Implied nouns in situations like these are usually pretty vague and don't add much to the meaning, which is why people prefer to omit them. I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding, and lo, it was all grown over with thorns. In your example, 'Maintenance shouldn’t be a ‘possibility’ but an all-important necessity.'Ĭould I interest you in an adjective? In fact, 'nice-to-have' is already an adjective used substantively.* That is, it modifies a (vaguely) implied noun, just like slothful in this passage from Proverbs 24 about people who consider maintenance merely nice to have: The main point being that it's what surrounds the 'nice to have' that is important. By using 'Could Have' you change that 'possibilities' and not 'niceties'. For example if your pay $1,000 you should at least get some nice things.

Generally the main problem with 'nice to have' is the sense of entitlement that it bestows. 'Nice to Have' is perfectly legit though. Won't Have - Not going to be included in this iteration, but is not precluded in future iterations.Īll that being said, the 'answer' is 'Could Have'. Should Have - If there is any way possible, this should really be there too.Ĭould Have - (This is your nice to have category) If there is any budget left do these things Must Have - You have to have to to be considered done When doing requirements gathering I use a MoSCoW Document. I would go with Could Have (when you can), or Possibility when you can't.

Another word for option we need to