nptel marketing management assignment answers 2020

Introduction to Marketing Essentials

Note: This exam date is subjected to change based on seat availability. You can check final exam date on your hall ticket.

Page Visits

Course layout, books and references, instructor bio.

Prof. Zillur Rahman

Course certificate.

DOWNLOAD APP

SWAYAM SUPPORT

Please choose the SWAYAM National Coordinator for support. * :

Skip navigation

World Leaders in Research-Based User Experience

5 prioritization methods in ux roadmapping.

November 14, 2021 2021-11-14

• Email article
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Twitter

Prioritizing work into a roadmap can be daunting for UX practitioners. Prioritization methods base these important decisions on objective, relevant criteria instead of subjective opinions.

This article outlines 5 methods for prioritizing work into a UX roadmap :

• Impact–effort matrix 
• Feasibility, desirability, and viability scorecard
• RICE method
• MoSCoW analysis 

These prioritization methods can be used to prioritize a variety of “items,” ranging from research questions, user segments, and features to ideas, and tasks. This article focuses on using these methods within the context of roadmapping—prioritizing problems that need to be solved into a strategic timeline. 

In This Article:

1. impact–effort matrix, 2. feasibility, desirability, and viability scorecard , 3. rice method, 4. moscow analysis, 5. kano model, 1.a. overview.

An impact–effort matrix is a 2D-visual that plots relative user value against implementation complexity. Variations of this matrix are used across various product-development approaches, including Six Sigma, design thinking, and Agile.

The resulting matrix captures the relative effort necessary to implement candidate features and their impact on the users. It can be subdivided into four quadrants: 

• Quick wins include low-effort, high-impact items that are worth pursuing. 
• Big bets include high-effort, high-value items; they should be carefully planned and prototyped, and, if executed, are likely to be differentiators against competitors. 
• Money pit includes low-impact, high-effort items that are not worth the business investment; there are better places to spend time and resources. 
• Fill-ins comprise low-effort, low-impact items that may be easy to implement but may not be worth the effort as their value is minimal. 

A comparative matrix is a malleable tool. While we discuss impact–effort matrices in this article, you can easily replace each axis with other criteria or use multiple matrices to assess more than two criteria. When setting up multiple matrices, set up your axes so that the Quick Wins (or whatever the equivalent best-outcome quadrant is) is positioned in the same spot (for example, always in the bottom left position), in order to easily compare several matrices and identify the items that consistently fall in best-outcome quadrant. 

1.B. Criteria

This prioritization method uses two primary criteria to rank features that are considered for implementation: the impact that the feature will have on the end user and the effort required to implement that feature. 

• Impact is the value the item will bring to the end user. The level of impact an item will have on end users depends on the users’ need, their alternatives, and the severity of the pain point the item solves.
• Effort is the amount of labor and resources required to solve the problem. The more technically complex the item, the higher effort it will require.

1.C. Process

Items are gathered on a whiteboard and their relative scores on the impact and effort dimensions are established through voting. Team members are given colored dots (one color per dimension) to vote for those items that they consider to rate highly on one or both dimensions.  

A general rule of thumb is that the number of votes per person is half the number of items being prioritized. It’s also possible that certain team members vote on a single dimension, according to their expertise — for example, UX professionals may rank impact, while developers may rank implementation effort.

After team members have silently voted on items, the items can be placed collaboratively on an effort–impact matrix (the x-axis represents effort, while the y-axis represents impact) according to the number of impact and effort votes received. 

Once everything is placed onto the chart, discuss the results and compare items, prioritizing those in the quick-wins and big-bets quadrants. Feel free to use the artifact as a platform for negotiation — throughout discussion with the team, it’s okay to collaboratively move items. However, at the end, there should be agreement on the final placement and the artifact should be documented and saved so it can easily be referenced in the future. 

1.D. Best for Quick, Collaborative Prioritization

An impact–effort matrix is best suited for quick, collaborative prioritizations. The method has a few advantages:

• The output is a shared visual that aligns mental models and builds common ground . 
• It is democratic — each person can express their own opinion through a vote.
• It can be done relatively quickly due to its simplicity. 

2.A. Overview

This method was developed by IDEO in the early 2000s. It ranks items based on a sum of individual scores across three criteria: feasibility, desirability, and viability. 

2.B. Criteria  

This prioritization method uses three criteria to rank items (i.e., features to be implemented):

• Feasibility : the degree to which the item can be technically built. Does the skillset and expertise exist to create this solution?
• Desirability : how much users want the item. What unique value proposition does it provide? Is the solution fundamentally needed, or are users otherwise able to accomplish their goals? 
• Viability : if the item is functionally attainable for the business.  Does pursuing the item benefit the business? What are the costs to the business and is the solution sustainable over time? 

2.C. Process

Create a table, with one row for each possible item, and columns for the 3 criteria — feasibility, desirability, and viability. Then, determine a numeric scoring scale for each criterion. In the example above, we used a numeric scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being a low score. 

Next, give each item a score across each criterion. Scoring should be as informed as possible — aim to include team members who have complementary expertise. Once each item is scored across each criterion, calculate its total score and force a rank. Sort the table from highest to lowest total score, then discuss the results with your team. 

2.D. Best for Customized Criteria 

This scorecard format is highly customizable. You can add columns to reflect criteria specific to your organization’s context and goals. You can also replace the criteria with others relevant to you. For example, the NUF Test , created by Dave Gray, uses the same scorecard format, but with New , Useful , Feasible as the criteria set. 

Another common modification is assigning weights to the different criteria — with those that are very important weighing more heavily in the final score. 

3.A. Overview

RICE is a prioritization framework developed by Intercom . It takes into account four factors: reach, impact, confidence, and effort to prioritize which features to implement.

3.B. Criteria  

This RICE method is based on scoring each item on 4 different dimensions:

• Reach : the number of users the item affects within a given time period 
• Impact : the value added to users 
• Confidence : how confident you are in your estimates of the other criteria (for example, highly confident if multiple data sources support your evaluation) 
• Effort : the amount of work necessary to implement the item 

3.C. Process

Using the RICE method is straightforward. Separate scores are assigned for each criterion, then an overall score is calculated. 

• A reach score is often estimated by looking at the number of users per time period (e.g., week, year);  ideally, this number is pulled from digital analytics or frequency metrics . 
• The impact score should reflect how much the item will increase delight or alleviate friction; it is hard to precisely calculate, and, thus, it’s usually assigned a score (for example, through voting, like in the previous methods) often on a scale from .25 (low) to 3 (high).  
• The confidence score is a percentage that represents how much you and your team trust the reach and impact scores.  100% represents high confidence, while 25% represents wild guesses. 
• The effort score is calculated as “person-months” — the amount of time it will take all team members to complete the item. For example, an item is 6 person-months if it would require 3 months of work from a designer and 1 month from 3 separate developers.  

Once you have each of the 4 criterion scores, use the formula to calculate the final score for each item: multiply the reach, impact, and confidence scores and divide the result by the effort score. Then compare, discuss, and reevaluate all the items’ scores with your team.  

3.D. Best for Technical-Oriented Teams

The RICE method works well for organizations that are more technical in nature (for example, when stakeholders are comfortable with equations or spreadsheets). The RICE method also works well when there are many items that need to be prioritized. Consider including peers with diverse domains of expertise in the RICE process and assign them the task of calculating the score for the criterion that relates to their expertise. 

4.A. Overview

MoSCoW analysis is a method for clustering items into four primary groups: Must Have , Should Have , Could Have , and Will Not Have . It was created by Dai Clegg and is used in many Agile frameworks. 

4.B. Criteria

This prioritization approach groups items into four buckets: 

• Must have : items that are vital to the product or project. Think of these as required for anything else to happen. If these items aren’t delivered, there is no point in delivering the solution at all. Without them the product won’t work, a law will be broken, or the project becomes useless. 
• Should have: items that are important to the project or context, but not absolutely mandatory. These items support core functionality (that will be painful to leave out), but the project or product will still work without them. 
• Could haves : items that are not essential, but wanted and nice to have. They have a small impact if left out. 
• Will not have: items that are not needed. They don’t present enough value and can be deprioritized or dropped. 

4.C. Process

MoSCoW analysis can be applied to an entire project (start to finish) or to a project increment (a sprint or specific time horizon). 

Begin by identifying the scope you are prioritizing items for. If your goal is to create a UX roadmap, you’ll usually have to prioritize for the first three time horizons: now (work occurring in the next 2 months), next (work occurring in the next 6 months), and future (work occurring in the next year). 

Compile the items being prioritized and give each team member 3 weighted voting dots, (one dot with a 1 on it, the next with a 2 on it, and so forth). Ask team members to assign their dots to the items they believe most important, with 3 being weighed most heavily.

Add up each item’s score based on the ranked votes (3 = 3 points and so forth). Identify the items with the highest scores and make sure that everybody in the group agrees on their importance. 

As each item is discussed and agreed upon as a Must Have , move it to a new dedicated space. Repeat this process for lower-priority items and assign them to the Should Have, Could Have , and Will Not Have groups based on their scores.

Once you have assigned each item to one of the four groups, establish the resources and bandwidth required for each group, starting with the Must Haves . Keep track of the total bandwidth and resources at your disposal, distributing and allocating your total amount across Must Haves (which should get the most resources), Should Haves (with the second most resources), and finally Could Haves (with few resources).  

There is not a clear threshold for how many items should be in each group. To determine this number, return to the goal of the prioritization activity. For example, if you are prioritizing items in a backlog, there is only time for so many tasks to be achieved in one sprint. In this scenario, all Must Haves should be easily achieved within one sprint; this constraint will limit how many items cannot be placed within this group.  

4.D. Best for Teams with Clear Time Boxes

MoSCoW is a good prioritization method for teams looking for a simplified approach (given the relatively vague prioritization criteria set) and with a clear time box identified for the work. Without a clearly scoped timeline for completing the work,  teams run the risk of overloading the Must Haves (of course, everything will feel like a Must Have if the timeline is the next two years!). 

5.A. Overview

The Kano model was published by Dr. Noriaki Kano in 1984 and is a primary prioritization method in the Six Sigma framework. Items are grouped into four categories according to user satisfaction and functionality and plotted on a 2D graph. 

5.B. Criteria 

This prioritization method uses two primary criterions to rank items: functionality and satisfaction. 

• None (-2) : the solution cannot be implemented
• Some (-1) : the solution can be partly implemented
• Basic (0) : the solution’s primary functions can be implemented, but nothing more 
• Good (1) : the solution can be implemented to an acceptable degree
• Best (2) : the solution can be implemented to its full potential 
• Frustrated (-2) : the solution causes additional hardship for the user
• Dissatisfied (-1) : the solution does not meet users’ expectations
• Neutral (0)  
• Satisfied (1) : the solution meets users’ expectations
• Delighted (2) : the solution exceeds users’ expectations

5.C. Process

Each item is first assigned a satisfaction score and a functionality score. The satisfaction score should be based on user data — for example, on existing user research or on a top-task user survey asking users to rate the importance of each feature; the functionality score can be rooted in the collective expertise of the team.  

These scores are then used to plot items onto a 2D-graph, with the x-axis corresponding to functionality and the y-axis to satisfaction. Each axis goes from -2 to 2. 

Based on their placement on their scores, items fall into one of four categories: 

• The Attractive category (often called Excitement ) are items that are likely to bring a considerable increase in user delight. A characteristic of this category is the disproportionate increase in satisfaction to functionality. Your users may not even notice their absence (because they weren’t expectations in the first place), but with good-enough implementation, user excitement can grow exponentially. The items in the Attractive are those with a satisfaction score of 0 or better. These items appear above the blue Attractive line in the Kano illustration above.
• The Performance category contains items that are utilitarian. Unlike other categories, this group grows proportionately. The more you invest in items within this category, the more customer satisfaction they are likely to prompt. The items in the Performance category have equal satisfaction and performance scores and fall on the green line in the Kano illustration above.  
• The Indifferent category contains items that users feel neutral towards — satisfaction does not significantly increase or decrease with their functionality and is always 0. Regardless of the amount of investment put into these items, users won’t care. These items are all placed on the dark blue Indifference line (which overlaps with the x-axis). 
• The Must-be category are basic items that are expected by users. Users assume these capabilities exist. They are unlikely to make customers more satisfied, but without them, customers will be disproportionately dissatisfied. Items fall into the Must-be category when their satisfaction score is 0 or worse. These are the items in the purple area of the Kano diagram, below the purple Must Be line.

Once items are assigned to groups, make sure that everybody in the team agrees with the assignment. Items with scores of (0,0), (-2,0) and (+2,0) may initially belong to two groups. In these cases, discuss the item and ask yourself if user value will grow proportionately with your team’s investment. If the answer is yes, group the item with Performance . In cases this is false, group the item with Indifferent . 

Move items as needed, then prioritize items into your roadmap. Items in the Performance category should have the highest priority, followed by Must be , Attractive , then Indifferent . 

5.D. Best for Forcing a User-Centric Prioritization 

The Kano model is a good approach for teams who have a hard time prioritizing based on the user — often due to politics or a traditional development-driven culture. The Kano model introduces user research directly into the prioritization process and mandates discussion around user expectations.  

There are many more prioritization methods, aside from the five mentioned in this article. (It’s also easy to imagine variations on these 5.) One method is not better than another. Consider your project’s context, team culture, and success criteria when choosing a prioritization approach. 

Once you find an approach that works, don’t be afraid to iterate — adjust and adapt it to fit to your needs or appeal to your team. Involve others in this process. The best prioritization methods are ones that everyone on your team, including stakeholders, buy into. 

McBride, S. (2018). RICE: Simple prioritization for product managers. Intercom.  https://www.intercom.com/blog/rice-simple-prioritization-for-product-managers/

What is the Kano Model? ProductPlan.  https://www.productplan.com/glossary/kano-model/

Related Courses

Facilitating ux workshops.

Lead goal-based group activities to make decisions and establish alignment

Discovery: Building the Right Thing

Conduct successful discovery phases to ensure you build the best solution

UX Roadmaps

Plan what your team will work on when, from next quarter to multi-year UX strategy. Align, prioritize, & communicate future work

Related Topics

• Design Process Design Process

Learn More:

Please accept marketing cookies to view the embedded video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gklsUyD6RPE

UX Design Prioritization Methods

The Goldilocks Principle for Prototyping

Megan Brown · 3 min

Problem Space and Solution Space Research

Maria Rosala · 2 min

Impact on UX: Individual Designers vs. Systematic Methodology

Jakob Nielsen · 2 min

Related Articles:

Derailed Design Critiques: Tactics for Getting Back on Track

Rachel Krause · 6 min

Facilitating UX Workshops: Study Guide

Kate Kaplan · 5 min

How to Get Stakeholders to Sketch: A Magic Formula

Kate Kaplan · 8 min

Journey Mapping for Remote Teams: A Digital Template

Sarah Gibbons · 4 min

A Guide to Service-Blueprinting Workshops

Alita Joyce · 8 min

DesignOps 101

Kate Kaplan · 6 min

• Contact sales

Start free trial

How to Prioritize With the MoSCoW Method

Do you need help prioritizing tasks when managing a project? There’s an acronym for that! It’s called the MoSCow method and it’s a great technique to help with prioritization.

What Is the MoSCoW Method?

The MoSCoW method is a technique that helps organizations prioritize what should be done first in a project. It is done in four steps that follow the acronym MoSCoW, which stands for must have, should have, could have and will not have. It’s used by anyone who needs to prioritize their work and is especially useful in project management.

The MoSCoW method can help when project planning. ProjectManager is award-winning project management software that can take the results of your MoSCow method and organize them into a project plan. Our powerful Gantt charts organize tasks, link all four task dependencies to avoid delays and can set a baseline to capture the project plan and compare it to the actual progress to ensure you stay on schedule. Get started with ProjectManager today for free.

MoSCoW Prioritization Categories

Managing a project is often about managing what you will – and won’t! – get done in the given project timeline . When there are no priorities set, projects can quickly become free-for-alls, with the loudest voices in the room getting their work prioritized over others, often not for the benefit of the project or the organization.

But there’s a different approach. It’s called the MoSCoW method for defining and managing requirements and tasks in a project . Here is a list to clarify what those requirements are:

Must-Have Requirements (M)

Another way to refer to this is as the minimum usable subset (MUS) or what the project must deliver. In other words, the project must deliver these on the target date for the project to remain on track. No delay is acceptable. It is either going to take the project off track, it’s unsafe or even illegal not to have this done by the time given in the project’s business case .

A way to understand if you’re dealing with a MUS is by asking yourself, “What happens if this isn’t met?” If the answer is, “The project fails ,” then you have a MUS. Any workaround that can be devised to continue with the project and not jeopardize its success, means this isn’t a MUS.

Should-Have Requirements (S)

This type of requirement is almost as important as a MUS, but it’s not vital to the success of the project. In other words, the project doesn’t depend on this requirement. You might not want to leave it out, as it could have a great impact on the project, but in the end, it can be done without causing any irreparable harm. Again, leaving out this requirement means a lot of work⁠ (finding a solution, changing stakeholders’ expectations, maybe experiencing some inefficiency⁠), but the project can go on.

Could-Have Requirements (C)

The difference between a should-have requirement and a could-have requirement is simply by figuring out the degree of pain that would be caused by not meeting it. That is, how will it impact the business value of the project, how many people would be affected, etc. Therefore, a could-have requirement is something you’d like but is less important than a should-have requirement. There will be an impact if it’s left out of the project, but less than the impact of a should-have requirement.

What We Will Not Have This Time (W)

Here is where you can collect those requirements that are not feasible for a specific release. Maybe next time, but the project remains strong without them. This is a great way to avoid project scope creep . Once initiatives are placed in the not-have-time category, teams know that they’re not a priority for this go-around and can place them on the back burner and out of their mind. This allows them to focus more sharply on those requirements that are important to the project.

What Is the MoSCoW Method Used For?

The MoSCow method can be of use to anyone who has work and needs to prioritize that work to know what’s essential and what can be ignored. It’s mostly used in product development, software development and project management. In project management that helps determine which tasks, requirements, products and user stories (in agile projects) the team needs to prioritize.

How to Implement the MoSCoW Method in 3 Steps

The MoSCoW method is a valuable tool, but only if you know how to use it. Here are three steps that will help you use the MoSCoW method when prioritizing your project.

1. Gather Project Requirements

Start by identifying all project requirements . Just make a giant list and be as thorough as possible. You don’t want to leave out anything that might prove essential to the project.

2. Prioritize Project Requirements

Now go through that list and attach a letter to each, according to the MoSCoW method of M for must-have, S for should have, C could have and W for what you won’t have. This allows you to prioritize the work and know what can be put aside to focus on what’s important.

3. Track the Completion of Project Deliverables

Now that you’ve classified your requirements, you can carry out the work in a timely manner. Tracking that work ensures that you don’t miss any deadlines and that all high-priority requirements will be met.

Benefits of the MoSCoW Method

The clear benefit of using the MoSCoW method is that it provides a means to prioritize work and know what is essential to the project and what can be ignored if time and cost prevent one from completing every requirement. But there are more advantages of the MoSCoW method, some of which we list below.

Helps Ensure Stakeholder Satisfaction

Stakeholders have a vested interest in the project and the project should satisfy their expectations . The MoSCoW method helps manage stakeholders by getting them to all agree on the prioritization of requirements and, therefore, helps to resolve any conflicts that might arise over the execution of those requirements.

It’s Easy to Understand and Implement

Using the MoSCoW method identifies the priority of project requirements. This information can then be disseminated to the project team so it’s clear to everyone what must be done. Now the team understands what’s prioritized and can implement those requirements first.

Helps Teams Cut Unnecessary Costs

The MoSCoW method allows everyone on the project team to know what they have to get done first, which increases revenue by decreasing operational costs, improving productivity and increasing customer satisfaction.

Moscow Method Example

Leadership guru Susanne Madsen leads this training video on how to use the MoSCoW Method to prioritize your requirements in a project.

How ProjectManager Helps You Prioritize

ProjectManager is online project management software that can make sure your requirements are being met throughout the life cycle of the project. Because our software gives you real-time data, you’re able to meet your priorities.

Our real-time dashboard shows real-time data that is displayed over six different project metrics. These numbers are crunched and illustrated in colorful, easy-to-read graphs and charts that keep project managers keenly assessed on the progress of their priorities.

Workflow is also visualized with kanban boards that keep teams focused on their priorities. Online Gantt charts can link dependencies and teams can collaborate at the task level, adding comments, documents and images.

There’s so much more that ProjectManager offers. To get a full picture of what we can do to help you better manage your next project, try our free 30-day trial today.

Deliver your projects on time and under budget

Start planning your projects.

Project Management For Managers Assignment 6 Answers 2021

Project Management Assignment 6 Answers:- Every student are requested to submit their assignments on the knowledge of their own, we do not promote copying answers. We are providing answers just as a reference .

Q1.Plant capacity refers to 

(A) Number of machines in the plant 

(B) Size of the plant 

(C) Number of units manufactured in the given time span 

(D) Number of workers in the plant

Ans:- (C) Number of units manufactured in the given time span 

NPTEL ALL WEEK ASSIGNMENT ANSWERS:-

• Soft Skill Assignment   Answers
• Project Management For Managers   Answer
• Semiconducter Devices And Circuit Answer
• Problem Solving Through Programming In C Answer

Q2. The investment cost per unit of capacity —— as plant capacity —— respectively. 

(A) Decreases, Decreases 

(B) Increases, Increases 

(C) Decreases, Increases 

(D) Increases, Decreases

Ans:- (C) Decreases, Increases 

Q3. Which is the correct formula reflecting cost and capacity relationship? 

(A) C2 = {C1 (Q2/Q1) }^α 

(B) C1= {C2 (Q2/Q1 }^α 

(C) C2 = {C1 (Q1/Q2 }^α 

(D) C1 = {C2 (Q2/Q1) }^α

Ans:- (A) C2 = {C1 (Q2/Q1) }^α 

ALSO READ : NPTEL – Online Courses,Certificate And full details

Q4. For 5000 units, the investment is Rs.1000000. What would be the investment for 10000 units. Given α = 0.6. 

(A) 1515610 

(B) 1515717 

(C) 659754 

Ans:- (B) 1515717 

Q5. The choice of location/site is influenced by 

(A) Proximity to raw materials and markets 

(B) Availability of labour and infrastructure 

(C) Governmental policies 

(D) All of the above

Ans:- (D) All of the above

• SOFT SKILLS WEEK 5 ASSIGNMENT ANSWERS (NPTEL)

Q6. Which of the factor should not be considered in preparing the plant layout? 

(A) Proper utilization of space 

(B) Smooth flow of goods from one stage to another 

(C) Scope for expansion 

(D) Maximization of production cost 

Ans:- (C) Scope for expansion 

Q7. Decision tree evaluates 

(A) The risk 

(B) Probability of success 

(C) Potential benefits 

Q8. A decision tree is a diagram which clearly defines

(A) Potential outcomes for the collection of related choice 

(B) Potential losses 

(D) None of these

Ans:- (A) Potential outcomes for the collection of related choice 

Q9. In project management decision tree analysis allows the project manager 

(A) To compare different course of action 

(B) To compare the projects profit 

(C) To find the losses 

(D) To compare the risks

Ans:- (A) To compare different course of action 

Q10. Project Abandonment Analysis is a process that organizations should execute before making decisions 

(A) Upon halting of their projects 

(B) Upon continuation of their projects 

(C) Upon halting or continuation of their projects 

(D) None of the above

Ans:- (C) Upon halting or continuation of their projects 

JOIN US ON YOUTUBE

• Soft Skill Assignment   Answers
• Project Management For Managers   Answer

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.