trek 2300 composite value

A note about Trek road bike model numbers: in general, higher model numbers mean higher original prices. This is especially true of models within a particular year.

1993+ RETAIL PRICES FOR TREKS

Suggested retail prices for Treks from 1993 to current are included in the specifications at BikePedia.com . These are listed under "Sugg Retail" for each bike. This database is a great resource.

The Trek Bike Archives , covering 2003 and newer Treks, also contains suggested retail prices.

LISTING OF TREK RETAIL PRICES BY MODEL AND YEAR

Visitors to this site have submitted the following pricing information for various Trek models at the time they were new. The prices are a combination of list prices and selling prices. (If you have any pricing on Trek steel road bike models, please send it along so it can be added here.)

WHAT IS MY USED TREK WORTH? (If "PRICELESS!" is not sufficiently accurate for you.)

eBay.com is the best practical guide. It can tell you what similar bikes recently sold for on eBay. Try search/ advanced search/ check "completed items only". This way, you get the final prices paid. Search for words like "Trek road" with words to exclude "aluminum carbon". You also can search more specifically, such as for "Trek 400". You might need to try for a few weeks to find a bike similar to yours, if it is not a common model.

To compare a local sale to an eBay sale, you should add the cost of shipping to the eBay price. A low value bike can be hard to sell on eBay for top dollar if the bike is to be shipped, as that can add $50 or more to the price.

Craigslist.org can provide some information about current prices. However, these are asking prices, not the actual price for which the bike was sold. One can search by region on the Craigslist.org site. One can search for an item on Craigslist overall (not just by region). Use a search engine (Google or Yahoo etc.) and include "Craigslist" as the first keyword. Follow this by what you are looking for. For example "Craigslist Trek 760".

A very rough measure of current selling price is to multiply the original selling price by a percentage. See the price information above for prices of many Treks when new. For bikes 1976 to about 1983, one can use a range of 40% to 70% for a bike. For bikes from about 1984 to 1990, one can use 33% to 50% of the original selling price. This is for bikes with good to excellent paint and in good to excellent overall condition. Condition is very important. A bike in mint condition will sell well above these ranges, perhaps at or above the original price when new. A bike in poor condition, especially one with significant rust inside and out, has little value.

The percentage for selling frames is higher than for bikes because the frames are less outdated than old components. For frames 1976 to 1983, one can use a range of 40% to 100%. For frames from about 1984 to 1990, one can use 33% to 80% of the original selling price. This is for frames in good to excellent overall condition.

The bike values above are useful only if the potential buyer is a person who appreciates a vintage lightweight or specifically, a vintage Trek. A vintage road bike offered at a garage sale might never be sold, even for a ridiculously low price, because it is unlikely the right buyer will come along. See Selling Suggestions for help in finding the right buyer.

Value can vary by season . Road bikes typically sell for more money and more quickly in the Spring and early Summer. An exception is for local sales in regions that don't have cold or rainy Fall and Winter seasons. Another exception is high end collector bikes, which tend to be season independent.

SMALL VINTAGE LIGHTWEIGHT BIKES SELL FOR LESS?

Smaller vintage road frames/bikes often do not sell for as much as a larger version of the same frame. This is true of the 21” (54cm) size and especially the 19” (48cm) frames. Nineteen inch frames/bikes can sell at a discount of up to 40% over their larger brethren. The lesser value is easily demonstrated; for example, by looking at eBay selling prices. (An exception to this general rule is for classic French and Italian bikes, which are highly valued by [older] Japanese collectors.)

Why would this be? Certainly Trek sold bikes of these sizes to willing buyers in the late 1970s and early to mid 1980s at the same price as for larger bikes. There must have been the right number of smaller men, women and kids to buy them. Are Americans that much bigger now? A recent scientific study says no. Certainly most kids, as they grow up and need larger bikes, will pass through these size ranges.

I believe older bikes are bought and kept by people interested in fixing or working on them. These owners need a bit of expertise to get the bikes properly back on the road or keep them on the road (or even just to keep them in a collection). It also takes effort and knowledge to locate replacement parts. New riders tend to buy new bikes and only slowly (if at all) learn how to repair them. For parents to buy a used bike for their (smaller) children, requires that the parents be bike savvy, which eliminates lots of potential small bike users. Bike repair and maintenance generally do not interest women (there are major exceptions to this rule), who are a major fraction of people who would use the smaller bikes.

Even if a person wanted to have a shop maintain their classic Nuovo Record, Super Record, or SunTour Superbe-equipped bike, the shops with that knowledge are rare and the parts cannot be bought from their typical suppliers.

The good news, for those of us built close to the ground, is that we can buy vintage lightweight bikes at favorable prices.

Brochures | Price Lists and Values | Trek History | Trek Timeline | Serial Numbers Component Dates | Gallery | Contact | Buy/Sell Suggestions Refurbish/Upgrade | Bike Resources | Home

*Trek is a trademark of Trek Bicycle Corporation, Waterloo, WI

All copyrights in the TREK brochures, pricelists, owner's manuals and photographs displayed on this website are the sole property of Trek Bicycle Corporation, Waterloo, Wisconsin.

All materials in this site not copyrighted by others are Copyright © 2001-2014 Skip Echert Web Associates , All rights reserved.

OutdoorSpree

Trek 2300 Composite (Things You Must Know)

Bicycles are a great way of getting around; not only are they eco-friendly, but they are also easy to maintain, less expensive, and an amazing way to exercise.

Suppose you’re looking into buying one. Though an old bike design, the Trek 2300 is a great choice due to its great specs. Be it for fun, exercise, sports, or as a backup for when your car misbehaves. 

The Trek 2300 is a bike made in 1987 with its frame made of a revolutionary material from the aerospace industry called carbon fibe r.

The carbon fiber is fused with aluminum lugs, rear triangle, rim brakes, and high-end features, making it a valuable vintage bike today. 

Trek 2300 Composite Value

The Trek 2300 was a mid-range bike that sold at $1,200 . Due to their age of production, they’re now considered vintage bikes.

You would get a good deal on eBay or other listing sites for around $200-$600.

Compared to bike frames made of aluminum, frames made of carbon fiber are becoming more expensive.

That is because of the intensity of labor and engineering expertise required to produce carbon fiber. 

A bicycle’s value comes from its material’s worth and how much work went into its production.

Expensive materials and intensive labor would equal more value as workers are paid more. 

Carbon fiber frames are more expensive because, unlike aluminum, they can be mass produced with little or no human interference.

The carbon fiber frame-making process requires more human resources.

Trek 2300 Composite Specs  

Anyone who wants a vehicle would want to know what they’re buying. The Trek 2300 composite comes with some cool specs; check them out below. 

•  Frame: made of a composite of carbon fiber and aluminum. 
• Seat frame angle: 73.5 
• Headframe angle: 73.8
• The forks: made of Bontrager race lite carbon
• Rear shock: not applicable 
• Color: comes in a custom black/red color. You can customize it to your taste. 
• Sizes: 52 cm, 54 cm, 56 cm, 60 cm, and 63cm
• Brake levers: Shimano Ultegra STI dual control 
• The stem and handlebar made: Bontrager Race Lite Carbon 
• Headset: integrated 1 1/8″ Cane Creek IS-2
• Pedals: Not included 
• Front Der: Shimano Ultegra
• Crankset: composed of Shimano Ultegra, 39/53 teeth. 
• Tires: 700 x 23c Bontrager Race X-Lite

Trek 2300 Composite Price  

The price of a new Trek 2300 Composite bike ranges from $1200-$2000 . But, of course, you will not find a new one now because they’ve been out of production for years. 

You can find fairly used or second-hand Trek 2300 composite on eBay and other sites for as low as $300.

Even though they may come with a few defects, you can easily fix them and begin your dream adventure on mountain terrain. 

Being the number one mountain bike manufacturer, Trek® has made a name for itself in the world of bikes due to its quality and constant innovation. 

Below is a list of similar bicycles and their prices from other brands that offer a similar experience and even more than The Trek 2300 composite.

#1. Boardman SLR 8.9 2021

The board man goes for slightly over a grand . Not only is it similar to the Trek, but it also has newer features and an all-carbon-fiber frame. It goes for around $1300.

#2. Ribble R872

Even though the Ribble R872 has the cheapest carbon fiber frame of the Ribble brand, designed to tame the sportive nature of the road. The price starts from around $1100.

#3. Giant TCR Advanced 3 Disc 2021

This bike made by Giant doesn’t only prove its worth on a spec. It also proves it on the road. It was a little more expensive than the preceding ones. It goes for around $2,500.

#4. Canyon Ultimate CF SL 8 2021

Designed to be comfortable for long-distance riders, the ultimate canyon is a great bike for the price. The Canyon Ultimate goes for $2670.

#5. Cannondale SuperSix Evo Disc Ultegra 2021 

With a new aerodynamic, more comfortable, and stiffer frame, the SuperSix Evo has a lot for a bike at its price.

This brand comes with hydraulic brakes and carbon wheels. It goes for about $4,700.

The bikes above have great performance records and are relatively cheap. Suppose you find a Trek 2300 too old for you or hard to come by. These bikes are excellent replacements for it. 

Trek 2300 Composite Review

Reviews are a great way to get insight into what you’re buying. Not only do you know it’ll meet your demands, but you’ll also get first-hand info on performance, looks, and weaknesses. 

The Trek 2300 Composite bike reviews are much. But I’d try to get all the opinions of the people under subheadings on performance, weaknesses, strength, and value rating. 

#1. Overall Rating

The overall rating of the Trek 2300 is amazing . The lowest is four stars. This rating shows how much people enjoyed and loved what they bought. 

#2. Value Rating 

Value ratings tell you if the people who bought it think it was worth the price. The lowest value rating is also four stars, which means people think it’s worth the price it goes for. 

#3. Strength

All reviews pointed to the Trek 2300 composite bike’s strength as fast and quick acceleration; this would excite you if you get that adrenaline rush when riding fast.

They also pointed to it being light; of course, carbon fiber is to reduce weight. They also mentioned it being stiff and comfortable and having super responsive components.

It climbs well and descends stable at high speeds. The brakes and the handlebars are very responsive. 

#4. Weakness

The main complaints were about the frame. Some found it long, others short. However, this depends on how tall you’re. So, ensure to pick a frame that suits your height. 

Another weakness noticed was the paint. Not only was it not attractive enough to some users, but they also complained of it fading away quickly.

You could always go for a paint job if the custom paint doesn’t suit you. If you’re serious about getting faster, you should consider changing some parts.

A customer pointed out that Trek used many Bontrager parts, which he thinks would reduce the vehicle’s speed.

Asides from these complaints , most people found nothing wrong with the Trek 2300.

How Much Does A Trek 2300 Weigh?  

The Trek 2300 weighs 12.57 kg/27.72 lbs. The weight may be slightly more or less depending on the size of the frame you chose. 

Every rider wants to go faster, and weight makes a huge difference in speed . Most bike riders believe lighter equals faster. 

Carbon fiber is stronger and lighter than aluminum. The Trek combines the industry’s most used materials, making it a great pick. 

Conclusion  

Though an old bike, the Trek 2300 composite was revolutionary in its time, and even today, it’s a great choice for riders.

They might be hard to get since Trek stopped producing for quite some time n ow.

• Recent Posts

• Hiking Trails in Ohio: All You Need To Know - December 16, 2023
• Best Hiking Trails in the World and USA! - October 9, 2023
• Hiking Tips for Beginners: Things You Should Know! - October 9, 2023

Similar Posts

SiSL Vs. SiSL 2 (In-Depth Comparison)

Most bikers, even Cannondale bike owners, know that lighter bikes equal smoother performance. A lightweight bicycle responds faster to acceleration and feels swifter, even enhancing gear shifting during climbing or cycling on flat roads.  Due to this, many wish to upgrade their bike and their components. But the answer truly lies in a crankset upgrade….

52/36 Vs. 50/34 Crankset (In-Depth Comparison)

The crankset is an excellent component of your bike that converts the energy from pedaling to motion. It’s a simple part that means a great deal if you enjoy every biking session. The good news is that these cranksets come in different sizes and designs.  Two of those designs are the 52/36 and the 50/34…

Shimano HG Vs. Sram XD (In-Depth Comparison)

Shimano and SRAM have been cycling & tech component competitors for a while. Their competition has stirred up massive innovation in their bicycles, primarily in drivetrains, cassettes, and freehubs.  Most bikes today use the freehub design due to the pedaling ease it offers cyclists, and Shimano’s HG is the most common hub design in such…

Can You Use A Road Stem On A Mountain Bike? (Explained)

Many components make up the bike’s overall performance in biking. One of these components is the stem, which is the part that connects the handlebars to the frame.  Whether you’re an avid mountain biker or a road cyclist, you’ll need to ensure that you have the right stem for your riding style. When it comes…

Does Bike Riding Count As Steps In Pokemon?

A Pokemon player is always adamant about moving because the distance covered is what matters in the game. You need to take many steps to hatch eggs fast and unlock more powerful characters in the game. Most people get confused about how the steps are calculated because they feel it is only the ones on…

Can Adults Ride 20-Inch BMX Bikes? (Let’s Find Out)

A BMX bike is a good option if you’re looking for an efficient and fun way to get around town.  When it comes to biking, size does matter. However, choosing the right size for your BMX bike can be tricky.  If you’re an adult considering a 20-inch BMX bike, you may wonder if it’s the…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• ALL (67 Forums)
• WHEELS & TIRES
• SPECIALIZED
• CYCLOCROSS BIKES
• TIRES & WHEELS

Trek 2300 Road Bike

Frame Material: aluminum, carbon seat stays Frame Angles: 73.8 head, 73.5 seat Sizes: 50cm, 52cm, 54cm, 56cm, 58cm, 60cm, 63cm Colors: Black/Red Fork: Bontrager Race Lite Carbon Rear Shock: Not applicable Brake Levers: Shimano Ultegra STI Dual Control Handlebar: Bontrager Race Lite Stem: Bontrager Race Lite Headset: 1 1/8" integrated Cane Creek IS-2 integrated Front Der: Shimano Ultegra Crankset: Shimano Ultegra, 39/53 teeth Rear Der: Shimano Ultegra SS Pedals: Not included Tires: 700 x 23c Bontrager Race X-Lite

• USER REVIEWS

Bike is fast. Smooth shifts. Comfortable seat. Comfortable handlebar position, nice retro styling. Easy to pedal. Great commuter bicycle. Fremont Elite Concrete Pumping

Front fork could be a little more robust. Tires puncture easily by thorns.

Light weight, great components - Ultegra and Bontrager. Climbs really well and it's very comfortable.

I changed the Shimano Ultegra chain for a SRAM PC991 which is far quicker and more accurate.

I changed from the excellent Trek 1000 around 1 year ago. The ZR9000 Aulminium frame is much lighter and stiffer than the Trek 1000. Whilst the Trek 1000 is a great starter ride the 2300 feels a much more complete ride. At 5'8" I ride a 54cm frame which I find very comfortable - I have tried a 56cm frame but I found the reach too long and it gave me back ache.

Similar Products Used:

Trek 1000, Trek 120 Carbon.

Tough bike and components. I am a clydesdale at 210 pounds and the bike has held up to 4000 miles of near daily riding with only a few issues. Still rides like new. Drivetrain has missed only one shift in 4000 miles.

I did pull most of the spokes through the rear tire rim (Bontrager Race Lite) at about 3000 miles. LBS/Trek replaced the wheel with a new one no questions asked. You have to like Trek and their warranty support.

Was a leftover at the LBS so I got an fantastic deal on it. Bike is a significant upgrade for me so I am still amazed at how smooth and quiet that the ride is - except for a bit of harshness on chip seal roads. The bike flies up hills and I am usually able to swamp my riding buddies on long climbs.

Old dinosaur Schwinn Traveler.

The bike is fine - the carbon seat stays in addition to fork give it a softer ride, I think, than a 2003 2300 I have which only had carbon forks. And the workmanship seems good and Ultegra parts are 'of course' great. Just one 'warning' - my 58 cm seems a bit 'front heavy,' although proper preparation for turns during descents has helped me avoid a mistake just after getting the bike that I couldn't get out of (helmet saved the day, though). I had a brainstorm and looked at Trek's website eh voila - the 2007 2100, which is the 'new' 2300 I think, has about a 2 cm longer head tube than the 2007 all-carbon road frames, and also has a tad bit more relaxed (i.e. less racing) geometry overall. So perhaps the head tube, which indeed looks very long and is much longer than on a 56 Trek 5500 I have, is contributing to a slight difference in feel. So, maybe, if you want something a bit more nimble, go for the all-carbon Treks. But it's a nice bike overall.

Trek knows how to make a great road bike. The geometry is spot on, and the setup is right where it needs to be for a bike placed right under the carbon brothers. Very stiff and well suited for a larger rider.

Trek has a tendency to over-bontrager all of their bikes. They are good parts, but if you are serious about riding fast some parts of this bike will need to change. Also the B-B flex is more notable than the carbon bikes.

At 6'5", 210 it was important to have a full 63cm. After riding for some time, I started to learn how important it was to have the full snappy aluminum frame. The bike snaps up the hills and through the sprints. The OCLV rear end is nice when the ride gets long, and has a nice comfortable feel. The full 6500 Ultegra is nice, but dated at this point. The Geometry is right on the money, it is quick when it needs to be, but quite stable at speed. I added a Deda Newton stem and bar and that added some much needed stiffness to the front of the bike.

Trek 5200 Bianchi San Lorenzo

light,strong and comfortable in first season I bought this bike I won all the road races.tyres has perfect grip but not durable

paint has no quality,

before I bought this bike I rode a Raleigh 501 reynolds(1980). When I saw and test 2300 it's definitly effect me. I rode it about 8000miles and there is only one problem about it (from the begining) DA FC7700 is very long(180mm) and it's very elastic. Each time I attack or get up for climbing chain is contact with FD it doesn't change even if you have best tune. But Rest of the bike is perfect...best value for money!

I got this bike at the start of last racing season. (didn't want to lay down my colnago c50) Great bike very responsive. I picked the bike up on a Sat. raced it on Sun. no problems. It did take few min. to got used to the shorter top tube but a couple of sit adjustments and the bike was perfect

Light Stiff Comfortable All Ultegra Components

Could be a little bit lighter but overall very good

I have owned this bike for about 2 months now and have about 2000 miles on it. I will tell you that this is a great bike especially at the price i paid for a leftover '05. It is fairly light, is very stiff, but still gives a compliant ride. Even on rough rodes it seems butter smooth. Its a good component set and is very comfortable for those long rides.

good stock parts, light, stiff, and most importantly for me, not a bike I would cry over if I totalled it in a crash :)

Isn't quite as light or stiff as I would want, but that's just me. The stock fork is super heavy, as are the wheels. I dropped about a pound upgrading those. It's great overall.

I bought this bike directly through Trek at an insanely low sponsorship price. obviously at that price it was amazing. I'm glad I purchased it when I did, because now I'm seeing Trek is starting to cut corners on their part specs. As others have said, not the most eye-catching or exotic frame out there, but it's light, stiff (it better be b/c I'm a sprinter), and the paint job is really nice. However, the geometry is not great for someone w/ long arms/upper body because it has a shorter than average top tube.

1st Road bike: 80's Raleigh Grand Prix. Didn't know what I had till the seat stay snapped :(

Comfort Durability Quick accelerator Nice climber Very stable high speed descender. (I haven't gone above 40mph yet.) Ultegra Group continues to work perfectly. Shifts right everytime. Have yet to throw the chain in 2400 miles. Brakes, excellent. Excellent value overall. Dura-Ace on this bike would be overkill. Do not under estimate this bike.

None significant enough to remark upon. Actually I have zero complaints.

Wow!!! (How's that for a synopsis?) This is an update to my review below written 15 mos. and 2,400 miles ago when the bike was new. This bike is sweet! It performs flawlessly in every way. Except for tire-to-road noise the bike is silent in motion. I'm 5'9.5" It fits like a glove. Comfort is great. Most distance in saddle at a stretch, 40 miles on the Selle San Marco Era Lux saddle that came on the bike; no problem. I've added Bontrager carbon fiber (CF) clincher rims w/CF flangless hubs. Woohoo! They've held up very well. Overall combo is a smooth, well handling, quiet, riding experience. The nice thing about this bike is I'll never stress its limits. Since my previous review I've increased my exercise circuit to 20-25 miles and am averaging over 3 mph faster. Oh, I've lost 20 lbs too!

See previous write up dated Aug 2nd 2004 below.

Get the latest road bike reviews, news, race results, and much more by signing up for the Roadbikereview Newsletter

Hot Deals See All Hot Deals >>

Get the latest roadbike reviews, news, race results, and much more by signing up for the Roadbikereview Newsletter

• EDITORIAL REVIEWS
• CLASSIFIEDS

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

• TERMS OF USE
• PRIVACY POLICY
• ADVERTISING

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2024 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.

Submit Search

• Utility/Hybrid
• Kids/Junior
• Bicycle Czar collection
• Electric Assist

Back to top

• Pinkbike.com
• Register New User
• First Looks
• Friday Fails
• Community Blogs
• Fantasy League DH
• Places Directory
• Road Complete Bikes

Trek 2300 Composite

Cool Features

• General Road
• Rider Notes

2003 Trek 2300

An aluminum frame general road bike with high-end components and rim brakes. Compare the full range

For This Bike

View more similar bikes →

A bike with lower gearing will be easier to ride up steep hills, while a higher top end means it will pedal faster down hills.

Similar Bikes

(descending)

Add custom gearing

Last updated June 29 Not listed for 2,508 days

• Help Center
• Chat with a Ride Guide
• 1-866-401-9636
• Retail Store
• Bike Services

Reset Password

We will send you an email to reset your password.

Don't have an account? Create an account

Create Account

Already have an account? Sign In

• Favorite your products & save them to your account
• Save a search & get notified when new products drop
• Be first to know about the latest events & promotions

Bike Finder

Results have arrived, trek 2300 50cm bike - 2003, item #brd10607, condition: pre-owned used condition with signs of use but functions as intended. backed by tpc's risk-free return policy., fit range: 5'2"-5'5" sizing guide.

Our RideFast shipping means this bike gets to you quickly and securely. Domestic US ground rates are a flat $135 for regular bikes or $150 for e-bikes.

Quick Assembly

• Bikes arrive tuned and mostly pre-assembled
• Torque tool & video guide included
• Get riding in 15 minutes

Canadian Customers

Please note that any duties, taxes, or surcharges as required by Canadian customs and provincial authorities will be the buyer's responsibility. Shipping to Canadian addresses may take longer than expected due to customs.

30-Day Returns

If this bike isn't perfect for you, our Ride Guides will help you find the right one.

Added to Cart

Changing the way cyclists buy bikes.

Who is tpc.

We’re fellow bike nerds. We're cyclists who want to find the right bike, components, and accessories for you. That’s why we created our innovative Certified Pre-Owned bike process and why we’re committed to finding the best products you need for your adventures.

Bikes are meant to be used.

Ask a Ride Guide about this

Sizing guide.

The chart below provides a general suggested range of heights and is not exact. Sizing may vary across brands.

The tailoring of any bike is an important step in the long term enjoyment of riding and it can take time to adjust to the fit of a new bike. All contact points (pedals, shoes, and saddle) can be changed and altered for personal preference, performance, and comfort.

Contact our Ride Guides if you have any questions about the fit of your new bike.

866.401.9636 - Contact the Ride Guides

Purchase your next bike with the same confidence you would when buying new. We scrutinize age, condition, and quality. If a bike meets the standard, our pro tune and service will guarantee that your ride will be in pristine condition when it arrives at your door.

Trek Bikes – The world's best bikes and cycling gear

Back-to-back bike of the year

Slash – 2023 Bike of the Year

Fuel ex – 2022 bike of the year.

MoSCow prioritization technique plays a key role in Agile Project Management. In traditional projects, teams balance the ‘triple constraints’ of Scope, Time, and Cost. For Agile projects, however, the emphasis is on continuous value realization for the end customer. The triangle structure can be reused, but with a set of different vertices, namely – Value, Quality, and the triple constraints of cost, schedule, and scope. Value-Driven Delivery demands Value-Based Prioritization during Product Backlog refinement, release planning, and iteration/sprint planning. By doing prioritization the team aims to make a trade-off between the above constraints. Agile teams and business representatives work diligently to deliver the highest value to the customer as early as possible and at the lowest cost. This is achieved by consciously choosing the items or stories of the highest return on investment from the backlog and implementing the same in the available timebox. 

Some of the factors that are considered to arrive at the priority of a work item are as follows: 

• Business Value in terms of incremental or retained revenue and customer satisfaction 
• Legal, regulatory and compliance requirements 
• Cost of implementation and ongoing maintenance 
• Urgency and time sensitivity of the feature in the product 
• Early adopters for a niche concept in the market 
• Greatest return on investment (e.g., quick wins) and likelihood of success in marketing the product.
• Inherent riskiness of the feature 
• Stakeholder consensus 
• Usability and reusability 
• Amount of knowledge or experience gathered about the domain, technology, or the product

The MoSCoW prioritization technique has its origin in DSDM. DSDM(Dynamic System Development Method) is an Agile method that focuses on the full project lifecycle.

It is an acronym that stands for 

• M : Must have 
• S : Should have 
• Co : Could have 
• W : Won’t have 
• Requirements that are fundamental for the working of the system. Hence they have the highest priority. 
• If even one such requirement is excluded or not delivered, the system will fail or be rendered unusable. 
• These requirements appear on top of the prioritized backlog and are most likely to make it to the backbone and walking skeleton of a release plan. 
• The keyword MUST also can be used as an abbreviation for Minimum Usable Subset. This term is a close analogy of a minimally marketable feature (MMF). 
• Example of a must-have feature for a mobile phone is the ability to make and receive calls and an address book to store the list of contacts. 

Tips: Ask the question ‘what happens if this requirement is not met?’ If the answer is ‘cancel the project – there is no point in implementing a solution that does not meet this requirement, then it is a Must-Have requirement. If there is some way around it, even if it is a manual and painful workaround, then it is a Should Have or a Could Have requirement. Categorizing a requirement as a Should Have or Could Have does not mean it won’t be delivered; simply that delivery is not guaranteed.

Should have

• Requirements that are important for the system to work correctly, reliably and predictably. Hence they have medium priority. 
• If such a requirement is excluded or not delivered, the system can continue to function with a workaround that could either be difficult, time consuming, or cause inconvenience. 
• Example of a should-have feature of a mobile phone is the ability to connect to a data network and being able to browse the Internet. 

Tips : One way of differentiating a Should Have requirement from a Could Have is by reviewing the degree of pain caused by the requirement not being met, measured in terms of business value or numbers of people affected.

• Requirements that are somewhat useful or desirable, but not necessary. 
• If such a requirement is excluded or not delivered, the system continues to function properly, but the user experience can be affected adversely. 
• Their priorities are medium to low and are picked up for implementation provided there is sufficient time and money available. 
• Example of could-have features of a mobile phone is to be able to play music, click photos, or help in GPS navigation. 

Tips : These are the requirements that provide the main pool of contingency since they would only be delivered in their entirety in a best-case scenario. When a problem occurs and the deadline is at risk, one or more of the Could haves provide the first choice of what is to be dropped from this timeframe.

Won’t have

• Requirements that are cosmetic or ‘nice-to-have’, but are of least criticality. 
• If such a requirement is excluded or not delivered, the system is not impacted in any way.Can be deferred for future or dropped forever. 
• Example of won’t-have features of a mobile phone could be to act as pedometer that counts steps for a morning jogger. 

A requirement may have two priorities; MoSCoW for the project and MoSCoW for the Increment. At the time of planning a specific Timebox, the Developers will allocate a specific priority for the requirements for this Timebox. At this point, the majority of requirements are Won’t Have (for this Timebox). Only requirements that the developers plan to work on in the development timebox are allocated a Must Have, Should Have, or Could Have priority. Therefore requirements may have three levels of priority:

MoSCoW for the project

MoSCoW for the Project Increment

MoSCoW for this Timebox

Example – Project: IT solution for building a data center for a software company.

Even if a Must Have requirement for an IT solution is the facility to archive old data, it is very likely that the solution could be used effectively for a few months without this facility is in place. In this case, it is sensible to make the archive facility a Should Have or a Could Have for the first Project Increment even though delivery of this facility is a Must Have before the end of the project. Similarly, a Must Have requirement for a Project Increment may be included as a Should Have or a Could Have (or a Won’t Have) for an early Timebox.

This MoSCoW technique is best used when the BA has gathered all existing solution requirements.

• Assemble all stakeholders – Each stakeholder, with help from the BA, is responsible for assigning priorities to the requirements that fall under their purview
• All Requirements may be listed on a flip chart and prioritized by assigning categories to each (M, S, C or W).
• If there are multiple stakeholders with different opinions on what category to assign to a requirement, voting can be used to reach consensus.
• Present categorized requirements in a readable format.
• The requirements should be reviewed throughout the project as stakeholder needs may evolve with time.

MoSCoW criteria

Eight criteria to be used for assigning priorities to requirements. They are:

• Business Value:  Which requirement provides the most business value? The more business value a requirement will deliver, the greater the priority stakeholders may choose to assign to it.
• Business or Technical Risk:  Some requirements pose a significant risk of project failure if not implemented successfully. The analyst may assign a high priority to this category of requirements so that if the project does fail, the least amount of effort would have been spent. 
• Implementation Difficulty:  Which requirements are the easiest to implement? Straightforward requirements may lead to quick-wins and provide an opportunity for the project team to familiarize themselves with other elements of the project before taking on more complex requirements for implementation. 
• Likelihood of Success:  Which requirements can provide quick-wins and increase the probability of project acceptance? If the objective of the project is to demonstrate value as quickly as possible and quell negative chatter, requirements that have a higher probability of success would be given high priority.
• Regulatory Compliance:  Which requirements are necessary for policy and regulation adherence? These requirements are non-negotiable and usually have to be implemented within a set period of time, causing them to take precedence over stakeholder requirements in some cases.
• Relationship to other requirements:  Which requirements support other high-value business requirements? Such requirements may be assigned a high priority because of their link to important requirements.
• Urgency:  Which requirements have a high degree of urgency? Most stakeholders tend to place a high priority on requirements needed like yesterday
• Stakeholder Agreement:  Requirements on which stakeholders disagree should be postponed or assigned a low priority until consensus can be reached on their usefulness.

Tips for Assigning Priorities – MoSCoW

• Ensure that the business roles, in particular the Business Visionary and the Business Analyst, are fully up to speed as to why and how DSDM prioritizes requirements.
• Consider starting with all requirements as Won’t Haves, and then justify why they need to be given a higher priority.
• For each requirement that is proposed as a Must Have, ask: ‘what happens if this requirement is not met?’ If the answer is ‘cancel the project; there is no point in implementing a solution that does not meet this requirement’, then it really is a Must Have. If not, then decide whether it is Should Have or a Could Have (or even a Won’t Have this time)
• Ask: ‘if I come to you the night before Deployment and tell you there is a problem with a Must Have requirement and that we can’t deliver it – will you stop the Deployment?’ If the answer is ‘yes’ then this is a Must Have requirement. If not, decide whether it is Should Have or a Could Have.
• Is there a workaround, even if it is a manual one? If a workaround exists, then it is not a Must Have requirement. When determining whether this is a Should Have or a Could Have requirement, compare the cost of the workaround with the cost of delivering the requirement, including the cost of any associated delays and any additional cost to implement it later, rather than now.
• Ask why the requirement is needed – for this project and this Project Increment.
• Is this requirement dependent on any others being fulfilled? A Must Have cannot depend on the delivery of anything other than a Must Have because of the risk of a Should Have or Could Have not being delivered.
• Allow different priorities for acceptance criteria of a requirement.
• Can this requirement be decomposed? Is it necessary to deliver each of these elements to fulfill the requirement? Are the decomposed elements of the same priority as each other
• Tie the requirement to a project objective. If the objective is not a Must Have, then probably neither is the requirement relating to it.
• Does the priority change with time? For example, for an initial release a requirement is a Should Have, but it will become a Must Have for a later release.
• Prioritize testing, using MoSCoW.
• Use MoSCoW to prioritize your To Do list. It can be used for activities as well as requirements. 

Table of Contents (PSM ™, PSPO ™ & PSD ™ Certification)

• Scrum Framework – Scrum Theory
• Scrum Framework – Scrum Roles
• Scrum Framework – Scrum Events
• Scrum Framework – Scrum Artifacts
• Scaling Scrum – DoD – DoR – Scrum Framework
• Developing People and Teams
• Managing Products with Agility
• Developing and Delivering Products Professionally
• Evolving the Agile Organization – Scaled Scrum, Portfolio Planning & EBM

Recommended Practice Exams

• PSM I – PSM Practice Exam Real Mode Questions
• PSM I – PSM Practice Exam Practice Mode Questions
• PSM II – PSM II Practice Exam Practice Mode Questions
• PSPO I – PSPO Practice Exam Real Mode Questions
• PSPO I – PSPO Practice Exam Practice Mode Questions
• PSPO II – PSPO II Practice Exam Practice Mode Questions
• PSD – PSD Practice Exam Practice Mode Questions
• SPS – SPS Practice Exam Practice Mode Questions
• CSM – CSM Practice Exam Real Mode Questions
• CSM – CSM Practice Exam Practice Mode Questions
• PMI-ACP – PMI ACP Practice Exam Real Mode Questions
• PMI-ACP – PMI ACP Practice Exam Practice Mode Questions

Owner, PSPO, PSPO I, Scrum Open, etc. are the protected brand of Scrum.org . All the content related to Scrum Guide is taken from scrumguides.org and is under the Attribution ShareAlike license of Creative Commons. Further information is accessible at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode and also described in summary form at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.

• Скидки дня
• Справка и помощь
• Адрес доставки Идет загрузка... Ошибка: повторите попытку ОК
• Продажи
• Список отслеживания Развернуть список отслеживаемых товаров Идет загрузка... Войдите в систему , чтобы просмотреть свои сведения о пользователе
• Краткий обзор
• Недавно просмотренные
• Ставки/предложения
• Список отслеживания
• История покупок
• Купить опять
• Объявления о товарах
• Сохраненные запросы поиска
• Сохраненные продавцы
• Сообщения
• Уведомление
• Развернуть корзину Идет загрузка... Произошла ошибка. Чтобы узнать подробнее, посмотрите корзину.

Oops! Looks like we're having trouble connecting to our server.

Refresh your browser window to try again.