There are many schemes for prioritizing requirements. They often take the form of enumerated sets like [1,2,3] or [High, Medium, Low] or [Must Have, Preferred, Nice to Have] or the one we're promoting with MSF which started with the DSDM community in the UK - MoSCoW [Must Have, Should Have, Could Have and Won't Have]. So here is the scoop! I don't like any of these! Why?

Because they all need explanation. They all need some mapping. Some standard of what each term means and how to interpret it. Often this is never written down but is part of the tacit knowledge, or tribal lore of the organization. It doesn't lend itself to repeatability and it doesn't lend itself to good governance. I want a system which is better aligned with good corporate governance.

An idea I've been batting around for a while, but haven't blogged, is based on strategic planning - use an enumerated set of [Table Stakes, Differentiator, Spoiler].

Michael Porter has suggested that from a strategic positioning perspective your business can be the cost leader (there can be only one), or a niche player (in market share terms), or differentiated (there can be many forms of differentiation). I like to use the example from my recent past in the wireless telecom business in the USA. There were six major players: ATT Wireless; Verizon Wireless; Cingular; Sprint PCS; Nextel; Voicestream (later T-Mobile USA). They were aligned thus: T-Mobile was the cost leader; Sprint, Verizon Wireless and Cingular were differentiated as the innovator, the best network and something called "the value leader"; whilst Nextel was a niche player in small and medium sized mobile businesses. That left ATT Wireless which was to coin Porter's phrase "stuck in the middle". Being in the middle is not good. Guess who got acquired first?

So, what does this mean and how do you play it? Well imagine you are offering a wireless email service. Your table stakes are all the basic features you need to be in that business. You need a network, you need handsets which are email capable, you need data service, you need an email server and so forth. Now imagine you are the cost leader - stop right there. You already spent as much as you need to. But if you are an innovator then you might want to do picture email. So you need to upgrade everything. If you are niche player in small business, you might want to do Exchange enablement and rich client concepts like reading .DOC files. If you are the best network, you might want a lot of non-functional requirements which insure the best quality of service. All of these are the differentiating features for your product mix selection. Finally, what is a spoiler? A spoiler is a feature which commoditizes one of your opponents differentiators. For example when Sprint and Verizon Wireless launched "push to talk" walkie-talkie features on their services, they were spoiling a lucrative market for Nextel.

So, an enumeration of [Table Stakes, Differentiator, Spoiler] allows us to directly align strategic positioning with operational marketing product mix selection choices with work done on the shop floor actually coding the features required. No need for any translation scheme. No need for tribal lore. Every need for everyone to be doing their job properly - strategic planners properly positioning the business against the forces of competition, marketers choosing a product mix which correctly selects features to target the strategic positioning and the desired goals in a given market, e.g. profits, share, prestige, and then for the agile team and project manager to correctly select the release and iteration backlog to deliver the product mix in a fashion which aligns with the goals and strategic positioning.

One big happy family. And everyone lived happily ever after and they all retired rich on their company match in stock 401K plan. Awe!