who does business plans near me

• 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

Talk to an expert.

Schedule a few minutes with us to share more about your product roadmapping goals and we'll tailor a demo to show you how easy it is to build strategic roadmaps, align behind customer needs, prioritize, and measure success.

Share on Mastodon

The Truth Behind Trump Tower Moscow: How Trump Risked Everything For A (Relatively) Tiny Deal

This story appears in the June 30, 2019 issue of Forbes Magazine. Subscribe

I t’s getting late, and Felix Sater—a onetime Trump partner, two-time convicted felon and longtime government cooperator—sits in the back of a New York City restaurant, ready for a drink. “A very dirty martini, Russian vodka,” he tells the waiter. “A collusion martini.”

No one outside of the Trump Organization has more firsthand knowledge of Donald Trump's connections to Russia than Felix Sater. In 2006, he scouted a potential deal in Moscow with the president's children Don Jr. and Ivanka. In 2007, he stood alongside Trump at a launch party for a hotel Sater had helped get built, Trump SoHo, which marketed partially to Russian buyers. And during the 2016 presidential campaign, Sater helped plan a giant Trump tower in Moscow.

"Here's to fun times," he says, hoisting his martini glass in the air.

Fun times indeed. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's 448-page report highlights three separate proposals to develop a Trump property in Moscow around the time of the election. Yet key details have remained vague. Forbes got in touch with the people at the center of all three—and uncovered concrete answers to fundamental questions about Trump's plans in Russia.

Three years ago, Michael Cohen was working on a potential Trump tower in Moscow. Today he is in prison for crimes that include lying to Congress about the project.

Such as who was actually going to pay for the project. Trump, now more of a licensor than builder, certainly wasn't planning on putting in much of his own money. And according to Sater, who brokered the proposal that extended furthest into the campaign, nor was Trump's official partner, Andrey Rozov. Instead, Sater says, he was cooking up a plan to raise huge sums from additional investors, including two of Vladimir Putin's closest cronies, Boris and Arkady Rotenberg . "We would have gone to them and asked them for four or five hundred million dollars cash," Sater says.

Another big, previously unsettled question: How much money could Trump have made in all of this? Both Mueller and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen have suggested, vaguely, "hundreds of millions." After mining business agreements and surveying real estate experts in Moscow, however, Forbes believes that's almost impossible. It seems more likely that Trump would have walked away with roughly $35 million up front and $2.6 million or so in annual fees, if everything went according to plan. In the rosiest of scenarios, Sater says, Trump could have gotten about $50 million. A lot of money to most people but less than 2% of the president's net worth ( estimated at $3.1 billion ).

Taken together, these revelations paint a new picture of Trump's plans in Russia and the president's way of doing business. His deal came with far greater risk—and far less reward—than previously understood. In short, candidate Trump jeopardized his eventual presidency on a middling deal and one that would have had Vladimir Putin's fingerprints all over it.

P art of the reason the Trump Tower Moscow narrative confuses people: There were three different attempts to attach the president's name to a Russian property in recent years. The first one emanates from the infamous 2013 Miss Universe contest, where 86 women strutted through a Moscow concert hall. Donald Trump, the co-owner of the pageant, took home the money, collecting an estimated $3 million from the local hosts: billionaire real estate tycoon Aras Agalarov and his son Emin, a pop singer. "I had a great weekend with you and your family," Trump tweeted afterward, tagging the elder Agalarov. "You have done a FANTASTIC job. TRUMP TOWER-MOSCOW is next."

One month later, in December 2013, the Trump Organization signed an agreement to brand an Agalarov property in Moscow, according to the Mueller report. The plan eventually called for 800 apartments near the concert venue that hosted the Miss Universe event, with 3.5% of sales going to Trump. If the whole building sold out, Emin Agalarov estimates Trump would have come away with $17 million or so.

2013 Miss Universe Pageant. Miss Venezuela took home the crown, but Donald Trump took home the money, collecting an estimated $3 million for bringing the pageant to Russia

Trump's daughter Ivanka toured the site in February 2014. That same month, though, the geopolitical landscape was shifting. Crowds were in the streets of Kiev, protesting Ukraine's Russia-friendly president, Viktor Yanukovych. He ultimately fled Ukraine, reportedly with the help of Putin. Within weeks, Putin sent soldiers into Crimea, a Ukrainian region neighboring Russia, effectively taking over. The landgrab sparked outrage in the international community, and the United States retaliated with economic sanctions.

Those measures, combined with falling oil prices, crippled the Russian economy—including the Moscow real estate market. The average price of new apartments plummeted an estimated 30% in 2014. Condos were selling for less than the cost of construction. Even in the unlikely event that the Agalarovs managed to build something amid all the turmoil, Emin Agalarov tells Forbes that Trump's payout would have been cut in half. Communications between the Trumps and the Agalarovs began to fade in the fall of 2014, according to the Mueller report. Donald Trump Jr. later told the Senate Judiciary Committee the project died because of "deal fatigue." A more likely cause of death: U.S. sanctions.

Who's Who In Towergate

With donald trump on one end and vladimir putin on the other, the web of people involved in trump's plans for moscow included members of the first family, oligarchs and russian officials..

In November 2015, Donald Trump, by then a presidential candidate, sat down with former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, who challenged him over his accommodating stance toward Russia. "[Putin] doesn't make deals," O'Reilly reasoned. "He just rolls soldiers in to cause destruction and shoots down airplanes."

"Well," Trump replied, "he does what he has to do."

Unbeknownst to the American public, the Trump Organization, which did not respond to requests for comment on this story, was secretly communicating about a second potential deal in Russia around the same time. In September 2015, nearly a year after the Agalarov partnership dropped off, and with Trump now leading the Republican primary race, his lawyer Michael Cohen traded messages with a man named Giorgi Rtskhiladze, according to the Mueller report. Cohen and Rtskhiladze had previously worked together on business in the former Soviet states of Georgia and Kazakhstan.

Rtskhiladze sent Cohen a draft of a letter ultimately intended for the mayor of Moscow, which pitched a Trump development as a symbol of strengthening ties between the United States and Russia, according to the Mueller report. "[The mayor] is aware of the potential project and will pledge his support," the note said, according to the report.

Today Rtskhiladze says he was just passing along the message on behalf of a longtime friend and that friend's acquaintance. He claims the letter never made it to the mayor. And he suggests he's not even sure if what he sent Cohen was accurate. "I don't know if it's true or not if [the] mayor's office was ever notified, okay."

That's how it goes in Russia, a place where trust is in short supply and outsiders can suddenly find themselves in unnerving situations. Rtskhiladze says he had previously warned Cohen of the risks: "You have to be careful who you get involved with."

C aution, however, is not the Trump way. Cohen dismissed the Rtskhiladze plan and chose to pursue a third proposal, brokered by a man with a checkered past: Sater. Moscow-born, Brooklyn-bred, Sater started a career on Wall Street, until a bar fight—he stabbed a man in the face with a margarita glass—led to 15 months in prison. Three years after his release, he pleaded guilty to racketeering in a mob-connected pump-and-dump stock scheme. He stayed out of prison this time by working with the feds, ultimately supplying information about the Mafia, North Korea, Russian cybercriminals, even Osama bin Laden. At Sater's sentencing, about a decade after he began cooperating with the government, FBI agent Leo Taddeo, one of Sater's handlers at the bureau, credited him with helping pave the way for law enforcement to "basically eliminate" the mob from Wall Street's penny stock business. Former FBI official Ray Kerr adds: "There was nothing he wouldn't do or wouldn't try."

At the same time that he was serving as a government cooperator, Sater reinvented himself as a real estate dealmaker. It was in that role that he ended up working with the Trump Organization, on projects in Arizona, Florida, New York and, ultimately, Russia. For the Moscow effort, Sater served as both broker and dealmaker. His friend Andrey Rozov, who did not respond to our request for comment, was officially the local developer in Russia, but Sater says he expected a cut for himself as well. Trump signed the letter of intent, dated October 28, 2015, the same day as the third Republican presidential debate.

Felix Sater (right) stands alongside Donald Trump and Tevfik Arif at the Trump Soho Launch Party on September 19, 2007 in New York.

The tower was meant to be the tallest building in Europe, featuring a few floors of prime shopping, a high-end hotel and new office space, topped with 250 luxury residences, homes for the Russian elite. According to the terms, Rozov was on the hook for construction while Trump would simply lend his name and help manage the place once it opened. In exchange, according to the Mueller report, the presidential contender would get a cut of condo sales, beginning with 5% of the first $100 million and gradually stepping down to 1% of everything over $1 billion. Sater says each unit would have been about 2,500 square feet, far larger than the typical luxury condo in Moscow. They were targeting a price of about $1,500 a square foot, about 30% above the average for luxury apartments in town. If all went well, Trump would have walked away with an estimated $34 million from condo sales and upfront fees. Big money, sure, but nothing life changing for a guy worth $3.1 billion.

To juice the numbers, Sater says, he wanted to give away a penthouse to Putin. On top of the terrible optics, this could have put the Trump Organization in danger of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bans American companies from bribing foreign officials. Sater says the plan was not meant to entice the Russian president. "You've got to have a billion dollars for [Putin] to take you seriously," he says. "It's good for Congressman [Nancy] Pelosi or [Adam] Schiff to say that, but in the real world, Vladimir Putin ain't getting bought with a penthouse." When contacted, a representative of Putin deflected questions, saying, "We believe that you should address to relevant authorities, not to the press office of the president of Russia."

To Trump small amounts of money matter—the tower agreement details the slices he could shave off every year, including hotel management fees (an estimated $1.3 million), office rents (est. $240,000), residential management fees (est. $225,000), spa operations (est. $75,000) and so on. Add everything up and Forbes figures Trump could have gotten an additional $2.6 million annually—math verified by Sater, who confirmed an Excel spreadsheet that details the projected payments line by line.

Count enough years and it's theoretically possible to get to any number: $13 million over 5 years, $67 million over 25, $94 million over 35. Regardless, even with the condo deals, it wasn't really close to the "hundreds of millions" Cohen and Mueller cited.

R obert Mueller did not find collusion to steal the 2016 election—but he did find evidence of collusion to try to make money. Sater and Cohen did the work on the ground, rubbing elbows with oligarchs and Russian-government entities.

In sworn testimony before Congress, Cohen left no doubt about who was ultimately in charge: "To be clear, Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it."

There was good reason to lie, given the cast of characters involved. On October 9, 2015, before Trump had even signed the letter of intent, Sater wrote that he was meeting with Andrey Molchanov , a former member of the Russian senate who controlled a plot of land that could work for the tower. Three days later, Sater claimed the chairman of VTB, a Kremlin-controlled bank on which the U.S. imposed sanctions, was "on board" with the project. A spokesperson for VTB said the bank never dealt with Sater or his affiliates in Russia. Ultimately, Sater secured an invitation to Russia from a different bank, days after it had also landed on the U.S. sanctions list.

“You've got to have a billion dollars for [Putin] to take you seriously. It's good for Congressman [Nancy] Pelosi or [Adam] Schiff to say that, but in the real world, Vladimir Putin ain't getting bought with a penthouse.” Felix Sater

Then there was Sater's plan to get billionaire brothers Arkady and Boris Rotenberg to invest hundreds of millions in the project. From a political standpoint, it would be hard to think of a more problematic pair to bring into a deal with a U.S. presidential candidate. Arkady Rotenberg has known Vladimir Putin since childhood, when they were judo partners. He and his brother are now among Russia's richest people, worth an estimated $3.7 billion combined, with interests in banking and construction. Arkady Rotenberg's companies got $7.4 billion in government contracts for the 2014 Olympic Games in Sochi, over $5 billion for the 2018 World Cup (which Russia hosted) and more to build a bridge connecting Russia and Crimea. In 2014, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned both brothers, identifying them as members of Putin's "inner circle." The Rotenbergs did not respond to our request for comment.

The same thing that made the Rotenbergs targets of the U.S. government—their ties to Putin—made them appealing to Sater. In his mind, if he could get Putin's associates to invest $400 million or $500 million, then the Russian president would surely greenlight the project—a key step in a country where the government calls the shots on major real estate developments. Trump would have theoretically had to sign off on bringing in the Rotenbergs or anyone else who wanted a piece of the action. "Everybody was going to make money on this," Sater says. "And at the end of the day, some schmuck from Vladivostok with a lot of money would have put up all the money."

It is not clear whether Trump knew about the plans to give Putin a penthouse or his cronies a chunk of the deal. Which is remarkable in itself. A presidential candidate delegated a radioactive deal, in a hostile foreign country, to a former convict (Sater) and a soon-to-be convict (Cohen).

Virtually every part of their plan involved Putin or someone close to him. The equity? Putin's boys. The debt? Kremlin-connected banks. The land? A Putin ally. The approvals? Government entities. The marketing? Putin himself. Look at Trump Moscow long enough and it gives the impression it was less of a deal between Trump and a random Russian and more of a deal between Trump and Putin.

I t also came with a lot of bluster. By December 2015, Trump's men still had not locked in a plot of land. Or financing. Or investors. And Cohen was waiting on an official invitation to Russia. "I will not let you f--- with my job and playing point person," Cohen texted Sater between Christmas and New Year's, according to correspondence first released by Buzzfeed and confirmed by Forbes . "I still have no numbers from anyone who is allegedly involved in this deal, other than the fact I will have whatever invite I need within 48 hours. Not you or anyone you know will embarrass me in front of Mr. T when he asks me what is happening."

Cohen told Sater he was done working with him, and the text stream devolved into something like a souring love affair. "Please don't do this, Michael," Sater wrote.

"We're done," Cohen responded. "Enough. I told you last week that you thinking you are running point in this is inaccurate. You are putting my job in jeopardy and making me look incompetent. I gave you two months and then best you send me is some bull---- f------ garbage invite by some no name clerk at a third-tier bank. So I am telling you enough as of right now. Enough! I will handle this myself."

Kiev Protests. Political turmoil in Ukraine led to a Russian takeover of Crimea, which in turn prompted U.S. sanctions against Putin’s regime. Those measures put a dent in Moscow’s real estate market—and Trump’s potential windfall.

Cohen, who did not respond to a request for comment on this article, reached out to the office of Putin's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov. On January 20, 2016, he heard back from Peskov's assistant. They talked for 20 minutes about a tower in Moscow, and Cohen came away impressed, according to the Mueller report. Cohen updated Trump, remarking that it would be nice if the Trump Organization had assistants who were as good as the Kremlin's, the report says.

Sater texted Cohen the next day. "Call me when you have a few minutes to chat," he wrote. "It's about Putin. They called today."

Money has a way of repairing relationships. Cohen and Sater eventually sketched out plans to travel to Russia. Cohen talked to Trump about it, and the candidate said he would be willing to go as well, so long as Cohen could "lock and load" on the deal, according to the Mueller report. Cohen settled on a rough timeline: "My trip before Cleveland," he texted Sater, referencing the Republican National Convention. "Trump once he becomes the nominee."

On May 5, 2016, Sater followed up with Cohen, offering promising news. "Peskov would like to invite you as his guest to the St. Petersburg Forum, which is Russia's Davos. It's June 16-19. He wants to meet there with you and possibly introduce you to either Putin or [Russian prime minister Dmitry] Medvedev."

But Sater was apparently bluffing. He now says he never actually had an invitation from Peskov, although he was confident he would meet some heavy hitters at the conference. When the Peskov invitation failed to materialize, Cohen called off the trip, according to the Mueller report, and checked in with Trump. But he did not tell the boss the deal was off, since there still seemed to be a chance it could come back to life in the closing months of the campaign. Or possibly afterward, when Trump would return to just being Donald Trump, private citizen.

What ultimately killed Trump Moscow was not all the bluster, nor the ties to Russian oligarchs, nor even the limited financial upside. When asked why the deal ended, in a sworn congressional hearing, Cohen pointed to one part of the plan that went awry: "He won the presidency."

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• Contact sales

Start free trial

How to Prioritize With the MoSCoW Method

Do you need help prioritizing tasks when managing a project? There’s an acronym for that! It’s called the MoSCow method and it’s a great technique to help with prioritization.

What Is the MoSCoW Method?

The MoSCoW method is a technique that helps organizations prioritize what should be done first in a project. It is done in four steps that follow the acronym MoSCoW, which stands for must have, should have, could have and will not have. It’s used by anyone who needs to prioritize their work and is especially useful in project management.

The MoSCoW method can help when project planning. ProjectManager is award-winning project management software that can take the results of your MoSCow method and organize them into a project plan. Our powerful Gantt charts organize tasks, link all four task dependencies to avoid delays and can set a baseline to capture the project plan and compare it to the actual progress to ensure you stay on schedule. Get started with ProjectManager today for free.

MoSCoW Prioritization Categories

Managing a project is often about managing what you will – and won’t! – get done in the given project timeline . When there are no priorities set, projects can quickly become free-for-alls, with the loudest voices in the room getting their work prioritized over others, often not for the benefit of the project or the organization.

But there’s a different approach. It’s called the MoSCoW method for defining and managing requirements and tasks in a project . Here is a list to clarify what those requirements are:

Must-Have Requirements (M)

Another way to refer to this is as the minimum usable subset (MUS) or what the project must deliver. In other words, the project must deliver these on the target date for the project to remain on track. No delay is acceptable. It is either going to take the project off track, it’s unsafe or even illegal not to have this done by the time given in the project’s business case .

A way to understand if you’re dealing with a MUS is by asking yourself, “What happens if this isn’t met?” If the answer is, “The project fails ,” then you have a MUS. Any workaround that can be devised to continue with the project and not jeopardize its success, means this isn’t a MUS.

Should-Have Requirements (S)

This type of requirement is almost as important as a MUS, but it’s not vital to the success of the project. In other words, the project doesn’t depend on this requirement. You might not want to leave it out, as it could have a great impact on the project, but in the end, it can be done without causing any irreparable harm. Again, leaving out this requirement means a lot of work⁠ (finding a solution, changing stakeholders’ expectations, maybe experiencing some inefficiency⁠), but the project can go on.

Could-Have Requirements (C)

The difference between a should-have requirement and a could-have requirement is simply by figuring out the degree of pain that would be caused by not meeting it. That is, how will it impact the business value of the project, how many people would be affected, etc. Therefore, a could-have requirement is something you’d like but is less important than a should-have requirement. There will be an impact if it’s left out of the project, but less than the impact of a should-have requirement.

What We Will Not Have This Time (W)

Here is where you can collect those requirements that are not feasible for a specific release. Maybe next time, but the project remains strong without them. This is a great way to avoid project scope creep . Once initiatives are placed in the not-have-time category, teams know that they’re not a priority for this go-around and can place them on the back burner and out of their mind. This allows them to focus more sharply on those requirements that are important to the project.

What Is the MoSCoW Method Used For?

The MoSCow method can be of use to anyone who has work and needs to prioritize that work to know what’s essential and what can be ignored. It’s mostly used in product development, software development and project management. In project management that helps determine which tasks, requirements, products and user stories (in agile projects) the team needs to prioritize.

How to Implement the MoSCoW Method in 3 Steps

The MoSCoW method is a valuable tool, but only if you know how to use it. Here are three steps that will help you use the MoSCoW method when prioritizing your project.

1. Gather Project Requirements

Start by identifying all project requirements . Just make a giant list and be as thorough as possible. You don’t want to leave out anything that might prove essential to the project.

2. Prioritize Project Requirements

Now go through that list and attach a letter to each, according to the MoSCoW method of M for must-have, S for should have, C could have and W for what you won’t have. This allows you to prioritize the work and know what can be put aside to focus on what’s important.

3. Track the Completion of Project Deliverables

Now that you’ve classified your requirements, you can carry out the work in a timely manner. Tracking that work ensures that you don’t miss any deadlines and that all high-priority requirements will be met.

Benefits of the MoSCoW Method

The clear benefit of using the MoSCoW method is that it provides a means to prioritize work and know what is essential to the project and what can be ignored if time and cost prevent one from completing every requirement. But there are more advantages of the MoSCoW method, some of which we list below.

Helps Ensure Stakeholder Satisfaction

Stakeholders have a vested interest in the project and the project should satisfy their expectations . The MoSCoW method helps manage stakeholders by getting them to all agree on the prioritization of requirements and, therefore, helps to resolve any conflicts that might arise over the execution of those requirements.

It’s Easy to Understand and Implement

Using the MoSCoW method identifies the priority of project requirements. This information can then be disseminated to the project team so it’s clear to everyone what must be done. Now the team understands what’s prioritized and can implement those requirements first.

Helps Teams Cut Unnecessary Costs

The MoSCoW method allows everyone on the project team to know what they have to get done first, which increases revenue by decreasing operational costs, improving productivity and increasing customer satisfaction.

Moscow Method Example

Leadership guru Susanne Madsen leads this training video on how to use the MoSCoW Method to prioritize your requirements in a project.

How ProjectManager Helps You Prioritize

ProjectManager is online project management software that can make sure your requirements are being met throughout the life cycle of the project. Because our software gives you real-time data, you’re able to meet your priorities.

Our real-time dashboard shows real-time data that is displayed over six different project metrics. These numbers are crunched and illustrated in colorful, easy-to-read graphs and charts that keep project managers keenly assessed on the progress of their priorities.

Workflow is also visualized with kanban boards that keep teams focused on their priorities. Online Gantt charts can link dependencies and teams can collaborate at the task level, adding comments, documents and images.

There’s so much more that ProjectManager offers. To get a full picture of what we can do to help you better manage your next project, try our free 30-day trial today.

Deliver your projects on time and on budget

Start planning your projects.

• Agile, DevOps and software development methodologies

MoSCoW method

What is the MoSCoW method?

The MoSCoW method is a four-step approach to prioritizing which project requirements provide the best return on investment (ROI). MoSCoW stands for must have, should have, could have and will not have -- the o's make the acronym more pronounceable.

A variety of business disciplines use the MoSCoW method. It enables everyone involved in a project to know what work to complete first and how that work helps increase revenue, decrease operational costs, improve productivity or boost customer satisfaction. On the business side, it can help stakeholders frame discussions about the importance of specific product features when choosing a software vendor. On the IT side, the MoSCoW method plays an important role in Agile project management by helping project teams prioritize story points.

Furthermore, prioritizing requirements enables project teams to understand the amount of effort and resources each project element requires. This knowledge improves the team's time management, makes the project more manageable, increases the likelihood of completion by deadline and optimizes ROI .

The MoSCoW method is also known as MoSCoW analysis , MoSCoW prioritization , MoSCoW technique and MoSCoW rules .

Prioritization of requirements

Before implementing the MoSCoW method, businesses must ensure the teams involved in the project and other stakeholders agree on the project objectives and the factors they use for prioritization. They should also establish plans for settling disagreements.

Next, teams should decide what percentage of resources they assign to each category. For example, they could allocate 20% of the resources to the could-have requirements, while giving 40% to must-haves and 30% to should-haves.

Once the teams and stakeholders gather requirements and reach agreements, then the teams can start assigning requirements to each of the following four categories.

1. M: Must have

This first category includes all the requirements that are necessary for the successful completion of the project. These are non-negotiable elements that provide the minimum usable subset of requirements.

Statements that are true for must-haves include the following:

• There is no point completing the project by its target deadline without this requirement.
• The final product or software would not be compliant or legal without this requirement.
• The final product or software would not be safe without this requirement.
• The final product or software does not deliver an effective solution without this requirement.

If there is any way to work around a particular requirement, teams should consider it a should-have or could-have element. Assigning requirements to the should-have and could-have categories does not mean the team won't deliver the element; it just reveals that it is not necessary for completion and, therefore, is not guaranteed.

2. S: Should have

This second category of requirements is one step below must have. It can prep requirements for future release without impacting the current project. Should-have elements are important to project completion, but they are not necessary. In other words, if the final product doesn't include should-have requirements, then the product still functions. However, if it does include should-have elements, they greatly increase the value of the product. Minor bug fixes, performance improvements and new functionality are all examples of requirements that could fall into this category.

Teams can distinguish a should-have element from a could-have element by assessing the amount of pain caused by leaving the requirement out. This is often measured in terms of the business value or the number of people affected by its absence.

3. C: Could have

This category includes requirements that have a much smaller impact when left out of the project. As a result, could-have requirements are often the first ones teams deprioritize -- must-have and should-have requirements always take precedence as they impact the product more. An example of a could-have is a desirable but unimportant element.

4. W: Will not have

This final category includes all the requirements the team recognizes as not a priority for the project's time frame. Assigning elements to the will-not-have category helps strengthen the focus on requirements in the other three categories, while also setting realistic expectations for what the final product does not include. Furthermore, this category is beneficial in preventing scope creep -- or the tendency for product or project requirements to increase during development beyond what the team anticipated.

The team can eventually reprioritize some requirements in the will-not-have group and work them into future projects; others are never used. To differentiate between these types of elements, teams can create subcategories within the will-not-have group to identify which requirements they should still implement and which they can ignore.

MoSCoW method for Agile

The Agile project management methodology breaks projects into small sections called iterations. Each iteration focuses on completing specific project elements in work sessions called sprints -- typically lasting two to four weeks. The MoSCoW method is frequently used within Agile project management to determine which elements -- including tasks, requirements, products and user stories -- the team should prioritize and which can be put on hold. These decisions make an Agile project schedule that enables teams to rapidly deploy solutions, more efficiently use resources, increase their flexibility and adaptability to changes, and more quickly detect issues.

Advantages of the MoSCoW method

The MoSCoW method is easy to use and understand. It can help individuals with prioritization, but it more greatly benefits project teams. Other advantages include the following:

• Resolves disputes and form agreements with stakeholders.
• Ensures a minimum viable product is produced.
• Sets priorities at different levels of the development pipeline.
• Enables categorizing requirements to rely on the expertise of the team.
• Can be used for both existing and new projects.

In addition, the MoSCoW method enables users to assign specific percentages of resources to each of the four categories. This action ensures resources are effectively managed ,and it optimizes productivity analysis.

Criticism of the MoSCoW method

However, there are some drawbacks with the MoSCow method, including the following:

• There is uncertainty surrounding will-not-have requirements and whether they are left out of the release or the entire project.
• There's no clear way to prioritize requirements within the same category.
• There is no reasoning for why one requirement is a must-have and the other is a should-have.
• If an organization's decision-making process excludes collective leadership, prioritization may become subjective and inefficient.

History of the MoSCoW method

The MoSCoW method has its roots in the dynamic systems development method -- an Agile project delivery framework that aimed to improve rapid application development processes.

Software development expert Dai Clegg created the MoSCoW method while working at Oracle , the multinational computer technology corporation. Clegg initially designed the prioritization technique for timeboxed projects and initiatives within releases.

Editor's note: This article was reformatted in 2023 to improve the reader experience.

Continue Reading About MoSCoW method

• 6 key ways to improve developer productivity
• 7 techniques for better Agile requirements gathering
• Set IT vendor selection criteria to evolve with the times
• How does DevOps in networking change network requirements?
• Student group satisfaction perceptions using Agile in a project-based course

Related Terms

Dig deeper on agile, devops and software development methodologies.

Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS)

ABC classification

How to rank and prioritize security vulnerabilities in 3 steps

5 core steps in the risk management process

Increased use of multi-cloud environments is creating a need for specialized observability methods and tools for tracking and ...

Don't be caught unprepared for the exam. Take advantage of these study tips from the author of 'The Official CompTIA Cloud+ ...

FinOps strategies can help enterprises manage cloud costs and monitor cloud usage patterns. But is it better to outsource or ...

Rust or Ruby? Go or Groovy? As the competitive IT landscape evolves, developers can enhance their skills and career potential by ...

Authorization is a critical security component of a microservices architecture. Follow these five guiding principles to deploy ...

Managing microservices without API gateways might be uncommon, but not unheard of. Consider the benefits, downsides and available...

VMware Tanzu now offers a single UI for Cloud Foundry and Kubernetes, a feature years in the making, but the improvement could ...

There are key stages to manage infrastructure as code, from source control to deployment. Here's how these functions can be ...

With Puppet, organizations can manage configurations and simplify the DevOps process. Learn how it works, and see if it's the ...

More companies today hire developers who work remotely. Follow these steps for an efficient remote onboarding process for devs, ...

GPTScript enables programmers to use natural language syntax and tap into OpenAI when building apps. Here's a basic GPTScript ...

Generic variables give the TypeScript language versatility and compile-time type safety that put it on par with Java, C# and C++....

Compare Datadog vs. New Relic capabilities including alerts, log management, incident management and more. Learn which tool is ...

Many organizations struggle to manage their vast collection of AWS accounts, but Control Tower can help. The service automates ...

There are several important variables within the Amazon EKS pricing model. Dig into the numbers to ensure you deploy the service ...

U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Russia

Social / search.

Security Alert: Avoid Large Gatherings over the Next 48 Hours

Location:  Moscow, Russia

The Embassy is monitoring reports that extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts, and U.S. citizens should be advised to avoid large gatherings over the next 48 hours.

Actions to Take:

• Avoid crowds.
• Monitor local media for updates.
• Be aware of your surroundings.

Assistance :

• U.S. Embassy Moscow, Russian Federation U.S. Citizens with emergencies, please call +7 (495) 728-5577 Outside of office hours, contact +7 (495) 728-5000 For routine American Citizen Services questions, please email:  [email protected] U.S. Embassy Russia website
• Department of State – Consular Affairs 888-407-4747 or 202-501-4444
• Russia Country Information
• Enroll in the  Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive security updates.
• Follow us on  Facebook  and  Twitter

By U.S. Mission Russia | 7 March, 2024 | Topics: Alert

Message for U.S. Citizens Voting in the 2024 U.S. Election

Security Alert: Worldwide Caution

Footer Disclaimer This is the official website of the U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Russia. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Ukrainian officials planned 'mass strikes' on Moscow and other cities 'with everything' they had, but they stood down after US intervention: report

• The Washington Post reports Ukrainian officials had plans for "mass strikes" on Russian cities on the first anniversary's of the war.
• Ukraine's military intelligence chief directed an officer to hit "with everything" available, but the plan wasn't carried out.
• Officials in Kyiv have disputed the Post report based on leaked documents, calling it "strange media" and "sensation."

Officials in Kyiv were planning strikes on Moscow, among other targets, on the first anniversary of Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, but US intervention led them to stand down, The Washington Post reported Monday, citing classified documents.

The Post reported that Maj. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, who leads Ukraine's military intelligence operations, known as the HUR, instructed an officer to "get ready for mass strikes on 24 February," adding that the attacks were to be executed "with everything the HUR had." Budanov's reported instructions were attributed to a classified National Security Agency document.

A couple of days before the one-year anniversary though, the Central Intelligence Agency sent out a report noting that the HUR "had agreed, at Washington's request, to postpone strikes" on the Russian capital. The SBU, Ukraine's security service, did not agree to that however, the agency said.

The HUR did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

The pair of documents offering insight into Ukrainian planning were part of a significant leak of classified intelligence information that made global headlines in recent weeks and led to the arrest of a 21-year-old Massachusetts Air National Guard member suspected to have leaked these documents online, The Post reported . The leaked documents have caused frustration in Washington and in allied capitals.

Related stories

As Ukraine attempts to fend off Russian invaders, the US has supported the country with billions of dollars in security assistance, arming it with anti-tank weapons, howitzers, rocket-artillery, air defense systems, infantry fighting vehicles, tanks, and more, but Washington has been hesitant to provide capabilities that would allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russia and Russian-occupied territories.

For instance, though the US provided High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems ( HIMARS ) to Ukraine with Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) rockets, it has held off on sending Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) with ranges of just under 200 miles, munitions that expert observers say would give Ukrainian forces a greater edge in this ongoing fight.

The notable lack of long-range US-provided capabilities has not stopped the Ukrainian armed forces from conducting strikes far from the front lines of the ongoing conflict, but unlike Russian explosive drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, claimed and suspected Ukrainian attacks have targeted Russian military installations.

Last August, Ukraine struck a Russian military base in occupied Crimea with missiles, causing substantial damage to Black Sea Fleet naval aviation assets, and in December, two air bases deep inside Russian territory were hit , allegedly by Ukrainian drones. Ukraine is also suspected to be behind a number of explosive sea drone attacks on Russian installations.

Ukraine doesn't always acknowledge these attacks, but officials have hinted at Kyiv's involvement. For example, after the attacks in December, Mykhailo Podolyak, adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wrote that Earth is round and that "if something is launched into other countries' airspace, sooner or later unknown flying objects will return to departure point."

In the case of the missile strikes in Crimea, Gen. Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, wrote in an op-ed that the aim of these attacks is to "make these experiences even sharper and more tangible for the Russians and for other occupied regions, despite the massive distance to the targets."

Ukrainian officials, which have pushed back on other elements of the leaked documents relating to the war in Ukraine, have dismissed reports that it was planning strikes for the anniversary as "strange media/sensation once again."

"Why would there be a need for us to do this? What task would such a one-time action solve? Would it change the course of the war? Would it make the Russians flee? Would it remove the need for weapons?" Podolyak said on Twitter Monday.

He said that such reports problematically "shape public opinion in Western capitals as if Ukraine was an unreasonable, infantile, and impulsive country that is dangerous for adults to trust with serious weapons."

"We approach the war with ironclad mathematical logic: we need long-range missiles to destroy Russian logistics in the occupied territories and various types of aircraft to protect the sky and destroy Russian fortifications. These are the main components of successful counteroffensive operations and minimization of losses," he added, continuing to make the case for providing Ukraine with additional combat capabilities.

Watch: The war in Ukraine by the numbers, one year later

• Main content

Internet Service Providers in Moscow, ID

Providers in moscow, id.

Search Providers

Sort by Speed Recommended

First Step Internet

Tello Mobile

Why should you trust us?

We maintain a comprehensive database of up-to-date information about thousands of internet providers, giving us a granular view of the prices of internet plans, advertised speeds, data caps, contract requirements, and the latest deals. Our proprietary data is organized by zip code, allowing us to offer a detailed snapshot of available internet options from Honolulu to Bar Harbor and everywhere in between. Our team takes its editorial independence seriously as we determine the order for listing internet providers and highlight the best services on these pages. We make a commission if you click an affiliate link, and our brand partners work with us to ensure the accuracy of our data. But they do not see or approve these pages before they are published. Learn more about Reviews.org on our About Us page.

Best internet providers in Moscow, ID

Cheapest internet providers in moscow, id.

The cheapest internet providers get you a reliable connection at an affordable price. You may have to settle for slower speeds, but you can also find promos and discounts. Hot tip: Look for providers with unlimited data and no extra fees to save even further.

Fastest internet plans and providers in Moscow, ID

The fastest internet providers can get you gigabit or even multi-gigabit speeds. Not everyone needs a 1,000Mbps connection or faster, but it’s worth the investment if you’re a power user or live in a large household.

Most reliable internet plans in Moscow, ID

A reliable internet connection means you get a stable connection and consistent speeds day in, day out, without the worry of sudden slowdowns or outages. You also get top-rated customer service and technical support in case things do go awry. Fiber is the most reliable internet you can get, so we recommend that if it’s available.

Test your internet speed

Is your home internet fast enough to meet your daily Wi-Fi needs? The best way to find out is by running a speed test, which gives you a snapshot of how much bandwidth you’re getting from your internet provider. Run the test over a hardwired ethernet connection for the most accurate results, and try taking the test at different times throughout the day to measure possible fluctuations in your download speed, upload speed, and latency. If you have trouble getting things done online with the speed-test results you’re getting, consider upgrading to a faster plan or switching internet providers.

Connecting to a server . . .

This may take a minute, depending on your device.

Share your speed:

Direct image link

How much speed do you need?

Take a look below at what you can do with different speeds commonly offered by internet service providers (ISPs). You can read more about the average user’s speed needs in our internet speed guide .

To get these numbers, we used the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)  broadband speed guide , our  streaming internet speed guide , and our  Zoom internet speed guide .

Frequently asked questions about internet in Moscow, ID

The fastest internet in Moscow is Ziply Fiber with speeds up to 50000Mbps.

The cheapest internet in Moscow is Spectrum with prices starting at $19.99.

Fiber internet is available in Moscow, Ziply Fiber has 88.00% in Moscow.

Internet connection options in Moscow, ID

Renowned for its reliability, fiber can reach download and upload speeds up to 10,000Mbps. While it isn’t available everywhere, it’s the best internet you can get.

Cable is bread-and-butter internet—widely available, often affordable, and very fast, delivering download speeds that range anywhere from 25Mbps to 1,200Mbps

DSL maxes out at 100Mbps , but many DSL customers get much slower speeds than that. DSL is becoming obsolete, but it’s still a solid option in rural areas.

Satellite is available practically everywhere, even in the most remote parts of the country. It’s costly and comes with strict data limits and slow speeds, so use it as a last resort.

Internet in Moscow, ID at a glance

Internet provider averages in moscow, id.

Average download speed

Average upload speed

Average latency time

Average cost of internet

Number of internet providers

Internet availability faster than 100 Mbps

The number of households in each region that have access to 100 Mbps internet.

Moscow Internet Value Score

We came up with this score by dividing the average cost of each provider in Moscow, ID with the average speeds they offered.

National average: $0.63

Find internet providers in cities near Moscow, ID

• Pullman, WA
• Genesee, ID
• Palouse, WA
• Uniontown, WA
• Potlatch, ID
• Princeton, ID
• Juliaetta, ID
• Kendrick, ID

Browse all cities in Idaho

Internet reviews and resources.

• How Much Do Internet and Wi-Fi Cost?
• The Fastest Internet Providers
• Best 5G Home Internet
• An Honest Cox Internet Review, According to Customers
• The Best Internet Setup for Working from Home
• An Honest AT&T Internet Review, According to Customers

*No contract required. Available in select areas only.

†For 12 months when bundled. Limited time offer; subject to change; valid to qualified residential customers who have not subscribed to any services within the previous 30 days and who have no outstanding obligation to Charter.

‡For 12 months when bundled. Limited time offer; subject to change; valid to qualified residential customers who have not subscribed to any services within the previous 30 days and who have no outstanding obligation to Charter.

^For 24 months when bundled. Limited time offer; subject to change; valid to qualified residential customers who have not subscribed to any services within the previous 30 days and who have no outstanding obligation to Charter.

Ziply Fiber

*For new residential customers only. No annual contract required. Prices shown are before taxes and fees and require autopay and paperless billing.

†For new residential customers only. No annual contract required. Prices shown are before taxes and fees and require autopay and paperless billing.

‡For new residential customers only. No annual contract required. Prices shown are before taxes and fees and require autopay and paperless billing.

^For new residential customers only. No annual contract required. Prices shown are before taxes and fees and require autopay and paperless billing.

°For new residential customers only. No annual contract required. Prices shown are before taxes and fees and require autopay and paperless billing.

**For new residential customers only. No annual contract required. Prices shown are before taxes and fees and require autopay and paperless billing.

††For new residential customers only. No annual contract required. Prices shown are before taxes and fees and require autopay and paperless billing.

‡‡For new residential customers only. No annual contract required. Prices shown are before taxes and fees and require autopay and paperless billing.

*Offer for 12 months. Service plans require a 24-month commitment. Equipment Lease or Purchase fees extra. Service plans require a 24-month commitment. Equipment Lease or Purchase fees extra.

†Offer for 12 months. Service plans require a 24-month commitment. Equipment Lease or Purchase fees extra. Service plans require a 24-month commitment. Equipment Lease or Purchase fees extra.

‡Offer for 12 months. Service plans require a 24-month commitment. Equipment Lease or Purchase fees extra. Service plans require a 24-month commitment. Equipment Lease or Purchase fees extra.

Our Methodology

Go to Reviews.org AU edition

Internet in your area

Internet in San Fransisco

Internet in Fairbanks

Internet in Nashville

Internet in Fort Worth

Stay updated on the latest products and services anytime, anywhere.

Terms of Use |  Privacy Policy

All content © 2024 Reviews.org. All rights reserved. Disclaimer

• What is the MoSCoW prioritization method?

Last updated

17 April 2024

Reviewed by

Mary Mikhail

Several techniques are available to project managers to plan a team’s workload by ranking projects or tasks by significance. These prioritization techniques also help communicate to project teams and stakeholders where resources must be directed to accomplish goals. 

The MoSCoW method is one such popular prioritization technique. Learn what the MoSCoW method is and how to apply it. 

The MoSCoW method ranks the significance of a task by determining the requirements for a project's successful completion.

Some may be essential and must be included in the project’s deliverables. You may find other specifications are not required for a successful conclusion, but you might consider them to improve the result or business value.

This prioritization technique requires you to classify projects and tasks by their levels of necessity in reaching your goal.

• Where does the term MoSCoW come from?

MoSCoW is an acronym that signifies the names of the categories in which the requirements are placed:

M = Must-haves

S = Should-haves

C = Could-haves

W = Will not have at this time or wish for

The Os were added to make the acronym easier to pronounce. Using these categories makes projects more manageable, helps with better resource control, and increases the chances of meeting deadlines.

• Using MoSCoW prioritization categories

Requirements with the highest level of importance are must-haves. You'll place lesser-ranked requirements in the should-haves and could-haves categories. Anything in the will-not-have category defines the requirement as nice to have, but not a necessity, at least for now.

Deliverance of effective solutions

Because a project can't be accomplished without must-have initiatives, your team must be committed to completing these requirements.

Should-haves

These tasks or elements are important to completing the project or product, but they're not necessary. Although the product will still function without should-have requirements, you shouldn't disregard them or underestimate their importance because they can significantly increase the product's value.

Performance improvements and new functions are examples of should-have requirements.

Could-haves

These initiatives take a back seat to must-haves and should-haves. If left out, they will not significantly influence the completion of a product or project. A could-have element is desired but not necessary.

Will-not-haves (at this time)

The items in this category set realistic expectations for what the product will not include. A clear visual representation of these requirements communicates to the team and stakeholders items identified as out of scope.

What do your users really want?

Just upload your customer research and ask your insights hub - like magic.

• When do you use the MoSCoW method for prioritization?

The idea behind Agile project management is to decrease the risk of missed goals and deadlines. It uses resources and time more efficiently by breaking the project into smaller sections and prioritizing tasks, requirements, products, and stories.

To prioritize these, you can use the MoSCoW method within the scope of an Agile project.

• What is an example of the MoSCoW technique?

Imagine you're building an e-commerce website that must launch by a specific date. You'll have to prioritize its features because you don't have unlimited time to work on the site.

The functionality you want to incorporate into the website could be:

Users can log onto the website

Users should have access to a "Forgot Password" solution

Users can change account details

Users can send an email to the system requesting a change to the account page

Here's how you might categorize these features based on how effective you want the website to be and the time constraints you face:

Must-haves:

Should-haves:

Could-haves:

Will-not-haves

Users can click on a phone number on the webpage, and a call will automatically be made from their desk phone to that number

• Benefits of using MoSCoW prioritization

MoSCoW prioritization offers several benefits in project management:

Clarity and focus: It helps teams identify and prioritize the most critical requirements, ensuring clarity on what needs to be delivered first.

Efficiency: By categorizing tasks into must-haves, should-haves, could-haves, and won't-haves, teams can allocate resources more efficiently and focus on delivering essential features first.

Stakeholder alignment: It facilitates stakeholder discussions by providing a common language to discuss and prioritize requirements, ensuring alignment on project goals and objectives.

Risk mitigation: MoSCoW prioritization helps mitigate project risks by addressing must-have requirements first, reducing the likelihood of critical features being overlooked or delayed.

Flexibility: It allows for flexibility in project planning and execution by accommodating changes in requirements throughout the project lifecycle while ensuring that essential features are prioritized.

Time and cost savings: By focusing on must-have requirements early in the project, teams can deliver value more quickly, potentially reducing project timelines and costs.

Overall, MoSCoW prioritization promotes a structured and systematic approach to project management, leading to more successful and efficient project outcomes.

• Disadvantages of using MoSCoW prioritization

The major disadvantage of the MoSCoW method is that it isn’t an objective or consistent scoring system. For this methodology to be effective, other scoring systems, like the weighted scoring or the Kano model, should be used in conjunction with it.

Not combining another scoring system with the MoSCoW method can exclude the organization's leadership from the decision-making process. Decisions would then be in danger of being made based on the project manager's personal preferences rather than adhering to business goals and values.

This method does not involve supporting reasoning on how you prioritize requirements within the same category or why one requirement is a must-have or should-have. The parameters of each category can be blurred. There is also uncertainty about whether will-not-haves are being left out of the tasks required now or out of the entire project.

• How can teams use MoSCoW to their advantage?

Resources, time, and skill sets are not unlimited in the business world. You must constantly strive to work around those constraints efficiently for a maximum return on investment (ROI). Using the MoSCoW method can help.

Use budgetary constraints to prioritize

Some projects have tight budgets. You can use the MoSCoW method by using the budget to determine which items must be and should be completed.

Use the team's skill sets to prioritize

Experience and expertise levels can help determine which tasks to prioritize. If a task requires skills that the team lacks, you must prioritize it accordingly.

Use the competing needs of the company to prioritize

While your team is working on a specific aspect of a project, the company's leaders may have added additional requirements for your team to complete within the same timeframe. You would then have to reshuffle the priorities to accommodate the additional requirements. The MoSCoW method can help you do this.

• Best practices for using MoSCoW prioritization

Include all stakeholders in using the MoSCoW method, from the executive level down to the different teams involved in the successful completion of the project. Get them to also use objective scoring systems like:

Opportunity scoring: uses data from market research to determine what customers expect from your product or service. Prioritization is done according to their wants and needs.

Priority poker: based on priorities that will provide the highest yields in a specific target market. The marketing team, executive team, and customers should be involved for accurate ranking of priorities.

Cost of delay: based on determining how much money the company is losing by waiting to work on a particular task, product, or feature.

100-point method: all stakeholders vote for what they think is the most important requirement. They each get 100 points to distribute among the requirements, ranking them from most important to least. If a stakeholder thinks four requirements are of equal value, they can allocate 25 points to each. If they feel strongly that one requirement overrides all others, they can put all 100 points on that requirement.

Incorporate the data you receive from these scoring systems when inserting the requirements in your MoSCoW categories. Share the results with stakeholders so that they can understand why you prioritized the criteria as you did. This exercise might even reveal a reason to expand a budget constraint or allocate more resources to a priority the stakeholders initially thought unimportant.

How the MoSCoW method differs from the 100-point method

While the 100-point method helps in general brainstorming sessions, the MoSCoW method focuses on working within budget and time constraints.

Once the teams and stakeholders reach an agreement (perhaps by using the 100-point method) on the importance level of each requirement, the product managers or owners will use the MoSCoW method to categorize requirements based on:

High customer value

An elevated benefit to the business

Simple implementation

Inflated costs, when not applied as soon as possible

Technical specifications that are interdependent 

This will help stakeholders and project teams visualize the intended direction.

• MoSCoW prioritization in Agile project management

In an ideal world, your business would have unlimited time and a limitless source of funds to become the most efficient revenue generator it could be. But in the real world, you've got budget and time constraints.

When deciding on projects that will help increase revenue, decrease operational costs, boost productivity, or heighten customer satisfaction, you must choose the projects and project requirements that will most impact the goals you find important. The MoSCoW method can help you do just that.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous interviews faster?

Do you share your interview findings with others?

Do you interview customers?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 22 August 2024

Last updated: 17 August 2024

Last updated: 26 July 2024

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 20 July 2024

Last updated: 10 August 2024

Last updated: 27 July 2024

Last updated: 13 August 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

By Alex Kasprak

Alex Kasprak is an investigative journalist and science writer reporting on scientific misinformation, online fraud, and financial crime.

Article Tags

• Contributors : About the Site

Newgeography.com

• Urban Issues
• Small Cities
• Demographics

--> 02/21/2012 All three core areas rely significantly on transit. Muscovites use the Metro at about the same rate as New Yorkers use the subway, taking about 200 trips each year. Tokyo citizens use their two Metro systems at nearly 1.5 times the rate used in Moscow. But there are important differences. Moscow officials indicate that approximately two-thirds of Moscow's employment is in the central area. This is a much higher figure than in the world’s two largest central business districts -- Tokyo's Yamanote Loop and Manhattan -- each with quarter or less of their metropolitan employment. Both New York City and Tokyo's 23 wards have extensive freeway lengths in their cores, which help to make their traffic congestion more tolerable. Moscow's arterial street pattern was clearly designed with the assumption that the dominant travel pattern would be into the core. Major streets either radiate from the core, or form circles or partial circles at varying distances from it. In New York City and Tokyo's  23 wards there are radial arterials, but,the major streets generally form a grid, which is more conducive to the cross-town traffic and the more random trip patterns that have emerged in the automobile age. Moscow has become much, more reliant on cars,  following the examples of metropolitan areas across Europe. The old outer circular road, which encloses nearly all of the central municipality, was long ago upgraded to the MKAD, a 10 lane freeway as long as Washington's I-495 Capital Beltway (65 miles or 110 kilometers). The MKAD has become a primary commercial corridor, with large shopping centers and three nearby IKEAs. It is not surprising, therefore, that traffic congestion and air pollution became serious problems in Moscow. The road system that had been adequate when only the rich had cars was no longer sufficient. The "cookie-cutter" apartment blocks, which had served Iron Curtain poverty, had become obsolete. The continued densification of an already very dense core city led to an of intensification of traffic congestion and air pollution. Transit-oriented Moscow was not working, nor could "walkability" make much difference. In such a large urban area, it is inevitable that average travel distances, especially to work, will be long. Geographically large employment markets are the very foundation of major metropolitan areas. If too many jobs are concentrated in one area, then the traffic becomes unbearable, as many become able to afford cars and use them. Traffic congestion was poised to make Moscow dysfunctional. The leadership of both the Russian Federation and the city of Moscow chose an unusual path, in light of currently fashionable urban planning dogma. Rather than making promises they could not keep about how higher densities or more transit could make the unworkable city more livable, they chose the practical, though in urban planning circles, the "politically incorrect" solution:  deconcentrating the city and its traffic. Last year, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev proposed that Moscow be expanded to a land area 2.3 times as large. Local officials and parliament were quickly brought on board. The expanded land area is nearly double that of New York's suburban Nassau County, and is largely rural (Note 2). Virtually all of the expansion will be south of the MKAD. The plan is to create a much larger, automobile-oriented municipality, with large portions of the Russian government to be moved to the expanded area. Employment will be decentralized, given the hardening of the transport arterials that makes the monocentric employment pattern unsustainable. Early plans call for commercial construction more than four times that of Chicago's loop. At the same time, the leadership does not intend to abandon the older, transit-oriented part of the municipality. Mayor Sergei Sobyanin has voiced plans to , adding that there will be the opportunity to build underground parking facilities as refurbishments proceed. Moscow appears to be preparing to offer its citizens both an automobile-oriented lifestyle and a transit-oriented one. The reduced commercial traffic should also make central Moscow a more attractive environment for tourists, who spend too much time traveling between their hotels and historic sites, such as the Kremlin and St. Basil's. As Moscow expands, the national leadership also wants the Russian family to expand. Russia has been losing population for more than 20 years. Since 1989, the population of the Russian Federation has dropped by 4.5 million residents. When the increase of 3.0 million in the Moscow area is considered, the rest of the nation has lost approximately 7.5 million since 1989. Between the 2002 and the 2010 censuses, Russia lost 2.2 million people and dropped into a population of 142.9 million. Russia's population losses are pervasive. Out of the 83 federal regions, 66 lost population during the last census. Continued population losses could significantly impair national economic growth. The projected smaller number of working age residents will produce less income, while a growing elderly population will need more financial support. This is not just a Russian problem, but Russia is the first of the world's largest nations to face the issue while undergoing a significant population loss. The government is planning strong measures to counter the demographic decline, increase the birth rate, and create a home ownership-based "Russian Dream". Families having three or more children will be across the nation., including plots of up to nearly one-third of an acre ( ).  Many of these houses could be built in Moscow's new automobile- oriented two-thirds, as well as in the extensive suburbs on the other three sides of the core municipality. While population decline is the rule across the Russian Federation, the Moscow urban area has experienced strong growth. Between 2002 and 2010, the Moscow urban area grew from 14.6 million to 16.1 million residents (Note 3). This 1.3 percent annual rate of increase  exceeds the recently the recently announced growth in Canada (1.2 percent). This rate of increase exceeds that of all but 8 of the 51 major metropolitan areas (Note 4) in the United States between 2000 and 2010. While the core district grew 6 percent  and added 41,000 residents, growth was strongest outside the core, which accommodated 97 percent of the new residents (See Table). Moscow's outer districts grew by nearly 1.1 million residents, an 11 percent increase, and its suburbs continued to expand, adding 400,000 residents, an increase of 10  percent. These areas have much lower densities than the city, with many single-family houses. Table Moscow Urban Area Population 2002 2010 Change % Change Share of Growth Inner Moscow 701,000 743,000 41,000 5.9% 2.7% Outer Moscow 9,681,000 10,772,000 1,090,000 11.3% 70.3% Suburban 4,198,000 4,617,000 420,000 10.0% 27.0% Total 14,581,000 16,132,000 1,551,000 10.6% 100.0% Note: Suburban population includes the total population of each district and city that is at least partially in the urban area. Moscow, like other international urban areas , is decentralizing, despite considerable barriers. The expansion will lead to even more decentralization, which is likely to lead to less time "stuck in traffic" and more comfortable lifestyles. Let's hope that Russia's urban development policies, along with its plans to restore population growth, will lead to higher household incomes and much improved economic performance. Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “ War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life ” Note 1: The 23 ward (ku) area of Tokyo is the geography of the former city of Tokyo, which was abolished in the 1940s. There is considerable confusion about the geography of Tokyo. For example, the 23 ward area is a part of the prefecture of Tokyo, which is also called the Tokyo Metropolis, which has led some analysts to think of it as the Tokyo metropolitan area (labor market area). In fact, the Tokyo metropolitan area, variously defined, includes, at a minimum the prefectures of Tokyo, Kanagawa, Chiba and Saitama with some municipalities in Gunma, Ibaraki and Tochigi. The metropolitan area contains nearly three times the population of the "Tokyo Metropolis." Note 2: The expansion area (556 square miles or 1,440 square kilometers) has a current population of 250,000. Note 3: Includes all residents in suburban districts with at least part of their population in the urban area. Note 4: Urban area data not yet available. Photo: St. Basil's Cathedral (all photos by author) Login to post comments Evolving Urban Form: Development Profiles of World Urban Areas Transportation Comment viewing options Road in city area. The roads and ways of the city areas are very clumsy and many accidents are happening due to the short road. But you need to maintain the driving properly otherwise you may face accident. So now the government decided to expand the road which may put the positive effect on automobile sector. I think it is a helpful service for the society people. If you have a BMW car and you have faced any problem then better to repair it at BMW Repair Spring, TX for the best service. Transit & transportation Transit and transportation services are quite impressive in most of the urban cities; therefore people were getting better benefits from suitable transportation service. Urban cities like Moscow, Washington, New York and Tokyo; we have found high margin of transportation system that helps to build a better communication network in these cities. I hope through the help of modern transportation system we are able to bring revolutionary change in automobile industries; in this above article we have also found the same concepts to develop transportation system. Mercedes repair in Torrance Moscow is bursting Noblesse Moscow is bursting Noblesse at the seams. The core city covers more than 420 square miles (1,090 kilometers), and has a population of approximately 11.5 million people. With 27,300 residents per square mile (10,500 per square kilometer), Moscow is one percent more dense than the bleach anime watch city of New York, though Moscow covers 30 percent more land. The 23 ward area of Tokyo (see Note) is at least a third more dense, though Moscow's land area is at least half again as large as Tokyo. All three core areas rely Belgravia Villas is a new Belgravia Villas is a new and upcoming cluster housing located in the Ang Mo Kio area, nested right in the Ang Mo Kio landed area. It is within a short drive to Little India, Orchard and city area. With expected completion in mid 2016, it comprises of 118 units in total with 100 units of terrace and 18 units of Semi-D. belgravia villas Russians seeing the light while Western elites are bickering? What an extremely interesting analysis - well done, Wendell. It is also extremely interesting that the Russian leadership is reasonably pragmatic about urban form, in contrast to the "planners" of the post-rational West. An acquaintance recently sent me an article from "The New Yorker", re Moscow's traffic problems. The article "abstract" is HERE (but access to the full article requires subscription) http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/02/100802fa_fact_gessen One classic quote worth taking from it, is: "People will endure all manner of humiliation to keep driving". I do find it odd that the "New Yorker" article author says nothing at all about the rail transit system Moscow had, on which everyone was obliged to travel, under Communism. It can't surely have vaporised into thin air? Moscow is a classic illustration of just how outmoded rails are, and how important "automobility" is, when the auto supplants rails so rapidly than even when everybody did travel on rails up to a certain date, and the road network dates to that era, when nobody was allowed to own a car; an article written just 2 decades later does not even mention the rail transit system, other than to criticise the mayor for "failing to invest in a transit system".......!!!!!!!! This is also a give-away of "The New Yorker's" inability to shake off the modern PC ideology on rails vs cars. Subscribe to NG Articles Get new posts by email:, connect with us:. NewGeography.com is a joint venture of Joel Kotkin and Praxis Strategy Group Featured Content The Coming of Neo-Feudalism Infinite Suburbia Recent blog posts Feudal Future Podcast: Populism Across Decades and Demographics California, Florida Best States for Business, California & New York Worse: Survey Feudal Future Podcast: Tech Job Markets, Navigating the New Landscape Feudal Future Podcast: Navigating the Housing Affordability Crisis Feudal Future Podcast: British Elections—European Populism and Its Impact on the UK Feudal Future Podcast: The Future of Cars — Hybrid and Electric Insights Net Domestic Migration Gains & Losses by State since 2000 Feudal Future Podcast: Unpacking Europe's Youth-Driven Political Shift Feudal Future Podcast: Navigating South Africa's Political and Economic Changes Dining Out on Taxpayers in NYC Recent popular content Rise of Luxury Urbanity as a System: Sydney CBD Occupy Wall Street: About D@%& Time! Fixing the Mortgage Mess: Why Treasury’s Efforts at both Ends of the Spectrum Are Failing How J.D. Vance Avoided Becoming Pete Buttigieg Here's to Next GM Revolution in Spring Hill, Tennessee “Cash For Clunkers” Doesn’t Utilize Junkyard Efficiency Orange County Focus | Forging Our Common Future Tony Hsieh, Zappos CEO and Founder of Las Vegas Downtown Project, Dies Aged 46 More from this author Largest World Cities: 2014 Largest Cities in the World: 2016 World Urban Areas Population and Density: A 2012 Update Largest 1,000 Cities on Earth: World Urban Areas: 2015 Edition The Evolving Urban Form: Rio de Janeiro Recommended Books Blogroll and partner sites. Burgh Diaspora Center for Economic Research and Forecasting China Urban Development Blog Chris Bradford - Austin Contrarian Houston Strategies LA Observed Multiplier Effect: Levy Economics Institute The Rural Blog The Urbanophile Request new password © 2024 New Geography CONTRIBUTORS : PRIVACY POLICY Stay up to date: Election 2024 Entertainment Newsletters Photography AP Buyline Personal Finance AP Buyline Shopping Press Releases Israel-Hamas War Russia-Ukraine War Global elections Asia Pacific Latin America Middle East Election results Google trends AP & Elections U.S. Open Tennis Paralympic Games College football Auto Racing Movie reviews Book reviews Financial Markets Business Highlights Financial wellness Artificial Intelligence Social Media Behind Cohen plea: Trump’s longtime dream of a Moscow tower FILE - In this Nov. 5, 1996 file photo, American real estate mogul Donald Trump, left, checks out sites in Moscow, Russia, for luxury residential towers. Trump’s decades-long dream of building a luxury tower in the heart of Moscow flared and fizzled several times over the years, most recently when his presidential campaign was gaining momentum. That latest plan led his former lawyer Michael Cohen to plead guilty to a charge of lying to congressional investigators about key details in the negotiations, most notably that those talks stretched far deeper into the 2016 campaign than previously thought. (AP Photo/Igor Tabakov, File) President Donald Trump speaks to reporters on the South Lawn before leaving the White House in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 29, 2018 to attend the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) FILE - In this Nov. 5, 1996, file photo, American real estate mogul Donald Trump, left, visits a reception, as he checks out sites in Moscow, Russia, for luxury residential towers. Trump’s decades-long dream of building a luxury tower in the heart of Moscow flared and fizzled several times over the years, most recently when his presidential campaign was gaining momentum. That latest plan led his former lawyer Michael Cohen to plead guilty to a charge of lying to congressional investigators about key details in the negotiations, most notably that those talks stretched far deeper into the 2016 campaign than previously thought. (AP Photo/Igor Tabakov, File) Copy Link copied WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump for decades dreamed of building a Trump Tower in the heart of Moscow, a plan that flared and fizzled several times over the years, most recently when his presidential campaign was gaining momentum. That last plan led Trump’s longtime lawyer Michael Cohen to plead guilty Thursday to a charge brought by the special prosecutor looking into possible Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Cohen admitted he lied to Congress about key details in the negotiations for the Moscow tower, most notably that those talks stretched much deeper into the presidential campaign than previously thought, to June of 2016. Trump, speaking to reporters Thursday, disputed Cohen’s timeline and suggested his former fixer was telling prosecutors what they wanted to hear to save his own skin. As for why the most recent deal failed, Trump said he made the decision himself for one main reason. “It was very simple,” he said. “I was very focused on running for president.” Trump’s plans for a Trump Tower in Moscow went back as far as 1996 when the future president paid a visit to the Russian capital to check out building sites on land being developed by a U.S. company. That idea fell through, along with plans to revamp the dilapidated Hotel Moskva next to the Kremlin, but the real estate mogul raised the prospect of a “super-luxury residential tower” bearing his name on other sites he visited on his three-day stay in the city. “Moscow is going to be huge,” Trump told Playboy magazine in a 1997 interview. Trump revived the idea in 2013 during his visit to Moscow as owner of the Miss Universe pageant. Trump later said he had discussed the idea with Aras and Emin Agalarov, a father-and-son Russian development team close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump reportedly scouted a potential site, but the idea again faded. The tower idea came back yet again in October 2015, when Andrey Rozov, an obscure Russian real estate developer, signed a letter of intent sent by Cohen to advance the construction of a Trump World Tower that would feature 250 luxury condos, no fewer than 15 floors of hotel rooms, commercial and office space, a fitness center and an Ivanka Trump spa. It was a potentially lucrative deal for Trump’s company, handing it $4 million in upfront fees plus possibly millions more from a cut on everything from food and banquet fees to spa charges. His share on the first $100 million in condo sales alone would reach another $5 million. Rozov’s signed letter was sent back to Cohen by Felix Sater, another Trump world figure who had worked on and off for the Trump Organization and operated as a government informant following a 1998 conviction in a stock fraud case. Sater sent Cohen an email expressing optimism: “Let’s make this happen and build a Trump Moscow. And possibly fix relations between the countries by showing everyone that commerce and business are much better and more practical than politics.” Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump were copied in on emails about the project in late 2015, according to a person close to the Trump Organization. In one email, Ivanka Trump even suggested an architect for the building, the person said, noting the Trump Organization provided the emails to congressional committees. The company’s email traffic about the project ends in January 2016, said the person, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about the matter and spoke on condition of anonymity. Like the previous failed projects, the Rozov-helmed effort soon ran aground. According to Cohen’s testimony in 2017 and his plea agreement, negotiations with Rozov’s group stalled, and the two Trump associates turned to aides to Russian President Vladimir Putin to move the project forward. Cohen told congressional investigators last year that he had sent an email in January 2016 to Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman. Cohen told the committee he never heard back from Peskov and the tower deal collapsed by the end of that month. But according to Cohen’s new statement to prosecutors, the tower deal remained viable as late as June 2016, after Trump had vanquished his Republican presidential rivals and was mounting his general election campaign against Hillary Clinton. Cohen said he kept Trump, named as “Individual 1" in the plea, updated about the deal’s progress, and also “briefed family members of Individual 1 within the company about the project.” Cohen said in his plea that he also spoke by phone with an assistant to Peskov — identified in the plea as “Russian Official 1" — in January 2016 and outlined the project and “requested assistance in moving the project forward.” According to the plea, Cohen later discussed traveling to Moscow to jump-start the deal. In May 2016, a month after Trump had emerged the winner of the GOP primaries, Sater — identified as “Individual 2" — told Cohen that Peskov wanted to meet him in mid-June at an international business forum in St. Petersburg and “possibly introduce you” to Putin or Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. BuzzFeed News reported Thursday that Trump’s company considered giving the Moscow tower’s penthouse apartment to Putin. Sater told BuzzFeed: “My idea was to give a $50 million penthouse to Putin and charge $250 million more for the rest of the units. All the oligarchs would line up to live in the same building as Putin.” Sater and Cohen continued to email about the foundering project well into June 2016, soon after a much-scrutinized meeting at Trump Tower in New York between Trump’s son Don Jr., son-in-law Jared Kushner, campaign chairman Paul Manafort and several Russian attendees, purportedly to discuss the possibility of “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. On June 14, Cohen met Sater in the tower lobby and told him his potential trip to St. Petersburg was off. Thursday, Trump suggested his consideration of a Moscow tower was all part of being a businessman who was also running for president. “I decided ultimately not to do it,” he said. “There would be nothing wrong if I did do it.” “There was a good chance that I wouldn’t have won, in which case I would have gone back into the business, and why should I lose lots of opportunities?” Associated Press writer Chad Day in Washington contributed to this report. Skip to main content Keyboard shortcuts for audio player A Timeline Of The Potential Trump Tower Project In Moscow Tamara Keith The new guilty plea of President Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen is putting new focus on efforts by the Trump organization to develop a project in Russia in 2016 during the presidential campaign. Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information. NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record. Why Didn't Trump Build Anything in Russia? The art of the deal runs into the reality of “a really scary place.” Updated on September 25, 2017. Thirty years ago, in July 1987, Donald and Ivana Trump flew to the Soviet Union, apparently at the invitation of the Soviet ambassador to the United States, in order to scout locations for a Trump hotel in Moscow. “It was an extraordinary experience,” Trump wrote in The Art of the Deal . “We toured half a dozen potential sites for a hotel, including several near Red Square.” He came away “impressed with the ambition of the Soviet officials to make a deal.” And yet a deal was never struck, neither then nor in 1996, when the Moscow real-estate market really cranked up and Trump tried to bid on a renovation of Hotel Rossiya near the Kremlin. Nor did anything come to fruition in 2008 when Trump announced plans to build in Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Sochi; nor in 2013, when he visited Moscow and said he was going to build a Trump Tower there with the help of Russian mega-developer Aras Agalarov. In June 2015, shortly before declaring his presidential candidacy, Trump bragged to Bill O’Reilly that, “I was over in Moscow two years ago and I will tell you—you can get along with those people and get along with them well. You can make deals with those people. Obama can’t.” At the time, it has since been reported , Trump’s surrogates Felix Sater and Michael Cohen were actively pursuing another real-estate development on Trump’s behalf in Moscow, but, by winter of 2016, that project was moot, too. The American president has often bragged about his ability to cut deals and about how well he gets along with the Russians . The press and investigators have speculated about the extent of his connections to the Russian business and political elite. And yet, Trump never actually built anything in Moscow. When the president said, shortly after his inauguration, “I don’t have any deals in Russia,” he wasn’t wrong. The question is why. When just about every other major hotel chain in the world was able to build in Moscow and beyond, why didn’t Trump close a deal in Russia? The absence of Trump real estate in Russia, it turns out, is a revealing reflection of the disconnect between the image Trump projects and the reputation he and his surrogates have established in Russia. In part it was because, as Donald Trump Jr. once said himself, Russia “really is a scary place.” In a 2008 interview with a small trade publication, Trump Jr. said that he had taken “half a dozen trips to Russia in the last 18 months” and that “several buyers have been attracted to our projects there.” But there was something getting in the way of those trips adding up to a Trump Tower Moscow. “It is definitely not an issue of being able to find a deal,” Trump Jr. said, “but an issue of ‘Will I ever see my money back out of that deal or can I actually trust the person I am doing the deal with?’ As much as we want to take our business over there, Russia is just a different world. … It is a question of who knows who, whose brother is paying off who, etc.” Trump Jr., who did not respond to request for comment, was right: The world of Russian business is a dark and treacherous place, and Moscow real estate is one of its darkest corners. “Moscow is like New York in many ways, just way more corrupt,” says a Western real-estate developer in Russia, who asked for anonymity in order not to jeopardize local partners and ongoing business deals. “To pull a building out of the ground, you need so many permits, so many authorizations—the mind reels. And all of it is so corrupt, it’s insane.” To navigate all this, the Trump Organization would have needed a local partner that was not just a capable developer, but had the right political connections to secure all the necessary permissions. “You need a good Russian partner, otherwise there’s no way,” says Mark Stiles, an American businessman who had extensive real-estate holdings in Russia. In 2013, Trump worked with Agalarov , who had stellar connections at the very zenith of Russian political and business life. But that deal went sour after it caused a scandal in Kyrgyzstan— long story —and after the Russian economy took a nosedive in 2014. But at other times, Trump’s man on the ground was Felix Sater, a Russian-born wheeler and dealer from the Russian-immigrant enclaves of Brooklyn. Sater, who declined to comment on the record for this story, once served a year in an American prison on an assault conviction after he stabbed a man in the face with the stem of a broken margarita glass. Not long after he got out of jail in the mid-90s, he was charged with securities fraud. Sater struck a deal to avoid prison time by becoming an FBI informant—a role that included providing the U.S. government with Soviet-era weapons purchased from an arms dealer. In 2002, Sater, who was renting office space in Manhattan’s Trump Tower, worked his way into Trump's inner circle. In 2004, Sater started traveling to Moscow and tried to put together Russian real-estate deals for Trump. One potential deal, a Trump building on the territory of Moscow’s Soviet-era Sacco and Vanzetti Pencil Factory, fell through when the Russian partner was unable to get the right permits. In late 2007, in addition to his work for Trump, Sater also began serving as an adviser to the real-estate developer Sergei Polonsky, a flamboyant builder who has called himself Russia’s Donald Trump. (“And yet he’s gone bankrupt twice,” Polonsky said of Trump, according to the Russian news agency RIA Novosti , “and I haven’t, ever.”) Polonsky, who named his son after his development company, Mirax, was behind some of Moscow’s hottest developments. Sater was tasked with helping Polonsky develop international projects, but only one ever came to fruition. This didn’t exactly surprise Polonsky’s lieutenants. Alexey Kunitsin, who at the time was chairman of the board at Mirax, told me that Polonsky had been warned about Sater and his past, but Polonsky didn’t care. “I would never hire somebody like that,” Kunitsin said. “You can’t trust him in any way, not in a professional setting, not in a personal setting. You could see it very clearly. He was telling constant crazy stories, wild fantasies about all the people he knew. He was not a balanced dude. He’s very emotional and gets into conflicts very easily.” Kunitsin recalled that Sater would also brag to his coworkers at Mirax about how good he was at spending all the money he allegedly earned. “It didn’t really inspire confidence, especially when he described it all so colorfully,” Kunitsin said. Another former Mirax employee who dealt with Sater paints a similar portrait. “He’s not a serious person,” the former Mirax employee said. “He’s not a total bullshitter, he can do some things, but he’s also a bullshitter. He tries to create the impression of someone who is extremely well-connected and very busy.” That Sater raised suspicions and turned Moscow businessmen off with tales of conspicuous consumption, in a city where it is practically a sport, is deeply telling. “You really have to be very talented to do that,” said a prominent Russian real-estate consultant, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he worried that speaking to a journalist would jeopardize his professional relationships in Moscow. “And most people didn’t take him seriously. He was ready to pay for a few bottles of Cristal in the club, but was not someone you want to make a serious deal with.” Polonsky was hard hit by the 2008 financial crisis, which also killed off Trump’s plans for building Trump buildings in Russia. But this didn’t derail Sater, who ditched Polonsky and, in 2010, became a senior adviser to Donald Trump, according to his business cards and email signature. That year, he was working on Trump’s development plans in Russia, again. And he ran into trouble, again. Sater told people in Moscow he had a signed authorization from Trump to enter into negotiations on his behalf, but because of Sater’s flamboyant manner, few people believed the document was authentic. “He was walking around with a power of attorney or something from Trump,” the Russian real-estate consultant said of Sater. “It was a very suspicious-looking document.” Sater’s reputation continued to haunt him, even in Russia. “In 2010 when you Googled him you got a story form The New York Times about his past and it made things difficult for him,” says the former Mirax employee, referring to a 2007 article by Charles Bagli . The piece was the first to dredge up Sater’s checkered history and to put it in one, reputable place. Sater tried spelling his name “Satter” but it didn’t help. A boutique Moscow PR agency offered to help rehabilitate his image. “Nice people [in Moscow] didn’t want to do business with him,” says a representative of the now-defunct agency. His assessment of Sater’s dilemma, which he shared with me on condition of anonymity, was stark. “Your mass media image today is the classical negative image of businessperson who is likely to be connected a criminal,” the PR agency wrote to Sater in September 2010. “Your media image is created by a third party, not you. You [sic] story is covered by media sources in a negative fashion. As a result, it affects even neutral news on your persona.” (Sater did not end up hiring them.) It also didn’t help that Sater was a freelancer, and an outsider. He may have been born in Moscow, but he had left as a child. Despite a stint in Moscow in the 1990s , his return visits were brief and sporadic, his Russian accented by his long life in America. He would have read to Russians as an American, a foreigner. He had no obvious krysha , or “roof”—political protection as insurance against things going sideways. “The first question when you’re doing business in Russia is: who’s your krysha ?” says one longtime Western investor in Moscow, who asked for anonymity because of the sensitivities of doing business in such a treacherous environment. “No krysha , no deal.” Polonsky had provided one such krysha , but by the time Sater tried in 2015 to build a Trump Tower in Moscow City, the capital’s modernist financial district, Polonsky was in prison and on trial for embezzlement. (He has since been released.) Trump, whom Sater claimed to be representing, was not a good krysha either: He was a foreigner, lived in New York, and had no pull within the various power structures in Russia. (The White House referred queries about this story to the Trump Organization. In response to repeated inquiries, a spokesperson for the Trump Organization underscored that it “has never had any real estate holdings or interests in Russia,” but declined to address questions about the president’s previous business relationship with Sater.) In the fall of 2015, months after Trump declared his presidential candidacy, Sater was at it again, according to reports in The Washington Post and New York Times . In emails obtained by the Times , he bragged to Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer and unofficial campaign surrogate, that he had lined up financing for a Trump Tower in Moscow City from VTB, a bank under U.S. sanctions. (VTB denies that any such negotiations ever took place, saying through a spokesperson that “that not a single VTB group subsidiary had any dealings with Mr.Trump, his representatives or any companies affiliated with him.”) He also bragged that “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected.” That year, Trump signed a non-binding letter of intent, and Cohen told the Times that he spoke with Trump three times about the deal. Again, the deal went nowhere. According to the Times , for all his blustery promises of getting Putin involved, Sater did not even have the connections to get the proper permits to get the project going. But there were two other factors. One was the sad state of the Russian economy. 2014 had brought the twin shocks of plummeting oil prices and Western sanctions, and the ruble collapsed. The sanctions cut off access to cheap financing, including to banks like VTB, known as the wallet of the FSB , one of Russia’s intelligence services. Real-estate development ground to a halt; vacancies rose. It was a punishing, prohibitive environment in which to build a new luxury high-rise. The other factor was that Sater’s Russian partner, Andrei Rozov , did not have the economic heft or the political connections to overcome these obstacles. Sater knew Rozov when they worked together at Mirax, but he was the wrong partner for a Trump Tower Moscow. Rozov mostly developed residential projects in a sleepy, shabby bedroom community far from Moscow’s center. It is not, in other words, the kind of prime real estate where one would build a ritzy hotel. Moreover, by 2015, Rozov was trying to rescue his money and invest it in the United States, in the shale boom towns of the Dakotas. According to two sources who know Rozov, he was scheduled to attend Trump’s inauguration but didn’t make it. Rozov declined to comment for this article. With the project hopelessly stalled, Cohen tried to nudge it forward in January 2016 by calling in the big Russian political guns Sater had bragged about. But Cohen seriously misfired, and instead emailed Putin’s mustachioed, bon vivant spokesman Dmitry Peskov for help with the Trump Tower project. Moreover, Cohen told me, he sent the email to the general inbox for press inquiries listed on the Kremlin website. Peskov confirmed to the Russian press that his office had received the email and chose to ignore it. “As far as we don’t respond to business topics, this is not our job, we did not send a response,” Peskov said. Some Western observers saw this as evidence of high-level contact between the Trump Organization and the Kremlin, but to veterans of the world of Moscow real estate, it was nothing but a rookie mistake. They see the story as emblematic of why Trump could never build anything in Moscow, despite three decades of talk. “That is like the stupidest, most absurd thing ever,” says the Western real-estate developer of Cohen’s email. Nor were they surprised that the Trump team committed this error, given who was on the team. “The Russians that he associates with, I would never do business with,” says the Western real-estate developer of Trump and his business partners from the former Soviet Union, like Sater. “I’ve been involved with Russia for 25 years. ... A genuine developer could’ve done a lot with that brand.” Yet the brand, for all its potential appeal to Moscow’s gaudy nouveau riches, didn’t have much cachet in Russia. It was not well-known enough for Moscow developers to pay a premium to license the name. “The Trump brand, which in America is very strong, in Russia it doesn’t have that kind of pull,” the former Mirax employee said. “Russians won’t agree to pay 30 percent more for elite real estate” just because it was branded “Trump,” because “no one in Russia watched The Apprentice .” The Russian real-estate consultant voiced a similar sentiment. “In Russia, Trump’s name was never that interesting or notable so that someone would be willing to invest and license it,” he said. “Everything that was built in Russia appreciated well without Trump’s name, so there was no need to pay for his name. There was no business sense in licensing his name.” Hotel brands like the Ritz Carlton or the Four Seasons are paid not just for their names but to actually run the hotel built by a developer. All Trump offered was his name, and at a hefty mark-up at that. The Russians were skeptical, especially given that Trump was not investing anything in any of these projects. “Trump didn’t invest anything,” says Kunitsin, the former Mirax board chair, “and in my opinion, the brand is a little too expensive.” “Trump wants a fee for branding and doesn't put money in, so most developers’ in Moscow responses are ‘so what the fuck do we need him for?’” says one person familiar with the various licensing talks. This was especially the case with Polonsky, who felt that his name was worth more in Moscow than Trump’s. Says the source familiar with the talks, “Developers were all looking for people to bring money there, and Donald doesn’t write checks, he takes checks. They said, ‘Why should we pay Donald Trump 10 or 15 percent, plus you had to write a check for a million up front to show you were serious, when we could pay three percent to Hyatt or four percent to Ritz Carlton? What’s the big deal about Trump?’” (The catch, of course, is that Trump’s brand is far more recognizable in Russia now that he is president, but given the suspicions about Trump’s ties to Russia, any potential deal would also attract negative attention.) And for all Trump’s talk of being able to negotiate with the Russians in a way that Obama couldn’t, Trump’s people inspired no respect at Moscow’s real-estate negotiating table. “Trump wants everything and he’s dealing with the Russians, who aren’t stupid,” says the Western investor in Russian real estate. “If you want everything from the Russians, they’re not going to give it to you. Trump’s way of negotiating is to ask for every fucking thing. The Russians have a different philosophy of negotiation: He who asks is the weak party.” About the Author More Stories Seth Meyers Has ‘Very Fond’ Memories of Roasting Trump Issa Rae: ‘I Never Identified as a Nerd’ We've detected unusual activity from your computer network To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot. Why did this happen? Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy . For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below. 289 IMAGES The 8 Types of Business Plans Explained 3 Different Types of Business Plans You Need to Know What is a business plan and how to write one for your start-up SME How to Write a Business Plan Step by Step One-Page Business Plan: The Step-By-Step Guide How to Write a Business Plan VIDEO 📚 Entrepreneur's Business Plan guide🏅 UScellular Prepaid: 2GB of data starting at $25/mo Personalized Weight Management Plans Near Me Buckle Up. Even Our Ads Are Fast. It’s not calling out of plans…it’s calling in to the best day with the squad 🔥 Customized Prenatal Massage Plans Near Me COMMENTS Write your business plan A good business plan guides you through each stage of starting and managing your business. You'll use your business plan as a roadmap for how to structure, run, and grow your new business. It's a way to think through the key elements of your business. Business plans can help you get funding or bring on new business partners. The 10 Best Business Plan Writing Near Me (with Free Estimates) 5.0. (1) Carolyn B. says, "She was great and booking with her was simple and easy. She handled our wedding elegantly and efficiently. I highly recommend!" See more. $100/hour. estimated price. View profile. 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.". The Truth Behind Trump Tower Moscow: How Trump Risked ... After mining business agreements and surveying real estate experts in ... The plan eventually called for 800 apartments near the concert venue that hosted the Miss Universe event, with 3.5% of ... Using the MoSCoW Method to Prioritize Projects Here are three steps that will help you use the MoSCoW method when prioritizing your project. 1. Gather Project Requirements. Start by identifying all project requirements. Just make a giant list and be as thorough as possible. You don't want to leave out anything that might prove essential to the project. 2. MoSCoW method The MoSCoW method is a prioritization technique used in management, business analysis, project management, and software development to reach a common understanding with stakeholders on the importance they place on the delivery of each requirement; it is also known as MoSCoW prioritization or MoSCoW analysis.. The term MOSCOW itself is an acronym derived from the first letter of each of four ... The MoSCoW Method The MoSCoW method is a simple and highly useful approach that enables you to prioritize project tasks as critical and non-critical. MoSCoW stands for: Must - These are tasks that you must complete for the project to be considered a success. Should - These are critical activities that are less urgent than Must tasks. What is the MoSCoW Method? The MoSCoW method is a four-step approach to prioritizing which project requirements provide the best return on investment (ROI). MoSCoW stands for must have, should have, could have and will not have -- the o's make the acronym more pronounceable. A variety of business disciplines use the MoSCoW method. Cohen confesses to lying about Trump Tower Moscow deal Cohen, President Donald Trump's former lawyer, pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about work he did on an aborted project to build a Trump Tower in Russia. He told the judge he lied about the timing of the negotiations and other details to be consistent with Trump's "political message." (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson) Security Alert: Avoid Large Gatherings over the Next 48 Hours Outside of office hours, contact +7 (495) 728-5000. For routine American Citizen Services questions, please email: [email protected] U.S. Embassy Russia website. Department of State - Consular Affairs. 888-407-4747 or 202-501-4444. Russia Country Information. Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive security updates. Four questions about Trump's tower in Moscow that never was Drew Angerer. Michael Cohen seen at Trump Tower, December 12, 2016. Cohen fell afoul of the special counsel for lying to Congress at least three times about the timeline and extent of these plans ... Ikea packs up Russian operations and plans sale of factories A man walks past the closed Ikea shop at a Moscow shopping mall on April 11. Swedish furniture giant Ikea is folding up its Russian presence, planning to lay off staff, shut offices and sell ... Watch: The war in Ukraine by the numbers, one year later REUTERS/Marko Djurica. The Washington Post reports Ukrainian officials had plans for "mass strikes" on Russian cities on the first anniversary's of the war. Ukraine's military intelligence chief ... Internet Providers in Moscow, ID Spectrum — Cable internet. Speeds up to 1,000 Mbps. Pricing. 59% coverage in Moscow, ID Reliable No required contract. View Provider. 4 Plans. Spectrum Internet® Assist 50 Mbps. $24.99/mo. *. Speeds up to 50 Mbps. The MoSCoW Method Explained: Categories, Pros, and Cons The MoSCoW method ranks the significance of a task by determining the requirements for a project's successful completion. Some may be essential and must be included in the project's deliverables. You may find other specifications are not required for a successful conclusion, but you might consider them to improve the result or business value. Trump Tower Moscow A New York architect had completed plans for a bold glass obelisk 100 stories high by September 2015, with the Trump logo on multiple sides. The planned Trump Tower would have been the tallest skyscraper in Europe. [15] The proposed site was a location in the Moscow International Business Center, near the Moscow River. [16] What we know so far about Trump Tower project for Moscow Here's what we know so far: — September and October 2015: As a Trump Organization lawyer, Michael Cohen receives a proposal for a hotel, office and residential building in Russia that comes to be known as the Trump Tower Moscow project. One of Trump's numerous corporate entities then enters into a letter of intent on the project. Is Russia Building an 'Immigrant Village' for Conservative Americans By email, Snopes asked Beslangurov if any progress had been made on the village and if plans to begin construction in 2024 were on track. "Yes, we are working to make this happen," he responded. The Evolving Urban Form: Moscow's Auto-Oriented Expansion The Evolving Urban Form: Moscow's Auto-Oriented Expansion. by Wendell Cox 02/21/2012. Moscow is bursting at the seams. The core city covers more than 420 square miles (1,090 kilometers), and has a population of approximately 11.5 million people. With 27,300 residents per square mile (10,500 per square kilometer), Moscow is one percent more ... Behind Cohen plea: Trump's longtime dream of a Moscow tower Published 9:30 PM PDT, November 29, 2018. WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump for decades dreamed of building a Trump Tower in the heart of Moscow, a plan that flared and fizzled several times over the years, most recently when his presidential campaign was gaining momentum. That last plan led Trump's longtime lawyer Michael Cohen to plead ... Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia e. Donald Trump has pursued business deals in Russia since 1987, and has repeatedly traveled there to explore potential business opportunities. In 1996, Trump trademark applications were submitted for potential Russian real estate development deals. Trump, his children, and his partners have repeatedly visited Russia, connecting with real ... A Timeline Of The Potential Trump Tower Project In Moscow The new guilty plea of President Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen is putting new focus on efforts by the Trump organization to develop a project in Russia in 2016 during the presidential campaign. Why Didn't Trump Build Anything in Russia? September 14, 2017. Updated on September 25, 2017. Thirty years ago, in July 1987, Donald and Ivana Trump flew to the Soviet Union, apparently at the invitation of the Soviet ambassador to the ... Zelenskiy Says Kursk Operation Is Going According to Plan Ukraine's operation across the border into Russia's Kursk region is going according to a plan that aimed to prevent Moscow's attempts to occupy the northeastern city of Sumy, President ... essay homework paper phd review speech study thesis