legal priorities project research agenda

Legal Priorities Project Working Paper Series (Archive)

The Legal Priorities Project Working Paper Series aims to disseminate multidisciplinary, foundational legal research that tackles the world's most pressing problems. This currently leads to a focus on the protection of future generations. Our research explores areas that are likely to have an outsized impact on the long-term trajectory of human civilization, such as artificial intelligence, synthetic biology and biorisk, and institutional design. We also carry out "meta-research" that aims to determine which problems legal researchers should work on to best protect the well-being of future generations. This series includes both working papers and published articles inspired by our research agenda.

The Legal Priorities Project is an independent, global research project founded by researchers from Harvard University. Our researchers and affiliates are based both at top law schools and private research centers worldwide, including Harvard University, ITAM, MIT, Georgetown University, University of Denver, Oxford University, and OpenAI, among others.

Global Reach of Legal Priorities Project Working Paper Series (Archive)

Paper Downloads by Country

Papers from Legal Priorities Project Working Paper Series (Archive)

Legal Priorities Research: A Research Agenda

• January 2021
• SSRN Electronic Journal
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• Legal Priorities Project

• Harvard University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

No full-text available

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

• Christoph K. Winter

• Nicholas Hollman

• Gregory Lewis
• Jacob L. Jordan
• David A. Relman
• Thomas V Inglesby
• Ethan C. Alley
• Miles Turpin
• Andrew Bo Liu
• Kevin M. Esvelt
• Simon Chesterman
• Peter Cihon

• REV GEOPHYS
• S. C. Sherwood
• Mark J. Webb
• James D. Annan

• Delphine S. A. Beeckman
• Patrick Rüdelsheim
• Anne Peters

• BMC Med Ethics
• Koko Kwisda

• Nat. Hum. Behav.

• Carlton Patrick

• Andreas Kapardis
• Steven Shavell
• HARVARD LAW REV

• José Hernández-Orallo
• Isabella Alberti
• Timur Kuran

• Maneesha Deckha
• Nate Soares
• Lyria Bennett Moses
• Bryan Caplan

• Jessica Taylor
• Eliezer Yudkowsky
• Patrick LaVictoire
• Andrew Critch

• Hilary Greaves

• Fabio Tronchetti
• Lara Buchak

• Angelina Sanderson
• P. D. Tyson

• CURR OPIN CHEM BIOL

• Neil C. Bruce
• John Henry Merryman

• Paul Tiedemann
• Anders Sandberg

• David Shore

• Megan J. Palmer
• Haydn Belfield
• Carina Prunkl

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Effective Altruism Forum Topics EA Forum

Legal priorities project.

The Legal Priorities Project (LPP) is a research and community-building project that conducts and supports strategic legal research that aims to mitigate existential risk and promote the flourishing of future generations.

The Legal Priorities Project was founded in 2020. The idea for the project originated in an effective altruism group at Harvard Law School two years earlier.

(Read more)

Posts tagged Legal Priorities Project

Eric Martínez

University of Chicago Law School

1111 E 60th St

Chicago, IL 60637

United States

Institute for Law & AI

SSRN RANKINGS

in Total Papers Downloads

in Total Papers Citations

Scholarly Papers (13)

• Original List
• All Versions Hide All Versions
• All Abstracts Hide All Abstracts

What Do Law Professors Believe about Law and the Legal Academy?

legal philosophy, legal theory, legal education, expertise

Re-evaluating GPT-4's bar exam performance

GPT, GPT-4, ChatGPT, Bar Exam, NLP, Legal NLP, Legal Analytics, natural language processing, natural language understanding, machine learning, artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence and law, Neural NLP, Legal Tech

Legal Priorities Research: A Research Agenda

future generations, longtermism, prioritization, artificial intelligence, biosecurity, institutional design, space law, animal law

Protecting Future Generations: A Global Survey of Legal Academics

global survey, future generations, longtermism, climate change, artificial intelligence, biosecurity

Even Lawyers Don't Like Legalese

law, language, psycholinguistics, curse of knowledge, experimental jurisprudence

Poor Writing, not Specialized Concepts, Drives Processing Difficulty in Legal Language

law and language, psycholinguistics, empirical legal studies, law and cognitive science, corpus analysis, computational linguistics

Experimental Longtermist Jurisprudence

Legal longtermism, Future generations, Levels of abstraction, Longtermist jurisprudence, Experimental jurisprudence

So Much for Plain Language: An Analysis of the Accessibility of United States Federal Laws Over Time

law and language, psycholinguistics, empirical legal studies, law and cognitive science, corpus analysis

Protecting sentient artificial intelligence: a survey of lay intuitions on standing, personhood, and general legal protection

Legal personhood, Legal standing, Moral standing, Robot rights, Artificial intelligence, Artificial intelligence & law, Moral circle

Measuring Legal Concepts

empirical legal studies, legal education, experimental jurisprudence, law and psychology, law and cognitive science, natural language processing

Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Rights for Future Generations

future generations, personhood, standing, cross-cultural, experimental jurisprudence, longtermism, legal longtermism

The Intuitive Appeal of Legal Protection for Future Generations

Ordinary meaning of existential risk.

Experimental jurisprudence, existential risk, global catastrophic risk, ordinary meaning analysis

Explore research agendas related to the topics we recommend

Research agendas.

On this page, you can find the research agendas of organisations and researchers from or adjacent to effective altruism . If you want a quick introduction to why these causes are particularly important from an effective altruist perspective, see this TED video or read this article .

• A central directory for open research questions on the EA forum by Michael Aird
• Collection of example research questions with potentially high social impact by 80,000 Hours
• Psychology for Effectively Improving the Future  from the EA Psychology Lab
• The Good Food Institute :  2020 Consumer Research Priorities
• Animal Advocacy Africa : research agenda
• Animal Charity Evaluators :  focus areas
• Faunalytics:  research agenda
• Sentience Institute :  research agenda
• Fish Welfare Initiative :  Thesis ideas
• Capacity for Welfare & Moral Status  by Jason Schukraft of  Rethink Priorities
• Wild Animal Initiative : 2020 research agenda  and this deep dive into wildlife contraception and welfare .

AI governance

• AI Impacts :  promising research projects  and  possible empirical investigations
• Governance of AI program  at  Future of Humanity Institute : Alan Dafoe’s  AI governance research agenda
• Center for a New American Security : Artificial Intelligence and Global Security Initiative  Research Agenda
• Future of Life Institute :  A survey of research questions for robust and beneficial AI  (+ some aspects also fall into technical AI safety)
• Luke Muehlhauser’s  list of research questions to improve our strategic picture of superintelligence  (2014)
• Center on Long-Term Risk : open research questions
• The section on AI in Legal Priorities Research: A Research Agenda , Legal Priorities Project
• Some AI Governance Research Ideas (2021) compiled by Markus Anderljung and Alexis Carlier
• Economics and AI Risk: Research Agenda and Overview  by Charlotte Siegmann (2023) 

Technical AI safety research

• Center for Human Compatible Artifical Intelligence :  annotated bibliography of recommended reading materials
• Machine Intelligence Research Institute :  Agent Foundations for Aligning Machine Intelligence with Human Interests  (2017) and  Alignment for Advanced Machine Learning Systems  research agendas
• Center on Long-Term Risk :  Cooperation, Conflict, and Transformative Artificial Intelligence: A Research Agenda (+ includes some questions related to AI governance)
• Paul Christiano’s  research agenda summary  (and  FAQ  and  talk ) (2018)
• Stuart Armstrong’s  research agenda  (2019),  example use  and  talk .
• Vanessa Kosoy’s  research agenda  (2018)
• Global Priorities Institute’s Philosophy: Risks and opportunities from artificial intelligence (draft, November 2023)

Other existential and catastrophic risks

• Alliance for Feeding The Earth in Disasters:  research priorities  and  Effective Thesis research topics
• Happier Lives Institute : research agenda
• Qualia Research Institute : ideas for further research
• Innovations for Poverty Action:  A Research Agenda for the Next Wave of Graduation Programs
• International Growth Centre’s  research priorities  ( more detailed PDF )
• Esther Duflo’s  Research Agenda for Development Economics
• Global Priorities Institute’s Philosophy: The philosophy of mind and well-being (draft, October 2023)
• EA Geneva : questions related to  improving institutional decision making
• Global Priorities Institute at Oxford University: research agenda
• Research projects suggested by the Forethought Foundation
• Open Philanthropy : Technical and Philosophical Questions That Might Affect Our Grantmaking
• Legal Priorities Project : A Research Agenda
• Humanities Research Ideas for Longtermists by Lizka Vaintrob
• The Life You Can Save :  research they would like to see more of

If you have suggestions on how to improve this page, please  reach out  or comment and suggest edits on  this google doc.

Subscribe to the Topic Discovery Digest

Subscribe to our Topic Discovery Digest to find thesis topics, tools and resources that can help you significantly improve the world.

Where next?

Apply for coaching

Want to work on one of our recommended research directions? Apply for coaching to receive personalised guidance.

Searching for a research topic?

See here for a visual map of all our research directions.

Finding an impactful research direction

Learn why we think some research directions are likely to have a much greater positive impact on the world than others.

Read our advice on doing impactful research.

Effective Thesis

Privacy policy

Stay in touch

Are you interested in applying for coaching or to our other services in future? Stay in touch and get our quarterly updates by signing up to our newsletter!

Legal Research Priorities in Climate Change

- 8 September 2020

Trade topics: Trade and Environment , Trade Policy , International Trade Law

The Global Priorities Institute at Oxford University, inspired by the effective altruism movement, has created a research agenda to prioritize the research that has the potential to do the most good over the long term ( https://globalprioritiesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/gpi-researchage... ). Similarly, our project seeks to identify Legal Research Priorities in concrete fields of law and regarding concrete issues in each field, based on objective criteria. This discussion paper analyzes the field of climate law as a priority area and identifies specific research areas within climate law. The existential risks confronting humanity are of particular concern to the effective altruism movement (Toby Ord, The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity, 2020).

There is considerable research on the science of climate change. Climate change is also an important focus in the field of (international) environmental law. However, the challenge that the climate crisis represents for law is multifaceted and requires interdisciplinary research in a wide variety of legal disciplines. Climate law needs to expand beyond the realm of environmental lawyers.  

• Legal Priorities Research in Climate Change.pdf

Bradly Condon

Popular searches

Legal priorities project.

The Legal Priorities Project is an independent, global research project founded by researchers from Harvard University. We conduct and support legal research that tackles the world’s most pressing problems – we call this “legal priorities research.”

Our Mission

Our mission is to conduct and support legal research that tackles the world's most pressing problems. This currently leads us to focus on the protection of future generations.

Foundational Research

Our primary goal is to conduct foundational research . By doing so, we aim to determine which problems legal researchers should work on in order to tackle the world’s most pressing problems. Our approach focuses on the protection of future generations.

Outreach & Community Building

We aim to raise awareness about our concern for the long-term future and build a global community that shares this concern. Establishing longtermism in law will be a key part of this process. We want to bring together researchers and policy-makers at every level of seniority and support the most effective ways to use the law to protect future generations.

We aim to identify and support impactful litigation efforts that have the potential to mitigate existential risk and protect future generations.

Informing Policy

In order to inform policy decisions, we are committed to engaging in non-research activities and to conducting research that could positively shape the long-term future while also having near-term policy implications. We also encourage top legal talent to work in policy and bring a longtermist perspective to policy-making.

We aim to raise awareness about our concern for the long-term future and build a global community that shares this concern. Establishing longtermism in law will be a key part of this process. We want to…

Issue Areas Include

• Health & Medicine
• Legal Assistance
• Research & Social Science
• Science & Technology

Location & Contact

• [email protected]
• 6 Liberty Sq, Boston, MA 02109, USA #6079

Join Idealist

• Open access
• Published: 06 August 2024

Setting the international research agenda for sarcomas with patients and carers: results of phase II of the Sarcoma Patient Advocacy Global Network (SPAGN) priority setting partnership

• E. Roets 1 ,
• K. Schuster 2 ,
• S. Bickley 2 , 3 ,
• M. Wartenberg 2 , 4 ,
• O. Gonzato 2 , 5 ,
• N. Fernandez 2 ,
• B. Kasper 2 , 4 , 6 ,
• K. Pilgermann 2 ,
• R. Wilson 2 , 7 ,
• N. Steeghs 1 ,
• W. T. A. van der Graaf 1 , 8 ,
• G. van Oortmerssen 2 &
• O. Husson 1 , 8 , 9  

BMC Cancer volume  24 , Article number:  962 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Typically, researchers and clinicians determine the agenda in sarcoma research. However, patient involvement can have a meaningful impact on research. Therefore, the Patient-Powered Research Network (PPRN) of the Sarcoma Patient Advocacy Global Network (SPAGN) set up a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP). The primary objective of this partnership is to identify priorities for research and patient advocacy topics.

In the first phase of this PSP, including 264 sarcoma patients and carers from all over the world, 23 research topics regarding sarcomas and 15 patient advocacy topics were identified using an online survey. In the second phase, participants were asked to fill in a top five and a top three of research and patient advocacy topics, respectively. Additionally, sociodemographic characteristics and sarcoma characteristics were collected. Social media channels, local national patient advocacy groups and the SPAGN website were used to distribute the survey.

In total, 671 patients (75%) and carers (25%) participated in this survey. The five highest ranked research topics were related to causes of sarcoma (43%), prognosis and risk of recurrence (40%), specific subtypes of sarcoma (33%), the role of immunotherapy, targeted therapy and combined therapy (30%), and hereditary aspects (30%). The three highest ranked patient advocacy topics were improving the diagnostic process of sarcoma (39%), access to tumor DNA analysis (37%) and establishing an international sarcoma registry (37%).

Conclusions

This sarcoma PSP has identified priorities for research and patient advocacy, offering guidance for researchers, assisting funding agencies with assessing project relevance and empowering patient advocates to represent the needs of patients and carers.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of tumors, originating from mesenchymal cells, with an incidence in Europe of 6.1 per 100 000 persons per year and therefore account for less than 1% of all solid malignant cancers [ 1 , 2 ]. A broad distinction can be made between bone sarcomas (BS) and soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Today, the World Health Organisation classification includes approximately 100 different sarcomas [ 3 ]. Tumors related to STS but often considered separately in the context of research, are gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and desmoid fibromatosis (DF). GIST is the most common gastrointestinal sarcoma subtype [ 4 , 5 ] and DF is a borderline mesenchymal tumor characterized by infiltrative growth but an inability to metastasize [ 6 ]. The clinical behaviour and treatment vary according to the histological subtype, leading to many challenges for sarcoma patients, clinicians, researchers and caregivers.

The traditional approach, where researchers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) determine the agenda in sarcoma research is changing [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. This is nicely reflected by the creation of patient-centered organisations and patient advocacy groups that pursue to integrate the patient’s voice into the process of prioritizing research needs. Several studies demonstrated that patient involvement can have a meaningful impact on research [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Despite these efforts, there is a mismatch in research needs felt by patients on one hand and health professionals on the other hand [ 18 , 19 ]. This was the trigger to create the James Lind Alliance (JLA), which brings together patients, carers and clinicians in Priority Setting Partnerships (PSP) in order to identify and prioritise uncertainties in specific areas in the medical field that could be answered by research [ 20 ]. While multiple JLA-based PSPs have successfully identified research questions, this hasn’t been the case for sarcomas [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Therefore, the Patient-Powered Research Network (PPRN) of SPAGN (Sarcoma Patient Advocacy Global Network), a global network of national sarcoma patient advocacy organisations, set up a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP), based on the JLA methodology.

In the first phase of this PSP, research topics regarding sarcomas and topics for patient advocacy groups were identified using an online questionnaire [ 12 ]. This resulted in 23 research topics and 15 patient advocacy topics, identified by 264 respondents. This study reports on the second phase of the PSP and aims to prioritize the research and patient advocacy topics identified in the first phase of the survey and to investigate differences in prioritization between subgroups of respondents [ 12 ].

This PSP was set up by SPAGN in collaboration with other stakeholders in the sarcoma research field, according to the JLA methodology. This methodology involves engaging patients, carers, and HCPs in PSPs to collaboratively identify and prioritize research questions, and is extensively described in the previous publication [ 12 ].

Questionnaire and respondents

Research topics and patient advocacy topics identified during the first phase of this PSP were rephrased to 24 research topics and 14 patient advocacy topics, respectively. Research topics focused on the origin of sarcomas, the diagnostic process, treatment and side effects, prognosis, quality of life (QoL) and end of life. Topics for patient advocacy focused on the diagnostic process, communication between patients and HCPs, data sharing (i.e. sharing of relevant patient data across medical centers), information on tumor subtypes, QoL, end of life, expert centers and off-label or compassionate use medications.

Eligible respondents included patients and survivors of sarcoma (including GIST and DF), carers or family members of people who have (had) sarcoma and patient advocates. The questionnaire was specifically developed for this study and consisted of three sections (supplementary 1 ). In sections one and two, respondents were asked to fill in a top five and a top three of research and patient advocacy topics, respectively. One open question was included where patients could address any missing research topics not listed in the survey. Section three assessed, the respondents’ connection with sarcomas, sociodemographic characteristics (i.e. age, gender, ethnic origin, educational level, comorbidities, residence country) and sarcoma characteristics (i.e. tumor type and location, disease stage, treatment intention, treatment type).

In addition to English, the survey was translated to Dutch, Bulgarian, Finnish, French, German, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Swedish and Spanish, to assure a demographic variety of respondents. The questionnaire was distributed via the website of SPAGN, social media channels and via local national patient advocacy groups. The questionnaire was posted online using the LimeSurvey platform and was open for completion from April 2023 until July 2023 [ 21 ].

The analysis was conducted using Excel. Results were summarized in table format, reporting absolute numbers and frequencies. For each question the number of missing data was specified. Priorities for research and patient advocacy topics were described for different subgroups, including tumor type (i.e. BS, STS, GIST and DF), the top five respondent countries, gender, age groups (adolescents and young adults (AYAs) versus older adults), patients (including patient advocates) and carers, indication of treatment (i.e. curative and palliative). AYAs were defined as patients aged between 15 and 39 years.

Respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics

The survey was completed by 671 individuals. Sociodemographic characteristics are listed in Table  1 . Most respondents were female (82%) and the median age was 50 years (range 19–80). The majority of respondents were sarcoma patients or patient advocates (75%), followed by (bereaved) carers/relatives (25%). Most of the respondents described their situation as under regular follow-up (39%), part-way through their treatment (26%) or finished with treatment (13%). The majority of respondents had a college diploma (30%) or a university degree (44%). Most of the respondents were living in Germany (19%), followed by the Netherlands (14%), Japan (13%), the United Kingdom (12%) and Italy (11%).

Sarcoma characteristics

Sarcoma characteristics are presented in Table  2 . The majority of patients had a STS (53%) with liposarcoma (11%) and leiomyosarcoma (10%) as most common STS subtypes. In most cases the sarcoma was located intra-abdominal (24%), in the lower limb (23%), upper limb (11%), retroperitoneal (10%) or torso (12%). Patients had localized (66%) or metastatic disease (25%) and were receiving/had received curative (52%), palliative therapy (22%) or best supportive care (7%). The disease stage and the intention of treatment were missing or stated as ‘unknown’ by the patient, in 9% and in 18% of cases, respectively. Most patients were diagnosed with a sarcoma within the past one to five years (42%).

Research priorities

Research priorities in the overall group.

The ranking of research topics for the entire group of respondents is listed in Table  3 . The five highest ranked research topics were related to causes of sarcomas (43%), prognosis and risk of recurrence (40%), specific subtypes of sarcomas (33%), the role of immunotherapy, targeted therapy and combined therapy (30%), and hereditary aspects (30%).

Research priorities in respondent subgroups

In the subgroup of GIST patients and carers, 55% prioritized research on specific subtypes of sarcoma, whereas for the subgroups of BS, STS and DF this was 35%, 31% and 12%, respectively (supplementary 2 ). Among DF patients and carers, 50% prioritized research into the effect of lifestyle on the development of the tumor, whereas for the subgroups of BS, STS and GIST this was 20%, 19% and 24%, respectively. In the subgroup of AYA patients ( n  = 105) research topics addressing the effect of lifestyle on the development of sarcomas and the long-term effects of sarcoma treatment on intimacy and fertility were prioritized more often compared to older adults ( n  = 391) (34% and 22% versus 24% and 2%, resp.) (supplementary 3 ). Broadly, the top five of research priorities for the overall group matched those of the top 5 respondent countries. However, in the subgroup of Italian respondents, the research topic addressing the effect of lifestyle on the development of sarcomas featured among the top five (38%), whereas this was lower ranked in other countries (range 13–30%) (supplementary 4 ). Japanese respondents highly prioritized research focusing on specific sarcoma subtypes (56%), while this was prioritized by only 15% of Italian respondents. No clear differences were observed in research priorities between genders (supplementary Table 5 ). 20% of carers prioritized research regarding the terminal phase of the disease (i.e. development of the disease and methods to give best supportive care), whereas this was prioritized by only 10% of sarcoma patients (supplementary Table 6 ). Among patients treated in a palliative setting, 31% prioritized research regarding the terminal phase of the disease and 38% prioritized research about the effect of different treatment modalities on survival and QoL (supplementary Table 7 ). In contrast, these aspects were prioritized by 7% and 21%, respectively, of patients treated in a curative setting.

Patient advocacy priorities

Patient advocacy priorities in the overall group.

The ranking of patient advocacy topics for the entire group of respondents is listed in Table  4 . The three highest ranked patient advocacy topics were improving the diagnostic process of sarcomas (39%), access to tumor DNA analysis (37%) and establishing an international sarcoma registry (37%).

Patient advocacy priorities in subgroups

Among desmoid patients and carers the patient advocacy topic ‘classification of benign and malignant tumors’ featured among the top 5 (40%), while this was prioritized less frequently by respondents of other tumor groups (range 6–24%) (supplementary Table 8 ). Improvement of the diagnostic process was ranked highest in the subgroup of BS patients and carers (60%). In the subgroup of AYA patients mental support was prioritized higher compared to the subgroup of older adults (30% versus 15%) (supplementary Table 9 ). Broadly, patient advocacy priorities identified in the overall group of respondents aligned well with the priorities across countries (supplementary Table 10 ). 34% of Dutch patients prioritized the topic addressing ‘attention to QoL and consequences of treatment during the shared-decision making process’ (range in other countries: 13–23%). No clear differences were observed in patient advocacy priorities between males and females (supplementary Table 11 ), between patients and carers (supplementary Table 12 ) and curative versus palliative treatment indications (supplementary Table 13 ).

This is the first PSP bringing together sarcoma patients, carers, researchers and HCPs. The top five of research topics and the top three of patient advocacy topics, identified by this study, could provide guidance for researchers, policy-makers, caregivers and patient advocates. Interestingly, priorities differed across specific subgroups (e.g. tumor subgroups, age groups, etc.).

The research priorities identified in this survey reflect the characteristics of sarcoma etiology, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. In contrast to other cancer types, for sarcomas very few risk factors are known [ 22 ]. This could explain why research questions related to causes of sarcomas and hereditary aspects were ranked high. In particular, research regarding the effect of lifestyle (e.g. diet, physical activity) on the development of sarcomas was highly ranked in the DF subgroup, possibly due to the scarcity of identified risk factors for sporadic desmoid tumors [ 23 ]. Also in the subgroup of Italian respondents this research topic was highly ranked, which might be explained by cultural factors (e.g. more public attention to the relation between lifestyle and onset of diseases in general). Additionally, this PSP highlighted the need for research focusing on the diagnostic process, given the frequent delay in sarcoma diagnosis [ 24 ]. One way to improve the diagnostic process could be to use real-world data from general practitioners to gain more insight into symptom patterns specific for sarcoma patients [ 25 ]. In contrast to other cancer types, the progress in improving survival of sarcoma patients has been limited, with a median OS in advanced STS patients of only 12 months [ 26 , 27 ] and despite great efforts in sarcoma research, the past 10 years, there only has been a limited number of positive clinical trials and few new therapeutic options for STS patients [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. While some RCTs have shown that there might be a role for immunotherapy in the treatment of sarcomas, better patient selection is needed to identify those who could benefit from treatment with immunotherapy [ 38 ]. Therefore it is not surprising that the development of novel drug therapies, including targeted therapy, immunotherapy and combined therapy was prioritized high [ 39 ]. In addition, the prognosis of sarcoma patients is highly variable and multiple tools to predict recurrence and OS have been developed, including the Sarculator and Personalised Sarcoma Care (PERSARC) [ 40 , 41 ]. These tools can be used to assess the indication for (neo)adjuvant treatment, improve patient-tailored management and support the decision-making process. However, these tools are only applicable for localized (extremity) STS and to improve the accuracy addition of other predictors is required (e.g. gene expression profiles). This explains the high ranking of research focusing on recurrence and prognosis.

In contrast to JLA-based PSPs conducted in other cancer types, some research topics were ranked surprisingly low [ 11 , 42 , 43 , 44 ]. For example, research topics addressing support during the final phase of life and organization of the end-of-life were prioritized by only 4% of respondents. This might be explained by the fact that the majority of patients was diagnosed with localized disease. Furthermore, results might be biased as patients in more critical health conditions might not have had the opportunity to participate in the survey. Moreover, given that 75% of respondents are patients, this topic might have been prioritized low due to the use of avoidance coping strategies driven by fear of death [ 45 ].

In terms of patient advocacy, creating international registries containing data from sarcoma patients was prioritized by 37% of respondents. Establishing international registries is vital in overcoming challenges when researching rare cancer types, such as sarcomas. Registries could contribute to sarcoma research by enabling larger sample sizes, facilitating comprehensive analyses, and improving the understanding and management of sarcomas. This aligns well with the concept of the Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Registry (RESAR), initiated by the TransAtlantic Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPS), which aims to prospectively collect data from primary retroperitoneal sarcoma patients in Europe and North America [ 46 ]. 70% of respondents were residents of Germany, Netherlands, Japan, UK or Italy and only 7% of respondents prioritized information provision about tumor subtypes as a patient advocacy topic. This observation could imply that those countries provide sufficient information concerning tumor subtypes. Moreover these results indicate that most respondents likely have a connection with a patient advocacy group as they participated in the survey, which was primarily distributed by patient advocacy groups.

This study also highlighted distinct priorities among AYA patients, who prioritized mental support more often (30%) compared to older adults (15%). AYAs represent a vulnerable group of sarcoma patients as they have a different spectrum of cancer types compared to older adults and they are confronted with cancer during the most challenging time in their lives, leading to disruptions in their everyday life, social and professional life. Similar results were shown in a UK survey where mental support for AYAs with cancer belonged to the top 3 of research priorities [ 10 ]. AYAs are in the phase of their life exploring their sexuality and body-image and both the sarcoma diagnosis and the treatment itself can interfere with their sexual development. While a survey among AYAs with cancer in the Netherlands showed that communication about sexuality was considered crucial, the majority of AYAs was not satisfied with the provided information [ 47 ]. This unmet need was also identified in our survey with 22% of AYAs prioritizing research about long-term effects of sarcoma treatment on intimacy and fertility (versus 2% in older adults). Reintegration into daily life after surviving cancers might be very challenging for AYAs. Nevertheless, only 6% of AYAs prioritized the research topic focusing on the re-integration of sarcoma survivors into society. This doesn’t necessarily imply that this topic lacks relevance, but rather suggests that other topics were given higher priority.

One of the strengths of this study is that priorities for research and patient advocacy were assessed in various subgroups, allowing to gain more insight in the needs of various respondent subgroups and facilitating a more nuanced interpretation of results. Furthermore, we reached a high number of respondents and with more than 30 tumor types, respondents displayed a wide range of tumor types.

This sarcoma PSP has several limitations. The questionnaire was translated into 11 languages and respondents of more than 20 different countries were involved. Nevertheless, with the majority of respondents being higher educated and predominantly female respondents, these results are not representative for the entire sarcoma community. This problem is often encountered in survey research and has been observed in other PSPs as well [ 48 , 49 ]. Future sarcoma PSPs should aim to reach the underrepresented groups by using clear and understandable language and by offering different modalities for survey participation (e.g. online, paper). Another limitation might be the lack of specific research questions that are only relevant to a specific subgroup of respondents, potentially resulting from elimination of these questions during the first phase of the PSP. Another limitation is that topics were not presented in a random order each time the survey was opened. This might induce bias with topics at the bottom of the list being less frequent prioritized.

The PSP methodology is being applied worldwide for different disease entities and has directly lead to the initiation of multiple research projects [ 50 , 51 ]. This sarcoma PSP has identified priorities for research and patient advocacy, offering guidance for researchers, assisting funding agencies with assessing project relevance and empowering patient advocates to represent the needs of patients and carers. In order to successfully influence sarcoma research and patient advocacy multiple post-PSP processes are needed, including propagation of the top priorities (e.g. using networks of patient organisations, scientific conferences, etc.), involve funders, translation of research priorities into research projects, keep track of priorities that have been assessed and share details of progress with different stakeholders (e.g. patients, HCPs, carers, etc.). Moreover, this study showed that telemedicine and digitalization could facilitate connections between physicians and researchers, making it easier to monitor patient needs regarding research.

This sarcoma PSP has identified priorities for research (e.g. causes of sarcomas, prognosis, etc.) and patient advocacy (e.g. improving the diagnostic process, establishing an international sarcoma registry etc.). It is important to note that many of the research topics ranked high by respondents, are currently unanswered by research. These findings could provide guidance for researchers, assist funding agencies with assessing project relevance and empower patient advocates to represent the needs of patients and carers. We encourage all of these parties to use the results of this survey as a guideline for setting up the research agenda for different patient subgroups.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

Sarcoma Patient Global Network

Priority Setting Partnership

Patient-Powered Research Network

James Lind Alliance

Bone sarcomas

Soft tissue sarcomas

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors

• Desmoid fibromatosis

Quality of life

Healthcare professionals

Adolescents and young adults

Burningham Z, Hashibe M, Spector L, Schiffman JD. The epidemiology of sarcoma. Clin Sarcoma Res. 2012;2(1):14.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Amadeo B, Penel N, Coindre J-M, Ray-Coquard I, Ligier K, Delafosse P, et al. Incidence and time trends of sarcoma (2000–2013): results from the French network of cancer registries (FRANCIM). BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):190.

Board WCoTE. WHO Classification of Tumours: International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2020. https://publications.iarc.fr/588

Joensuu H. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Ann Oncol. 2006;17:x280–6.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gage MM, Nagarajan N, Ruck JM, Canner JK, Khan S, Giuliano K, et al. Sarcomas in the United States: recent trends and a call for improved staging. Oncotarget. 2019;10(25):2462–74.

Alman B, Attia S, Baumgarten C, Benson C, Blay J-Y, Bonvalot S, et al. The management of desmoid tumours: a joint global consensus-based guideline approach for adult and paediatric patients. Eur J Cancer. 2020;127:96–107.

Article   Google Scholar  

Davila-Seijo P, Hernández-Martín A, Morcillo-Makow E, de Lucas R, Domínguez E, Romero N, et al. Prioritization of therapy uncertainties in Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa: where should research direct to? An example of priority setting partnership in very rare disorders. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:61.

Stephens RJ, Whiting C, Cowan K. Research priorities in mesothelioma: a James Lind Alliance Priority setting Partnership. Lung Cancer. 2015;89(2):175–80.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Wan YL, Beverley-Stevenson R, Carlisle D, Clarke S, Edmondson RJ, Glover S, et al. Working together to shape the endometrial cancer research agenda: the top ten unanswered research questions. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;143(2):287–93.

Aldiss S, Fern LA, Phillips RS, Callaghan A, Dyker K, Gravestock H, et al. Research priorities for young people with cancer: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e028119.

Lechelt LA, Rieger JM, Cowan K, Debenham BJ, Krewski B, Nayar S, et al. Top 10 research priorities in head and neck cancer: results of an Alberta priority setting partnership of patients, caregivers, family members, and clinicians. Head Neck. 2018;40(3):544–54.

Husson O, Drabbe C, Schuster K, van Kampen P, Koops C, Weidema M, et al. Setting the international research agenda for sarcoma together with patients and carers: first results of the Sarcoma patient EuroNet (SPAEN) priority setting partnership. ESMO Open. 2022;7(3):100509.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):89.

Crocker JC, Boylan AM, Bostock J, Locock L. Is it worth it? Patient and public views on the impact of their involvement in health research and its assessment: a UK-based qualitative interview study. Health Expect. 2017;20(3):519–28.

Sacristán JA, Aguarón A, Avendaño-Solá C, Garrido P, Carrión J, Gutiérrez A, et al. Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:631–40.

Young K, Kaminstein D, Olivos A, Burroughs C, Castillo-Lee C, Kullman J, et al. Patient involvement in medical research: what patients and physicians learn from each other. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14(1):21.

Kasper B, Schuster K, Wilson R, Bickley S, Blay JY, Reinke D et al. Global patient involvement in Sarcoma Care-A Collaborative Initiative of the Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS) & sarcoma patients EuroNet (SPAEN). Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(4).

Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet. 2000;355(9220):2037–40.

Crowe S, Fenton M, Hall M, Cowan K, Chalmers I. Patients’, clinicians’ and the research communities’ priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1(1):2.

Chalmers I, Atkinson P, Fenton M, Firkins L, Crowe S, Cowan K. Tackling treatment uncertainties together: the evolution of the James Lind Initiative, 2003–2013. J R Soc Med. 2013;106(12):482–91.

GmbH L, editor. Hamburg: https://www.limesurvey.org/

Thomas DM, Ballinger ML. Etiologic, environmental and inherited risk factors in sarcomas. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111(5):490–5.

Hohenberger P, Menge F, Hohenberger R, Kasper B, Marx A, Haller F et al. Trauma and sporadic desmoid tumor development - an approach toward real incidence and aspects of causality. Cancer. 2023.

Soomers V, Husson O, Desar IME, van de Sande MAJ, de Haan JJ, Verhoef C, et al. Patient and diagnostic intervals of survivors of sarcoma: results from the SURVSARC study. Cancer. 2020;126(24):5283–92.

Holthuis EI, Heins MJ, van Houdt WJ, Haas RL, Overbeek JA, Olde Hartman TC et al. Improving Diagnosis and Care for Patients With Sarcoma: Do Real-World General Practitioners Data and Prospective Data Collections Have a Place Next to Clinical Trials? JCO Clin Cancer Inf. 2024(8):e2400054.

Karavasilis V, Seddon BM, Ashley S, Al-Muderis O, Fisher C, Judson I. Significant clinical benefit of first-line palliative chemotherapy in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma: retrospective analysis and identification of prognostic factors in 488 patients. Cancer. 2008;112(7):1585–91.

Van Glabbeke M, van Oosterom AT, Oosterhuis JW, Mouridsen H, Crowther D, Somers R, et al. Prognostic factors for the outcome of Chemotherapy in Advanced Soft tissue sarcoma: an analysis of 2,185 patients treated with anthracycline-containing first-line Regimens—A European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and bone Sarcoma Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(1):150.

Chawla SP, Papai Z, Mukhametshina G, Sankhala K, Vasylyev L, Fedenko A, et al. First-line aldoxorubicin vs doxorubicin in metastatic or locally advanced unresectable soft-tissue sarcoma: a phase 2b Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(9):1272–80.

Pautier P, Italiano A, Piperno-Neumann S, Chevreau C, Penel N, Firmin N, et al. Doxorubicin alone versus doxorubicin with trabectedin followed by trabectedin alone as first-line therapy for metastatic or unresectable leiomyosarcoma (LMS-04): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(8):1044–54.

Schöffski P, Chawla S, Maki RG, Italiano A, Gelderblom H, Choy E, et al. Eribulin versus dacarbazine in previously treated patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma: a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10028):1629–37.

van der Graaf WTA, Blay J-Y, Chawla SP, Kim D-W, Bui-Nguyen B, Casali PG, et al. Pazopanib for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (PALETTE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9829):1879–86.

Grünwald V, Karch A, Schuler M, Schöffski P, Kopp HG, Bauer S, et al. Randomized comparison of Pazopanib and Doxorubicin as First-Line treatment in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma age 60 years or older: results of a German Intergroup Study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(30):3555–64.

Schmoll HJ, Lindner LH, Reichardt P, Heißner K, Kopp HG, Kessler T, et al. Efficacy of Pazopanib with or without gemcitabine in patients with Anthracycline- and/or ifosfamide-refractory soft tissue sarcoma: final results of the PAPAGEMO phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(2):255–62.

Mir O, Brodowicz T, Italiano A, Wallet J, Blay JY, Bertucci F, et al. Safety and efficacy of regorafenib in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (REGOSARC): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(12):1732–42.

Gounder MM, Razak AA, Somaiah N, Chawla S, Martin-Broto J, Grignani G, et al. Selinexor in Advanced, Metastatic Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma: a multinational, randomized, Double-Blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(22):2479–90.

Le Cesne A, Blay JY, Cupissol D, Italiano A, Delcambre C, Penel N, et al. A randomized phase III trial comparing trabectedin to best supportive care in patients with pre-treated soft tissue sarcoma: T-SAR, a French Sarcoma Group trial. Ann Oncol. 2021;32(8):1034–44.

Hartmann JT, Kopp HG, Gruenwald V, Piperno-Neumann S, Kunitz A, Hofheinz R, et al. Randomised phase II trial of trofosfamide vs. doxorubicin in elderly patients with untreated metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. Eur J Cancer. 2020;124:152–60.

Albarrán V, Villamayor ML, Pozas J, Chamorro J, Rosero DI, San Román M et al. Current Landscape of Immunotherapy for Advanced Sarcoma. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(8).

Sobczuk P, Bątruk H, Wójcik P, Iwaniak K, Kozak K, Rutkowski P. In search of effective therapies: the current landscape of phase II trials in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023;149(7):2771–82.

van Praag VM, Rueten-Budde AJ, Jeys LM, Laitinen MK, Pollock R, Aston W, et al. A prediction model for treatment decisions in high-grade extremity soft-tissue sarcomas: personalised sarcoma care (PERSARC). Eur J Cancer. 2017;83:313–23.

Voss RK, Callegaro D, Chiang YJ, Fiore M, Miceli R, Keung EZ et al. Sarculator is a good model to Predict Survival in Resected extremity and trunk sarcomas in US patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022.

Jones J, Bhatt J, Avery J, Laupacis A, Cowan K, Basappa N, et al. The kidney cancer research priority-setting partnership: identifying the top 10 research priorities as defined by patients, caregivers, and expert clinicians. Can Urol Assoc J. 2017;11(12):379–87.

Klotz R, Holze M, Dörr-Harim C, Grohmann E, Nied B, Lebert B, et al. Top 10 research priorities in colorectal cancer: results from the Colorectal Cancer Priority-setting Partnership. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2023;149(4):1561–8.

Zhong T, Mahajan A, Cowan K, Temple-Oberle C, Porter G, LeBlanc M, et al. Identifying the top research priorities in postmastectomy breast cancer reconstruction: a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership. BMJ Open. 2021;11(8):e047589.

Lim CYS, Laidsaar-Powell RC, Young JM, Solomon M, Steffens D, Blinman P et al. Fear of Cancer progression and death anxiety in survivors of Advanced Colorectal Cancer: a qualitative study exploring coping strategies and quality of life. Omega (Westport). 2022:302228221121493.

van Houdt WJ, Raut CP, Bonvalot S, Swallow CJ, Haas R, Gronchi A. New research strategies in retroperitoneal sarcoma. The case of TARPSWG, STRASS and RESAR: making progress through collaboration. Curr Opin Oncol. 2019;31(4):310–6.

Albers LF, Haj Mohammad SF, Husson O, Putter H, Pelger RCM, Elzevier HW, et al. Exploring communication about intimacy and sexuality: what are the preferences of adolescents and young adults with Cancer and their Health Care professionals? J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2020;9(2):222–38.

Mickute G, Staley K, Delaney H, Gardiner O, Hunter A, Keen R, et al. Rare musculoskeletal diseases in adults: a research priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020;15(1):117.

Gadsby R, Snow R, Daly AC, Crowe S, Matyka K, Hall B, et al. Setting research priorities for type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2012;29(10):1321–6.

Staley K, Crowe S, Crocker JC, Madden M, Greenhalgh T. What happens after James Lind Alliance Priority setting partnerships? A qualitative study of contexts, processes and impacts. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6(1):41.

JLA. Making a difference - funded research 2022. https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/making-a-difference/funded-research.htm

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very thankful to the patients and carers who responded to the survey and to the patient advocates that assisted with the translation of the survey.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Medical Oncology Department, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

E. Roets, N. Steeghs, W. T. A. van der Graaf & O. Husson

Sarcoma Patient Advocacy Global Network (SPAGN), Untergasse 36, D-61200, Wölfersheim, Germany

K. Schuster, S. Bickley, M. Wartenberg, O. Gonzato, N. Fernandez, B. Kasper, K. Pilgermann, R. Wilson & G. van Oortmerssen

Policy and Support, Sarcoma UK, 17/18 Angel Gate City Road, London, UK

German Sarcoma Foundation, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany

M. Wartenberg & B. Kasper

Fondazione Paola Gonzato-Rete Sarcoma ETS, Rome, Italy

Sarcoma Unit, Mannheim University Medical Center, Heidelberg, Germany

Sarcoma UK, 17/18 Angel Gate City Road, London, UK

Medical Oncology Department, Erasmus Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

W. T. A. van der Graaf & O. Husson

Surgical Oncology Department, Erasmus Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

ER: Data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, conceptualization, project administration, writing – original draft. KS: Data curation, methodology, project administration, conceptualization, writing-review. SB: conceptualization, writing-review. MW: conceptualization, writing-review. OG: conceptualization, writing-review. NF: conceptualization, writing-review. BK: conceptualization, writing-review. KP: conceptualization, writing-review. RW: conceptualization, writing-review. NS: writing-review. W. T. A. G: conceptualization, writing-review, supervision. GO: conceptualization, writing-review. OH: methodology, conceptualization, writing-review, supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. Husson .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The need for ethics was deemed unnecessary as patients were recruited via the patient organization, SPAGN, and not via medical doctors or researchers. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Within the questionnaire, participants were informed about the nature of the study and data usage (i.e. anonymous publication). This approach complies with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), which allows for the collection of personal data with appropriate consent and data protection measures. Furthermore, the ethical guidelines set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki were followed, ensuring that participants’ rights and well-being were prioritized.

Consent for publication

All patients consented to anonymously publishing their responses to the questions.

Competing interests

NS provided consultation or attended advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Luszana. NS received research grants from Abbvie, Actuate Therapeutics, Amgen, Array, Ascendis Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cantargia, CellCentric, Cogent Biosciences, Cresecendo Biologics, Cytovation, Deciphera, Dragonfly, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, IDRx, Immunocore, Incyte, InteRNA, Janssen, Kinnate Biopharma, Kling Biotherapeutics, Lixte, Luszana, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus, Molecular Partners, Navire Pharma, Novartis, Numab Therapeutics, Pfizer, Relay Pharmaceuticals, Revolution Medicin, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Taiho, Takeda. All outside the submitted work, all payment to the Netherlands Cancer Institute. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Roets, E., Schuster, K., Bickley, S. et al. Setting the international research agenda for sarcomas with patients and carers: results of phase II of the Sarcoma Patient Advocacy Global Network (SPAGN) priority setting partnership. BMC Cancer 24 , 962 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12732-6

Download citation

Received : 18 March 2024

Accepted : 30 July 2024

Published : 06 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12732-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Gastrointestinal stromal tumor
• Bone sarcoma
• Soft tissue sarcoma
• Priority setting partnership
• Patient involvement
• Patient advocacy

ISSN: 1471-2407

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• What is the MoSCoW prioritization method?

Last updated

17 April 2024

Reviewed by

Mary Mikhail

Several techniques are available to project managers to plan a team’s workload by ranking projects or tasks by significance. These prioritization techniques also help communicate to project teams and stakeholders where resources must be directed to accomplish goals. 

The MoSCoW method is one such popular prioritization technique. Learn what the MoSCoW method is and how to apply it. 

The MoSCoW method ranks the significance of a task by determining the requirements for a project's successful completion.

Some may be essential and must be included in the project’s deliverables. You may find other specifications are not required for a successful conclusion, but you might consider them to improve the result or business value.

This prioritization technique requires you to classify projects and tasks by their levels of necessity in reaching your goal.

• Where does the term MoSCoW come from?

MoSCoW is an acronym that signifies the names of the categories in which the requirements are placed:

M = Must-haves

S = Should-haves

C = Could-haves

W = Will not have at this time or wish for

The Os were added to make the acronym easier to pronounce. Using these categories makes projects more manageable, helps with better resource control, and increases the chances of meeting deadlines.

• Using MoSCoW prioritization categories

Requirements with the highest level of importance are must-haves. You'll place lesser-ranked requirements in the should-haves and could-haves categories. Anything in the will-not-have category defines the requirement as nice to have, but not a necessity, at least for now.

Deliverance of effective solutions

Because a project can't be accomplished without must-have initiatives, your team must be committed to completing these requirements.

Should-haves

These tasks or elements are important to completing the project or product, but they're not necessary. Although the product will still function without should-have requirements, you shouldn't disregard them or underestimate their importance because they can significantly increase the product's value.

Performance improvements and new functions are examples of should-have requirements.

Could-haves

These initiatives take a back seat to must-haves and should-haves. If left out, they will not significantly influence the completion of a product or project. A could-have element is desired but not necessary.

Will-not-haves (at this time)

The items in this category set realistic expectations for what the product will not include. A clear visual representation of these requirements communicates to the team and stakeholders items identified as out of scope.

What do your users really want?

Just upload your customer research and ask your insights hub - like magic.

• When do you use the MoSCoW method for prioritization?

The idea behind Agile project management is to decrease the risk of missed goals and deadlines. It uses resources and time more efficiently by breaking the project into smaller sections and prioritizing tasks, requirements, products, and stories.

To prioritize these, you can use the MoSCoW method within the scope of an Agile project.

• What is an example of the MoSCoW technique?

Imagine you're building an e-commerce website that must launch by a specific date. You'll have to prioritize its features because you don't have unlimited time to work on the site.

The functionality you want to incorporate into the website could be:

Users can log onto the website

Users should have access to a "Forgot Password" solution

Users can change account details

Users can send an email to the system requesting a change to the account page

Here's how you might categorize these features based on how effective you want the website to be and the time constraints you face:

Must-haves:

Should-haves:

Could-haves:

Will-not-haves

Users can click on a phone number on the webpage, and a call will automatically be made from their desk phone to that number

• Benefits of using MoSCoW prioritization

MoSCoW prioritization offers several benefits in project management:

Clarity and focus: It helps teams identify and prioritize the most critical requirements, ensuring clarity on what needs to be delivered first.

Efficiency: By categorizing tasks into must-haves, should-haves, could-haves, and won't-haves, teams can allocate resources more efficiently and focus on delivering essential features first.

Stakeholder alignment: It facilitates stakeholder discussions by providing a common language to discuss and prioritize requirements, ensuring alignment on project goals and objectives.

Risk mitigation: MoSCoW prioritization helps mitigate project risks by addressing must-have requirements first, reducing the likelihood of critical features being overlooked or delayed.

Flexibility: It allows for flexibility in project planning and execution by accommodating changes in requirements throughout the project lifecycle while ensuring that essential features are prioritized.

Time and cost savings: By focusing on must-have requirements early in the project, teams can deliver value more quickly, potentially reducing project timelines and costs.

Overall, MoSCoW prioritization promotes a structured and systematic approach to project management, leading to more successful and efficient project outcomes.

• Disadvantages of using MoSCoW prioritization

The major disadvantage of the MoSCoW method is that it isn’t an objective or consistent scoring system. For this methodology to be effective, other scoring systems, like the weighted scoring or the Kano model, should be used in conjunction with it.

Not combining another scoring system with the MoSCoW method can exclude the organization's leadership from the decision-making process. Decisions would then be in danger of being made based on the project manager's personal preferences rather than adhering to business goals and values.

This method does not involve supporting reasoning on how you prioritize requirements within the same category or why one requirement is a must-have or should-have. The parameters of each category can be blurred. There is also uncertainty about whether will-not-haves are being left out of the tasks required now or out of the entire project.

• How can teams use MoSCoW to their advantage?

Resources, time, and skill sets are not unlimited in the business world. You must constantly strive to work around those constraints efficiently for a maximum return on investment (ROI). Using the MoSCoW method can help.

Use budgetary constraints to prioritize

Some projects have tight budgets. You can use the MoSCoW method by using the budget to determine which items must be and should be completed.

Use the team's skill sets to prioritize

Experience and expertise levels can help determine which tasks to prioritize. If a task requires skills that the team lacks, you must prioritize it accordingly.

Use the competing needs of the company to prioritize

While your team is working on a specific aspect of a project, the company's leaders may have added additional requirements for your team to complete within the same timeframe. You would then have to reshuffle the priorities to accommodate the additional requirements. The MoSCoW method can help you do this.

• Best practices for using MoSCoW prioritization

Include all stakeholders in using the MoSCoW method, from the executive level down to the different teams involved in the successful completion of the project. Get them to also use objective scoring systems like:

Opportunity scoring: uses data from market research to determine what customers expect from your product or service. Prioritization is done according to their wants and needs.

Priority poker: based on priorities that will provide the highest yields in a specific target market. The marketing team, executive team, and customers should be involved for accurate ranking of priorities.

Cost of delay: based on determining how much money the company is losing by waiting to work on a particular task, product, or feature.

100-point method: all stakeholders vote for what they think is the most important requirement. They each get 100 points to distribute among the requirements, ranking them from most important to least. If a stakeholder thinks four requirements are of equal value, they can allocate 25 points to each. If they feel strongly that one requirement overrides all others, they can put all 100 points on that requirement.

Incorporate the data you receive from these scoring systems when inserting the requirements in your MoSCoW categories. Share the results with stakeholders so that they can understand why you prioritized the criteria as you did. This exercise might even reveal a reason to expand a budget constraint or allocate more resources to a priority the stakeholders initially thought unimportant.

How the MoSCoW method differs from the 100-point method

While the 100-point method helps in general brainstorming sessions, the MoSCoW method focuses on working within budget and time constraints.

Once the teams and stakeholders reach an agreement (perhaps by using the 100-point method) on the importance level of each requirement, the product managers or owners will use the MoSCoW method to categorize requirements based on:

High customer value

An elevated benefit to the business

Simple implementation

Inflated costs, when not applied as soon as possible

Technical specifications that are interdependent 

This will help stakeholders and project teams visualize the intended direction.

• MoSCoW prioritization in Agile project management

In an ideal world, your business would have unlimited time and a limitless source of funds to become the most efficient revenue generator it could be. But in the real world, you've got budget and time constraints.

When deciding on projects that will help increase revenue, decrease operational costs, boost productivity, or heighten customer satisfaction, you must choose the projects and project requirements that will most impact the goals you find important. The MoSCoW method can help you do just that.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous interviews faster?

Do you share your interview findings with others?

Do you interview customers?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 11 July 2024

Last updated: 26 July 2024

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 20 July 2024

Last updated: 27 July 2024

Last updated: 15 July 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

What is MoSCoW Prioritization? A Complete Guide to Using This Essential Requirements Prioritization Method

MoSCoW prioritization is a crucial technique in agile project management and software development that helps teams prioritize requirements and initiatives. With MoSCoW, you can classify project needs into categories to focus on the most critical features first.

In this comprehensive guide, we’ll explain what MoSCoW is, why it’s useful, and how to run a MoSCoW analysis for your next project. You’ll learn the MoSCoW categories, rules, and best practices so you can start prioritizing requirements effectively.

Let’s get started!

What Is MoSCoW Prioritization?

MoSCoW is an acronym that stands for:

S hould have

C ould have

W on't have (for now)

It is a prioritization method for categorizing requirements, features, or initiatives based on how critical they are to a project.

The MoSCoW method was created in the early 1990s by Dai Clegg, a software development expert working at Oracle. It is often used in agile environments to prioritize user stories or requirements for the next product release or iteration.

MoSCoW helps teams:

Clarify and agree on the most important requirements

Avoid scope creep by deferring less critical features 

Release a minimum viable product earlier

Manage stakeholders' expectations

Allocate resources and effort more effectively

It is a simple yet effective prioritization framework to determine what is absolutely essential vs. what is less critical or could wait until later.

The four MoSCoW categories allow you to bucket requirements based on must-have, should-have, could-have, and won’t have (for now). We’ll explore what each of these mean.

Must Have Requirements

Items labeled as Must Have are critical requirements without which your project cannot function or be released.

These are absolute must-have items you need to deliver in the current release. They are non-negotiable.

For example:

Key features that define the core value proposition

Major functionality that users expect

Requirements driven by law, compliance or security

Integration with other core systems

You need to have 100% of your Must Have requirements completed before you can consider the project or product ready for release.

Should Have Requirements

Should Have requirements are important but not absolutely critical.

These would deliver significant value and you should try to include them if possible. But if you had to, you could release without these.

Nice-to-have features that aren’t core to the product

Functional enhancements that improve the user experience

Lower-priority integrations

Useful reports/analytics that provide additional insights

Should Have requirements make your solution better, but they are lower priority than Must Haves. These get scheduled if there is time, budget, and resources available.

Could Have Requirements

Could Have requirements are desirable but not urgent. These features could improve the product in the future but they can wait until later.

Could Haves may include:

New features that can be postponed to a future release

Functionality for a secondary persona or edge use case

Enhancements that are further down the roadmap

Integrations that expand the ecosystem but aren’t essential yet

Could Haves represent a wish list of items you’d like to have eventually but won’t schedule for the current release.

Won't Have For Now

Won't Have For Now , also known as Would Have , captures requirements or ideas you've decided to exclude from scope for the foreseeable future.  

These may be:

Nice-to-have features with no clear business value

Gold-plating beyond the core scope

Things stakeholders requested but you will not address now

Won’t Haves are not on the roadmap. You have no plans to ever work on these - at least not in the current planning horizon.

Clearly documenting Won’t Haves reduces scope creep and temptation to later add these “must have” items back in.

Benefits of Using the MoSCoW Method

There are several key benefits that make MoSCoW prioritization so useful:

Provides a shared framework - Having standard MoSCoW categories helps teams align on priorities and urgency.

Offers granular separation - Four levels allow more granularity than simplistic high/medium/low prioritization.

Limits scope creep - Locking down Won’t Haves makes de-scoping easier.

Focuses effort - Ensures you deliver the vital 20% (Must Haves) before the trivial 80% (nice-to-haves).

Promotes MVP releases - Helps you launch the minimum viable product faster.

Manages stakeholders - Grounds discussions in clear priority tiers that justify what is in/out of scope.

Enables agility - If priorities shift, you can re-categorize remaining requirements.

Simple and flexible - Quick to explain but can adapt for multiple uses.

When Should You Use the MoSCoW Method?

MoSCoW prioritization helps in several common situations:

Prioritizing requirements for a new product or project

Planning features for the next release or iteration

Clarifying which scope items are fixed vs. negotiable

Resolving conflicts between stakeholders wanting different features

Deciding what goes into an MVP vs. future releases

Reducing scope creep and sticking to critical path items

Explaining the “why” behind what is in vs. out of scope

Allocating resources and scheduling development

It is most helpful early in a project to align stakeholders and agree on the release criteria. But MoSCoW can also be used iteratively if priorities change.

How to Conduct a MoSCoW Analysis

Here is an overview of how to run a MoSCoW analysis:

1. Gather Requirements

First, collect all potential requirements for the product or project. Common ways to gather needs include:

User research

Stakeholder interviews

Existing backlogs

Support tickets

Feedback and requests

Include needs from all key user personas and stakeholder groups.

2. Categorize Requirements

Next, take each requirement and assign it to one of the four MoSCoW buckets.

Must Have: Critical requirements without which you cannot launch. The core 20%.

Should Have: Important but lower priority. Nice-to-haves. 

Could Have: Desirable but can wait til later.

Won’t Have: Out of scope.

You can conduct this quickly in a workshop setting or over several iterative passes.

3. Finalize and Prioritize Buckets

Review the categorization and confirm the contents of each MoSCoW bucket.

Then prioritize within each bucket - what is the internal order of urgency?

4. Estimate and Schedule

For each prioritized bucket, estimate level of effort.

Then schedule Must Haves first, Should Haves if there is capacity, etc.

5. Communicate and Execute

Communicate the MoSCoW priorities and release plan to stakeholders.

Then build - stay laser-focused on delivering the Must Haves first!

Throughout execution, refer back to MoSCoW often to avoid scope creep. Only modify categories if genuine priority shifts occur.

10 Best Practices for Using the MoSCoW Method

Follow these tips when running a MoSCoW analysis:

Include all stakeholders - Don’t allow one group to dominate priorities. Get broad input.

Clarify criteria first - Agree on principles for assigning categories - ROI, risk, dependencies.

Start with must haves - Get alignment on the minimum viable product first.

Limit must have count - Be disciplined. If everything is a must have, nothing is.

Use relative prioritization - Compare items against each other to assign categories.

Update iteratively - Expect multiple passes before finalizing categories.

Watch for conflicts - Hash out tension points through open discussion.

Communicate rules - Ensure everyone understands the meaning behind each bucket.

Limit won’t haves - Throw in these out of scope items sparingly.

Revisit and reassess - Requirements always change. Expect to re-MoSCoW periodically.

Common Questions and Criticism of the MoSCoW Method

Here are some frequent questions that arise with MoSCoW prioritization:

Isn’t this just high/medium/low prioritization?

No - having four buckets allows more granularity than three or fewer levels. And the category names provide more meaning.

Doesn’t every stakeholder just make their own requirements Must Have?

Good facilitation is key. Set clear criteria for categories and force ranking across items.

What if priorities change mid-project?

That’s expected. Rerun MoSCoW as needed - just don't allow constant scope creep.

How do you manage conflicting priorities?

Have open debate. Achieve consensus based on objective criteria, not authority.

Isn’t this a rigid waterfall approach?

Not at all - MoSCoW is designed for agile projects. Categorize remaining work in each iteration.

How do you budget/estimate if priorities still shifting?

Estimate buckets separately. Plan for must-haves first, should-haves if possible.

What if we need to deliver something not categorized?

Rare, but if genuinely critical new work emerges, plan it after the must-haves.

When Not to Use the MoSCoW Method

MoSCoW prioritization is not a silver bullet solution. Cases where it may not be the best fit:

Requirements are strictly fixed/dictated

Priorities set in stone by executives/sponsor

Limited flexibility around what is delivered when

Extremely small number of requirements

Organization lacks an agile mindset

Forcing MoSCoW in these situations may lead to frustration. Focus on communication over process.

MoSCoW Alternatives and Variations

If MoSCoW doesn’t suit your needs, consider these alternatives:

Kano model - Categorizes requirements based on customer satisfaction

Weighted scoring - Ranks requirements on multiple factors using point system

Theme screening - Grouping requirements by theme or objective

Value vs. Effort prioritization - Plotting requirements on a matrix

Minimal Marketable Release (MMR) - Identifying the absolute minimum release

Buy a Feature - Allocating fictional budget against requirements

Dot voting - Literally placing dot stickers next to favorites

Many teams will also modify or adapt MoSCoW itself, for example:

Expanding to 5-6 levels for more granularity

Using different category names

Including numeric scores or percentages

Introducing additional prioritization dimensions like cost, risk, or value

The best option depends on your specific project and needs. The core principles of separating must-haves from nice-to-haves remain effective in any variation.

Tools for Managing MoSCoW Prioritization

To make MoSCoW prioritization easier, consider using these handy tools:

Trello - Kanban boards to visualize MoSCoW status

Jira - Built-in MoSCoW priority field

Aha! - Roadmapping tool with MoSCoW categories

ProductPlan - Prioritization with MoSCoW buckets

PitStop - Workshop facilitation for MoSCoW and more

Miro - Virtual whiteboards for MoSCoW 

Milanote - Online sticky notes ideal for MoSCoW

Google Sheets - Simple MoSCoW tracking spreadsheet

Look for tools that allow flexible fields to represent the four prioritization levels. Visibility into the different categories helps enforce MoSCoW discipline.

MoSCoW Prioritization Templates

For those who prefer more structured templates, here are some handy MoSCoW resources:

MoSCoW prioritization spreadsheet

Printable MoSCoW template  

Editable MoSCoW PowerPoint template

MoSCoW Jira template

MoSCoW frames for Miro

Reuse these templates for your own MoSCoW workshops to get started quickly. Tweak them as needed to match your process.

Sample MoSCoW Prioritization

To make this more concrete, here is an example MoSCoW analysis for prioritizing requirements for a new project management software product:

Task management

Kanban boards

User management

Native integrations

Should Have

Custom fields

Time tracking

Portfolio hierarchy

Resource management

Custom workflows

Auto scheduling

Milestone dependencies

API integrations

Project templates

Won't Have (for now)

Resource leveling

Doc management

Resource pooling

Skills management

This illuminates the core functionality required to launch the MVP (Must Have) versus optional features that, while nice to have, are lower priority and can wait (Should Have, Could Have). 

Explicitly calling out won’t have items also reduces scope creep by acknowledging certain requests that are clearly out of scope.

Recap of MoSCoW Prioritization

Let’s recap what we’ve learned:

MoSCoW is a prioritization method for categorizing requirements or initiatives into Must, Should, Could, and Won’t Have buckets.

It was created for agile software projects but can be used widely for any prioritization.

MoSCoW helps teams align on MVP scope, prevent scope creep, and sequence delivery of the most important work first.

Requirements are assigned to the four categories based on importance and urgency relative to other needs.

Must Haves are critical and non-negotiable. Should Haves are high value but lower priority. Could Haves are nice-to-haves for later. Won’t Haves are out of scope.

MoSCoW offers more granularity than simplistic high/medium/low prioritization and limits scope creep through Won’t Haves.

Use MoSCoW early in a project to get consensus on priorities, then estimate and schedule requirements accordingly.

Revisit and re-MoSCoW regularly as priorities inevitably change.

Prioritizing effectively is a core agile competency. By leveraging the simple yet powerful MoSCoW framework, you can build shared alignment around MVP and release planning - enabling your team to focus efforts on what matters most to drive success.

Prioritization Techniques for the Product Owner

• Website for Mary Iqbal
• Contact Mary Iqbal
• Twitter for Mary Iqbal
• LinkedIn for Mary Iqbal
• Facebook for Mary Iqbal

As a Product Owner , one of your most critical responsibilities is deciding how to order Product Backlog items in the Product Backlog. With limited resources and ever-evolving customer demands, mastering the art of feature prioritization is essential to creating a successful and user-centric product. In this article, we will explore some complimentary practices which the Product Owner might use to as an input when deciding how to order the Product Backlog. These tools should be seen as optional practices that the Product Owner might use when making their day-to-day decisions about the content and ordering of the Product Backlog.

Understanding the Importance of Prioritization

Ordering Product Backlog items in the Product Backlog isn't simply about arranging them in a list. It's about making informed decisions that align with your product's vision, your business goals, and most importantly, your customers' needs. By carefully choosing which features to deliver first, the Product Owner can maximize the value that your product delivers while minimizing the risk of investing resources in features that may not resonate with your audience. The complimentary practices below can help bring clarity to your thought process and can be used to potentially involve stakeholders in the process as well.

The MoSCoW Method: Must-Have, Should-Have, Could-Have, Won't-Have

I had the opportunity to collaborate with a team on the re-platforming of a major consumer website. When we embarked on this initiative, we faced uncertainty about where to initiate our efforts. Determining the most crucial features and establishing a starting point from a technical perspective presented challenges. To gain insights from our stakeholders, we opted to employ the MoSCoW prioritization technique.

We began by compiling an exhaustive backlog of all potential features for the final product. This comprehensive list was then presented to stakeholders for feedback. Stakeholders were asked to categorize each feature according to the MoSCoW framework: "Must Have," "Should Have," "Could Have," and "Won't Have." Through productive stakeholder discussions, we gained a deeper understanding of their perspectives on feature importance.

The outcomes of the MOSCOW session proved invaluable to the Product Owner's process of ordering the Product Backlog.

Here's how it works:

This technique provides a systematic approach to categorize features into four distinct categories, denoted as follows. Engage stakeholders either remotely or in person and guide them through each feature within the Product Backlog. For each feature, prompt stakeholders to assign it to one of the following categories:

Must-Have (M): Encompassing essential features crucial for the core functionality and immediate usability of the product. These features are pivotal to fulfilling the primary purpose of the product.

Should-Have (S): Pertaining to features that, while important, aren't critical for the initial release. They enhance the user experience and contribute value, but the product can operate effectively without them.

Could-Have (C): Referring to features that provide added benefits to specific user segments. These are considered as "nice-to-haves" and can be included in subsequent releases if resource availability allows.

Won't-Have (W): Designating features that have been intentionally deprioritized. These features might not align with current objectives or could demand disproportionate resources in relation to their value.

The MoSCoW method, while a valuable tool, remains a strategic hypothesis. It's essential to recognize that the true importance to the customer only becomes clear upon product release.

Additionally, regardless of the outomes of the MoSCoW exercise, the Product Owner always remains the final decision maker on the content and ordering of the Product Backlog. The Product Owner may choose to order their Product Backlog to reduce risk, consider technical or business dependencies or may decide that certain features are more important to the customer than stakeholders believed. Whatever the Product Owner's decision, the organization should respect their decision.

The Kano Model: Customer Satisfaction and Delight

The Kano model provides a little more emphasis on how the organization hypothesizes that customers will feel about the different features which could be build for the Product. Rather than "Must Have", "Should Have", etc., the Kano Model focuses on the relationship between features and customer satisfaction.

Using, the Kano model, the Product Owner and stakeholders should review items from the Product Backlog and classify them into five categories as shown below.

Basic Needs: These are the fundamental features that customers expect. They don't necessarily impress customers, but their absence leads to dissatisfaction.

Performance Needs: These features directly correlate with customer satisfaction. The better their performance, the more satisfied customers are.

Excitement Needs: These unexpected features delight customers and can set your product apart from competitors. They aren't crucial, but they generate excitement and positive sentiment.

Indifferent Needs: These features neither significantly impact satisfaction nor cause dissatisfaction. They're often best minimized to avoid unnecessary complexity.

Reverse Needs: These features, if present, can actually lead to dissatisfaction for some users. Understanding and avoiding them is crucial.

As with all prioritization techniques, the outcome should serve as input into the Product Owner's decision-making process. The Product Owner may need to consider additional aspects such as technical dependencies or risk when they make their decisions about the content and ordering of the Product Backlog.

The RICE Method: Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort

The RICE method is a data-driven approach that helps you quantify and compare different feature ideas. This method is particularly useful for Marketing teams who need to prioritize their efforts according to what will have the greatest impact for the largest number of people.

Many marketing teams - especially internal teams serving a larger organization - receive far more requests than they can actually fulfill. How does the Product Owner decide between the needs of the various stakeholders requesting time from the Marketing organization? The RICE method can help. RICE takes into account Reach, Impact, Confidence and Effort and can help the Product Owner make more thoughtful decisions about the content and ordering of their Product Backlog.

The Product Owner or their delegate should review requests for inclusion in the Product Backlog through the lens of Reach (how many users are impacted), Impact (how positive of an impact the feature will have), Confidence (how confident estimates are), and Effort (how much effort will it take to deliver each feature)." By considering these four elements, the Product Owner can make more educated decisions about the content and ordering of the Product Backlog.

Reach: Evaluate how many users a feature will impact. This could be a percentage of your user base or a specific customer segment.

Impact: Measure the potential impact of the feature on user satisfaction, engagement, revenue, or any other relevant metric.

Confidence: Assess how confident you are in your estimates for reach and impact. More uncertain features should have lower confidence scores.

Effort: Estimate the resources (time, money, manpower) required to develop the feature.

By calculating the RICE score (Reach × Impact × Confidence / Effort), you can prioritize features that offer the highest value relative to their cost.

Prioritizing features is an ongoing process that requires a deep understanding of your product's purpose and your users' needs. The MoSCoW, Kano, and RICE methods offer distinct yet complementary approaches to feature prioritization. Depending on your product, combining elements from these frameworks can provide a well-rounded strategy for making informed decisions.

Remember that context matters. Your product's stage, market conditions, and user feedback should all influence your prioritization decisions. Regularly revisit and refine your priorities to ensure your product roadmap remains aligned with your vision and responsive to changing dynamics.

By mastering the art of feature prioritization, you can steer your product towards success, delivering value to your users and achieving your business goals in a strategic and impactful way.

To learn more about the Product Owner accountability in Scrum, signup for Rebel Scrum’s Professional Scrum Product Owner course.

Expand your horizons and learn from thought leaders in Scrum and Kanban at this year’s Scrum Day conference in Madison, Wisconsin.  This conference has something for everyone from our groundbreaking keynotes to break-out sessions for Scrum Masters, Executives, Product Owners, Developers and those who are just curious about Scrum.

And while you are in town, don’t miss the Badger game at Camp Randall Stadium on September 16!

What did you think about this post?

Share with your network.

• Share this page via email
• Share this page on Facebook
• Share this page on Twitter
• Share this page on LinkedIn

View the discussion thread.