8 min read • Guide 567 of 877
Priority Management in Development Teams
Clear priorities prevent context switching, reduce arguments about what to work on, and ensure the most valuable work gets done first. GitScrum's priority labels, sprint goals, and backlog ordering help teams maintain clear focus on what matters most. The key is having a system everyone understands and follows consistently.
Prioritization Frameworks
| Framework | Best For | How It Works |
|---|---|---|
| Eisenhower | Daily/weekly | Urgent vs Important matrix |
| MoSCoW | Release planning | Must/Should/Could/Won't |
| WSJF | Agile teams | Value ÷ Duration score |
| RICE | Feature decisions | Reach × Impact × Confidence ÷ Effort |
| Stack Ranking | Simple clarity | Force order, no ties |
Priority Levels Definition
PRIORITY LEVEL SYSTEM
PRIORITY DEFINITIONS:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ P1 - Critical │
│ ├── Production outage or major bug │
│ ├── Security vulnerability │
│ ├── Blocking customer deployment │
│ └── Regulatory/compliance deadline │
│ Response: Drop everything, fix now │
│ SLA: Resolution within hours │
│ │
│ P2 - High │
│ ├── Significant bug affecting users │
│ ├── Key feature for upcoming release │
│ ├── Major customer commitment │
│ └── Strategic initiative │
│ Response: Next sprint, protected capacity │
│ SLA: Resolution within 1-2 sprints │
│ │
│ P3 - Medium │
│ ├── Normal feature development │
│ ├── Bug affecting some users │
│ ├── Technical improvement │
│ └── Enhancement requests │
│ Response: Planned when capacity allows │
│ SLA: Resolution within 2-4 sprints │
│ │
│ P4 - Low │
│ ├── Nice-to-have features │
│ ├── Cosmetic issues │
│ ├── Edge case bugs │
│ └── Future considerations │
│ Response: Backlog, may not be done │
│ SLA: No commitment │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Eisenhower Matrix
URGENT VS IMPORTANT MATRIX
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ URGENT NOT URGENT │
│ ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────┐ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ IMPOR- │ DO FIRST │ SCHEDULE │ │
│ TANT │ │ │ │
│ │ • Production │ • Feature dev │ │
│ │ outages │ • Tech debt │ │
│ │ • Security │ • Architecture │ │
│ │ issues │ • Process │ │
│ │ • Customer │ improvement │ │
│ │ blockers │ • Training │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────┤ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ NOT │ DELEGATE │ ELIMINATE │ │
│ IMPOR- │ OR BATCH │ OR DEPRIO │ │
│ TANT │ │ │ │
│ │ • Most emails │ • Busy work │ │
│ │ • Status │ • Unnecessary │ │
│ │ requests │ meetings │ │
│ │ • Routine │ • Scope creep │ │
│ │ admin │ • Over- │ │
│ │ │ engineering │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ └─────────────────┴─────────────────┘ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
WSJF Scoring
WEIGHTED SHORTEST JOB FIRST
WSJF FORMULA:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ WSJF = Cost of Delay ÷ Job Duration │
│ │
│ Where Cost of Delay = │
│ User Value + Time Criticality + Risk/OE │
│ │
│ Scale each factor 1-10: │
│ ├── User Value: How much users want this │
│ ├── Time Criticality: Urgency of delivery │
│ └── Risk/Opportunity: Cost of not doing │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
WSJF CALCULATION EXAMPLE:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Feature User Time Risk CoD Size WSJF Priority │
│ ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ Feature A 8 5 3 16 3 5.3 2 │
│ Feature B 5 8 7 20 8 2.5 4 │
│ Feature C 7 6 4 17 2 8.5 1 │
│ Feature D 6 4 5 15 5 3.0 3 │
│ │
│ Winner: Feature C (highest WSJF = 8.5) │
│ Reason: High value relative to small size │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Stack Ranking
FORCE RANKING APPROACH
STACK RANKING RULES:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 1. No two items can have same priority │
│ 2. Order from 1 to N (most to least) │
│ 3. Capacity determines cut-off line │
│ 4. Items below line don't happen this sprint │
│ 5. Re-rank when priorities change │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
BACKLOG STACK RANK:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Rank Item Points │
│ ────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ 1 Payment flow bug fix 3 ──┐ │
│ 2 User dashboard feature 8 │ │
│ 3 API rate limiting 5 │ │
│ 4 Mobile responsive fix 3 │ │
│ 5 Search improvements 5 ├──│ Sprint capacity: 25
│ 6 Email notification system 13 │ │
│ 7 Admin export feature 5 ──┘ │
│ --- CUT LINE (25 points) -------- │
│ 8 Dark mode support 8 ──┐ │
│ 9 Social login 5 ├──│ Maybe next sprint
│ 10 Analytics dashboard 13 ──┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Handling Priority Conflicts
PRIORITY CONFLICT RESOLUTION
WHEN STAKEHOLDERS DISAGREE:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Step 1: Gather data │
│ ├── User impact numbers │
│ ├── Revenue/cost implications │
│ ├── Deadline constraints │
│ └── Dependencies │
│ │
│ Step 2: Apply objective framework │
│ └── Score items using WSJF or RICE │
│ │
│ Step 3: If still tied │
│ ├── Product Owner has final say on features │
│ ├── Tech Lead has final say on tech decisions │
│ └── Escalate to manager if deadlocked │
│ │
│ Step 4: Document and communicate │
│ └── Record decision and rationale │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
"EVERYTHING IS P1" RESPONSE:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Show the math: │
│ │
│ "We have 40 points capacity this sprint. │
│ These 8 items total 75 points. │
│ We can do ~4 items. │
│ │
│ Which 4 are truly most important? │
│ What happens if the other 4 wait 2 weeks?" │
│ │
│ Make trade-offs explicit and visible │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Mid-Sprint Priority Changes
HANDLING PRIORITY DISRUPTIONS
CHANGE REQUEST POLICY:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Question 1: Is this a true emergency? │
│ ├── Production outage → Yes │
│ ├── Security vulnerability → Yes │
│ ├── Customer deadline (known in advance) → No │
│ └── Stakeholder changed mind → No │
│ │
│ If YES (true emergency): │
│ 1. Stop current work │
│ 2. Swarm on emergency │
│ 3. Current sprint scope adjusts automatically │
│ 4. Document impact │
│ │
│ If NO (not emergency): │
│ 1. Add to backlog │
│ 2. Prioritize for next sprint │
│ 3. Discuss why it feels urgent │
│ 4. Address root cause │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SPRINT PROTECTION RULES:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Protected: Sprint commitment │
│ ├── Team agreed to these items │
│ └── Changing disrupts flow and morale │
│ │
│ Flexible: Scope within items │
│ └── Can reduce scope to add urgent item │
│ │
│ Buffer: Reserve 10-15% for unexpected │
│ └── Planned capacity for unplanned work │
│ │
│ Tracking: Count priority changes │
│ └── High count = planning problem to fix │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Best Practices
- Define priority levels clearly and consistently
- Use objective frameworks to reduce bias
- Force rank — no "everything is P1"
- Product Owner owns priority with team input
- Protect sprint commitments from disruption
- Build buffer for unexpected work
- Track priority changes to improve planning
- Communicate trade-offs to stakeholders
Anti-Patterns
✗ No clear priority system
✗ "Everything is Priority 1"
✗ Changing priorities every day
✗ Loudest stakeholder wins
✗ No protection for committed work
✗ Developers choosing what to work on