WSJF Calculator - Prioritize Work with Weighted Shortest Job First

User-Business Value (1-10): Consider the relative value to the customer or business. 1 = Minimal value, 10 = Extremely high value.

Time Criticality (1-10): Assess how time-sensitive the job is. 1 = No urgency, 10 = Extremely urgent or time-critical.

Risk Reduction/Opportunity Enablement (1-10): Evaluate potential risk mitigation or new opportunities. 1 = Minimal impact, 10 = Significant risk reduction or opportunity creation.

Job Size (1-10): Estimate the relative effort or complexity. 1 = Very small or simple, 10 = Very large or complex. Note: This is in the denominator, so larger values decrease the WSJF score.

WSJF helps teams prioritize work by considering both the cost of delay and the job size. It ensures that high-value, time-critical, and smaller jobs are prioritized, potentially delivering more value to the business faster.

A higher WSJF score indicates that a job should be prioritized. Compare WSJF scores across different jobs or features to determine their relative priority. The higher the score, the higher the priority.

No, WSJF can be applied to various fields and industries. While it's commonly used in software development and IT projects, it can be valuable in any context where prioritizing work items is necessary.

It's good practice to recalculate WSJF scores periodically, especially when there are significant changes in the business environment or project circumstances. Some teams do this as part of their regular sprint or PI planning.

Yes, WSJF can be used in conjunction with other methods. For example, you might use WSJF to prioritize within a specific category of work that was identified using another method like MoSCoW or Kano.

WSJF relies on subjective scoring, which can introduce bias. It also doesn't account for dependencies between items. It's important to use WSJF as a guide rather than a strict rule, and to combine it with other considerations and expert judgment.

Consistent scoring can be achieved through team discussions, creating detailed rubrics for each parameter, and periodically calibrating scores as a group. Some teams use planning poker techniques to arrive at consensus scores.