Having an IT Asset management program within a company is paramount as it helps us to know every IT need that our company requires.

The MoSCoW method (Must have, Should have, Could have, and Won't have) is a prioritization technique used in management, business analysis, project management and software development to reach a common understanding with stakeholders about the importance they assign to the delivery of each requirement; it is also known as MoSCoW prioritization or MoSCoW analysis.

Companies that want to make a good decision should know exactly what to expect when creating or activating new program. Setting priorities is, therefore, paramount, but this process is not always easy.

Daig Clegg in 1994 devised the MoSCoW method. The consonants of this acronym represent the different types of wishes and requirements that a company should distinguish: Must-have; Should-have, Could-have and Won’t-have/Would-have.

Must-have

The "must-have" are the minimum requirements that a program has to comply. Without compliance with these requirements, it is considered that the project has not been successful. The production planning module in a company is considered a "must-have".

Should-have

The "should-have" are those functionalities that are highly desirable. The addition of the "should-haves" are usually responsible for achieving a greater return on investment (ROI). It can also be functionalities that do not have such a high priority at the moment, but will be necessary in a relatively short period of time. A company that can now convert orders by email into production orders relatively quickly may continue to consider email integration as a "should-have" of growth projection.

Could-have

The "could-haves" are also known as "nice-to-have" are the qualities that we would like to add if they fall within the range of time and money. However, when they involve extra effort, there is no point in contemplating them. For example, in the case of a production company with a low B2B clientele, a "could-have" could be the integration of a direct data exchange that can accelerate the ordering and billing process, but it brings about a really growth significant of the orders.

Won’t have/ Would-have

The "will not have" are rather utopian desires, or desires that are not worth investing in, at this time. For example, this may involve the collection of orders through augmented reality. It is a very interesting technology, but for most companies this is only a huge cost. The "will not have" are also known as "would-have", because a company could implement them under certain conditions in the future.

The wishes and requirements of a company are never statistical. They are differentiated by company, situation and moment. In this way, you can prevent the desires and requirements of a company from changing category after a while.
At the beginning a company can have a small warehouse. Then, the pickers do not mind going to a central point to pick up the next order. At that time, the collection is a "could-have" or even a "won't-have". However, as soon as the company grows and the warehouse becomes much larger, the collection can become a "must-have" or even a "must-have".