methodatlas

Agile Decision method

WSJF

Sequences comparable work by relative Cost of Delay divided by Job Size.

Sequences comparable work by relative Cost of Delay divided by job size.

Core question
Which job delivers the highest Cost of Delay divided by Job Size?
Plan WSJFMethod guide
Start comparison
Give feedbackIs this method useful to you?
Participants
3-10
Time
45-90 min

The steps are a practical sequence; adapt them to the method’s purpose and available evidence.

A paper-based illustration representing WSJF with its core stages and visible working result.

  1. Frame

    Agree comparison frame

    Define comparable jobs, one horizon and shared ordinal scale; separate mandatory work from discretionary ranking.

  2. Delay

    Estimate Cost of Delay

    Estimate Business Value, Time Criticality and Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement separately with evidence, then add relative values.

  3. Size

    Estimate job size together

    Estimate total relative size with people who know the work; record high uncertainty.

  4. Ranking

    Calculate and review ranking

    Calculate WSJF = (BV + TC + RR/OE) / Job Size for each item; test plausible estimate changes and document exceptions.

Revisit the model when evidence, context or outcomes change. Record what changed and why.

A good fit when

Use it when: Portfolio Flow, Large Backlogs. The group can provide the evidence and authority the method requires.

Ideal for

  • Portfolio flow
  • Large backlogs
  • Economic sequencing

Not good for

  • Small individual tasks
  • Weak estimation baseline

Outputs

  • WSJF ranking

    Shared relative estimates, correctly calculated scores and documented exceptions.

  • Rank with assumptions and dependencies

    The ranking records scope, date, participants, source version, ownership, and reasons for changed assumptions.

WSJF comparison table

Fictional worked example

Fictional relative estimates (agree one scale per factor): Feature A BV 8, TC 5, RR/OE 3, Job Size 4: WSJF = (8 + 5 + 3) / 4 = 4. Feature B BV 5, TC 3, RR/OE 2, Job Size 2: WSJF = (5 + 3 + 2) / 2 = 5. B ranks higher. Scores are relative estimates, not monetary values; consider dependencies and mandatory work separately.

WSJF comparison table
ScenarioWork itemBusiness ValueTime CriticalityRisk Reduction / Opportunity EnablementJob SizeWSJF
Work item 1Record an observation or example for this row.Feature A85344
Work item 2Record an observation or example for this row.Feature B53225

  1. 1. Work item

    Work item 1
    Feature A
    Work item 2
    Feature B

  2. 2. Business Value

    Work item 1
    8
    Work item 2
    5

  3. 3. Time Criticality

    Work item 1
    5
    Work item 2
    3

  4. 4. Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement

    Work item 1
    3
    Work item 2
    2

  5. 5. Job Size

    Work item 1
    4
    Work item 2
    2

  6. 6. WSJF

    Work item 1
    4
    Work item 2
    5

Fictional relative estimates (agree one scale per factor): Feature A BV 8, TC 5, RR/OE 3, Job Size 4: WSJF = (8 + 5 + 3) / 4 = 4. Feature B BV 5, TC 3, RR/OE 2, Job Size 2: WSJF = (5 + 3 + 2) / 2 = 5. B ranks higher. Scores are relative estimates, not monetary values; consider dependencies and mandatory work separately.

Weighted Shortest Job First · Scaled Agile Framework

First step

Define comparable jobs, one horizon and shared ordinal scale; separate mandatory work from discretionary ranking.

Open the method guide

Good to do first

Paper illustration of a branching impact map with a Why goal at the root, actor circles, How behavior changes and What options.
Product Strategy
Impact Mapping

Supplies comparable jobs tied to the same impact goal.

Where to go next?

Paper illustration of a four-column Kanban board with limited ongoing work, a visible blocker and a review loop.
Engineering
Kanban

Feeds the calculated order into the visible work flow.

Paper illustration of a MoSCoW board with four columns and a visible release boundary.
Delivery
MoSCoW

Translates the top ranks into a binding release boundary.

Deep dive

Purpose

When many tasks compete for the same capacity, it orders work by economic impact. It makes time lost, benefit, and effort comparable together.

How it works

It scores delay, size, and value of the same unit of work in one unified calculation. This produces a sequence based on traceable priority rather than gut feeling.

In detail

WSJF works because it brings economic urgency and effort size into the same view, disciplining discussions about sequencing. Good use requires traceable justifications for cost of delay and job size, otherwise the numbers become mere polite stand-ins for hierarchy. The method becomes strong when differences in assumptions become visible and prioritization can be argued rather than driven by politics.

Facilitation

Prepare a few competing initiatives with cleanly described benefit, risk, and rough size. It gets tricky where two items look similarly valuable but are very differently expensive. Close the session with documented assumptions behind the scores and a visible sequence for the next decision.

The method guide walks execution through 4 phases, timing, 4 pitfalls, and clear stop criteria.

Open method guide

Your perspective

Does this method help with your work?

Your feedback helps shape the next improvements to methodatlas.

Sources and topics

Topics
LeanEconomicsSequencePrioritization
Sources
Weighted Shortest Job First · Scaled Agile Frameworkframework.scaledagile.comScaled Agile Framework explains WSJF as the ratio of Cost of Delay to job size used for prioritization.
Artifact templates
WSJF: WorksheetPrepare the decision, source evidence and next review.
markdown

wsjf-working-template.md

Prepare the decision, source evidence and next review.

WSJF: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

Run the method Time: See catalog planning range; no universal duration.

Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

  • Materials: Shared visual workspace, source evidence, and an agreed decision question.
  • Roles: Product/business, technical and risk expertise, facilitator, prioritization owner.
  • Advance information: Collect existing data, examples, constraints and relevant stakeholder perspectives.
  • Overall time needed: 60–120 min for one comparable backlog; calibrate scales before scoring.
  • Setup: Estimate Cost of Delay from Business Value, Time Criticality and Risk Reduction / Opportunity Enablement. Calculate WSJF = (BV + TC + RR/OE) / Job Size. Use a shared relative scale and do not compare non-comparable jobs.

Prepare for the work steps

Frame: Agree comparison frame

  • Comparable jobs, goal and planning horizon

Delay: Estimate Cost of Delay

  • Business effect, deadline, risk and opportunity

Size: Estimate job size together

  • Technical and domain delivery perspective

Ranking: Calculate and review ranking

  • Cost of Delay, job size and dependencies

WSJF comparison table

ScenarioWork itemBVTCRR/OEJob SizeWSJF
Work item 1
Work item 2
  • Work item 1: Record an observation or example for this row.
  • Work item 2: Record an observation or example for this row.

WSJF = (BV + TC + RR/OE) / Job Size. Agree one relative scale; do not present estimates as money.

Weighted Shortest Job First · Scaled Agile Framework

Frame: Agree comparison frame

Expected artifact: Agreed WSJF frame

Agreed WSJF frame

Entry:

...

  • Are scope and scale consistent across jobs?

Delay: Estimate Cost of Delay

Expected artifact: Justified Cost of Delay per job

Justified Cost of Delay per job

Entry:

...

  • Are factors independently justified without double counting?

Size: Estimate job size together

Expected artifact: Relative job size

Relative job size

Entry:

...

  • Does each estimate use the same work scope?

Ranking: Calculate and review ranking

Expected artifact: Rank with assumptions and dependencies

Rank with assumptions and dependencies

Entry:

...

  • Are formula and ordering correct and robust enough?

Open questions and next steps

...

Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/wsjf/run-sheet

Alternatives and neighbors

Fitting alternatives with decision guidance, followed by other related methods.

All methods
Paper illustration of a scoring table with four factor columns, a calculator and three ordered initiative cards.
Product Strategy
RICE Scoring

Instead of WSJF, when product ideas should be prioritized by reach, impact, confidence, and effort instead of by cost of delay.

Paper illustration of Cost of Delay with its method-specific working model.
Delivery
Cost of Delay

Moves scope, order, and delivery flow toward a concrete result through "adopt the initiative list", "clarify value types for each initiative, such as revenue, efficiency, or risk", and "derive a sorted sequence".

Paper illustration of ICE Scoring with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
ICE Scoring

Moves target group, value, goals, and priorities toward a concrete result through "prepare the idea backlog", "define scales for I, C, and E", and "select top ideas for testing or building".

A paper-based illustration representing Kano Model with its core stages and visible working result.
Product Discovery
Kano Model

Classifies features by their effect on satisfaction, showing which expectations create basic, performance, or delight response.

Paper illustration for NoEstimates.
Agile
NoEstimates

Moves backlog, sprint work, and team flow toward a concrete result through "clarify the planning question", "slice work smaller", and "calibrate regularly with reality".

Paper illustration of Scrum with its method-specific working model.
Agile
Scrum

Product Backlog, Sprint Goal, Increment, and retrospective loops create a repeatable cadence for complex product work.

Constraints and origin
HighWorkshop45-90 min

Profile

Method form
Decision method
Participants
3-10
Time
45-90 min
Maturity
Canonical
Origin
Scaled Agile, Inc.
Paper illustration of a four-column Kanban board with limited ongoing work, a visible blocker and a review loop.
Next up: Kanban