journey's edge pocket tool

• Home & Kitchen
• Kitchen & Dining
• Kitchen Tools
• Kitchen Knives
• Kitchen Knife Sets

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Journey's Edge Swiss Everything 13 Function Pocket Tool with Led Flashlight Multi Knife

About this item.

• Functions include: Stainless Steel LED flashlight Requires three AG1 batteries (included) Large blade Length: 2.125 inches
• Saw blade Length: 2.5 inchesScissors Length: 2 inchesCan opener Length: .75 inches
• Slotted driver & Bottle opener Length: .875Key ringPhillips screwdriver Length: 1.25 inchesFile Length: 1.25 inchesAwl Length: 1.25 inches
• Corkscrew Length: 1.125 inchesLeather punch Length: 1.25 inches

Customers also viewed these products

Product description

This amazing all-in-one multi-tool fits perfectly in your pocket or in the provided Belt Pouch with Velcro Strap, or even on your key chain! Also has loads of functionality! 13 different tools make this Journey's Edge Swiss Everything 13 in 1 Multi Pocket Tool Knife with LED Flashlight a must have for anyone on the go. You'll have the perfect tool for nearly any situation conveniently stored on your person at all times! This exceptionally built and elegantly styled knife earns its name. Whether you are looking for a knife for everyday use, heading to the great outdoors, or looking for the perfect gift, this knife is your go to solution

Product details

• Is Discontinued By Manufacturer ‏ : ‎ No
• Product Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 12.7 x 17.78 x 3.81 cm; 181.44 g
• Date First Available ‏ : ‎ 7 August 2012
• Manufacturer ‏ : ‎ Trademark Global
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B002IU60Y0
• Item model number ‏ : ‎ 80-01213
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 181 g
• Item Dimensions LxWxH ‏ : ‎ 12.7 x 17.8 x 3.8 Centimeters

Looking for specific info?

Customer reviews.

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 48% 25% 13% 7% 6% 48%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 48% 25% 13% 7% 6% 25%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 48% 25% 13% 7% 6% 13%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 48% 25% 13% 7% 6% 7%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 48% 25% 13% 7% 6% 6%
• Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top review from India

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Top reviews from other countries

• About Amazon
• Press Releases
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell under Amazon Accelerator
• Protect and Build Your Brand
• Amazon Global Selling
• Supply to Amazon
• Become an Affiliate
• Fulfilment by Amazon
• Advertise Your Products
• Amazon Pay on Merchants
• Your Account
• Returns Centre
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• 100% Purchase Protection
• Amazon App Download
• Conditions of Use & Sale
• Privacy Notice
• Interest-Based Ads

• Tools & Home Improvement
• Power & Hand Tools
• Multitools & Accessories

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Journey's Edge Multi-Function Stainless Steel Golfer's Tool Keychain with Ball Marker, Divot Repair, Club Groove Cleaner, Score Pin, Cutter, Scrub Brush

About this item.

• 8 Useful Functions in One Compact Tool
• Stainless Steel Construction
• Attached Key Ring for Added Convenience
• Ball Marker and Pen Included
• The Perfect Addition to Any Golf Bag

Similar item to consider

You might also like

Product Description

This multi-function golfer's tool from Journey's Edge features 8 functions that are specifically designed for on-course play, so that you can carry less while on the move. Functions include: scoring pen, ball/club cleaning brush, magnetic ball marker, cleat tightener, divot repair, pocket knife all on a key ring

Product information

Technical details, additional information, looking for specific info, customer reviews.

• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 5 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 4 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 3 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 2 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
• 5 star 4 star 3 star 2 star 1 star 1 star 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Registry & Gift List
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

• Personal Finance
• Frugal Living
• Cars and Transportation
• Credit Cards
• Debt Management
• Financial News
• Real Estate and Housing
• More in Personal Finance
• Entertainment
• Food and Drink
• Green Living
• Health and Beauty
• More in Frugal Living
• Career Building
• Education & Training
• Entrepreneurship
• Extra Income
• Job Hunting
• More in Career & Income
• Consumer Affairs
• General Tips
• Organization
• Personal Development
• Productivity
• More in Life Hacks
• In The Press

Journey's Edge 13-Function Swiss Pocket Tool for $4 + free shipping

• Feed: Deal News
• Original article
• Top Deal Sites

Become a fan

Enter your email address to subscribe:

• Most Popular

Knife features:

• LED flashlight
• Large blade
• Slotted driver
• Bottle opener
• Phillips screwdriver
• Leather punch

Sales Stats

Purchaser experience.

• 6% first woot
• 4% second woot
• 24% < 10 woots
• 38% < 25 woots
• 28% ≥ 25 woots

Purchaser Seniority

• 4% joined today
• 1% one week old
• 6% one month old
• 49% one year old
• 39% > one year old

Quantity Breakdown

• 48% bought 1
• 17% bought 2
• 35% bought 3

Percentage of Sales Per Hour

Woots by state, best sellers.

It appears that your cart is currently empty

Journey's Edge Swiss Everything 13 Function Pocket Tool With Led Flashlight Multi Knife

Availability:

Collections: Bags & Packs , Picnic Sets , Sale , Tents

Product type: Limit collection

Vendor: China

Add to the wishlist

Enter your email and we will inform you when the goods appear in stock

The products we offer are certified

Extreme sport is more than just a hobby. Comfortable clothes will protect you from possible danger.Decrease the number of possible accidents and enjoy the sport you have chosen, in its full. We have already proved our reliability proposing goods of premium quality only.

Forget all your doubts and enjoy every minute you will find for extreme. Extreme sport is more than just a hobby. Comfortable clothes will protect you from possible danger.Decrease the number of possible accidents and enjoy the sport you have chosen, in its full. We have already proved our reliability proposing goods of premium quality only.

The most comfortable and safety clothing for your hobby is presented in our store. You have made the right choice.Decrease the number of possible accidents and enjoy the sport you have chosen, in its full.

We have foreseen all your needs. The most comfortable and safety clothing for your hobby is presented in our store. You have made the right choice.Decrease the number of possible accidents and enjoy the sport you have chosen, in its full.

Comfortable clothes will protect you from possible danger. Modern design and latest safety technologies are united to take care of each part of your body still providing easy movement.

Posted 2024-08-26 09:50

Contact Information:

Journey's Edge - Pocket Tool - $10 (Fargo)

QR Code Link to This Post

post id: 7779020661

posted: 2024-08-26 09:50

updated: 2024-09-23 07:04

♥ best of [ ? ]

refresh the page.

Journey's Edge - Pocket Tool - tools - by owner - sale - craigslist

Journey's Edge - 13 Function - Pocket Tool - With Carrying Case.

The Most Popular Prioritization Techniques and Methods: MoSCoW, RICE, KANO model, Walking Skeleton, and others

• 15 min read
• Business ,   UX Design
• Published: 16 May, 2019
• No comments Share

A brief comparison of popular methods of task prioritization

MoSCoW method: the simplest and most widespread approach for small products

MoSCoW is an acronym that stands for “Must, Should, Could, Won’t.” It’s arguably one of the simplest methods to evaluate the relative importance of each task. Being a part of the Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM) techniques, which helps companies adopt business agility practices , it’s also very popular among waterfall-based enterprises.

The MoSCoW method requires breaking down all story points into four groups. Must: These features are mandatory. Neglect any of them and the current sprint most likely fails. Should: Features here can be described as great to have, but not top priority. Simply put, they don’t have much impact on delivery success now, though eventually, they must be implemented. Could: These are small-scale improvements that don’t take considerable resources, but they aren’t essential. Their absence won’t affect almost anything, or at least wouldn’t do any harm to the release. Won’t: These items are of the lowest importance. They don’t match stakeholders’ current challenges, needs, and requirements. Thus, they may be easily omitted or rescheduled for future releases.

Pros of MoSCoW prioritization

Given such operational friendliness, the benefits of MoSCoW prioritization are quite obvious. Simplicity. The MoSCoW method doesn’t require deep understanding or complicated calculations. So, it’s easy for a team to keep in line with the whole prioritization process using a simple language. This promotes mutual understanding between team and stakeholders. Scheduling with MoSCoW is fast and transparent. Agility for scheduling and implementation. Since this prioritization method has no strict time limits, except for the Must-have category, it allows for changing suitable timeframes per feature. That way, a team can adjust feature deliveries or releases on favorable terms.

Cons of the MoSCoW approach

With such simplicity come some challenges. Lacks a clear consistency of implementation. Though the priorities may be easily set, the MoSCoW method does not introduce any sequencing of tasks and lacks planning. At the end of the day, it might put the entire release at risk. Lack of big picture focus. With MoSCoW suggesting the most-to-least critical requirements or features, the stakeholders still might not see a full picture of priorities. If the focus must be concentrated on key features that are important for a business, MoSCoW may mislead the team. So, the stakeholders have to allocate business goals by themselves. Creates imbalance between the required and slightly desirable. Often, the blurred lines between categories make it hard to decide on features that go into, say, Must and Should lists. That’s why floating tasks between all categories should be approached with great thought and care.

When to use MoSCoW

The MoSCoW method is simple but it’s not always effective. For instance, if you have a complicated backlog with many time-sensitive releases, consider choosing other methods or complementing MoSCoW with 2 or 3 more comprehensive approaches.

On the other hand, it’s quite reasonable to use MoSCoW with small products that don’t have many technical limitations and dependencies.

Kano Model: customer-driven prioritization

The Kano technique was created by the Japanese researcher Noriaki Kano in the 1980s. In a nutshell, it’s based on different levels of users’ satisfaction with a product’s features and behavior.

There’s a large variety of Kano model implementations. The most fundamental and go-to version suggests dividing user backlog points by five criteria: Must-be, Attractive, One-Dimensional, Indifferent, and Reverse. As the method revolves around user satisfaction and is based on user opinion, it requires conducting Kano surveys and user interviews before prioritization practice. Must-be: The customers consider the product functional only if these features are included. One-dimensional: These features have a dual nature. While they aren’t a must for a product to work, they remain extremely desirable to customers. The category is closely related to foreseeing customer needs and expectation. When a product includes what customers would be happy to get, they stay satisfied. But if you fail to deliver them, users are more likely to experience disappointment. Attractive: Features in this section add extra satisfaction, or even enjoyment and gratification. Basically, they are unexpected but nice-to-have features. On the other hand, their absence doesn’t leave customers dissatisfied. Indifferent: The attributes here represent the least possible impact on customers satisfaction. In a nutshell, they have no value. Reverse: The features falling into this category are considered to be the most annoying. Their presence has a rather negative effect on customer satisfaction. Alternatively, when they are not introduced, customers consider it a plus.

Pros of the Kano model

Highlighting the potential strengths and weaknesses of a product. One of the most valuable features of the Kano model is user feedback. The results of the Kano questionnaire help realize the future product’s advantages and disadvantages. It allows product managers to specify the product/market fit early in development. Ranking product features by their value for customers. The Kano model helps rate the product properties from the value proposition standpoint and tailor it to user needs.

Cons of the Kano model

Provides no details on resources required. Although the Kano model gives a more comprehensive picture on how to establish the priorities from the customer vantage point, it doesn’t account for time and costs that are necessary for a given release or a particular feature. Time-consuming practice. Since the Kano model originally involves the Kano survey – which may target a lot of potential customers – the efforts to process and estimate the results might be quite significant. It slows down the time-to-market and, consequently, distracts the team from execution. Restricted by customers’ opinion and knowledge. Given that the Kano model appreciates the level of customer satisfaction, it still has pitfalls from the other side: The backlog may introduce a plain wishlist and be limited to expectations of customers who have no technical background. This caveat can lead to unstable releases. To make Kano efficient, you have to discuss the technical concepts separately.

When to use the Kano Model

If you are a startup striving to generate user feedback for the initial UX design, it will be quite efficient to submit your concept in tandem with the Kano survey. Given that it’s always better to demonstrate than describe, the combination of a prototype and the questionnaire will help distill the value. But if your product entails technical complexity and various hidden blockers, you should balance Kano or completely substitute it with more specific methods.

RICE: balanced, but time-consuming method for mature products

The RICE method is one of those involving calculations. It provides a rate-scoring model for setting priorities.

RICE stands for Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort. These are the factors to estimate each feature separately when prioritizing. Reach usually reflects the number of people who will use the feature or be able to use it in a particular time period. It’s assessed with real product metrics such as Daily or Monthly Active Users. E.g. if you’re assessing the improvements to a customer support page, the number of users visiting this page per month will be your reach metric. Impact shows the feature contribution to the overall product promotion. To align them with each other, a multiple-choice scale is recommended: 3 for “massive impact,” 2 for “high,” 1 for “medium,” 0.5 for “low,” and finally 0.25 for “minimal.” Confidence . Based on the knowledge obtained, you estimate how sure you are about the given feature benefit. Here, it is also recommended to use multiple-choice scale: 100 percent for “high confidence,” 80  for “medium,” and 50 for “low.”  Anything below will mean a shot in the dark. Effort shows the time taken by product, design, and engineering teams. This can be calculated in “person-months,” and to round it up to whole numbers usually half a month is taken as a minimum. Upon obtaining rates from each of the categories, the following formula is applied: RICE= Reach*Impact*Confidence/Effort The bigger the rate is, the higher the priority.

Pros of RICE

Gives a comprehensive picture. The inclusion of such versatile factors helps formulate a fuller vision on the product and estimate its success and further promotion from different points of view. Actionable metrics and numbers. This prioritization technique is mostly based on numbers and KPIs, which is the true evidence of product progression. The numbers can be later estimated to make improvements in further releases. Appreciating the customer value. The used metrics concentrate on user engagement, and can also take into account the level of their satisfaction. That is to say, the RICE method considers user experience very important.

Cons of RICE

Time-consuming. The approach involves a lot of calculation. To take into account all metrics equally, grade the rates, and do calculations per each backlog item requires a lot of time. Depends on data that you may not have. That said, the RICE method may stretch the release time. When the product or a feature is time-sensitive, but the data hasn’t been calculated yet, you either use another method or move the deadline. Not clear about responsibility. Since the given prioritization method involves grading such factors as impact and confidence, the team faces the challenge of taking responsibility for these decisions. Consequently, it isn’t obvious who is in charge of that. Are these addressed within the whole team, or does a product owner/manager do it alone? The lines here are still blurred.

When to use

The RICE prioritization is a very efficient technique that allows for taking a comprehensive look at the product from multiple sides. However, it is not applicable in every prioritization case. For instance, rating via RICE looks reasonable when the application has been rolled out and started its product lifecycle . As the method is quite metrics-intensive, you must have at least some data at hand. So, RICE wouldn’t work for MVP for the same reason.

Eisenhower matrix: a straightforward way for time-management

The technique originated from Dwight D. Eisenhower’s decision-making matrix, which later transformed into a four-quadrant visualization that some teams use to prioritize tasks in backlog. It’s another uncomplicated take on prioritization that you can use straight away without preparations.

Eisenhower decision matrix

Features of the Eisenhower matrix

The technique suggests allocating tasks across four different sections on the diagram. The matrix considers two prioritization dimensions – importance and urgency.

• High Priority: urgent and important.
• Medium Priority : important but not urgent. You can additionally divide this quadrant into 2 parts: The requirements on the left side are of a higher priority and must be implemented first.
• Urgent but not important . The features included are urgent but without a significant impact on a product’s business aspects, so the team must decide whether they are really needed. Similar to the medium priority part, this quadrant is also divided into 2 parts; the requirements on the left side are of a higher priority than those on the right.
• Low Priority: neither urgent, nor important.

Pros of the Eisenhower matrix

Plain. A simple structure doesn’t need multi-layered composition. Open. The matrix doesn’t have decision dependencies and multiple results variation. So, the product team doesn’t have to think about some pitfalls when deciding what priority to put first. Business-targeted. The method is business centric. The higher priority is given to those items that are more relevant and useful from a business point of view.

Cons of the Eisenhower matrix

No evidence base. The Eisenhower decision matrix is completely outside of a data-driven approach. It doesn’t need any calculations, metrics, KPIs, or other actionable insights to concentrate on. As a consequence, some misconceptions or discussions may occur within the product team. May lack the technical aspect. Concentrating on a business aspect of the product, the method may, however, miss the other side – the technical one, which may affect the overall product flow and performance.

You can use the Eisenhower matrix for the whole backlog but its simple nature better fits for individual time planning, given that you have a stronger method for the whole product. Otherwise, a delivery team must agree on all requirements, their urgency, and priority.

Value vs Complexity/Effort matrix: a lightweight approach to balance tech and value

Value vs. Complexity is one of the prioritization principles used by product managers to grade features on the product roadmap . The value vs complexity (or sometimes the effort word is used) method takes a balanced approach to business and tech aspects of development. 

Value vs Complexity/Effort

Similar to the Eisenhower matrix, the features are allocated across four quadrants with two dimensions: value and complexity. The approach prioritizes low-hanging fruit, meaning that the most value and least complexity tasks go first. Then the matrix suggests building the highest value and the most complex features; it questions the significance of low-value items, recommending ditching complex, low-value tasks. Value. The product team estimates the value of a feature from a long-term perspective. The value criteria are arbitrarily defined by the team rather than dictated by the method. They may be:

• market demand
• customer acquisition potential
• customer retention
• customer engagement
• expected revenue etc.

Complexity. The product team estimates a feature total cost to the business and represents it as a proxy for complexity or effort necessary to realize it. On the other hand, the team may divide the effort scoring into certain categories, such as operational costs, developer hours, time on the schedule, customer training, risks, and in-house development skills.

Pros of the Value vs Complexity/Effort matrix

You can use it without detailed calculations. Even though the matrix suggests using specific metrics, it doesn’t dictate any restrictions. If you don’t have time for specifying value and complexity metrics, you still can resort to eyeballing them. Flexibility. As you can arbitrarily define the value, you can do the same with the second dimension. Instead of complexity, you can put risks, costs, time, etc.

Cons of the Value vs Complexity matrix

Has a subjective nature. Since there’s no well-specified scoring formula, the prioritization method is still quite open to debate. Proves no valuable asset for a big comprehensive product. The use of the given method is quite time-consuming for big product teams with extensive product features. Additionally, it may result in high-cost coordination expenses.

It works better within the teams of smaller products and limited timeframes or budgets, especially when you build a product from the ground up. As your application matures, you may run out of low-hanging fruit and the only approach would be to embark on some bigger features. Here’s when this matrix won’t be as effective.

Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF): lean but time-consuming way to introduce minimum marketable features

Weighted Shortest Job First is an element of the SAFe Lean-Agile framework, which tends to be used in medium-to-big companies. It suggests scoring each feature by dividing the cost of delay by job duration. At its core, WSJF is similar to Value vs Complexity, but provides more detailed guidance.

Cost of Delay (CoD). This metric defines how much the company loses if the given feature isn’t implemented. Traditionally, CoD is a sum of three elements:

• User-business value – How important is the feature to business and customers?
• Time criticality – Will the user-business value reduce over time?
• Risk reduction – Does the feature reduce business and technical risks?

The values that you put into these variables must start with 1 as the lowest and the others set relative to that. Job duration. The duration is also measured in relative points and defines the time needed for implementation. So, in the end you get this formula: WSJF = CoD/Job duration The higher the rate is, the higher its priority. When the rate is calculated, features are introduced in the following order:

• Non-comprehensive features with high-added value.
• Complex features with high-added value.
• Non-comprehensive features of lesser-added value.
• Complex features with lesser-added value.

Pros of Weighted Shortest Job First

Gives accuracy and consistency. With more detailed calculation, stakeholders can expect higher consistency and predictability of results. Focuses on increasing the ROI with limited human resources. WSJF is quite beneficial for teams with limited human resources.

Cons of Weighted Shortest Job First

Time-consuming calculations. Since the WSJF has many metrics per each backlog item, the product team is supposed to spend significant time to prioritize each task. Limits complex tasks. If the stakeholders have a sustainable business idea, but the WSJF calculations show it’s not so urgent, they will have to postpone it, making the method a bit restrictive in implementing long-term business ideas. Relative scales. Even though we mentioned that WSJF enables accuracy and consistency, it only works if the relative scales are set up right. Since it’s hard to align all metrics and assumptions to achieve balance, the method has room for errors.

WSJF is a great technique to assess and introduce minimum marketable features. However, you should not always rely on WSJF. For example, there are always features in the product that are supposed to be implemented by default and without any discussion.

Walking Skeleton: the best way to prioritize MVP stories

The Walking Skeleton prioritization method appeared in the early 2000s. It was advocated by Dr. Alistair Cockburn, an expert in Agile software development.  The Walking Skeleton is used in prioritizing features in MVP and defines which of them are absolutely critical for the product to work.

Walking Skeleton may be smaller than the actual MVP but it puts the necessary features first

The method doesn’t imply requirements falling into certain categories. However, it has distinct features that focus on user stories. Key features first. When using the Walking Skeleton, a delivery team ranks the necessary user stories first. The system must function. Due to the focus on the implementation of the essential points, the key functionality forms a fully operational product, without any additions. Reflects the business concept of a future product. The Walking Skeleton advocates showing business value. That is why the story maps are lined up to display the core system elements within the restricted technical basis. Completed with tests. Since the Walking Skeleton involves the whole production pipeline, including delivery and deployment, the testing is applied as well.

Pros of Walking Skeleton

Fast prioritization. One of the key benefits of Walking Skeleton prioritization for stakeholders is that defining the core features won’t take much time. Key functionality only. When estimating the business value of a future product, it’s often hard to focus on the core element, as there’s always a temptation to make it as comprehensive as possible. The Walking Skeleton helps avoid this situation, putting the operating MVP with the greatest validity first. Fast market validation. Arguably one of the most significant advantages for the Walking Skeleton is that its prioritization results help to quickly get the feedback from users. Therefore, the stakeholders assess the product-market fit and the business idea as a whole. In further releases, they can suit it up.

Cons of Walking Skeleton

Lacks important functionality. While the basic working framework is included, the Walking Skeleton will not involve other additional though still important features. It might play a critical role at some point. Late first release. Although the Walking Skeleton is a rather quick prioritization technique, the first release won't be fast as you still must ship a functioning product. The risk to cut corners. When trying to roll out the basic version of a product as fast as possible, the stakeholders may try to refuse the basic functional features to accelerate the release. That is why when prioritizing the backlog, the team should focus on keeping the basics without omitting them in favor of fast delivery. Otherwise, the very first – and viable – product version is at risk of turning into a prototype that is not ready for the market.

Walking Skeleton is extremely useful when releasing a Minimum Viable Product . Being good in tandem, these two can provide tangible results. However, Walking Skeleton is not the one to rely on when delivering a more sustainable and complex product with numerous extra features or additional business value. For the latter, the stakeholders should consider something more comprehensive and detailed.

As you may have noticed, it’s a bad idea to think that any prioritization approach is suitable for every single product or company. In a nutshell, there are few different sets of methods that fall within the particular categories of products. For instance, if you’re building an MVP, consider combining the Walking Skeleton and Kano model. The Kano model is also a perfect match for building a prototype and gathering feedback on the UX from the target audience. MoSCoW and Eisenhower’s decisions matrix are the best fit for prioritizing backlog requirements when building small products with some preliminary agreements. Equally efficient here is Value vs Complexity/Effort. Working on a ready-made product with already existing lifecycle, consider RICE. Of course, we haven’t covered many prioritization methods. For instance, many teams still rely on the HiPPO method (Highest-Paid Person Opinion). With it being stigmatized, in some cases it works, given that the team lacks expertise and ultimate understanding of a product. Tell us what you use. Are there methods that we missed? Please share.

Main navigation

FLICKBLADE Hawkbill Folding Pocket Knife

• EDC hawkbill pocket knife offers one handed flick open and close action
• Stainless steel hawkbill blade offers a sharp edge with better edge retention
• Low profile pocket clip makes everyday carry and storage seamless
• Intuitive button lock holds blade securely open and closed
• Contoured handle fits cleanly and comfortably in hand for all day use
• Bright orange color is easy to spot in low light when retrieving from tool bag
• Convenient tether hole located in back of handle

Klein Tools FLICKBLADE Button Lock Hawkbill Pocket Knife is engineered for comfortable use with a lightweight everyday carry design. It's stainless steel hawkbill blade is precisely ground to have a sharp edge with long term edge retention. It features a low profile pocket clip for easy carry and storage. It's intuitive button lock design allows one handed quick flick open and close action.

Specifications

Additional information.

• Always wear approved eye protection.
• Never use on or near live electrical circuits.
• Check local law on the legality of selling, carrying, or possessing this knife.

Accessories

Tradesman Pro™ Knife Holder with Clip and Magnetic Flap

Tool Tether, 10-Pound Maximum Load

Related items.

Utility Blade Dispenser with 50-Pack of Blades

Utility Hook Blades, 10-Pack

Folding Utility Knife With Driver

FLICKBLADE Folding Pocket Knife

Folding And Slide Out Utility Knife Set

Utility Hook Blade Dispenser with 50-Pack of Blades

Utility Knife Blades, 10-Pack

Knit Dipped Gloves, Cut Level A2, Touchscreen, Large, 2-Pair

Rechargeable Headlamp and Work Light, 300 Lumens All-Day Runtime

Klein Carbon Fiber Full Brim Hard Hat with Headlamp, Titan

• Скидки дня
• Справка и помощь
• Адрес доставки Идет загрузка... Ошибка: повторите попытку ОК
• Продажи
• Список отслеживания Развернуть список отслеживаемых товаров Идет загрузка... Войдите в систему , чтобы просмотреть свои сведения о пользователе
• Краткий обзор
• Недавно просмотренные
• Ставки/предложения
• Список отслеживания
• История покупок
• Купить опять
• Объявления о товарах
• Сохраненные запросы поиска
• Сохраненные продавцы
• Сообщения
• Развернуть корзину Идет загрузка... Произошла ошибка. Чтобы узнать подробнее, посмотрите корзину.

Oops! Looks like we're having trouble connecting to our server.

Refresh your browser window to try again.

MoSCoW Method: How to Make the Best of Prioritization

Prioritization played a significant role in the success of most feature-rich apps, such as Slack and GitLab . Initially, they offered a limited set of functionalities that were essential for their users. With time, this set was supplemented with other features. Railsware is going to share its own style of prioritizing and show you how we use the MoSCoW method to get long lists of tasks done.

Why do you need prioritization?

As a rule, the daily routine includes a bunch of tasks. Ideally, you’ll have enough time and energy to cover all of them – but it just might happen that the number of tasks is immense and the resources available are not in abundance. That’s where prioritization comes in.

This term denotes a process to filter what you have to do in order of importance or relevance. For example, if you’re building a house, you are not likely to begin with the roof or walls until your foundation is done. Of course, things are much more complicated in the web development industry, and this example cannot reveal the full-scope value of setting priorities.

Complex projects and numerous startups make use of advanced prioritization techniques. These usually consist of frameworks known for specific requirements or rules that improve decision-making. Success in prioritization often determines the success of the company itself. Getting caught up in pending and undone tasks is a straight road to failure. That’s why businesses pay particular attention to which prioritization methods to use. There are quite a few of them, but they all have some common characteristics, such as orientation towards input (internal or external) and quantitative or qualitative tools.

By the way, we are hiring. Check out our job openings.

External orientation means that you need to involve stakeholders outside the development team to set priorities, while the internally-oriented methods can be executed purely in-house. Quantitative methods entail a deeper focus on numeric metrics in prioritization, and the qualitative one rests on expert opinions, votings, classifications to a greater extent. In view of this, they are traditionally divided into the following categories:

You can read about different Agile prioritization techniques in detail here . If you need, we’ve also gone more in depth on what Agile product development is in a separate article.

Railsware prefers a technique developed by Dai Clegg way back in 1994. Initially, it was named MSCW, but two o’s were added to improve pronounceability. This also made it sound like the capital city of Russia. Let’s see how it works.

What is MoSCoW?

To understand the gist of the MoSCoW method, we need to look at its origin – the dynamic systems development method (DSDM). It is a framework for Agile project management tailored by practitioners with the aim of improving quality in rapid app development (RAD) processes. A hallmark of DSDM projects is strictly determined quality, costs, and time at an early stage. In view of this, all the project tasks have to be allocated by importance. The need for managing priorities triggered the invention of a specialized prioritization mechanism.

This mechanism was implemented via MoSCoW – a simple yet powerful solution to set priorities both with and without timeboxes. However, it shows better efficiency if you have a certain deadline for a task, feature, subfeature, functionality, etc. The framework is applicable to all levels of project prioritization from top to bottom, as well as to all functions and focus areas.

The MoSCoW abbreviation (except for the o’s) is carved with first letters of the priority categories it works with. These are Must-haves, Should-haves, Could-haves and Won’t-haves. And that’s how you can define which task falls into which category.

Prioritization rules

These rules or requirements estimate the importance of any task/process/feature/etc. Each company or work team uses its own approach to setting requirements, but, in general, they do not differentiate much and look as follows.

These are top-priority requirements, which shape the foundation of the major pipeline. Avoiding them means blocking the entire project or further activities. As a rule, product ideation depends entirely on defining must-haves using such pointers as ‘required for launch’, ‘required for safety’, ‘required for validation’, ‘required to deliver a viable solution’, etc.

• Can we move forward with the project if this task is undone? – if NO , it’s MUST .

Should-haves

This type of requirement is of secondary priority. Should-haves do not affect the launch and, traditionally, are considered important but not crucial. They differ from must-haves by the availability of a workaround. Therefore, the failure of a should-have task is unlikely to cause the failure of the entire project. If you’re building a product, it will still be usable even if these requirements aren’t met.

• Will we move forward with the project if this task is done a bit later? – if YES , it SHOULD .

Could-haves

The next requirement is less important than the two previous ones but still wanted. If we compare could-haves with should-haves, the former is defined by a lower degree of adverse effect if omitted. Traditionally, the third-level priority requirements in the Agile framework MoSCoW are realized if a project is not highly constrained in time. Within the product development, we can call them low-cost tweaks.

• Can we sacrifice this task till the deadline? – if YES , it’s COULD .

Won’t-haves

You can also encounter this type of requirement under the name of would-have or wish-to-have, but these variants are not recognized by the Wiki . However, regardless of the chosen name, these requirements define the lowest priority for tasks that are unviable to implement with a particular budget and deadline. Won’t-have does not mean a complete rejection of something. It envisions reintroduction under favorable conditions in the future.

• Can we get back to it when things are going better? – if YES , it’s WON’T .

In search of the perfect tools and techniques, our team often modifies some well-known approaches and tailors them to our needs. This constant search and improvement led us to brand new product ideation and decision-making framework: BRIDGeS . BRIDGeS is a flexible approach for multi-context analysis suitable for building effective product strategies, solving operational and strategic problems, making day-to-day decisions , and more. Find out how to use BRIDGeS and what advantages BRIDGeS can bring to your team .  

MoSCoW is another tool that we modified to make it even more flexible and versatile. Below, we share our findings to help your team nail prioritization in a more efficient way.

How the Railsware team modified MoSCoW

The main difference between the classical MoSCoW and our version of this technique is that we added another level of prioritization within such groups as Must, Should, and Could. Each of these groups of requirements got another 4 complexity categories :

• 3 – most heavy and unclear requirements
• 2 – heavy complexity
• 1 – normal complexity
• 0 – easiest and the most urgent tasks within the group

This way, when a requirement gets, let’s say, the priority Must, we can also add a numeric matter to the letter M. For instance, our sprint can include several M2 tasks, one M1 task, and three S1 tasks.

When the task is marked with the priority “3” (M3/S3/C3), it most likely means that its scope is too large and complex to be fulfilled fast. You need to decompose it into smaller, manageable chunks and prioritize them as well. This way, from one M3 requirement, you can get a bunch of M2, S1, and C1 tasks, for example.

Sometimes, M, S, C, and W letters are not enough and we may also need an Urgent Must (UM) mark. UMs are the most critical things, such as hotfixes, bug fixes, and patches, which block the work of the whole team. From our experience, we recommend you to fix these tasks ASAP, as they hinder the team’s productive work. So if you set any task as UM, you should ignore all other tasks until the UM task is fixed. In normal situations, your bug tracking system shouldn’t have UMs.

Why do Urgent Must tasks appear? Often, UMs are the Must-haves that your team ignored before the deployment phase or missed during the QA phase. Pay attention to these tricky cases, and try to solve them before they become an obstacle.

Advantages of the modified MoSCoW approach

When we got an additional level of priorities within the MoSCoW system, we felt the following improvements:

• No need to run several rounds of task prioritization . When you have six Must-have requirements, you can’t understand which of them are the most critical or complex and run another round of prioritization. Our approach allows us to set priorities and clearly understand the importance and complexity of each task from the first round.
• Saved time . The ability to set all priorities at once saves time for all the team members who take part in the prioritization process.
• More balanced sprints. A sprint that consists only of Must-have tasks has little chance of being fulfilled. Must-haves are usually more complex requirements that guarantee the viability of a product, meaning their implementation takes more time and concentration from a developer. To dilute high-importance work with some low-hanging tasks, you can add some S0, C0, or S1 tasks to the sprint so that users get a bit more full-featured functionality of the main Must-have flows.
• More pleasant products for end users . While M3 and M2 tasks are usually crucial things necessary for the product viability, Could- and Should-haves may represent more pleasant things (changing a theme, additional filters, notifications, etc.) 

How to use MoSCoW

Everything looks simple in theory, but is it in practice? Let’s check out how a traditional MoSCoW analysis of functionality prioritizing works through the example of a regular web application. As a sample, we’re going to use basic functions taken from one of the Railsware products .

List all tasks

Prioritize cards.

Based on particular requirements for budget and time, we can single out the most fundamental features to be implemented in the minimum viable product . After the priority analysis, we’ve got the following:

• A user MUST sign up.
• A user MUST log in.
• A user MUST reset password.
• A user MUST open a time-tracking page.

The top-priority tasks are followed by important, though not vital,functionalities for the app. These are:

• A user SHOULD choose the billing system.
• A user SHOULD delete an account.
• A user SHOULD choose time-tracking options.

The evolution of the app does foresee its availability on mobile devices. However, this task is only nice-to-have at this point.

• A user COULD install a mobile app version.

And now the least-priority feature. It aims at enhancing the user experience once the app is on track. Theme selectability is definitely not what we’re going to make now, so this feature is saved for later.

• A user WON’T choose the app’s visual theme THIS TIME.

Restructure cards according to their priority

This step allows you to see the quantitative ratio of high and low priority tasks.

The most difficult thing about prioritization is to be icily intelligent and focus on the essential tasks to be done. Otherwise, you can get into the EVERYTHING-IS-MUST trap , according to which any feature like the billing system option or mobile app availability turns into the must-have.

And that’s why the MoSCoW Agile method is cool. It allows you to define a basic feature set, which has top priority and emphasizes that you do not need to abandon anything. The healthy balance of must-haves + should-haves is 50% of the entire scope. All (or almost all) of the tasks will be implemented later but in the order of their importance to your goal. The goal of this example is to build an MVP , and the categorization above shows the expected progress of the app’s functionality.

How to use modified MoSCoW

We took the same example with all the tasks listed above to showcase how we apply our version of this prioritization technique.

Set priorities using the extended MoSCoW model

The main priority (Must, Should, Could, and Won’t) are still the same, however, we dived deeper to make a more precise priority estimation of each task. Here’s what we came up with:

• “A user can sign up” got an M2 mark. It is a complex task, but it’s not critically urgent.
• “A user can log in” got an M1 mark. The task is important but not that complex.
• “A user can reset password” got an M1 mark. 
• “A user can choose the billing system” got an S3 mark. It’s an important feature, but its scope is large and should be split.
• “A user can delete the account” got an S2 mark. 
• “A user can open a time-tracking page” got an M2 mark. 
• “A user can choose time-tracking options” got an S1 mark. This is a low-hanging feature that can be taken to a sprint to balance the workload.  
• “A user can install a mobile app version” got a C3 mark. This epic is too large to be implemented in one sprint. Its scope should be split into smaller tasks and prioritized as well.
• “A user can choose the app’s visual theme” got the same priority mark – Won’t, which we do not decompose.

Our modified approach provides a better understanding of the task’s priority and complexity and shows the parts that need to be reconsidered. This way, it’s easier to plan a balanced sprint, taking only tasks that can be implemented (all cards with the priority “3” should be split into smaller tasks) and some small tasks that allow your team to reduce the workload. 

We have lots of knowledge to share with you. Join Railsware team.

MoSCoW pros and cons

The framework is quite popular among Agile projects with fixed timeboxes since it allows for managing the requirements for a specific release of a product. This prioritization method has proved its efficiency and reliability within our company as well, and we do recommend it to our clients. However, it is not perfect of course, and an unbiased look can reveal some flaws associated with MoSCoW technique. Let’s take a look at its strengths and weaknesses.

MoSCoW prioritization at Railsware

Let’s take a look at how we set priorities within the company.

Product development: we rest upon a roadmap where the product features and the order of their implementation are specified. As a rule, we leverage MoSCoW to define which feature goes first, which comes second, and so on, taking into account their importance and the interdependence of features. Must-haves and Should-haves are meant for the product release. Could-haves and Won’t-haves are postponed for the future.

HR and recruitment: prioritization rests upon such requirements as the demand for particular expertise, budget availability, timebox (how urgently we need this expertise), and so on. We leverage the similar patterns of setting priorities in other focus areas including on-boarding, branding, marketing, etc.

The biggest challenge of the methodology is that all stakeholders must be familiar with enough context to estimate features correctly. Besides, stakeholders that represent different functions like sales, development, marketing have their own vision of setting priorities, which not always works towards correct prioritization. Investors usually treat all features as Must-haves from their broad-based perspective and need them done without any respect of their implementation order.

Railsware has a Holacratic organizational structure . We take advantage of collective leadership based on the RASCI model and make decisions on different things including prioritization through voting. Team members can choose from several options like really want, want and don’t want. Each option implies a particular point. The option with the biggest point total has the highest priority. For small contexts, a responsible role (team leader, project manager, etc.) can be in charge of setting priorities on his/her own.

MoSCoW alternatives you may find useful for your project

Railsware uses Agile framework MoSCoW heavily and is pleased with it. However, it does not mean that we are closed to other solutions. Besides, a good product manager must consider the key product metrics and build the prioritization according to them. So here are some other worthwhile techniques that you may benefit from.

With this framework, you can define how happy the users are with product features. The Kano Model rests on a questionnaire, which is used to learn users’ attitude to a particular feature (like, expect, dislike, neutral, etc.). Visually, the model can be expressed via a two-dimensional diagram where the vertical axis is responsible for the level of user satisfaction (from totally frustrated to incredibly happy) and the horizontal one shows either how much was invested in the feature (Investment), how well was it implemented (Implementation), or how much users benefit from it (Functionality).

Categorization of requirements includes four types that are prioritized in the following order: must-be, performance, attractive, and indifferent. Must-bes are some basic things that users generally expect. Performance (also known as One-Dimensional) requirements are the golden mean and allow you to increase the satisfaction level. Attractive requirements are those that improve user experience. These are nice-to-haves or could-haves according to MoSCoW. Indifferent ones are less prioritized and sometimes even entirely omitted.

Value vs. Complexity

This prioritization technique is one of the simplest. You can encounter it under the names of Value vs. Cost or Value vs. Effort as well. The method feels intuitive and is aimed at maximizing value delivery. Estimation of features’ importance rests upon how much effort is invested to implement them and how much value they will bring. Here is how it looks visually:

Wrapping up

The art of setting priorities shows the efficiency of your workflow. Railsware’s choice is the MoSCoW project management framework, which has made a good showing in versatile functionalities and products. However, it might be less useful for immense projects with multiple teams involved in the pipeline. We advise you to find an effective prioritization solution that fits your unique needs, and to always avoid getting caught up in countless pending tasks.