Task Prioritization Methods

Not all tasks are equal. Good prioritization ensures teams work on the most valuable things first, avoid wasting time on low-impact work, and make trade-offs consciously. This guide covers practical prioritization methods for development teams.

Prioritization Methods

MoSCoW Method

Categorizing Priority

MOSCOW PRIORITIZATION
═════════════════════

CATEGORIES:
─────────────────────────────────────
MUST HAVE
├── Critical for success
├── System won't work without it
├── Regulatory/legal requirement
├── Core value proposition
└── Non-negotiable for release

SHOULD HAVE
├── Important but not critical
├── Significant value
├── Could work around if needed
├── High priority after Musts
└── Target for release

COULD HAVE
├── Nice to have
├── Adds value but not essential
├── Only if time allows
├── First to cut if behind
└── Included if capacity exists

WON'T HAVE (THIS TIME)
├── Explicitly out of scope
├── Prevents scope creep
├── Acknowledged as desired
├── Deferred to future
└── Not in this release

USAGE:
─────────────────────────────────────
Release planning:
├── All Musts = minimum viable release
├── Musts + most Shoulds = target
├── Add Coulds if ahead
├── Won't = clear expectations
└── Stakeholders see trade-offs

EXAMPLE:
─────────────────────────────────────
User Authentication Release:

MUST:
├── Email/password login
├── Password reset
├── Session management

SHOULD:
├── Google OAuth
├── Remember me
├── Account lockout

COULD:
├── GitHub OAuth
├── Two-factor authentication
├── Login history

WON'T (v1):
├── SAML/SSO
├── Biometric login
├── Passwordless login

Value vs Effort

Matrix Prioritization

VALUE VS EFFORT MATRIX
══════════════════════

        │  LOW EFFORT    │  HIGH EFFORT
────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────────
HIGH    │  QUICK WINS    │  MAJOR PROJECTS
VALUE   │  Do First!     │  Plan Carefully
        │  (Best ROI)    │  (Significant work)
────────┼─────────────────┼──────────────────
LOW     │  FILL-INS      │  AVOID
VALUE   │  Maybe Later   │  Don't Do
        │  (If time)     │  (Waste of effort)

PRIORITIZATION ORDER:
─────────────────────────────────────
1. Quick Wins: High value, low effort
   Do these first—best ROI

2. Major Projects: High value, high effort
   Worth doing, need planning

3. Fill-ins: Low value, low effort
   Only if capacity exists

4. Avoid: Low value, high effort
   Say no—opportunity cost too high

PLOTTING ITEMS:
─────────────────────────────────────
For each backlog item:
├── Rate Value: 1-10 (customer impact, revenue, urgency)
├── Rate Effort: 1-10 (time, complexity, risk)
├── Plot on matrix
├── Prioritize quadrant by quadrant
└── Visual makes trade-offs clear

TEAM EXERCISE:
─────────────────────────────────────
1. List all backlog items
2. Team rates effort (they know)
3. PO rates value (they know)
4. Plot on whiteboard/Miro
5. Discuss and adjust
6. Priority emerges visually

RICE Scoring

Objective Prioritization

RICE FRAMEWORK
══════════════

COMPONENTS:
─────────────────────────────────────
R = REACH
├── How many users affected per time period?
├── Number of customers/transactions/etc.
├── Quantify: "1000 users/month"

I = IMPACT
├── How much will it impact each user?
├── Scale: 3 = massive, 2 = high, 1 = medium,
│         0.5 = low, 0.25 = minimal
├── Qualitative but standardized

C = CONFIDENCE
├── How sure are we of estimates?
├── 100% = high confidence
├── 80% = medium
├── 50% = low
├── Reduces score for uncertainty

E = EFFORT
├── Person-months of work
├── Include all roles (dev, design, QA)
├── Higher effort = lower priority

FORMULA:
─────────────────────────────────────
RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort

Higher score = Higher priority

EXAMPLE:
─────────────────────────────────────
Feature A: New checkout flow
├── Reach: 10,000 users/month
├── Impact: 2 (high—conversion)
├── Confidence: 80%
├── Effort: 3 person-months
└── RICE = (10000 × 2 × 0.8) / 3 = 5,333

Feature B: Dark mode
├── Reach: 15,000 users/month
├── Impact: 0.5 (low—nice to have)
├── Confidence: 100%
├── Effort: 1 person-month
└── RICE = (15000 × 0.5 × 1.0) / 1 = 7,500

Prioritize: B then A (higher RICE)

WHEN TO USE RICE:
─────────────────────────────────────
├── Comparing many features
├── Need objective criteria
├── Stakeholder disagreements
├── Data-driven decisions
└── Removes politics from prioritization

Stack Ranking

Simple Ordering

STACK RANKING
═════════════

CONCEPT:
─────────────────────────────────────
One ordered list.
No ties allowed.
Most important at top.

HOW TO BUILD:
─────────────────────────────────────
1. Start with two items
   "Which is more important?"
   Put winner on top.

2. Take next item
   "Where does this fit?"
   Insert in order.

3. Repeat for all items
   Binary comparisons throughout.
   Final list is fully ordered.

BENEFITS:
─────────────────────────────────────
├── Simple—no frameworks needed
├── Clear—no ambiguity
├── Forces decisions—no "both P1"
├── Easy to follow—start at top
└── No gaming—can't all be high priority

EXAMPLE:
─────────────────────────────────────
Sprint Backlog (Stack Ranked):
1. Fix payment bug (blocking sales)
2. User login flow (release blocker)
3. Dashboard improvements (customer request)
4. Search feature (roadmap item)
5. Performance optimization (tech debt)
6. Dark mode (nice to have)

Rule: Work on #1 first.
Only move to #2 when #1 is done.
Stack is the priority.

WHEN TO USE:
─────────────────────────────────────
├── Small backlogs (<30 items)
├── Simple prioritization needed
├── Single decision-maker
├── Sprint-level planning
└── When frameworks are overkill

Prioritization Process

Involving the Right People

PRIORITIZATION ROLES
════════════════════

WHO DECIDES WHAT:
─────────────────────────────────────
PRODUCT OWNER:
├── Final priority decision
├── Value assessment
├── Stakeholder balance
├── Trade-off calls
└── Owns the backlog order

STAKEHOLDERS:
├── Business value input
├── Urgency context
├── Customer insights
├── Strategic alignment
└── Influence, don't dictate

TEAM:
├── Effort estimates
├── Technical feasibility
├── Dependency identification
├── Risk assessment
└── Reality check on priorities

USERS:
├── Needs validation
├── Pain point severity
├── Feature feedback
├── Usage data
└── Ground truth

PROCESS:
─────────────────────────────────────
1. Gather input from all sources
2. PO synthesizes into priority
3. Team reviews for feasibility
4. Stakeholders acknowledge trade-offs
5. PO finalizes
6. Team executes in priority order

GitScrum Prioritization

Priority Features

GITSCRUM PRIORITIZATION
═══════════════════════

PRIORITY FIELD:
─────────────────────────────────────
Task → Priority
├── Critical
├── High
├── Medium
├── Low
└── Custom levels available

ORDERING:
─────────────────────────────────────
Backlog → Drag to reorder
├── Stack rank visually
├── Top = highest priority
├── Drag and drop
└── Saved automatically

PRIORITY VIEWS:
─────────────────────────────────────
Filter by:
├── Priority level
├── Custom fields
├── Labels (MoSCoW tags)
└── Focus on high priority

SCORING:
─────────────────────────────────────
Custom fields for:
├── Value score
├── Effort score
├── RICE components
├── Calculated priority
└── Data-driven ordering

BACKLOG REFINEMENT:
─────────────────────────────────────
Refinement session:
├── Review priority order
├── Discuss trade-offs
├── Adjust based on new info
├── Keep backlog healthy
└── Regular maintenance

Best Practices

For Prioritization

1. One decision-maker — PO has final call
2. Objective criteria — Not who's loudest
3. Regular review — Priorities change
4. Visible trade-offs — What we're NOT doing
5. Focus on value — Outcomes over output

Anti-Patterns

PRIORITIZATION MISTAKES:
✗ Everything is "P1"
✗ Decision by committee
✗ Never reprioritizing
✗ No clear owner
✗ Ignoring team input on effort
✗ Politics over value
✗ No trade-off acknowledgment
✗ Changing priority constantly

Related Solutions

• Prioritizing backlog items effectively
• Creating effective sprint backlogs
• Managing project scope effectively