

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of allocate in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• The local council has decided not to allocate funds for the project .
• The president has agreed to allocate further funds to develop the new submarine .
• Tickets will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis .
• There are ten marks allocated to every question .
• Try to allocate yourself a set time each day to practise your exercises .
• corporately
• distribution
• distributive
• distributively
• portion something out
• ration something out
• redistribute

Related word

Allocate | american dictionary, allocate | business english, examples of allocate, translations of allocate.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

to fasten the belt that keeps you in your seat in a car or a plane

Searching out and tracking down: talking about finding or discovering things

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Verb
• American    Verb
• Business    Verb
• Translations
• All translations

To add allocate to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add allocate to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Productivity

Productivity tips

How to prioritize tasks: 10 task prioritization techniques

Use these task prioritization techniques to help you identify your most important work..

There's never enough time to do everything you want to do. It's a universal problem. And we all accept that fact and live with its reality until the worst-case scenario rears its ugly head: there's not enough time to do everything you have to do.

When everything on your to-do list feels like it's of crucial importance (or when someone you answer to feels that way), use one or more of these prioritization techniques to help you identify your most important task and get work done.

What is a prioritization technique?

A prioritization technique helps you make informed decisions about the order you should complete your tasks based on different factors like their importance and due dates. With a list of prioritized tasks in hand, you have a shield to respectfully push back against unnecessary meeting invites and last-minute requests. 

For example, when stakeholders would approach my teammates with "urgent" requests, we would show them our prioritized task list and ask, "What should we cut in order to accommodate this request?" After seeing the importance of the other things on the list, urgent requests often suddenly became much less urgent.

But prioritization techniques aren't limited to regaining control over workplace tasks. They're also useful for managing competing priorities from your family, friends, and even that part of your brain that's always on the lookout for side projects.

Task prioritization techniques

1. Priority matrix

The priority matrix technique consists of distributing your tasks across a four-quadrant matrix like the one shown below. The x-axis represents one value, and the y-axis represents another. Each quadrant, then, represents priority based on the defined values.

There are infinite ways you could organize your priority matrix. Here are popular priority matrix examples to get you started.

Eisenhower matrix

With the Eisenhower matrix, the x-axis represents urgency while the y-axis represents importance , leaving you with the following categories (from the top-left going clockwise):

Important and urgent tasks are your top priorities.

Urgent but not important tasks are ones that must get done but can be delegated to someone else. 

Not urgent or important tasks are probably unnecessary distractions. 

To use it, evaluate each task based on its urgency and importance, and then place the task in the corresponding quadrant.

By placing each task on your list into a quadrant on the Eisenhower Matrix, you can determine what needs to be done now, what you can save for later, what's worth delegating, and what you can scratch out altogether.

Impact effort matrix 

In the impact-effort matrix, the x-axis represents impact, and the y-axis represents effort . So you'll have a matrix with the following quadrants (from top-left going clockwise):

High effort, low impact 

High effort, high impact 

Low effort, high impact 

Low effort, low impact 

To distribute your tasks accordingly, evaluate how much effort each one will take and the impact completing it will have. Any tasks in your Low effort, high impact quadrant are your top priorities, followed by ones in your High effort, high impact quadrants. 

If you have a lot of tasks in these two quadrants, consider working on one or two from your Low effort, high impact quadrant. The sense of accomplishment from checking off these quick wins might give you that much-needed boost to tackle the rest.

Cost value matrix 

In the cost-value matrix, the x-axis represents cost, and the y-axis represents value , leaving you with the following groupings (from top-left going clockwise): 

High value, low cost

High value, high cost 

Low value, high cost

Low value, low cost

Evaluate how much your task will cost (in terms of time) and the value it'll provide. Tasks in your High value, low cost quadrant are your quick wins, while ones in your Low value, high cost are tasks you should probably avoid. 

2. MoSCoW prioritization method 

The MoSCoW method is a simple technique for prioritizing tasks where you assign every task on your to-do list to one of four categories:

M – Must do : M tasks are things you absolutely have to do.

S – Should do : S tasks are things you should do, but they're a lower priority than M tasks.

C – Could do : C tasks are nice-to-dos. You'd like to do them, but if you don't, it's probably not a big deal.

W – Won't do : W tasks are things that just aren't worth doing.

Note: If you have a lot of tasks that need delegation, the MoSCow method isn't for you. Jump to the ABCDE method for a better-suited alternative technique. 

After you've assigned each task to a category, delete your W tasks. Breathe a sigh of relief at how much shorter your task list is now. Then get to work. Focus first on M tasks, followed by S tasks, and if you have time, C tasks. 

By working on your list from the top down, you can ensure that you're always working on your highest-priority tasks.

Create Trello cards from new saved Slack messages

Create ClickUp tasks for new saved Slack messages

Create Trello cards from new Gmail threads

3. ABCDE method

A tasks are things you must do.

B tasks are things you should do.

C tasks are nice-to-dos.

D tasks are tasks you should delegate to someone else.

E tasks are tasks you should eliminate.

The ABCDE method expands on the MoSCoW method by prioritizing tasks you need to do and identifying the ones that can be done by someone else. 

Kanban apps also work really well for this technique. You'll have one source list for all your tasks followed by additional lists to contain A , B , C , D , and E tasks. Drag and drop tasks from the source list into the appropriate category, then get started on your A tasks.

4. Scrum prioritization

For example, say your highest priority task is to re-tile your bathroom floor. However, you know that you also need to have plumbers run new pipes in your bathroom, and they'll have to cut into the floor to do so. Getting new pipes run may be a lower priority, but since it will impact your highest-priority task of re-tiling the floor, it needs to be completed first.

In Scrum prioritization, you evaluate each task on your list using three criteria:

How important is this task?

How important is it compared to the other tasks on this list?

Is any other task dependent on this task?

Then, using the answers to those questions, you assign each a unique number from one to n (where n is the total number of tasks on your list). 

Scrum prioritization works well on its own, but it also pairs really well with other techniques like the MoSCoW or ABCDE method. After categorizing your tasks by priority (as M , C , and W or A , B , and C ), you can begin sequencing the tasks in order of how you plan to complete them, keeping in mind any task dependencies that might impact that order.

5. Bubble sort method

The Bubble sort method is an effective way to answer the question, "How important is this task compared to other tasks on this list?" It's especially useful if you're suffering from the everything-is-urgent problem. 

Start with a horizontal grid and assign each task to a cell. 

Then, take the first two tasks and evaluate them against each other by asking, "Which task is more important?"

Whichever task from the previous step is most important gets moved to the left. In the example below, Task 2 is more important than Task 1 , so the two tasks switch places.

Then compare the next two tasks. Which is more important? The more important task gets moved one cell to the left.

Continue this process until you get to the end of the list. Then repeat the process from the beginning. Continue repeating the exercise until every task is to the left of a less-important task. Your priorities are now listed from left to right.

There's no specific tool designed for the Bubble sort method, but you can easily use a Kanban, to-do list, or project management app for this. The only difference is that your sets of tasks will run from top-to-bottom instead of left-to-right.

6. Most Important Task (MIT) method

Pick at least one MIT each day that's related to your goals. This way, you're doing something daily to help you reach your goals. And while you'll most likely complete more in a day than only your MITs, selecting your MITs in the morning and setting a deadline ensures you're dedicating time every day to working on important, high-priority tasks.

7. The Ivy Lee method

At the end of every workday, choose the six most important tasks on your list to work on tomorrow.

Then, order those six tasks in terms of priority.

When you get to work the next day, work on task number one until it's complete.

Tackle the rest of your list in the same way.

Continue until all six tasks are complete, and repeat the process every single day.

8. 1-3-9 prioritization technique

The 1-3-9 prioritization technique encourages you to focus on important tasks, but it also gives you a way to prioritize the less important tasks you'll inevitably need to work on. It's like a blend of the MoSCoW, MIT, and Ivy Lee methods. 

Every day, you plan to complete 13 tasks:

one critical task (like an M task from MoSCoW)

three important tasks (like S from MoSCoW)

nine nice-to-do tasks (like C from MoSCoW)

You could even combine the 1-3-9 technique with an Eisenhower matrix, leaving you with one task in the Important and urgent quadrant, three in the Important but not urgent quadrant, and nine in the Urgent but not important quadrant.

Order your lists of three and nine tasks in terms of priority. Then work on and complete your one task, followed by your three tasks in order, and finally, your nine tasks in order.

In an ideal world, you'd be able to work only on your highest-priority, high-value tasks—but things rarely work out that way. The 1-3-9 method addresses that reality by giving you a way to make sure you're at least working on the most important of your less important tasks.

Any priority matrix app or Kanban app works well with the 1-3-9 prioritization technique. 

9. Two lists technique

First, you write down a list of 25 things you want to accomplish. When the list is complete, circle the five most important items on that list.

When you're finished, compile the results into two lists:

The first—containing the five tasks you circled—becomes your to-do list.

The second—containing the 20 tasks you didn't circle—becomes your don't-do (yet) list.

Focus your attention on completing all the tasks on your first list. Only then can you begin working on your second list.

10. Pareto principle (80/20 rule)

Put another way, if you prioritize a small percentage of the right tasks, they can yield outsized effects. 

To put the 80/20 rule into practice, identify your 20% work and make those tasks your priority. There's no hard-and-fast rule baked into the Pareto principle for how to determine your 20% work, but you can draw on other strategies. For example, M tasks from the MoSCoW method or Low effort, high impact tasks from the effort-impact priority matrix. 

Bonus: How to prioritize tasks for teams

Many of the prioritization methods listed above are useful for prioritizing your daily tasks. But what if you're working on a larger scale? For example, a product team debating which features to roll out next, or a marketing team deciding how to divide their advertising budget across different campaigns. In those cases, here are a few prioritization methods to help your team identify and sequence those tasks: 

How to pick the right task prioritization technique

Every technique on this list helps you achieve the same thing: ensuring that you're always working on your most important tasks. So, in the end, it doesn't matter which technique you use. It doesn't matter if you use multiple techniques. And it doesn't matter if you blend parts of the different techniques to make your own custom method.

What matters is that you pick something that makes sense and feels natural, and get to work.

Related reading:

This article was originally published in July 2019. The most recent update was in September 2023 with contributions from Jessica Lau.

Get productivity tips delivered straight to your inbox

We’ll email you 1-3 times per week—and never share your information.

Jessica Greene

Jessica Greene is a freelance marketing and business writer. A former writing instructor and corporate marketer, she uses her subject-matter expertise and passion for educating others to develop actionable, in-depth, user-focused content.

• Personal productivity
• Project management

Related articles

How to manage brain fog at work

How trauma affects your work—and what to do about it

How trauma affects your work—and what to do...

14 morning and evening routines that will set up each day for success

14 morning and evening routines that will...

How to manage your perception of time

Improve your productivity automatically. Use Zapier to get your apps working together.

• Integrations
• Learning Center

MoSCoW Prioritization

What is moscow prioritization.

MoSCoW prioritization, also known as the MoSCoW method or MoSCoW analysis, is a popular prioritization technique for managing requirements. 

  The acronym MoSCoW represents four categories of initiatives: must-have, should-have, could-have, and won’t-have, or will not have right now. Some companies also use the “W” in MoSCoW to mean “wish.”

What is the History of the MoSCoW Method?

Software development expert Dai Clegg created the MoSCoW method while working at Oracle. He designed the framework to help his team prioritize tasks during development work on product releases.

You can find a detailed account of using MoSCoW prioritization in the Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM) handbook . But because MoSCoW can prioritize tasks within any time-boxed project, teams have adapted the method for a broad range of uses.

How Does MoSCoW Prioritization Work?

Before running a MoSCoW analysis, a few things need to happen. First, key stakeholders and the product team need to get aligned on objectives and prioritization factors. Then, all participants must agree on which initiatives to prioritize.

At this point, your team should also discuss how they will settle any disagreements in prioritization. If you can establish how to resolve disputes before they come up, you can help prevent those disagreements from holding up progress.

Finally, you’ll also want to reach a consensus on what percentage of resources you’d like to allocate to each category.

With the groundwork complete, you may begin determining which category is most appropriate for each initiative. But, first, let’s further break down each category in the MoSCoW method.

Start prioritizing your roadmap

Moscow prioritization categories.

1. Must-have initiatives

As the name suggests, this category consists of initiatives that are “musts” for your team. They represent non-negotiable needs for the project, product, or release in question. For example, if you’re releasing a healthcare application, a must-have initiative may be security functionalities that help maintain compliance.

The “must-have” category requires the team to complete a mandatory task. If you’re unsure about whether something belongs in this category, ask yourself the following.

If the product won’t work without an initiative, or the release becomes useless without it, the initiative is most likely a “must-have.”

2. Should-have initiatives

Should-have initiatives are just a step below must-haves. They are essential to the product, project, or release, but they are not vital. If left out, the product or project still functions. However, the initiatives may add significant value.

“Should-have” initiatives are different from “must-have” initiatives in that they can get scheduled for a future release without impacting the current one. For example, performance improvements, minor bug fixes, or new functionality may be “should-have” initiatives. Without them, the product still works.

3. Could-have initiatives

Another way of describing “could-have” initiatives is nice-to-haves. “Could-have” initiatives are not necessary to the core function of the product. However, compared with “should-have” initiatives, they have a much smaller impact on the outcome if left out.

So, initiatives placed in the “could-have” category are often the first to be deprioritized if a project in the “should-have” or “must-have” category ends up larger than expected.

4. Will not have (this time)

One benefit of the MoSCoW method is that it places several initiatives in the “will-not-have” category. The category can manage expectations about what the team will not include in a specific release (or another timeframe you’re prioritizing).

Placing initiatives in the “will-not-have” category is one way to help prevent scope creep . If initiatives are in this category, the team knows they are not a priority for this specific time frame. 

Some initiatives in the “will-not-have” group will be prioritized in the future, while others are not likely to happen. Some teams decide to differentiate between those by creating a subcategory within this group.

How Can Development Teams Use MoSCoW?

  Although Dai Clegg developed the approach to help prioritize tasks around his team’s limited time, the MoSCoW method also works when a development team faces limitations other than time. For example: 

Prioritize based on budgetary constraints.

What if a development team’s limiting factor is not a deadline but a tight budget imposed by the company? Working with the product managers, the team can use MoSCoW first to decide on the initiatives that represent must-haves and the should-haves. Then, using the development department’s budget as the guide, the team can figure out which items they can complete. 

Prioritize based on the team’s skillsets.

A cross-functional product team might also find itself constrained by the experience and expertise of its developers. If the product roadmap calls for functionality the team does not have the skills to build, this limiting factor will play into scoring those items in their MoSCoW analysis.

Prioritize based on competing needs at the company.

Cross-functional teams can also find themselves constrained by other company priorities. The team wants to make progress on a new product release, but the executive staff has created tight deadlines for further releases in the same timeframe. In this case, the team can use MoSCoW to determine which aspects of their desired release represent must-haves and temporarily backlog everything else.

What Are the Drawbacks of MoSCoW Prioritization?

  Although many product and development teams have prioritized MoSCoW, the approach has potential pitfalls. Here are a few examples.

1. An inconsistent scoring process can lead to tasks placed in the wrong categories.

  One common criticism against MoSCoW is that it does not include an objective methodology for ranking initiatives against each other. Your team will need to bring this methodology to your analysis. The MoSCoW approach works only to ensure that your team applies a consistent scoring system for all initiatives.

Pro tip: One proven method is weighted scoring, where your team measures each initiative on your backlog against a standard set of cost and benefit criteria. You can use the weighted scoring approach in ProductPlan’s roadmap app .

2. Not including all relevant stakeholders can lead to items placed in the wrong categories.

To know which of your team’s initiatives represent must-haves for your product and which are merely should-haves, you will need as much context as possible.

For example, you might need someone from your sales team to let you know how important (or unimportant) prospective buyers view a proposed new feature.

One pitfall of the MoSCoW method is that you could make poor decisions about where to slot each initiative unless your team receives input from all relevant stakeholders. 

3. Team bias for (or against) initiatives can undermine MoSCoW’s effectiveness.

Because MoSCoW does not include an objective scoring method, your team members can fall victim to their own opinions about certain initiatives. 

One risk of using MoSCoW prioritization is that a team can mistakenly think MoSCoW itself represents an objective way of measuring the items on their list. They discuss an initiative, agree that it is a “should have,” and move on to the next.

But your team will also need an objective and consistent framework for ranking all initiatives. That is the only way to minimize your team’s biases in favor of items or against them.

When Do You Use the MoSCoW Method for Prioritization?

MoSCoW prioritization is effective for teams that want to include representatives from the whole organization in their process. You can capture a broader perspective by involving participants from various functional departments.

Another reason you may want to use MoSCoW prioritization is it allows your team to determine how much effort goes into each category. Therefore, you can ensure you’re delivering a good variety of initiatives in each release.

What Are Best Practices for Using MoSCoW Prioritization?

If you’re considering giving MoSCoW prioritization a try, here are a few steps to keep in mind. Incorporating these into your process will help your team gain more value from the MoSCoW method.

1. Choose an objective ranking or scoring system.

Remember, MoSCoW helps your team group items into the appropriate buckets—from must-have items down to your longer-term wish list. But MoSCoW itself doesn’t help you determine which item belongs in which category.

You will need a separate ranking methodology. You can choose from many, such as:

• Weighted scoring
• Value vs. complexity
• Buy-a-feature
• Opportunity scoring

For help finding the best scoring methodology for your team, check out ProductPlan’s article: 7 strategies to choose the best features for your product .

2. Seek input from all key stakeholders.

To make sure you’re placing each initiative into the right bucket—must-have, should-have, could-have, or won’t-have—your team needs context. 

At the beginning of your MoSCoW method, your team should consider which stakeholders can provide valuable context and insights. Sales? Customer success? The executive staff? Product managers in another area of your business? Include them in your initiative scoring process if you think they can help you see opportunities or threats your team might miss. 

3. Share your MoSCoW process across your organization.

MoSCoW gives your team a tangible way to show your organization prioritizing initiatives for your products or projects. 

The method can help you build company-wide consensus for your work, or at least help you show stakeholders why you made the decisions you did.

Communicating your team’s prioritization strategy also helps you set expectations across the business. When they see your methodology for choosing one initiative over another, stakeholders in other departments will understand that your team has thought through and weighed all decisions you’ve made. 

If any stakeholders have an issue with one of your decisions, they will understand that they can’t simply complain—they’ll need to present you with evidence to alter your course of action.  

Related Terms

2×2 prioritization matrix / Eisenhower matrix / DACI decision-making framework / ICE scoring model / RICE scoring model

Prioritizing your roadmap using our guide

Try productplan free for 14 days, share on mastodon.

• You are here:
• Agile Business Consortium
• DSDM Project Framework

Chapter 10: MoSCoW Prioritisation

Previous  chapter: 9  Workshops

10.1 Introduction

In a DSDM project where time has been fixed, it is vital to understand the relative importance of the work to be done in order to make progress and keep to deadlines. Prioritisation can be applied to requirements/User Stories, tasks, products, use cases, acceptance criteria and tests, although it is most commonly applied to requirements/ User Stories. (User Stories are a very effective way of defining requirements in an Agile style; see later chapter on Requirements and User Stories for more information.) MoSCoW is a prioritisation technique for helping to understand and manage priorities. The letters stand for:

• S hould Have
• C ould Have
• W on’t Have this time

The use of MoSCoW works particularly well on projects. It also overcomes the problems associated with simpler prioritisation approaches which are based on relative priorities:

• The use of a simple high, medium or low classification is weaker because definitions of these priorities are missing or need to be defined. Nor does this categorization provide the business with a clear promise of what to expect. A categorisation with a single middle option, such as medium, also allows for indecision
• The use of a simple sequential 1,2,3,4… priority is weaker because it deals less effectively with items of similar importance. There may be prolonged and heated discussions over whether an item should be one place higher or lower

The specific use of Must Have, Should Have, Could Have or Won’t Have this time provides a clear indication of that item and the expectations for its completion.  

10.2 The MoSCoW Rules

10.2.1 Must Have

These provide the Minimum Usable SubseT (MUST) of requirements which the project guarantees to deliver. These may be defined using some of the following:

• No point in delivering on target date without this; if it were not delivered, there would be no point deploying the solution on the intended date
• Not legal without it
• Unsafe without it
• Cannot deliver a viable solution without it

Ask the question ‘what happens if this requirement is not met?’ If the answer is ‘cancel the project – there is no point in implementing a solution that does not meet this requirement’, then it is a Must Have requirement. If there is some way around it, even if it is a manual and painful workaround, then it is a Should Have or a Could Have requirement. Categorising a requirement as a Should Have or Could Have does not mean it won’t be delivered; simply that delivery is not guaranteed.  

10.2.2 Should Have

Should Have requirements are defined as:

• Important but not vital
• May be painful to leave out, but the solution is still viable
• May need some kind of workaround, e.g. management of expectations, some inefficiency, an existing solution, paperwork etc. The workaround may be just a temporary one

One way of differentiating a Should Have requirement from a Could Have is by reviewing the degree of pain caused by the requirement not being met, measured in terms of business value or numbers of people affected.  

10.2.3 Could Have

Could Have requirements are defined as:

• Wanted or desirable but less important
• Less impact if left out (compared with a Should Have)

These are the requirements that provide the main pool of contingency, since they would only be delivered in their entirety in a best case scenario. When a problem occurs and the deadline is at risk, one or more of the Could haves provide the first choice of what is to be dropped from this timeframe.  

10.2.4 Won’t Have this time

These are requirements which the project team has agreed will not be delivered (as part of this timeframe). They are recorded in the Prioritised Requirements List where they help clarify the scope of the project. This avoids them being informally reintroduced at a later date. This also helps to manage expectations that some requirements will simply not make it into the Deployed Solution, at least not this time around. Won’t Haves can be very powerful in keeping the focus at this point in time on the more important Could Haves, Should Haves and particularly the Must Haves.

10.3 MoSCoW Relating to a Specific Timeframe

In a traditional project, all requirements are treated as Must Have, since the expectation is set from the start that everything will be delivered and that typically time (the end date) will slip if problems are encountered. DSDM projects have a very different approach; fixing time, cost and quality and negotiating features. By the end of Foundations, the end dates for the project and for the first Project Increment are confirmed. In order to meet this commitment to the deadline, DSDM projects need to create contingency within the prioritised requirements. Therefore the primary focus initially is to create MoSCoW priorities for the project. However, when deciding what to deliver as part of the Project Increment, the next focus will be to agree MoSCoW priorities for that Increment. So at this point, a requirement may have two priorities; MoSCoW for the project and MoSCoW for the Increment. Finally, when planning a specific Timebox (at the start of each Timebox) the Solution Development Team will allocate a specific priority for the requirements for this Timebox. At this point, the majority of requirements are Won’t Have (for this Timebox). Only requirements that the Solution Development Team plan to work on in the development timebox are allocated a Must Have, Should Have or Could Have priority. Therefore requirements may have three levels of priority:

• MoSCoW for the project
• MoSCoW for the Project Increment
• MoSCoW for this Timebox

It is important that the bigger picture objectives (completion of the Project Increment and delivery of the project) are not forgotten when working at the Timebox level. One simple way to deal with this is to create a separate Timebox PRL, a subset of the project PRL that is specifically associated with an individual Timebox and leave the priorities unchanged on the main PRL for the project.  

10.4 Ensuring effective prioritisation

10.4.1 Balancing the priorities

When deciding the effort allocated for Must Have requirements, remember that anything other than a Must Have is, to some degree, contingency, since the Must Haves define the Minimum Usable SubseT which is guaranteed to be delivered.

DSDM recommends:

• Getting the percentage of project/Project Increment Must Haves (in terms of effort to deliver) to a level where the team’s confidence to deliver them is high – typically no more than 60% Must Have effort
• Agreeing a pool of Could Haves for the project/Project Increment that reflects a sensible level of contingency - typically around 20% Could Have effort. Creating a sensible pool of Could Haves sets the correct expectations for the business from the start – that these requirements/User Stories may be delivered in their entirety in a best case scenario, but the primary project/Project Increment focus will always be on protecting the Must Haves and Should Haves

This spread of priorities provides enough contingency to ensure confidence in a successful project outcome. NB When calculating effort for a timeframe, Won’t Haves (for this timeframe) are excluded. DSDM’s recommendations reflect a typical project scenario. The important thing to make MoSCoW work is to have some visible flexibility in the level of requirements which must be delivered. The safe percentage of Must Have requirements, in order to be confident of project success, is not to exceed 60% Must Have effort.

Figure 10a: MoSCoW – balancing priorities

Levels of Must Have effort above 60% introduce a risk of failure, unless the team are working in a project where all of these criteria are true:

• Estimates are known to be accurate
• The approach is very well understood
• The team are “performing” (based on the Tuckman model)
• The environment is understood and low-risk in terms of the potential for external factors to introduce delays

In some circumstances the percentage of Must Have effort may be significantly less than 60%. However this can be used to the benefit of the business, by providing the greatest possible flexibility to optimise value delivered across a larger proportion of Should Haves. The exact split of effort between Musts, Shoulds, and Coulds is down to each project team to agree, although DSDM also recommends creating a sensible pool of Could Haves, typically around 20% of the total effort. Effective MoSCoW prioritisation is all about balancing risk and predictability for each project.  

10.4.2 Agreeing up front how priorities will work

DSDM defines what the different priorities mean – the MoSCoW Rules. But whereas the definition of a Must Have is not negotiable, the difference between a Should Have and a Could Have can be quite subjective. It is very helpful if the team agree, at the start of their project, how these lower level priorities will be applied. Understanding in advance some objective criteria that separate a Should Have from a Could Have and ensuring that all roles on the project buy into what has been agreed can avoid much heated discussion later. Look for defined boundaries that decide whether a requirement is a Should Have or a Could Have?

Ideally this agreement is reached before the requirements are captured.   

10.4.3 When to prioritise

very item of work has a priority. Priorities are set before work commences and the majority of this prioritisation activity happens during Foundations. However, priorities should be kept under continual review as work is completed. As new work arises, either through introduction of a new requirement or through the exposure of unexpected work associated with existing requirements, the decision must be made as to how critical it is to the success of the current work using the MoSCoW rules. When introducing new requirements, care needs to be taken not to increase the percentage of Must Have requirement effort beyond the agreed project level. The priorities of uncompleted requirements should be reviewed throughout the project to ensure that they are still valid. As a minimum, they should be reviewed at the end of each Timebox and each Project Increment.  

10.4.4 Discussing and reviewing priorities

Any requirement defined as a Must Have will, by definition, have a critical impact on the success of the project. The Project Manager, Business Analyst and any other member of the Solution Development Team should openly discuss requirements prioritised as Must Have where they are not obvious Must Haves (“Without this would we cancel the project/increment?”); it is up to the Business Visionary or their empowered Business Ambassador to explain why a requirement is a Must Have. The escalation of decision-making processes should be agreed early on, e.g. Business Ambassador and Business Analyst to Business Visionary to Business Sponsor, and the level of empowerment agreed around decision-making at each level. At the end of a Project Increment, all requirements that have not been met are re-prioritised in the light of the needs of the next Increment. This means that, for instance, a Could Have that is not met in one Increment may be reclassified subsequently as a Won’t Have for the next Increment, because it does not contribute enough towards the business needs to justify its inclusion. However, it could just as easily become a Must Have for the next Increment, if its low priority in the first Increment was based on the fact it was simply not needed in the first Solution Increment.  

10.5 Using MoSCoW to Manage Business Expectations

The MoSCoW rules have been defined in a way that allows the delivery of the Minimum Usable SubseT of requirements to be guaranteed. Both the Solution Development Team and those to whom they are delivering share this confidence because the high percentage effort of Shoulds and Coulds provides optimum contingency to ensure delivery of the Must Haves. The business roles can certainly expect more than delivery of only the Must Haves. The Must Haves are guaranteed but it is perfectly reasonable for the business to expect delivery of more than the Minimum Usable SubseT in the timeframe, except under the most challenging of circumstances. DSDM’s recommendation to create a sensible pool of Could Have contingency – typically around 20% of the total project/increment effort - identifies requirements that are less important or which have less impact if not delivered, in order to protect the more important requirements. This approach implies that the business can reasonably expect the Should Have requirements to be met, in addition to all of the Must Haves. It also implies that in a best case scenario, the Could Have requirements would also be delivered. The Solution Development Team cannot have the confidence to guarantee delivery of all the Must Have, Should Have and Could Have requirements, even though these have all been estimated and are included in the plan. This is because the plan is based on early estimates and on requirements which have not yet been analysed in low-level detail. Applying pressure to a team to guarantee delivery of Musts, Shoulds and Coulds is counter-productive. It usually results in padded estimates which give a false perception of success. “We always achieve 100% (because we added significant contingency to our figures”). So, combining sensible prioritisation with timeboxing leads to predictability of delivery and therefore greater confidence. This also protects the quality of the solution being delivered. Keeping project metrics to show the percentage of Should Haves and Could Haves delivered on each Project Increment or Timebox will either re-enforce this confidence, if things are going well, or provide an early warning of problems, highlighting that some important (but not critical) requirements may not be met at the project level.  

10.6 How does MoSCoW Relate to the Business Vision

10.6.1 The Business Sponsor’s perspective

The starting point for all projects is the business vision. Associated with the business vision are a set of prioritised requirements that contribute to delivery of the vision. Also associated with the business vision is a Business Case that describes the project in terms of what value it will deliver back to the business. Depending on the organization, this Business Case may be an informal understanding or it may be defined formally, showing what Return On Investment (ROI) is expected in order to justify the cost of the project. The MoSCoW priorities are necessary to understand the Minimum Usable SubseT and the importance of individual requirements. The Business Visionary must ensure that the requirements are prioritised, evaluated in business terms, and delivered to provide the ROI required by the Business Case, in line with the business vision.  

10.7 Making MoSCoW Work

Requirements are identified at various levels of detail, from a high-level strategic viewpoint (typically during Feasibility) through to a more detailed, implementable level (typically during Evolutionary Development). Highlevel requirements can usually be decomposed to yield a mix of sub-requirements, which can then be prioritised individually. This ensures the flexibility is maintained, so that if necessary, some of the detailed less important functionality can be dropped from the delivered solution to protect the project deadline. It is this decomposition that can help resolve one of the problems that often confront teams: that all requirements appear to be Must Haves. If all requirements were genuinely Must Haves, then the flexibility derived from the MoSCoW prioritisation would no longer work. There would be no lower priority requirements to be dropped from the deliverables to keep a project on time and budget. This goes against the DSDM ethos of fixing time and cost and flexing features (the triangles diagram in the Philosophy and Fundamentals chapter). Believing everything is a Must Have is often symptomatic of insufficient decomposition of requirements. Remember that team members may cause scope creep by working on ”interesting” things rather than the important things. MoSCoW can help avoid this.  

10.8 Tips for Assigning Priorities

1. Ensure that the business roles, in particular the Business Visionary and the Business Analyst, are fully up to speed as to why and how DSDM prioritises requirements.

2. Consider starting with all requirements as Won’t Haves, and then justify why they need to be given a higher priority.

3. For each requirement that is proposed as a Must Have, ask: ‘what happens if this requirement is not met?’ If the answer is ‘cancel the project; there is no point in implementing a solution that does not meet this requirement’, then it really is a Must Have. If not, then decide whether it is Should Have or a Could Have (or even a Won’t Have this time)

4. Ask: ‘if I come to you the night before Deployment and tell you there is a problem with a Must Have requirement and that we can’t deliver it – will you stop the Deployment?’ If the answer is ‘yes’ then this is a Must Have requirement. If not, decide whether it is Should Have or a Could Have.

5. Is there a workaround, even if it is a manual one? If a workaround exists, then it is not a Must Have requirement. When determining whether this is a Should Have or a Could Have requirement, compare the cost of the workaround with the cost of delivering the requirement, including the cost of any associated delays and any additional cost to implement it later, rather than now.

6. Ask why the requirement is needed – for this project and this Project Increment.

7. Is this requirement dependent on any others being fulfilled? A Must Have cannot depend on the delivery of anything other than a Must Have because of the risk of a Should Have or Could Have not being delivered.

8. Allow different priorities for acceptance criteria of a requirement.

9. Can this requirement be decomposed? Is it necessary to deliver each of these elements to fulfil the requirement? Are the decomposed elements of the same priority as each other? 10. Tie the requirement to a project objective. If the objective is not a Must Have, then probably neither is the requirement relating to it. 11. Does the priority change with time? For example, for an initial release a requirement is a Should Have, but it will become a Must Have for a later release. 12. Prioritise testing, using MoSCoW. 13. Use MoSCoW to prioritise your To Do list. It can be used for activities as well as requirements.   

10.9 Summary

MoSCoW (Must Have, Should Have, Could Have, Won’t Have this time) is primarily used to prioritise requirements, although the practice is also useful in many other areas. On a typical project, DSDM recommends no more than 60% effort for Must Have requirements on a project, and a sensible pool of Could Haves, usually around 20% effort. Anything higher than 60% Must Have effort poses a risk to the success and predictability of the project, unless the environment and any technology is well understood, the team is well established and the external risks minimal.

Next chapter: 11 Iterative Development

An official website of the United States government.

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

• 中文（简体） (Chinese-Simplified)
• 繁體中文 (Chinese-Traditional)
• Kreyòl ayisyen (Haitian Creole)
• 한국어 (Korean)
• Español (Spanish)
• Filipino/Tagalog
• Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
• Federal Registers
• Hazard Communication Standard; Final Rule
• Publication Date: 05/20/2024
• Publication Type: Final Rule
• Fed Register #: 89:44144-44461
• Standard Number: 1910.1200
• Title: Hazard Communication Standard; Final Rule