Why 'Effort required for validation' isn't a good criterion for prioritizing requirements

Prioritizing requirements is a bit like juggling at a busy market: you want the items that bring the most value to the surface, while keeping risks, costs, and timelines in view. In the IREB Foundation Level content, this juggling is a core skill. The key idea is to look at what a requirement will do for the project and for the people who rely on the system—not just what’s easiest to test or verify. That’s where the four commonly discussed criteria come in, and why one of them—the effort required for validation—usually isn’t a good stand‑alone selector for priority.

What makes prioritization meaningful in practice

Let’s start with the simple truth: not every feature brings the same kind of value. Some improve safety, some speed up processes, some open doors to new users, and others reduce ongoing costs. When teams decide what to build first, they’re making a bet about where the business and the users will get the biggest payoff, fastest. So the criteria they use should reflect value and impact, not just the amount of work it will take to prove something works.

In the IREB world, and in real projects, three criteria tend to carry obvious weight:

• Impact on the operational system: How will this requirement change day‑to‑day operations? Will it reduce errors, improve reliability, or streamline critical workflows?

• Overall success influence: How strongly does this requirement contribute to the system’s core goals? Does it unlock a strategic capability, satisfy a key user need, or protect vital business objectives?

• Costs of requirements implementation: What are the financial, time, and resource implications of delivering this requirement? How does it affect the project’s budget and schedule?

Why the fourth criterion is a trap when used alone

The fourth criterion listed in the question—Effort required for validation—describes how much work is needed to check that a requirement is correctly implemented. That’s valuable information, but it’s not a direct gauge of a requirement’s value. If you prioritized based on validation effort alone, you might push high‑value items to the back simply because they demand more testing, even though they can deliver significant benefits. Conversely, you might rush a low‑risk feature that’s quick to test but offers little real payoff. In short, validation effort is a signal about the testing process, not a signal about the business outcomes you aim to achieve.

A practical example to anchor the idea

Imagine you’re evaluating two candidate features for a software platform used by field technicians:

• Feature A: An offline data capture mode that syncs when a connection is available. It promises fewer data gaps and faster work in remote sites.

• Feature B: A flashy dashboard with lots of charts, showing real‑time metrics for managers.

If you judge purely by how hard it is to validate each one, you might decide Feature B is easier to test because the data streams are visible and the dashboards can be verified with straightforward checks. Feature A, while potentially more complex to validate (it must handle data integrity across offline and online states), could have a bigger payoff in actual field work—less rework, higher data completeness, improved service quality. Prioritizing only by validation effort would misalign the plan with the real value delivered to users and the business.

A grounded approach to prioritization

So, how should a team proceed? The aim is to make decisions that reflect value and risk, while sanity‑checking feasibility. Here’s a compact, practical approach you can apply without getting bogged down in heavyweight methods:

1. Define value and impact for each requirement

• Clarify what problem it solves, who benefits, and how big the impact is.

• Ask: Will this reduce a critical risk? Will it unlock a core capability? Will it improve user satisfaction or retention?

2. Estimate cost and feasibility

• Gather rough costs, timelines, and required resources.

• Note dependencies and potential risks. Is this feature blocked by another piece of work? Does it require changes that touch many parts of the system?

3. Score in a lightweight matrix

• Use a simple, 3–5 point scale for each criterion (e.g., Impact, Value to users, Cost).

• Add weights if you want to reflect priorities (for instance, higher weight on user value for a consumer product, higher weight on risk reduction for an enterprise system).

• Do a quick, collaborative scoring session with product, development, QA, and a few stakeholders.

4. Draw a value‑vs‑cost view

• Plot each item on a 2D grid: value on one axis, cost on the other.

• Focus on items in the high‑value, low‑cost quadrant first, then move to high‑value, moderate‑cost areas. Keep the conversation open about strategic bets that could pay off even if they’re costlier.

5. Iterate and refine

• Revisit the rankings as new information comes in. Markets shift, technical realities change, and new risks pop up.

• Make sure the team uses a single source of truth—like a lightweight board in tools such as Jira, Trello, or Asana—so everyone sees the same rationale behind each choice.

Tips to keep the process lean and human

• Involve the right people: product owners, lead developers, QA, and a few customer‑facing roles. Diverse viewpoints help surface value you might otherwise miss.

• Keep the conversation outcome‑driven: focus on what the organization gains, not on mechanical checklists.

• Use analogies to keep it relatable: think of prioritization like prioritizing hospital rooms under a budget cap—the goal is to maximize patient outcomes given constraints, not to squeeze every possible test into a schedule.

• Don’t confuse validation effort with value: even if a feature demands substantial testing, if the payoff is large and risk reduction meaningful, it deserves attention early.

A small, concrete example with a touch of realism

Let’s say you’re weighing two backlog items for a software platform used by technicians in the field:

• Item 1: An integrated GPS routing feature that minimizes travel time between service calls.

• Item 2: A customer portal that lets clients view service history and approve upcoming visits.

Take a moment to rate each item on impact and value. Item 1 might score high on operational impact and efficiency—often a tangible savings in time and fuel, with a direct line to happier field staff and customers. Item 2 could score high on customer satisfaction and transparency, potentially driving renewals and referrals. Now consider cost: the routing feature may require significant integration with maps and offline capabilities, while the portal might demand secure authentication and a clean UX but could reuse existing components. If you see Item 1 as high value but moderately high cost, and Item 2 as high value with moderate cost, both are strong candidates. The decision might tilt toward Item 1 if operational speed is the primary business driver, but Item 2 could be prioritized close behind for long‑term relationship building.

Keeping the conversation practical, not theoretical

The beauty of this approach is that it blends strategic thinking with day‑to‑day feasibility. You’re not chasing the cheapest option, nor are you chasing the most glamorous feature. You’re seeking a sensible balance: value delivered, risks mitigated, and a realistic path to release. This alignment matters in IREB contexts because it mirrors how real teams work—balancing what users need with what the organization can support, within time and budget realities.

Common missteps worth avoiding

• Treating validation effort as the sole driver: remember, this is about verification work, not the value delivered to users.

• Equating complexity with importance: a feature that seems technically complex can be exactly what a project needs to unlock new capabilities or prevent big problems down the line.

• Sticking to a single score without discussion: numbers are helpful, but they don’t replace conversations with stakeholders who truly understand user pain points.

• Forgetting to revisit priorities: plans should stay alive. Markets and tech stacks evolve, so keep the backlog dynamic.

Where to anchor your thinking in real life tools

Most teams lean on light, practical tools to keep prioritization transparent:

• A shared board (like Jira or Trello) to capture each requirement, its value story, estimated costs, and any risks.

• A brief, collaborative scoring template that everyone can contribute to, with clear definitions for what constitutes “high” vs “low” on each criterion.

• Short, focused reviews every couple of weeks to adjust the order as more is learned.

The bottom line

In the world of requirements, the star criterion is value and impact, not the effort to validate. Validation work matters, yes—but it should inform scheduling and risk management rather than dictate priority on its own. By focusing on how a requirement helps the system, the users, and the business, you keep the conversation grounded in outcomes. The result isn’t just a smarter backlog; it’s a more purposeful product journey that aligns technical work with real human needs.

If you’re ever unsure about where to start, remember the simplest compass: ask who benefits, what changes, and how the change translates into measurable outcomes. Then bring your team into the same room, set a shared goal, and map the work with a light touch. A few clear discussions can save a lot of detours later—and that’s something most teams appreciate.

Closing thought

Prioritization isn’t a magic spell. It’s a disciplined, human process of facing trade-offs with candor. By keeping the focus on value, impact, and feasible delivery, you’ll navigate the backlog with clarity, and the project will feel fewer like a sprint through a labyrinth and more like a guided, purposeful journey.