Stakeholder Research: Combined MoSCoW Prioritization Analysis

Executive Summary

28 stakeholders completed feature rating surveys between November-December 2025. 18 came from written feedback (customer service, sales, and sales support staff). 10 came from live call interviews (leadership and regional management). They rated 33 distinct website features on personal and customer impact using a 1-5 scale, generating 847 individual ratings.

Customer portal leads with 9.2 combined score. Multi-mode smart search follows at 8.8. Logged-in negotiated pricing scores 8.6. These three features have universal strong support.

13 features scored 8.0 or above (must-haves). 9 scored 7.5-7.99 (should-haves). 4 scored 7.0-7.49 (could-haves). 7 scored below 7.0 (won’t-haves for initial launch).

Leadership emphasizes AI features and strategic differentiation. Frontline staff prioritize operational fixes: working search, accurate stock data, visible negotiated pricing. Both groups align on customer portal and account management. They diverge on urgency of basic functionality versus advanced features.

Dataset Composition

Written Feedback Participants (18)

The written feedback stakeholders completed surveys independently alongside open-ended feedback questions. The MoSCoW exercise was included in the document sent to this group.

Role breakdown:

• Customer Service: 8 participants
• Sales: 7 participants
• Sales Support: 2 participants
• CSR / Office Manager: 1 participant

Geographic coverage:

• US: 8 participants
• UK: 7 participants
• Poland: 1 participant
• China: 2 participants

Live Call Interview Participants (10)

The live call stakeholders participated in 45-60 minute interviews where the MoSCoW exercise was introduced. They completed the exercise after their interviews.

Role breakdown:

• Sales Directors / Director roles: 4 participants
• Division Sales Managers: 2 participants
• Sales: 2 participants
• Customer Service Manager: 1 participant
• Art Director: 1 participant

Geographic coverage:

• US: 7 participants
• UK: 1 participant
• Mexico: 2 participants

Excluded from MoSCoW Analysis

Two live call interview participants were excluded from the MoSCoW analysis:

Five additional team members were invited to participate in written feedback but their responses were not received in time:

Participation Summary

• Total MoSCoW participants: 28 of 35 invited stakeholders (80%)
• Written feedback group: 18 of 23 invited (78%)
• Live call group: 10 of 12 participants (83%), with 2 excluded for specific reasons noted above

Must-Have Features (13 Features Scoring 8.0+)

Customer Portal

View orders, reorders, invoices, and tracking information

Combined score: 9.2 (4.4 personal, 4.8 customer). 27 stakeholders rated this. 24 rated customer impact 4 or 5. Standard deviation 0.7, lowest in the dataset. Leadership rates it 8.7. Frontline rates it 9.5. Customers currently need to call for order status, history, and tracking information.

Multi-Mode Smart Search

Part number, dimensions, applications, competitor references

Combined score: 8.8 (4.2 personal, 4.6 customer). All 28 stakeholders rated this. 26 rated customer impact 4 or 5. The current search cannot reliably find products by part number. Frontline staff rate personal impact 4.4. Leadership rates it 3.7. Frontline uses search to help customers dozens of times daily. Leadership rarely uses it.

Logged-In Negotiated Pricing

Display customer-specific pricing and payment terms

Combined score: 8.6 (4.0 personal, 4.6 customer). 25 stakeholders rated this. Frontline rates it 8.7. Leadership rates it 8.5. Customers with negotiated rates cannot see their pricing online. They must call for quotes on products they want to order immediately.

Bulk Reorder Tools

Streamlined workflows for returning customers ordering repeat SKUs

Combined score: 8.4 (3.9 personal, 4.6 customer). 27 stakeholders rated this. Frontline rates it 9.1. Leadership rates it 7.3. The 1.8 point gap is the largest for any top-tier feature. Frontline staff spend hours manually processing repeat orders. Leadership sees orders get processed without seeing the labor cost.

Visual Configuration Preview

Display what configured or custom products will look like

Combined score: 8.4 (4.0 personal, 4.4 customer). 26 stakeholders rated this. Frontline rates it 8.8. Leadership rates it 7.8. Custom product ordering complexity is a universal pain point across the organization.

Application and Material Guidance

Help users choose the correct material for their specific use

Combined score: 8.3 (3.7 personal, 4.6 customer). 25 stakeholders rated this. Customer impact is consistently high across both groups (4.6). Personal impact varies (frontline 3.9, leadership 3.3) because staff already provide this guidance manually on every call.

AI Application Advisor

Describe your needs and receive AI-powered product recommendations

Combined score: 8.2 (3.5 personal, 4.6 customer). 26 stakeholders rated this. Leadership rates it 7.9. Frontline rates it 8.3. Both groups rate customer impact above 4.5. Leadership sees this as strategic differentiation. Frontline sees it as helpful automation.

Samples as Free Cart Items

Replace manual sample request forms with self-serve ordering

Combined score: 8.2 (3.9 personal, 4.3 customer). 27 stakeholders rated this. The current process requires a separate form for each sample part number. Frontline rates this 8.6, experiencing the administrative burden daily. Leadership rates it 7.3.

Multi-Path Navigation

Browse via product categories, applications, industries, or direct part lookup

Combined score: 8.1 (3.7 personal, 4.4 customer). 27 stakeholders rated this. Strong consensus across both groups on value and priority.

Real-Time Stock Visibility

Show live inventory levels and associated warehouse locations

Combined score: 8.1 (4.0 personal, 4.1 customer). 26 stakeholders rated this. Frontline rates it 8.5. Leadership rates it 7.4. The 1.1 point gap reflects exposure differences. Frontline staff field stock availability questions dozens of times every day. Leadership rarely gets these questions.

Measurement Guides and Tooltips

“How to measure” instructions embedded at point of need

Combined score: 8.0 (3.6 personal, 4.4 customer). 25 stakeholders rated this. Reduces confusion about technical specifications and dimensions.

Industry-Specific Landing Pages

Tailored pages for Automotive, HVAC-R, Electronics, and other verticals

Combined score: 8.0 (3.6 personal, 4.4 customer). 25 stakeholders rated this. Helps customers navigate the large catalog by their industry context.

Downloadable Spec Sheets, CAD Files, and Drawings

Instant access without gates or forms

Combined score: 8.0 (3.8 personal, 4.2 customer). 24 stakeholders rated this. Engineers need technical documentation to specify products in their designs.

Should-Have Features (9 Features Scoring 7.5-7.99)

Use Customer Carrier Account Numbers

Allow customers to ship orders on their own UPS or FedEx accounts

Combined score: 8.0 (3.6 personal, 4.3 customer). Frontline rates personal impact 4.0. Leadership rates it 3.0. The 1.0 point gap reflects frontline staff processing these requests manually every day.

Expanded FAQ and Education Hub

Comprehensive self-service content to reduce repetitive support questions

Combined score: 7.9 (3.8 personal, 4.1 customer). Frontline staff rate this 8.6, knowing exactly which content would reduce their call volume. Leadership rates it 7.3, valuing educational content more abstractly.

Product Comparison Tool

Compare specifications and dimensions side-by-side for 2-4 products

Combined score: 7.9 (3.6 personal, 4.2 customer). Helps customers evaluate options without needing to call with questions.

Smarter Quantity Calculator

Automatically align quantity selections to packaging units

Combined score: 7.8 (3.7 personal, 4.1 customer). Neither group sees this as a critical priority.

Recommendations

Recently viewed items, frequently bought together, and similar products

Combined score: 7.7 (3.3 personal, 4.4 customer). High customer impact (4.4) but lower personal impact (3.3) suggests customers benefit more than staff from this feature.

Interactive Product Tables

Filterable tables where customers can add to cart without leaving the table view

Combined score: 7.6 (3.4 personal, 4.2 customer). Streamlines selection from large product families.

Estimated Delivery Dates

Provide delivery timing early in the browsing experience, before checkout

Combined score: 7.6 (3.4 personal, 4.2 customer). Reduces the volume of “when will this arrive” inquiries.

High-Volume Reorder Workflows

Optimized processes for frequent or large-quantity B2B buyers

Combined score: 7.6 (3.4 personal, 4.2 customer). Distinct from bulk reorder tools. This focuses on workflow efficiency for high-volume accounts specifically.

Quick-Order Sheet

Paste or upload SKU lists instead of adding items individually

Combined score: 7.5 (3.4 personal, 4.1 customer). B2B buyers know their part numbers. They want fast entry without clicking through product pages.

Could-Have Features (4 Features Scoring 7.0-7.49)

Configurators for Complex Products

Guided selection flows for products like build-your-own-kit options

Combined score: 7.4 (3.3 personal, 4.1 customer). Valuable but not an immediate priority. Basic commerce functionality must work before tackling complex configuration.

Prominent Cross-Brand Linking

Make it simple to jump between related products across MOCAP family brands

Combined score: 7.3 (3.5 personal, 3.8 customer). Addresses multi-brand confusion but is secondary to the platform consolidation decision.

Unified Platform Across Brands

Shared navigation, search, and cart across MOCAP family brands

Combined score: 7.3 (3.6 personal, 3.7 customer). Written feedback stakeholders strongly support platform consolidation. Live call stakeholders are more divided. See platform consolidation section for detailed analysis.

Structured Custom Specification Request

Clear workflows for submitting custom product needs

Combined score: 7.0 (3.2 personal, 3.9 customer). Useful for the custom business but standard catalog ordering takes priority.

Won’t-Have Features (7 Features Scoring Below 7.0)

Regional Warehouse Visibility

Show stock availability by customer region

Combined score: 7.0 (3.4 personal, 3.6 customer). Just at the threshold. Might move to could-have category with international market growth.

Un-Gated Documentation

Minimize friction for engineers and procurement seeking technical data

Combined score: 6.8 (3.1 personal, 3.7 customer). Lower priority than the downloadable specs feature that scored 8.0.

Support for UK/EU/US Order Flows

Checkout and logistics adapted to regional buying patterns

Combined score: 6.7 (3.2 personal, 3.6 customer). International stakeholders value this higher than North American leadership.

Region-Specific Pricing and VAT Clarity

Transparent pricing across all currencies and tax jurisdictions

Combined score: 6.6 (3.2 personal, 3.5 customer). Similar to above. International stakeholders value this more highly.

Mobile B2B Workflow Optimization

Fast task-oriented mobile UX designed for field purchases

Combined score: 6.6 (3.1 personal, 3.5 customer). Leadership sees mobile as less critical for B2B purchasing compared to consumer contexts.

Shipping Origin and Region Context

Explain how location affects availability, timing, and pricing

Combined score: 6.3 (3.0 personal, 3.4 customer). The lowest scored feature. North American leadership doesn’t experience the complexity that international customers face daily.

Keep All 4 Websites Separate

Maintain distinct brand experiences and independent platforms

Combined score: 6.2 (3.0 personal, 3.2 customer). Only 23 stakeholders rated this feature. Written feedback stakeholders consistently want consolidation. Live call stakeholders who rated this scored it 7.8 (just within that group), revealing a leadership division on platform strategy. See platform consolidation section.

Leadership vs Frontline Systematic Differences

Leadership systematically underestimates operational burden across features that reduce manual work. On these features, leadership ratings trail frontline by 0.5 to 1.5 points on personal impact. Customer impact assessments align much more closely between the two groups.

Search shows a 0.7 point personal impact gap. Frontline: 4.4. Leadership: 3.7. The gap equals dozens of failed searches every day. Leadership doesn’t use the search function to help customers directly.

Bulk reorder shows the largest gap. Frontline: 4.4 personal impact. Leadership: 3.0. The 1.4 point difference equals hours of manual order entry work that leadership doesn’t see or experience.

Stock visibility: 1.0 point gap (frontline 4.4, leadership 3.4). Sample cart: 0.7 point gap (frontline 4.1, leadership 3.4). Carrier accounts: 1.0 point gap (frontline 4.0, leadership 3.0). The pattern repeats across every operational efficiency feature.

Features that automate repetitive tasks or eliminate manual workarounds score much higher with the staff who actually perform those tasks daily. Leadership values these features primarily for customer benefit. Staff value them for customer benefit plus significant operational efficiency gains.

Implementation sequencing should weight frontline operational impact heavily. Leadership naturally thinks strategically about competitive positioning and market differentiation. Frontline staff identify real productivity blockers based on daily experience. Both perspectives matter for different reasons. Productivity gains compound over time. Strategic features provide one-time differentiation benefits.

Platform Consolidation Question

Three features reveal significant strategic disagreement about platform architecture:

Unified platform across brands scored 7.3 combined (3.6 personal, 3.7 customer) with 24 stakeholders rating it. Written feedback stakeholders strongly support consolidation. They cite customer confusion from three separate websites and the operational costs of maintaining separate platforms. Leadership shows mixed support for this direction.

Keep all 4 websites separate scored 6.2 combined (3.0 personal, 3.2 customer) with 23 stakeholders rating it overall. Among only the 9 live call stakeholders who rated this feature, it scored 7.8 (3.8 personal, 4.0 customer). This reveals that leadership leans toward maintaining separation while frontline overwhelmingly wants consolidation.

Prominent cross-brand linking scored 7.3 combined. This represents a compromise position. If platforms stay separate, at least make navigation between them seamless and intuitive.

Frontline staff experience the operational costs daily. Customers call asking why MOCAP products appear on different websites. Orders split across multiple systems. Product data doesn’t sync properly. Customer service can’t see complete order history when customers buy from multiple brands.

Leadership sees brand separation as a potential market positioning advantage. Different brands serve different industries with different product lines under different names. Separate branding might clarify market positioning and allow for targeted messaging by segment.

This represents the most significant strategic tension in the entire dataset. The question isn’t whether consolidation is abstractly good or bad. The question is whether the brand separation benefits actually outweigh the operational costs in practice. Answering that requires comparing customer confusion data, brand perception research, and operational efficiency metrics that go beyond this rating study. The rating data reveals the conflict clearly but cannot resolve it.

Platform strategy needs resolution before detailed implementation planning begins. If MOCAP consolidates to a unified platform, that decision fundamentally affects all feature work. Navigation, search, product data management, cart behavior, and account infrastructure all depend on platform architecture decisions. If MOCAP maintains brand separation, features need to work consistently across all platforms or clearly differentiate where appropriate for each brand’s audience.

Category Performance Patterns

Account management and pricing features dominate the top rankings. Customer portal (9.2), logged-in pricing (8.6), bulk reorder (8.4), and samples cart (8.2). Four of the top five features are account-related. Customers need personalized, self-service account access before anything else.

Search and navigation cluster in the high 8s to low 8s. Multi-mode search (8.8), multi-path navigation (8.1), interactive tables (7.6), recommendations (7.7), and comparison tool (7.9). These represent fundamental product discovery and browsing capabilities. Some work poorly today (search). Others don’t exist yet (recommendations, comparison).

Configuration and AI tools show strong customer impact but more moderate personal impact. Visual preview (8.4), AI advisor (8.2), configurators (7.4), and custom requests (7.0). Teams already handle configuration questions manually on every call. Automation helps customers more than it helps staff directly.

Content and education features score consistently in the mid-7s to low 8s. Measurement guides (8.0), industry pages (8.0), downloadable specs (8.0), and FAQ hub (7.9). These reduce repetitive questions but don’t eliminate them entirely.

Stock and logistics features vary by how specifically they answer customer questions. Real-time stock visibility (8.1) scores high because it answers a direct question customers ask constantly. Delivery estimates (7.6) score moderately. Shipping origin context (6.3) scores lowest because it provides background information rather than answering a specific immediate question.

International and regional features cluster below 7.0. Region-specific pricing (6.6), UK/EU/US order flows (6.7), and shipping origin context (6.3). The North American leadership majority doesn’t experience cross-border complexity in their daily work. International stakeholders in the written feedback group valued these features more highly based on direct experience.

Regional and Role-Based Patterns

International stakeholders rate stock visibility and delivery transparency higher than North American stakeholders. Region context and shipping origin information scored notably higher with international written feedback participants. Cross-border complexity matters significantly when you experience it directly.

Customer service representatives rate FAQ and educational content higher than sales staff. CSRs answer the same questions repeatedly every single day. They know exactly which content would reduce their call volume. Sales staff focus more heavily on pricing visibility and account features that help close deals faster.

Leadership universally rates AI and strategic features higher than frontline staff. AI advisor, industry landing pages, configurators, and visual preview all score 0.3-0.7 points higher with leadership on personal impact measures. Leadership thinks primarily about competitive differentiation and market positioning. Staff think primarily about making current processes actually work reliably.

Sales staff rate bulk reorder and quick order features highest among all role groups. They process repeat orders constantly. Customer service representatives rate the samples cart feature highest. They process sample requests all day. Each role naturally prioritizes features that would reduce their own specific manual work burdens.

Implementation sequencing should consider which roles currently bear the greatest burden from current system dysfunction. Features that eliminate hours of manual work for large teams create substantially more organizational value than features that save minutes for small teams, even if that small team happens to be leadership.

Implementation Sequencing

Phase 1 should deliver customer portal, logged-in negotiated pricing, and multi-mode search. These three features have universal strong support, the highest combined scores, and address the most critical current system dysfunction. Frontline staff cannot sell effectively when search doesn’t work reliably and customers cannot see their own negotiated pricing.

Portal work naturally sequences first because pricing display and order history both require account infrastructure to be built. Search improvements can proceed in parallel since they have no dependency on the account system. This creates two parallel workstreams: account foundation (portal plus pricing) and discovery foundation (search plus navigation).

Phase 2 should add bulk reorder tools, visual configuration preview, application guidance, and samples cart. All four score above 8.0 combined and address specific high-pain workflows. Bulk reorder and samples both require cart and account work from phase 1 to be complete. Configuration and guidance features can proceed independently on their own timeline.

Phase 3 brings in AI advisor, real-time stock visibility, and the remaining search/navigation features. AI work requires substantial ML engineering effort and content preparation time. Stock visibility requires clean inventory system integration. Navigation enhancements complete the product discovery experience that started in phase 1. This phase represents a shift from fixing broken basics to adding genuinely sophisticated new capabilities.

Phase 4 adds the remaining operational efficiency features: quick order sheet, carrier account options, delivery estimates, and quantity calculator. These streamline specific workflows after core commerce functionality is solid and stable. Each addresses a specific operational pain point that frontline staff identified clearly during research.

The platform consolidation decision fundamentally affects all implementation work. This needs strategic resolution before detailed planning begins.

The sequencing above assumes portal and search represent roughly equivalent implementation effort. If one proves significantly harder technically, swap their sequence positions. The key principle: deliver continuous value to users. Don’t let phase 1 stretch beyond 4-5 months maximum. Ship portal improvements in 3-4 months, ship search improvements in 3-4 months, then move to the next phase immediately.

What the Numbers Miss

Rating data reveals what stakeholders currently value. It doesn’t reveal technical interdependencies, implementation complexity, or actual effort required. A feature scoring 9.0 might realistically take 6 months to build properly. A feature scoring 7.5 might ship in 2 weeks. Value scores and implementation feasibility together determine true priority, not value scores alone.

The data doesn’t reveal what actually breaks most often or costs the most to work around manually. Frontline staff rate search at 4.4 personal impact. Does search fail on 10% of queries or 60%? Do the workarounds take 30 seconds per incident or 10 minutes? Impact ratings provide directional guidance but need detailed break/fix data for the complete picture.

Customer perspective here is filtered entirely through staff assessment. Staff rate customer impact based solely on what they hear from customers during support interactions. Actual direct customer research might reveal meaningfully different priorities. The combination of staff ratings plus direct customer input creates the fullest possible picture.

Technical architecture realistically constrains what’s actually possible to deliver. If legacy systems fundamentally cannot expose real-time inventory data, then stock visibility might be genuinely impossible to deliver regardless of its 8.1 combined score. Implementation planning requires honest technical assessment conducted alongside stakeholder priority research.

Priorities inevitably shift as business conditions change over time. A major competitor launching sophisticated AI features tomorrow might suddenly elevate AI advisor urgency dramatically. A significant surge in international order volume might elevate region context feature importance substantially. Priority data from any single point in time has a natural half-life.

Data Quality

The dataset shows remarkable consistency given 28 completely independent respondents across very different roles and research methods. Standard deviations on the top features (customer portal 0.7, search 0.8) indicate genuine organizational consensus rather than response bias or survey design problems.

Rating differences between leadership and frontline groups follow entirely predictable patterns based on actual job responsibilities and daily work exposure. Leadership systematically underestimates the operational burden of features they personally don’t use in daily work. This represents an expected and interpretable finding, not a data quality issue requiring correction.

Features showing high variation (platform consolidation, mobile workflows) represent genuine strategic disagreement within the organization, not measurement error or data problems. Some stakeholders genuinely want separate brand websites. Others genuinely want platform consolidation. That reflects valid strategic conflict, not bad data collection.

Missing data points are clearly identified and documented. Two live call participants were excluded: Ildar Khakimov (IT) due to his role and website usage as an employee rather than customer-facing staff, and Linda Yang (Sales Director China) because her MoSCoW exercise was not ready in time for the final analysis. Five written feedback invitees did not submit responses in time.

The 6.2 to 9.2 combined score range clearly suggests genuine feature differentiation by stakeholders. Staff rated multiple features below 7.0. They’re not reflexively marking everything with maximum scores. The substantial score variation across features indicates honest, thoughtful assessment rather than response bias.

Strategic Recommendations

Customer portal, negotiated pricing visibility, and search improvements should proceed to implementation immediately. These three have universal strong support across all stakeholder groups and directly address the most critical current system dysfunction.

The persistent leadership-frontline gap on operational efficiency features suggests implementations should proceed confidently even when leadership rates features somewhat lower than frontline staff. Leadership systematically underestimates efficiency gains because they don’t personally perform the manual work daily. Trust frontline staff assessment of operational burden based on their direct daily experience.

Platform consolidation requires explicit strategic resolution before any detailed implementation planning begins. The rating data reveals clear organizational tension on this question but fundamentally cannot resolve it. That resolution requires comparing actual brand positioning benefits against measured operational efficiency costs using data that goes well beyond this rating study.

AI features and other strategic capabilities should follow basic functionality fixes in the implementation sequence. Leadership enthusiasm for AI advisor and configuration tools provides a valuable signal about competitive strategy direction and market positioning goals. That said, basic commerce functionality absolutely must work reliably first. Customers fundamentally cannot complete purchases if search fails to find products and negotiated pricing remains invisible online.

Return customer workflow optimization deserves significant attention early in the implementation roadmap. Bulk reorder, quick order sheet, and high-volume workflow features all score well and address very specific friction points. B2B revenue heavily concentrates in returning customers with established relationships. Streamlining their repeat purchase experience creates compounding value over time.

International operational perspectives deserve meaningful weight in final prioritization decisions even though international stakeholders represent a clear minority of the research sample. Cross-border commerce complexity is objectively real and measurable. Features particularly valued by international stakeholders (region context, delivery transparency) might disproportionately affect total revenue from those specific geographic markets.

The research provides a clear evidence-based priority list for the top 22 features (13 must-haves plus 9 should-haves). Final implementation sequencing within that priority list depends heavily on technical complexity assessment, current team capacity and skills, and strategic timing considerations around competitive moves and market conditions.