A key point here is that scope management is more critical in Agile than in Waterfall. In Agile, resources and time are fixed, while scope is flexible. Since Agile is designed for rapid, iterative delivery, a product manager thinks about how to maximize the value of the product with limited time and resources. If the scope is too large to be completed in the planned time, it must be reduced through prioritization. In contrast, in Waterfall, scope is fixed, while resources and time are flexible.
Agile and agile iron triangle project management.
Based on these studies and practices, the general flow (context) of user story management will be as follows.
Clarify requirements with a user story, acceptance criteria, and visual images.
Scope is discussed based on Acceptance Criteria. Scope cannot be managed without requirements. This step and requirements definition are usually done together. This is where I think the MoSCoW method is very useful.
A User Story is estimated based on its scope. As I mentioned earlier, clear requirements and scope contribute the most to estimation accuracy. If a User Story is too large, some requirements need insurance leads for seniors to be split into other User Stories to be managed later.
The final decision is based on requirements, scope and estimation. It is usually determined in Sprint Planning in Agile.
What is MoSCoW?
MoSCoW (Must Have, Should Have, Could Have, Won't Have) is a prioritization method developed by Dai Clegg in 1994 for use in rapid application development (RAD). It was first widely used with the Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM) in 2002. MoSCoW prioritizes requirements with four categories: Must Have, Should Have, Could Have, and Won't Have.
Must Have: Requirements must be implemented. If they are not implemented, the features will not be usable and the delivery will be considered a failure. MUST is also considered an acronym for Minimum Usable Subset.
Should Have: Requirements are not as critical as "Must Haves" but they must be implemented. Although features can be used without requirements, they are usually implemented to meet customer satisfaction.
Could have: Requirements improve UI/UX, leading to better customer satisfaction. They are usually implemented when time and cost permit.
Will not have: Requirements are not necessary at this time and may be considered later.
Example of User Story and MoSCoW
We will see how to use acceptance criteria and MoSCoW together with an example. For simplicity, I will use the following login image.
Sample login form
Write down all the Acceptance Criteria you can think of. I'll use the following four scenarios as an example.
After writing the Acceptance Criteria (User Stories), categorize each scenario into MoSCoW categories like the one below. Then, decide how far you are willing to develop, it would be best to focus on Must have to define a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) . In the example below, “Must have” and “Should have” are in scope, and “Could have” and “Won’t have” are out of scope and will be developed in different User Stories.
Conclusion
Effective scope management in user stories is critical to the success of software development projects. Utilizing methods such as acceptance criteria and the MoSCoW methodology not only facilitates clarity in requirements, but also enables efficient prioritization, ensuring that essential items are addressed first. This is crucial in an Agile environment, where time and resources are limited, and scope must be flexible to accommodate rapid changes. Proper implementation of these approaches fosters better estimation, planning, and ultimately delivery of high-quality products.