yacht scoring 2022

Published on May 19th, 2022 | by Editor

Deep dive into scoring systems

Published on May 19th, 2022 by Editor -->

When Lee Morrison got involved in the administration of his local fleet’s summer series, he was surprised by the division about which scoring system was better. Wanting to understand the reasoning behind the debate, he wrote this report to document his discoveries:

After taking on scoring for my local fleet, we began to debate which average point scoring system is best. Spoiler alert: best is in the eye of the beholder. So, here’s a mathematical comparison for a logical discussion.

Background: scoring systems based on average points are used when competitors don’t expect to sail in every race in a series. With average scoring a boat’s series score isn’t impacted when it doesn’t sail. At the end of a series the boat with the best average score wins – typically after participating in a minimum number of races.

There are three popular average scoring systems: Low Point, High Point, and Cox-Sprague. We focus on High Point and Cox-Sprague because Low Point scoring, although the simplest of the three to use, generates the same score for a finish position regardless of the size of the fleet.

Intuitively, we believe doing well in a big fleet is more difficult than in a small one and the scoring system should reflect that.

The core difference between High Point and Cox-Sprague is how individual race scores are determined. High Point uses a formula (number of boats beaten + 1) and Cox Sprague uses a lookup table .

Mitigating the absolute difference in Cox-Sprague and High Point scores is that the score is only part of the calculation in determining a series average. Individual race scores need to be converted into a value that represents the boat’s finish relative to the other boats in the race. This value, called the “Percent of Perfection” (PoP), is the boat’s score divided by a perfect (first place) score for that race. So, regardless of the method used to determine the score or size of the fleet, the winner of a race always gets a perfect PoP of 1.

When plotted on a graph, as shown below, High Point PoPs are linear whereas Cox-Sprague PoPs form a less steep, slightly curved line. The PoPs in a High Point race are evenly distributed across all finishes. With Cox-Sprague, poorer finishes get relatively higher (less worse) PoPs compared to better finishes.

The result is that when using Cox-Sprague scoring, a boat’s series average is less impacted by poor finishes than it would be when using High Point scoring.

To determine the overall series PoP, the PoPs from each race are averaged together. (Technically, to avoid averaging an average, the sums of the individual race scores are divided by the sum of the scores for a perfect finish in the races that the boat sailed.) At the end of the series,the boat with the highest average PoP – the boat that finishes closest to perfect in each race, on average – is the winner.

So, what does this mean in practical terms? Let’s make up some finishes in a fictional series that highlights the differences between Cox-Sprague and High Point scoring. In this simple example, six boats sail in four races allowing us to throw in a simple (not average) low point score for comparison. I used the new raceScore App to do the scoring. It’s easy to generate both High Point and Cox-Sprague scores from the same set of finishes using raceScore.

Under both Low Point and High Point average scoring systems, boat 202 wins. However, with Cox-Sprague, boat 101 comes out on top. 101’s poor 6th place finish in race 4 doesn’t impact the overall Cox-Sprague average as much as it does under High Point (or straight low point).

It’s the same situation with the 3rd and 4th place boats. 310’s relatively poorer finishes in races 2 and 3 doesn’t negatively impact 310’s Cox-Sprague series score as much as it does under the other scoring systems. Or, in other words, 330’s more consistent performance is overshadowed by 310’s first place in race 4. A scoring system that penalizes poor finishes relatively less, rewards good finishes relatively more.

Scores for boats 320 and 340 exhibit the same fundamental difference – they’re tied under Low Point and High Point systems with the tie breaker going to 320 because her 3rd in race 2 beats 340’s best finish in any race (e.g. 320 and 340 have the same number of firsts and seconds – zero. But, 320 has more 3rds and wins the tie-breaker). However, with Cox-Sprague, 320 gets a higher score outright – no tie.

To summarize, when choosing a scoring system for a long running series, either Cox-Sprague or High Point work well to rank competitor’s finishes even when the competitors may not compete head to head in every race.

If your Fleet prioritizes individual race performance, then Cox-Sprague rewards better finishes by not penalizing poor finishes as harshly as High Point. On the other hand, if consistency is valued, then High Point is a better choice.

Rewarding individual race performance was the philosophy behind Olympic scoring years back. A first place in an Olympic fleet came with a huge scoring bonus. With increased challenges of running races for larger fleets, an emphasis on consistency discourages competitors from trying high risk, high reward tactics.

In balance, experience shows that the differences between High Point and Cox-Sprague are subtle. The winner of a series is typically the same regardless of the scoring system chosen. Other variables (available in raceScore) have a more significant impact on overall results. And, the use of throwouts can help influence the scoring system chosen.

The qualification percentage variable plays a big factor. When set too high, it reduces the number of boats that will qualify to be scored in a series. If too low, some competitors may be more picky in determining when they’ll sail knowing that they can easily qualify.

But, a low qualifying percentage may also encourage a competitor to participate even if they know that they will miss many races in the series. A good compromise seems to be 50% – that is a boat needs to sail in half of the races in the series to qualify for awards.

As mentioned, the use of throw-outs, because they encourage taking risks (knowing that a mistake can be discarded), can be used effectively to balance out High Point’s slightly greater emphasis on consistency.

Throw-outs, when based on the number of races sailed, also encourage participation. In our fleet we set the throwout parameter to 4 – meaning that one additional throw-out will be rewarded for every four races sailed after qualifying.

Average scoring systems are great for frostbite or season series run over many weeks making it difficult for competitors to participate in all races. The complexity associated with computing average scores are eliminated with programs like raceScore.

Then, when the scoring job becomes as simple as entering finishes onto a spreadsheet, the Fleet scorer’s happiness and longevity will increase! And, competitors appreciate seeing weekly results and knowing how they are doing during the series.

Tags: Cox-Sprague scoring , High Point scoring , Lee Morrison , Low-Point scoring , Yacht Scoring

Related Posts

Future secured for Yacht Scoring system →

Maintaining the history of sailing →

Streamlining the use of the ISAF Sailor Classification system →

© 2024 Scuttlebutt Sailing News. Inbox Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. made by VSSL Agency .

• Privacy Statement
• Advertise With Us

Get Your Sailing News Fix!

Your download by email.

• Your Name...
• Your Email... *
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

• AROUND THE SAILING WORLD
• BOAT OF THE YEAR
• Email Newsletters
• Best Marine Electronics & Technology
• America’s Cup
• St. Petersburg
• Caribbean Championship
• Boating Safety

Handicap Rating Rule Options for 2022

• By Gary Jobson
• February 8, 2022

The day was perfect for ­racing. With the wind out of the south at 15 knots, there was a spirited group of sailors striving to get their yachts to the finish line without leaving a second to spare on the racecourse. The course was a standard windward-leeward configuration, with 1.6-mile legs. After a below-average finish in the first race, our crew refocused and sailed exceptionally well for the next five races, achieving great starts, sailing on every favorable wind shift, and executing our boat handling with deft precision. We were doing everything we possibly could to ensure a corrected-time win.

But then, to our dismay, we watched our rivals round the final weather mark from well behind, set their spinnakers and jump on plane, cruising through our lee and sailing away, ­easily saving their time allowances and beating us on corrected time. Afterward, we analyzed every detail of every race, searching for ways to save even more time. Maybe we could have gained 20 seconds, but it never added up enough to make a difference. Eventually, it became clear to me that the handicap rating rule wasn’t working properly—certainly not for us, nor many other owners and teams that are becoming disheartened with the state of big-boat handicap ­racing.

This is, of course, not a new problem. The quest to assign fair handicap ratings to yachts of different shapes and sizes has been a challenge for more than a century. Looking back, a pattern seems to repeat every 20 years or so: A new rule emerges, designers and owners attempt to exploit every conceivable loophole, and inevitably the fleet dwindles as sailors become dissatisfied with the rule and walk away.

Big-boat handicap racing in North America is at a turning point once again. During my tenure at World Sailing , I was liaison to the Offshore and Oceanic Committee and the Offshore Racing Council. At US Sailing, I pushed the organization to improve its offshore regulatory operations. My perspectives, as a competitor and a board member, have always been aligned. In the United States, there is general dissatisfaction with our handicap rating rules, but what I have learned from current leaders about this situation is that help—and change—is on the way. To be successful, bold steps are in order.

Now, however, is not the time to create a new handicap rating rule. All the experts I’ve spoken to agree the preferred action is to improve the entry-level Performance Handicap Rating Factor system and work with the Offshore Racing Council, which manages ORC, to improve its rule for North American racing sailors. Creating a new handicap rule is an arduous process, and success is not a sure thing. There are many lessons from the past: In 1965, the Cruising Club of America and the Royal Ocean Racing Club collaborated on a new handicap rule for use in the Olympic Games. The Offshore Racing Council was formed to administer the new International Offshore Rule in 1969.

IOR was a vibrant rule because it was universally accepted and used internationally. In time, however, favor in IOR started to fade. Stan Honey, an authority on offshore racing and handicap systems, says American sailors became frustrated with the ORC in the 1980s for not fixing known problems with IOR. “ORC did not have the strength of character to maintain the IOR rule,” Honey says. “The technical committee was comprised of designers that had their own boats in build, so those guys didn’t want to change the rule to fix the problems.”

The IOR’s problem children—yachts with pinched ends—eventually killed the rule.

“The IOR would still be working if the ORC had fixed it,” Honey says, “but they didn’t. The boats got weird, and nobody liked them anymore.”

US yachtsmen then went and funded the development of the H. Irving Pratt Project and created a velocity prediction program (VPP) that became the Measurement Handicap Rule. The Pratt VPP is still the basis for handicapping rules in use today. The ORC used the basics of the MHS rule and created the International Measurement System, and soon enough, the same problems surfaced again.

“The ORC screwed it up again because it did not maintain it even though there was some great racing with the IMS rule,” Honey says. “When the loopholes got figured out, the technical committee did not fix the problems. So, the United States split off again, ­creating the Americap Rule and the Offshore Rating Rule.”

Today, several handicap ­rating rules are used in North America, including ORR, ORC, IRC (which is owned by the Royal Ocean Racing Club) and PHRF. That’s too many, and none are perfect.

Ed Cesare, chairman of New York YC’s Handicap Rating Rule and Measurement Committee, says the club used ORC broadly last summer for the first time and experienced a high level of disappointment from the fleet. “We received complaints about the quality and integrity of the certificates,” he says. “I am not at all comfortable that we are going to get to a good place with the ORC rule. They did a good job on marketing it, which led to unrealistic expectations about what the rule can do.”

Cesare and Larry Fox, representing the Storm Trysail Club, presented seven submissions via US Sailing to the ORC. The submissions asked to expand the wind range down to 4 knots; define the allowable use of unusual headsails (Code Zeros); and improve the way the VPP handles planing boats, adding more wind ranges from three groups to five. They also asked stability calculation questions, including a request to allow multiple standard ORC certificates at once for the same boat, and a request to examine the rated performance of unique boat types.

“All of [the submissions] were remanded to the technical ­committee,” he says.

The ORC’s response was the same when the United States was complaining about IOR and IMS in the 1980s and 1990s, Honey says. “It does not end well when you take that approach with American sailors.”

The ORC, he adds, needs to aggressively work to solve the problems and come up with a better rule, or at least a version of the rule that meets the needs of US sailors. “For 2022, the five wind-band scoring will help,” he says. “We think this will ameliorate the displacement-planing situation. It is in progress, and I hope the ORC will work with us.”

The United States has the third-highest number of ORC International certificates, so Cesare says his group will take action by putting yachts in appropriate classes. “The class breaks are going to be draconian,” he says. “If you have a 40-foot planing boat, you better get some of your friends to come or you are going to be ­racing by yourself.”

Dobbs Davis, chair of the ORC Promotion and Development Committee, has been championing the rule for many years. He is, of course, an enthusiastic supporter of the rule and says it works if the scoring is done properly. “Using ORC tools, we have multiple ways of scoring,” Davis says. “One of them is the wind triple-number system—low, medium and high [wind strength]. There are crossovers, which puts a burden on the race committee because they have to decide what is the low, medium or heavy wind. Basically, below 8 knots is low, 9 to 14 knots is medium, and above 14 knots is high.”

As far as dealing with the concerns of Cesare and Fox, Davis says the scoring works fine with planing boats—again, as long as the scoring is done properly. As to US Sailing’s other submissions, Davis says, race committees do need to establish accurate wind strengths to score boats correctly, but this is not easy. Some race committees will determine the wind strength before the race starts, and scoring with five wind ranges will make it worse. The ORC will not allow boats to have multiple certificates, he adds, “which would make it tough on our administrators. The ORC will not make estimates on stability. This is a safety issue.”

Matt Gallagher, an ORC member, past chair of the Chicago YC’s Race to Mackinac, and chair of US Sailing’s Offshore Racing Committee, says he’s committed to achieving two goals: “We want our members and racers to go offshore and do it with any rating rule our partner clubs choose to use, and then bring some stability to the rating rules and bring some focus back to PHRF. The base of the pyramid has been neglected for a while. We have to start growing that again.”

Gallagher is optimistic about the use of the ORC rule and says it’s one that needs attention and tweaking to make it more appropriate for the United States. “[The ORC is] going to have to pay more attention to us.”

Honey agrees: “PHRF should be cheap, cheerful and simple scoring,” he says. “People should understand that the most effective rating for their boat is in class scoring. Anything that changes a boat out of class scoring is going to be punished [with a higher handicap rating]. If you want to spend more money to perform better, put your money in new sails, coaches, a smooth bottom and stuff like that.”

As for the future, Honey has an interesting prediction: “A new rule will happen. The original VPP that came out of the Pratt Project is still the basis for the ORC. It is long in the tooth and old-fashioned. What is going to happen next is some graduate students are going to come up with some neural network-based rule. The timing will be just right in a year or two because people will be really frustrated with the ORC. It will start another 15- to 20-year cycle until people get tired of that rule.”

Until then, he says, US Sailing must focus on providing high-quality measurement services and supporting PHRF by providing a first-class online database with regional ratings and guidelines to help race committees manage local fleets. “PHRF should be kept at the entry level and use single time-on-time scoring,” Honey says. “Any event that wants to do wind-condition scoring should move on to another rule. Any sailor that wants to optimize their boat for different races should go do some different rule.”

A few venerable American races, such the Newport to Bermuda and the Transpacific Race, continue to use the ORR rule. However, in recent years, the Offshore Racing Association, which controls ORR, has struggled to keep its operation functioning. The ORC rule has a chance to be more broadly adopted domestically, but its managers need to work with American race organizers to improve the rule. PHRF has a promising future, but would be well-served to update its operations to make it easy to use. In our age of supercomputer technology, we have the capability to make improvements to handicap rating rules.

Honey suggests improvements can be made by using direct computational fluid dynamics for both hydrodynamics and aerodynamics, which is likely to be the first major improvement. The CFD would be incorporated in the rating calculator and run for each boat from the lines files and measurements. “The technology exists now and is becoming practical as computers become more powerful,” he says. “This would be a major step forward from the VPP in use now by ORC and ORR. I think ORC and ORR are considering such a development.”

US Sailing has hired veteran handicap rating administrator Jim Teeters to oversee the offshore office, and Alan Ostfield, US Sailing’s new CEO, has committed to hiring additional personnel to help Teeters get the operation running efficiently. To assist owners through the arduous measurement process, Honey is an advocate of using the Universal Measurement System, which allows boats to be measured once, with the measurement data used for any ­handicap rating rule.

Sailors and handicappers clearly don’t agree on what the ideal handicapping rule should be, but every sailor does want a fair chance of winning a race if they sail well. We all need to work together to make improvements so that when the wind is right and we sail a perfect race, we can be rewarded with the win.

• More: America's Cup , print winter 2022 , Sailboat Racing
• More Racing

America’s Offshore Couple

Jobson All-Star Juniors 2024: The Fast Generation

Caudrelier Wins Round-the-World Solo Sprint

A Tale of Two Macs

Aussies Deliver at Sail Grand Prix Sydney

Developments of the AC75 Mainsail

RIB Charter Made Easy

• Digital Edition
• Customer Service
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Cruising World
• Florida Travel + Life
• Sailing World
• Salt Water Sportsman
• Sport Fishing
• Wakeboarding

Many products featured on this site were editorially chosen. Sailing World may receive financial compensation for products purchased through this site.

Copyright © 2024 Sailing World. A Bonnier LLC Company . All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

The Worldwide Leader in Sailmaking

• Sail Care & Repair
• Sailing Gear
• Sail Finder
• Custom Sails
• One Design Sails
• Flying Sails
• New Sail Quote
• 3Di Technology
• Helix Technology
• Sail Design
• NPL RENEW Sustainable Sailcloth
• Sailcloth & Material Guide
• Polo Shirts
• Sweaters & Cardigans
• Sweatshirts & Hoodies
• Accessories
• Mid & Baselayers
• Deckwear & Footwear
• Luggage & Accessories
• Spring Summer '24
• Sailor Jackets
• NS x Slowear
• Sailor Jacket
• Sustainability
• North Sails Blog
• Sail Like A Girl
• Icon Sailor Jacket
• Our Locations
• North SUP Boards
• North Foils
• North Kiteboarding
• North Windsurfing

SAIL FINDER

SAILING GEAR

COLLECTIONS & COLLAB

WE ARE NORTH SAILS

ACTION SPORTS

Popular Search Terms

Collections

Sorry, no results for ""

North Sails Group Supports Yacht Scoring

News update: north sails group supports yacht scoring.

North Sails Group is pleased to announce the addition of Yacht Scoring to its family. Founded in 2006 by Luiz Kahl, Yacht Scoring is an easy-to-use yet powerful web-based race management and scoring tool used by hundreds of yacht clubs and race organizers around the globe. Kahl, who passed away unexpectedly in 2021, was a software developer by trade, a competitive sailboat racer, and a passionate race committee volunteer. This addition to North Sails Group is part of an ongoing mission to support the sport of sailing and increase participation.

Yacht Scoring is a race management and scoring system that simplifies the task of event registration and communications while allowing for complete results in near-real-time. The single online data-based platform streamlines regatta management and eliminates the need to maintain multiple independent spreadsheets for entry lists, scratch sheets, ratings, and competitors’ information. For sailors, Yacht Scoring’s quick and easy sign-in and live scoring program delivers immediate race results, helping sailors know the score before they return to the dock. ​​

“Luiz uniquely blended an innovative business model with an unmatched level of customer support,” comments Ken Read, President of North Sails Group. “It was not uncommon to see him working hand-in-hand with race committees to ensure the success of their event. He didn’t do this because it was a requirement of using his services; Luiz did it because he was committed to helping sailors at all levels of the sport. It is our intention to follow his lead with this same service that he prided himself on.”

“ Yacht Scoring is a tool to help race committees focus on what’s important, letting sailors have fun on the water,” says Gui Kahl, Luiz’s brother. “In just ten years, Luiz grew Yacht Scoring into a must-have regatta management platform used by thousands of sailors. Beyond his business, Luiz was an avid supporter of Warrior Sailing, youth sailing, and Bayview Yacht Club, his home club, which will continue to be supported by Yacht Scoring. ” Gui further explains, “The continuation of Yacht Scoring by the North Sails Group preserves Luiz’s legacy and will keep building on his vision.”

The ease and accuracy of Yacht Scoring for race committees, sailors and volunteers with regard to all aspects of sailboat racing, from entry to scoring, will remain unchanged. The Kahl family extends their gratitude to Rob Bunn for his dedication and time over the last several months. A personal friend of Luiz’s, Rob was instrumental in keeping Yacht Scoring moving forward and operational for sailing and the sailing community. He will remain as interim manager of Yacht Scoring to ensure a seamless transition with the North Sails Group.

For more information on:

Yacht Scoring: https://www.yachtscoring.com/howitworks.cfm

Media Inquiries: Bridgid Murphy [email protected]

FEATURED STORIES

North sails adds new loft in victoria, bc, sail like a girl, north sails apparel launches fw23 campaign.

• Refresh page

Luiz Legacy

Warrior Sailing is proud to Yacht Scoring’s charitable partner.

Luiz Kahl, the founder of Yacht Scoring, was a software developer by trade, a competitive sailboat racer, and a passionate race committee volunteer. His online system streamlined regatta management and scoring, and the platform became a vital tool in supporting thousands of sailors, race committees, and event organizers worldwide. 

With an innovative business model, Luiz built the Yacht Scoring brand upon an unmatched level of customer support and his commitment to helping sailors at all levels of the sport. 

  The entire sailing world was shocked and saddened by Luiz’s sudden passing in September 2021. However, through the support of close friends, Yacht Scoring continued to run and was ultimately acquired by the North Sails Group in 2022.

  Luiz was an avid supporter of Warrior Sailing. And in the spirit of his long-standing support, Yacht Scoring named Warrior Sailing their official charitable partner through 2024.

History of Moscow buses

In celebration of the birthday of Moscow buses

You may be interested

Sale yacht in Moscow

36 yachts for sale in moscow, customer reviews, popular destinations.

• Sell yacht in Moscow
• Sell yacht in St Petersburg
• Sell yacht in Vladivostok
• Sell yacht in Samara
• Sell yacht in Saratov

Moscow is the largest city and historical capital of Russia, the country's most popular tourist center and the center of the Russian Orthodox Church. In this metropolis, antiquity and modernity are whimsically combined, numerous cultural and historical sights, viewing platforms and entertainment centers make it a center of attraction for tens of millions of tourists from all over the world.

• Price: low to high
• Price: high to low
• Estimate price

• Length 6.90 m
• Beam 2.50 m
• Draft 0.60 m

• Length 6.00 m
• Beam 2.00 m
• Draft 0.00 m

• Length 6.06 m
• Beam 2.36 m
• Draft 0.40 m

• Length 11.80 m
• Beam 3.00 m
• Draft 1.00 m

• Length 8.00 m
• Beam 2.40 m

• Length 8.10 m
• Beam 2.80 m

• Length 10.75 m
• Beam 3.56 m

• Length 8.13 m
• Beam 2.60 m
• Draft 0.90 m

• Length 7.16 m
• Beam 2.58 m

• Length 7.06 m
• Beam 2.55 m

• Length 11.50 m
• Beam 3.50 m
• Draft 0.95 m

• Length 7.05 m
• Beam 2.70 m

• Length 7.01 m
• Beam 2.59 m

• Length 5.81 m
• Beam 2.26 m

• Length 16.20 m
• Beam 7.00 m
• Draft 1.20 m

• Length 9.44 m

• Length 14.00 m
• Beam 4.80 m
• Draft 1.10 m

• Length 9.99 m

• Length 11.88 m

• Length 9.60 m
• Beam 3.05 m
• Draft 1.45 m

• Length 8.60 m
• Draft 0.50 m

• Length 17.80 m
• Beam 4.90 m
• Draft 1.35 m

• Length 8.25 m
• Beam 2.97 m
• Draft 0.59 m

• Length 18.00 m
• Beam 5.80 m
• Draft 1.40 m

• Length 11.40 m
• Draft 0.80 m

• Length 12.30 m
• Beam 3.95 m

• Beam 4.50 m

• Length 16.00 m
• Draft 1.30 m

• Length 10.00 m
• Draft 0.89 m

• Beam 8.00 m

• Length 9.45 m
• Beam 3.30 m
• Draft 1.98 m

• Length 8.67 m

• Length 10.53 m

When planning to buy a yacht in Moscow , pay attention to the offers of 2yachts - we hope you will find a suitable option among current and profitable ads from direct sellers.

Sights of the Russian capital

On the territory of the largest city in Europe with a 9-century history, there are many interesting places and objects. Some of the best attractions of modern Moscow are:

• The Kremlin and Red Square, with which it is worth starting to get acquainted with the city;
• Arbat - the main tourist artery of Moscow;
• The business center of the city with skyscrapers is Moscow City with viewing platforms, including a 360-degree circular view of the capital;
• The Bolshoi Theater is one of the most significant in Russia and the world;
• Tretyakov Gallery with the world's largest collection of Russian painting;
• Ostankino TV Tower, the country's main television tower 540 m high with 2 viewing platforms - open type and glazed at different levels;
• St. Basil's Cathedral (Cathedral of the Protection of the Holy Virgin);
• The historical district of the capital is Kitay Gorod.

It is also worth visiting the river berths, beaches (in Rublevo, Strogino and Serebryany Bor) of the Moscow River, Kolomenskoye Museum-Reserve, Moskarium Oceanography Center, Novodevichy Convent, Moscow Planetarium, Darwin Museum, Zaryadye Natural Landscape Park and Exhibition of Achievements of National Economy (VDNH).

The best restaurants in Moscow: Pushkin, Balzi rossi, Wine & Crab, Osteria della Piazza Bianca, White Rabbit, Björn, Northerners, Beluga, Lavkalavka and others.

Yachting in Moscow

You can leave your yacht parked in Moscow at the pier of one of the many yacht clubs on the banks of the Moscow River and the Khimki Reservoir - for example, on the territory of the Yacht Port “Estate Port” with 36 berths for vessels up to 15 m long or in CHALET RIVER CLUB yacht club on the border with the Moscow region with 57 berths for vessels up to 17 m long and with a draft of up to 1.7 m. If you are interested in selling yachts in Moscow , we recommend that you use the services of one of the trusted yacht brokers in the region, for example - PRESTIGE YACHTS, ULTRABOATS, IY C or WEST NAUTICAL.

• Advertising

• Netherlands
• United States
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom

• Integrations
• Learning Center

MoSCoW Prioritization

What is moscow prioritization.

MoSCoW prioritization, also known as the MoSCoW method or MoSCoW analysis, is a popular prioritization technique for managing requirements. 

  The acronym MoSCoW represents four categories of initiatives: must-have, should-have, could-have, and won’t-have, or will not have right now. Some companies also use the “W” in MoSCoW to mean “wish.”

What is the History of the MoSCoW Method?

Software development expert Dai Clegg created the MoSCoW method while working at Oracle. He designed the framework to help his team prioritize tasks during development work on product releases.

You can find a detailed account of using MoSCoW prioritization in the Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM) handbook . But because MoSCoW can prioritize tasks within any time-boxed project, teams have adapted the method for a broad range of uses.

How Does MoSCoW Prioritization Work?

Before running a MoSCoW analysis, a few things need to happen. First, key stakeholders and the product team need to get aligned on objectives and prioritization factors. Then, all participants must agree on which initiatives to prioritize.

At this point, your team should also discuss how they will settle any disagreements in prioritization. If you can establish how to resolve disputes before they come up, you can help prevent those disagreements from holding up progress.

Finally, you’ll also want to reach a consensus on what percentage of resources you’d like to allocate to each category.

With the groundwork complete, you may begin determining which category is most appropriate for each initiative. But, first, let’s further break down each category in the MoSCoW method.

Start prioritizing your roadmap

Moscow prioritization categories.

1. Must-have initiatives

As the name suggests, this category consists of initiatives that are “musts” for your team. They represent non-negotiable needs for the project, product, or release in question. For example, if you’re releasing a healthcare application, a must-have initiative may be security functionalities that help maintain compliance.

The “must-have” category requires the team to complete a mandatory task. If you’re unsure about whether something belongs in this category, ask yourself the following.

If the product won’t work without an initiative, or the release becomes useless without it, the initiative is most likely a “must-have.”

2. Should-have initiatives

Should-have initiatives are just a step below must-haves. They are essential to the product, project, or release, but they are not vital. If left out, the product or project still functions. However, the initiatives may add significant value.

“Should-have” initiatives are different from “must-have” initiatives in that they can get scheduled for a future release without impacting the current one. For example, performance improvements, minor bug fixes, or new functionality may be “should-have” initiatives. Without them, the product still works.

3. Could-have initiatives

Another way of describing “could-have” initiatives is nice-to-haves. “Could-have” initiatives are not necessary to the core function of the product. However, compared with “should-have” initiatives, they have a much smaller impact on the outcome if left out.

So, initiatives placed in the “could-have” category are often the first to be deprioritized if a project in the “should-have” or “must-have” category ends up larger than expected.

4. Will not have (this time)

One benefit of the MoSCoW method is that it places several initiatives in the “will-not-have” category. The category can manage expectations about what the team will not include in a specific release (or another timeframe you’re prioritizing).

Placing initiatives in the “will-not-have” category is one way to help prevent scope creep . If initiatives are in this category, the team knows they are not a priority for this specific time frame. 

Some initiatives in the “will-not-have” group will be prioritized in the future, while others are not likely to happen. Some teams decide to differentiate between those by creating a subcategory within this group.

How Can Development Teams Use MoSCoW?

  Although Dai Clegg developed the approach to help prioritize tasks around his team’s limited time, the MoSCoW method also works when a development team faces limitations other than time. For example: 

Prioritize based on budgetary constraints.

What if a development team’s limiting factor is not a deadline but a tight budget imposed by the company? Working with the product managers, the team can use MoSCoW first to decide on the initiatives that represent must-haves and the should-haves. Then, using the development department’s budget as the guide, the team can figure out which items they can complete. 

Prioritize based on the team’s skillsets.

A cross-functional product team might also find itself constrained by the experience and expertise of its developers. If the product roadmap calls for functionality the team does not have the skills to build, this limiting factor will play into scoring those items in their MoSCoW analysis.

Prioritize based on competing needs at the company.

Cross-functional teams can also find themselves constrained by other company priorities. The team wants to make progress on a new product release, but the executive staff has created tight deadlines for further releases in the same timeframe. In this case, the team can use MoSCoW to determine which aspects of their desired release represent must-haves and temporarily backlog everything else.

What Are the Drawbacks of MoSCoW Prioritization?

  Although many product and development teams have prioritized MoSCoW, the approach has potential pitfalls. Here are a few examples.

1. An inconsistent scoring process can lead to tasks placed in the wrong categories.

  One common criticism against MoSCoW is that it does not include an objective methodology for ranking initiatives against each other. Your team will need to bring this methodology to your analysis. The MoSCoW approach works only to ensure that your team applies a consistent scoring system for all initiatives.

Pro tip: One proven method is weighted scoring, where your team measures each initiative on your backlog against a standard set of cost and benefit criteria. You can use the weighted scoring approach in ProductPlan’s roadmap app .

2. Not including all relevant stakeholders can lead to items placed in the wrong categories.

To know which of your team’s initiatives represent must-haves for your product and which are merely should-haves, you will need as much context as possible.

For example, you might need someone from your sales team to let you know how important (or unimportant) prospective buyers view a proposed new feature.

One pitfall of the MoSCoW method is that you could make poor decisions about where to slot each initiative unless your team receives input from all relevant stakeholders. 

3. Team bias for (or against) initiatives can undermine MoSCoW’s effectiveness.

Because MoSCoW does not include an objective scoring method, your team members can fall victim to their own opinions about certain initiatives. 

One risk of using MoSCoW prioritization is that a team can mistakenly think MoSCoW itself represents an objective way of measuring the items on their list. They discuss an initiative, agree that it is a “should have,” and move on to the next.

But your team will also need an objective and consistent framework for ranking all initiatives. That is the only way to minimize your team’s biases in favor of items or against them.

When Do You Use the MoSCoW Method for Prioritization?

MoSCoW prioritization is effective for teams that want to include representatives from the whole organization in their process. You can capture a broader perspective by involving participants from various functional departments.

Another reason you may want to use MoSCoW prioritization is it allows your team to determine how much effort goes into each category. Therefore, you can ensure you’re delivering a good variety of initiatives in each release.

What Are Best Practices for Using MoSCoW Prioritization?

If you’re considering giving MoSCoW prioritization a try, here are a few steps to keep in mind. Incorporating these into your process will help your team gain more value from the MoSCoW method.

1. Choose an objective ranking or scoring system.

Remember, MoSCoW helps your team group items into the appropriate buckets—from must-have items down to your longer-term wish list. But MoSCoW itself doesn’t help you determine which item belongs in which category.

You will need a separate ranking methodology. You can choose from many, such as:

• Weighted scoring
• Value vs. complexity
• Buy-a-feature
• Opportunity scoring

For help finding the best scoring methodology for your team, check out ProductPlan’s article: 7 strategies to choose the best features for your product .

2. Seek input from all key stakeholders.

To make sure you’re placing each initiative into the right bucket—must-have, should-have, could-have, or won’t-have—your team needs context. 

At the beginning of your MoSCoW method, your team should consider which stakeholders can provide valuable context and insights. Sales? Customer success? The executive staff? Product managers in another area of your business? Include them in your initiative scoring process if you think they can help you see opportunities or threats your team might miss. 

3. Share your MoSCoW process across your organization.

MoSCoW gives your team a tangible way to show your organization prioritizing initiatives for your products or projects. 

The method can help you build company-wide consensus for your work, or at least help you show stakeholders why you made the decisions you did.

Communicating your team’s prioritization strategy also helps you set expectations across the business. When they see your methodology for choosing one initiative over another, stakeholders in other departments will understand that your team has thought through and weighed all decisions you’ve made. 

If any stakeholders have an issue with one of your decisions, they will understand that they can’t simply complain—they’ll need to present you with evidence to alter your course of action.  

Related Terms

2×2 prioritization matrix / Eisenhower matrix / DACI decision-making framework / ICE scoring model / RICE scoring model

Prioritizing your roadmap using our guide

Try productplan free for 14 days, share on mastodon.