How to Prioritize Features from a UX Point of View

A major challenge for a UX designer during the initial phase of app development or revamp project is to find out the list of the features to develop and prioritize those according to user demand. There are several techniques that can assist UX designers in making this an easy task. In this article, I shall discuss some of these techniques, with examples.

MoSCoW Method

If you are running a project that has a very strict and short deadline, this technique has been proven to be the most effective and efficient. MoSCoW method was invented by an employee at Oracle and are now being used globally to identify prioritize feature list within the shortest possible time. MoSCoW is an acronym that stands for:

M= Must Have

S= Should Have

C= Could Have

W= Won’t Have

This method helps decision-making faster because the Must-haves and the Won’t haves are non-negotiable. The managers only must discuss the should-haves and the could-haves to prioritize more from those two lists. This method is very helpful for UX researchers to broadly categorize the features as per importance, but it does not help much in deciding which feature to build first and which to next. In order to get that item-level prioritization, managers must then run one or more of the ranking methods.

Simple Ranking Method

There are multiple ranking methods available. The simplest ranking method is putting a number on a 1 to 5 scale, or a 1 to 10 scale, or just a continuous numerical progression, beside each of the features. In most cases, this ranking is completely subjective and based on human judgment. The biggest dilemma that a UX researcher faces with this method is how to decide the participants for the ranking. If the participants are from the business teams, then they will always prioritize the items that help the company to get a better result in the KPIs. On the other hand, the real users may prioritize items that are not that much helpful for the business KPIs. In order to solve this dilemma, the UX manager must conduct raking with both user groups and then combine the result to get a ranking that helps both groups to achieve their objectives. This method yields a fast result but may not be always accurate.

Bubble Sorting

The bubble sorting method for ranking items is more effective than simple ranking, however, it is time-consuming and a little complex. The participants do a lot of back and forth to finally arrive at a concrete prioritized list. In this method, all items are written in individual cards or in a piece of paper, then the participants are given two items at a time. The participant makes a choice on which one among the two is more important. This comparison keeps on going until the last item is prioritized and sorted. Although this method returns a better ranking, it is often not recommended for projects that have a very tight schedule.

Hundred Dollar Method

This method is a very interesting method for business managers to prioritize the items that they want to develop. With this method, the researcher gives imaginary hundred dollars (or real notes if they want to gamify the exercise in a workshop setting) to each participant, and then asks the participants to assign the money to each of the items they want to develop. The more money assigned to an item gets more priority. The research is not limited to hundred dollars all the time though, the amount can be bigger if there are too many items, but it is recommended not to use this method if the requirement list is too large. At the end of the money assigning, the value of the items is counted, and the rank is assigned according to the monetary value that was assigned to each of the requirements. This method is suggested when there are very specific, and a limited number of items in the list, and the resources to develop the features are limited too.

Impact-Effort Matrix

This method is another four-quadrant prioritization technique that focuses on the importance of the requirement as a basis of the decision. In this method, the participants sort the items based on impact and the effort needed to develop the requirement. The Impact is often calculated from both financial and non-financial terms. Nonfinancial terms refer to the regulatory environment, legal obligation, goodwill maintenance, competitive pressure, etc. The effort is often measured based on man-days needed to develop, inter-system dependency, CapEx investment needed, etc. Items that have high impact but need low effort, are done right away, on the other hand, items having a low impact but asking for high effort are usually dropped from the development list. Requirements that have high impact but need high effort too, are taken as long-term projects based on the business viability of the impact. And lastly, the items that need low effort, and have a low impact are often parked on the observation list. In case someday, these items grow to have a high impact, they are done right away.

FDV (Feasibility-Desirability-Viability) Scorecard

During the early 2000s, IDEO invented this method. FDV is also a ranking method that ranks requirements based on feasibility, desirability, and viability. Feasibility refers to the degree to which the requirement can be technically developed. Desirability refers to the degree to which the user desires the feature to be available in the application. Finally, viability means how much benefit the feature will bring to the business if built. The UX researcher creates a table with a row for each of the requirements, and three columns for feasibility, desirability, and viability. Then the participants are asked to assign a number in each category for each requirement on a 1 to 10 scale, where 10 is the most important and 1 is the least. Once all items are marked, a total column adds up all three and the result is a sorted list.