This is a very unique off-road Russian minivan with sturdy axles, solid frames and a robustness built into everything. This vehicle was designed in the 1950s as a support vehicle for military forces. It is still being produced today as it was sixty years ago… And, surprisingly, it looks almost like it did in 1965! Driving it on typical Russian mud road will make you feel like a real Russian!
For a second part of our adventure, you will visit a network of underground limestone caves with an experienced caver guide. Depending on your adventurism, you can either wander in some easily accessible and beautiful cavern halls or you can search the depths of remote parts and the most challenging kilometers of a lengthy underground network!
Finally, after a long day of exploring, you will have a lovely meal of our traditional food and enjoy a blazing campfire.
Duration: 8-12 hours
Written by Moscow Local Experts! Read about what’s going on in Moscow and the best things to do and visit in Moscow during your stay.
Featured Article
Football World Cup 2018
Moscow
Set to take place between June 14 and July 15, 2018, the events of FIFA World Cup Russia will span across 12 stadiums in 11 different Russian cities. While the Confederations Cup put to test four of the completed venues, five are still a work in progress, so a significant amount of work is to be done in the next couple of months. Here’s what to expect from the main football event of 2018.
Stadiums
In the summer of 2018, eyes of football-lovers all over the world will be on Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Kazan, Sochi, Yekaterinburg, Samara, Saransk, Kaliningrad, Rostov-on-Don, Volgograd and Nizhny Novgorod. Of the 12 stadiums, that will host the 2018 World Cup, arenas in Rostov, Volgograd and Samara along with the stadiums in Nizhny Novgorod and Kaliningrad are still under construction, but they will be ready for test matches in April, 2018.
Kazan Arena, Krestovsky Stadium in St.Petersburg, Fisht Olympic Stadium in Sochi and Moscow’s Otkrytie Arena (aka Spartak Stadium) have already played host to the 2017 Confederations Cup and proved to be ready for the 2018 World Cup.
The 81,000-capacity Luzhniki stadium, the second one in Russia’s capital, is to hold the opening and final matches. All in all, Moscow is to host 12 tournament’s games with at least 16 different teams participating.
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.
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
- Kano model
- 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
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The MoSCoW method is a prioritization technique used in management, business analysis, project management, and software development to reach a common understanding with stakeholders on the importance they place on the delivery of each requirement; it is also known as MoSCoW prioritization or MoSCoW analysis.
The term MOSCOW itself is an acronym derived from the first letter of each of four prioritization categories:
M — Must have,
S — Should have,
C — Could have,
W — Won’t have.
The interstitial Os are added to make the word pronounceable. While the Os are usually in lower-case to indicate that they do not stand for anything, the all-capitals MOSCOW is also used.[citation needed]
Background[edit]
This prioritization method was developed by Dai Clegg[1] in 1994 for use in rapid application development (RAD). It was first used extensively with the dynamic systems development method (DSDM) [2] from 2002.
MoSCoW is often used with timeboxing, where a deadline is fixed so that the focus must be on the most important requirements, and is commonly used in agile software development approaches such as Scrum, rapid application development (RAD), and DSDM.
Prioritization of requirements[edit]
All requirements are important, however to deliver the greatest and most immediate business benefits early the requirements must be prioritized. Developers will initially try to deliver all the Must have, Should have and Could have requirements but the Should and Could requirements will be the first to be removed if the delivery timescale looks threatened.
The plain English meaning of the prioritization categories has value in getting customers to better understand the impact of setting a priority, compared to alternatives like High, Medium and Low.
The categories are typically understood as:[3]
- Must have
- Requirements labelled as Must have are critical to the current delivery timebox in order for it to be a success. If even one Must have requirement is not included, the project delivery should be considered a failure (note: requirements can be downgraded from Must have, by agreement with all relevant stakeholders; for example, when new requirements are deemed more important). MUST can also be considered an acronym for the Minimum Usable Subset.
- Should have
- Requirements labelled as Should have are important but not necessary for delivery in the current delivery timebox. While Should have requirements can be as important as Must have, they are often not as time-critical or there may be another way to satisfy the requirement so that it can be held back until a future delivery timebox.
- Could have
- Requirements labelled as Could have are desirable but not necessary and could improve the user experience or customer satisfaction for a little development cost. These will typically be included if time and resources permit.
- Won’t have (this time)
- Requirements labelled as Won’t have, have been agreed by stakeholders as the least-critical, lowest-payback items, or not appropriate at that time. As a result, Won’t have requirements are not planned into the schedule for the next delivery timebox. Won’t have requirements are either dropped or reconsidered for inclusion in a later timebox. (Note: occasionally the term Would like to have is used; however, that usage is incorrect, as this last priority is clearly stating something is outside the scope of delivery). (The BCS in edition 3 & 4 of the Business Analysis Book describe ‘W’ as ‘Want to have but not this time around’)
Variants[edit]
Sometimes W is used to mean wish (or would), i.e. still possible but unlikely to be included (and less likely than could). This is then distinguished from X for excluded for items which are explicitly not included.
Use in new product development[edit]
In new product development, particularly those following agile software development approaches, there is always more to do than there is time or funding to permit (hence the need for prioritization).
For example, should a team have too many potential epics (i.e., high-level stories) for the next release of their product, they could use the MoSCoW method to select which epics are Must have, which Should have, and so on; the minimum viable product (or MVP) would be all those epics marked as Must have.[4] Oftentimes, a team will find that, even after identifying their MVP, they have too much work for their expected capacity. In such cases, the team could then use the MoSCoW method to select which features (or stories, if that is the subset of epics in their organisation) are Must have, Should have, and so on; the minimum marketable features (or MMF) would be all those marked as Must have.[5] If there is sufficient capacity after selecting the MVP or MMF, the team could then plan to include Should have and even Could have items too.[6]
Criticism[edit]
Criticism of the MoSCoW method includes:
- Does not help decide between multiple requirements within the same priority.
- Lack of rationale around how to rank competing requirements: why something is must rather than should.[7][8]
- Ambiguity over timing, especially on the Won’t have category: whether it is not in this release or not ever.[7]
- Potential for political focus on building new features over technical improvements (such as refactoring).[8]
Other methods[edit]
Other methods used for product prioritization include:
- RICE scoring model
- PriX method prioritization method
- Story mapping prioritization method
- Value vs. effort prioritization method
- Kano model prioritization method
- Opportunity scoring prioritization method
- The product tree prioritization method
- Cost of delay prioritization method
- Buy a feature prioritization method
References[edit]
- ^ Clegg, Dai; Barker, Richard (1994). Case Method Fast-Track: A RAD Approach. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-201-62432-8.
- ^ Bittner, Kurt; Spence, Ian (2002-08-30). Use Case Modeling. Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 978-0-201-70913-1.
- ^ «MoSCoW Analysis (6.1.5.2)». A Guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge (2 ed.). International Institute of Business Analysis. 2009. ISBN 978-0-9811292-1-1.
- ^ Wernham, Brian (2012). Agile Project Management for Government. Maitland and Strong. ISBN 978-0957223400.
- ^ Davis, Barbee (2012). Agile Practices for Waterfall Projects: Shifting Processes for Competitive Advantage. Project Management Professional Series. J. Ross Publishing. ISBN 978-1604270839.
- ^ Cline, Alan (2015). Agile Development in the Real World. Apress. ISBN 978-1484216798.
- ^ a b Wiegers, Karl; Beatty, Joy (2013). Software Requirements. Washington, USA: Microsoft Press. pp. 320–321. ISBN 978-0-7356-7966-5.
- ^ a b McIntyre, John (October 20, 2016). «Moscow or Kano — how do you prioritize?». HotPMO!. Retrieved October 23, 2016.
External links[edit]
- RFC 2119 (Requirement Levels) This RFC defines requirement levels to be used in formal documentation. It is commonly used in contracts and other legal documentation. Noted here as the wording is similar but not necessarily the meaning.
- Buffered MoSCoW Rules This essay proposes the use of a modified set of MoSCoW rules that accomplish the objectives of prioritizing deliverables and providing a degree of assurance as a function of the uncertainty of the underlying estimates.
- MoSCoW Prioritisation Steps and tips for prioritisation following the DSDM MoSCoW rules.
Contrasts: 12th century monasteries and some of the tallest skyscrapers in Europe can be found side-by-side in this complex and
captivating city. The diversity of this mega-city is astounding. Only a few steps away from the solemn red facade of the Kremlin and
the sounds of righteous church bells, a buzzing night scene and alternative-fashion boutiques can be found.
Culture: In Moscow only the best goes. Be it a theatre, restaurant or gallery, the standards are certain to be world-class. The Bolshoi
ballet company is reputed to be even better than the Mariinsky’s and “MMOMA” (Moscow’s museum of modern art) exhibits works
of art as profound as any that could be found in the famed MOMA.
Convenience: Unlike the rest of Russia, it’s easy enough to get by with just English in Moscow and, driving excepted, it is surprisingly
safe: the murder rate is lower than in some of America’s major cities.