Prioritisation with Eisenhower, MoSCoW & Pareto in the Research Context

Are you struggling to decide which research tasks deserve your attention? Learn how three powerful prioritisation frameworks can transform your academic productivity and help you make strategic decisions about where to focus your limited time and energy.

James, one of the brightest PhD students, outlined his ambitious research plans for the coming term. His enthusiasm was palpable as he described five experiments, two conference submissions, a grant application, and significant progress on his literature review - all to be completed within twelve weeks.

As gently as possible, his supervisor asked a question that made him pause: "If you could only complete three of these tasks exceptionally well, which would they be?"

His hesitation spoke volumes.

James's challenge isn't unique.

Prioritising is a problem everywhere, and what makes it even more difficult is that many of life’s demands are framed around “urgency,” which inhibits our ability to make better decisions based on value.

Research revealed that individuals tend to prioritise less important tasks - those with objectively lower rewards - over more important ones with greater benefits, simply because the unimportant tasks appear urgent due to false time constraints (e.g., a fabricated expiration). This 'mere urgency effect' contradicts the fundamental principle of rational decision-making, which dictates that people should always choose objectively better options. Instead, the findings show that people act as though they are driven by urgency, even when it leads to suboptimal outcomes.

The uncomfortable truth is that time is your most precious and limited resource as a researcher. The challenge isn't merely getting things done - it's ensuring you're working on the right things.

As management pioneer Peter Drucker wisely noted,

"There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all."

This is particularly true in research contexts, where potential rabbit holes and interesting tangents abound. Without effective prioritisation, you risk what is called "productive procrastination"—keeping busy with tasks that, while related to your research, don't meaningfully advance your core objectives.

One study investigated international business expansion strategies using a data-driven approach, combining secondary database information with primary data from surveys or interviews, analysed through both qualitative and quantitative methods. The authors suggest that the Eisenhower Matrix, Pareto Principle, and time-blocking led to project completion times improved by 20%, project turnaround time reduced by 25%, and project visibility increased by 30%.

In this blog post, we'll explore three complementary prioritisation frameworks and how they can be put to meaningful use in the research context: the Eisenhower Matrix, the MoSCoW Method, and the Pareto Principle. Each offers a distinct lens for deciding where to focus your limited time and energy for maximum research impact.

The Eisenhower Matrix for academic contexts

 

Understanding Urgency vs. Importance

Named after US President Dwight D. Eisenhower, this matrix distinguishes between urgent (time-sensitive) tasks and important (high-value) tasks. These aren't always the same; confusing them leads to significant productivity problems.

The matrix divides your tasks into four quadrants:

1. Important and Urgent (Do First)
2. Important but Not Urgent (Schedule)
3. Urgent but Not Important (Delegate)
4. Neither Urgent nor Important (Delete)

Research-specific examples for each quadrant

 

Important and Urgent

These need to get done, as the deadline will bite you in the back if not.

• Submission deadlines for journals or conferences
• Revisions requested by supervisors with short turnaround times
• Ethics applications with impending deadlines
• Grant proposals with fixed submission dates
• Equipment bookings that must be confirmed

Important but Not Urgent

Some tasks that are not urgent now, may become urgent later. These are typically the tasks that benefits you in the long run; the ones we all procrastinate on forever. Schedule them and create accountability around them to ensure they get done.

• Writing key thesis chapters
• Learning essential research skills
• Applying for a fellowship to buy you out of your current job two days a week
• Preparing your CV and a cover letter for a post-doc position

Urgent but Not Important

I know the recommendation is to delegate these, but sometimes you just don’t have anyone to delegate them to. Consider why you are doing these and if they really need to be done. If not, just get them out the way asap.

• Most administrative emails
• Many departmental meetings
• Certain paperwork requirements
• Minor formatting issues

Neither Urgent nor Important

Let these go completely, unless you are going to add them as a break or a reward of some sorts and they serve a deeper meaning other than to just waste your time.

• Excessive social media checking
• Over-polishing documents that are already adequate
• Reading tangentially related literature
• Reorganising your reference library for the third time
• Attending seminars unrelated to your research focus

Common pitfalls when implementing in academic settings

 

In my work with researchers, I've observed three common Eisenhower Matrix implementation challenges:

 

The "everything is important" trap

Many academics struggle to designate any task as "not important," fearing this means they don't take their work seriously. Remember that "not important" simply means "less directly relevant to your core research objectives."

Misidentifying urgency

There's a tendency to confuse "I feel anxious about this" with "this is urgent." True urgency relates to external time constraints, not internal anxiety. Analyse what it is that makes you feel anxious and get behind its true cause.

Neglecting Quadrant 2

The most valuable research work often falls into the "Important but Not Urgent" quadrant. Without deliberate scheduling, these critical tasks get perpetually displaced by more urgent matters.

 

When this framework works best for researchers

 

The Eisenhower Matrix is particularly effective:

• During periods of high workload when you need rapid triage
• When facing competing deadlines from different projects
• For weekly planning sessions to balance immediate demands with long-term priorities
• When feeling overwhelmed by too many tasks

 

The MoSCoW method for research projects

 

What is the MoSCoW method?

 

The MoSCoW method, originally developed for project management, offers a complementary approach by categorising tasks based on necessity rather than urgency. Looking at one’s dissertation or thesis, here are a few examples:

Must Have

Essential elements without which your research cannot proceed or succeed.

Examples:

• Core data collection
• Primary analyses
• Literature review of foundational papers
• Ethics approval
• Theoretical and conceptual framework section in paragraph format

 

Should Have

Important components that add significant value but aren't absolutely critical.

Examples:

• Secondary analyses
• Comparative literature
• Additional data visualisations
• Theoretical and conceptual framework diagram
• Outline of the dissertation

Could Have

Desirable elements that would enhance your research but could be omitted if necessary.

Examples:

• Expanded discussion points
• Additional case studies
• Supplementary visuals
• Diagram summarising the findings of the entire dissertation

Won't Have (this time)

Items explicitly excluded from your current scope.

Examples:

• Certain methodological approaches that are duplicating current approaches using expensive equipment that is anyway unavailable
• Video demonstrations of methods used
• Diagram summarising the findings of each study

MoSCoW method applied to a literature review

Here's how the MoSCoW method can help prioritise tasks for creating a comprehensive literature review on remote work productivity measurement techniques. Remember that the elements may shift position depending on the discipline and topic. For illustration purposes only, but you’ll get the drift from the example below:

Must Have

These elements are essential - without them, your literature review cannot fulfil its basic purpose:

• Systematic search of core databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO) using predetermined keywords related to remote work productivity measurement
• Analysis of 25 foundational peer-reviewed articles published since 2020 that directly address measurement methodologies
• Structured documentation of key methodological approaches used across the field
• Identification of major research findings and their implications for your study
• Critical assessment of methodological strengths and limitations in existing literature
• Clear articulation of at least three significant research gaps relevant to your specific research question

Should Have

These elements add significant value but aren't absolutely critical to the basic function of your review:

• Expanded historical context tracing the evolution of remote work productivity measurement
• Comparison table of methodological approaches across different studies
• Thematic organisation of literature beyond chronological or alphabetical ordering
• Analysis of theoretical frameworks underpinning different measurement approaches
• Discussion of contextual factors (industry type, job role, technology access) that influence measurement efficacy
• Evaluation of measurement validity across different studies

Could Have

These elements would enhance your literature review but could be omitted if time constraints require:

• Visual mapping of relationships between different research approaches
• Analysis of grey literature (industry reports, white papers) on productivity measurement
• Extended discussion of technological developments influencing measurement approaches
• Case studies highlighting exemplary measurement methodologies
• Comparative assessment of productivity metrics used in office vs. remote settings
• Brief exploration of emerging measurement trends not yet widely adopted

Won't Have (this time)

Items explicitly excluded from your current literature review scope:

• Comprehensive analysis of pre-2020 literature (will only reference select seminal works)
• Detailed examination of psychological well-being measures related to remote work (focus remains on productivity measures)
• Original data collection or validation of measurement techniques
• In-depth analysis of specific software tools used for productivity tracking
• Cross-cultural comparison of remote work productivity measures
• Extensive legal and ethical analysis of monitoring approaches (will only briefly acknowledge these concerns)

Practical implementation of the MoSCoW

 

To implement MoSCoW effectively, I recommend a structured workflow:

1. Begin by listing all potential elements, tasks, or components without filtering
2. Initially categorise each item without considering constraints
3. Apply resource constraints (time, equipment, expertise) and recategorise
4. Review categories with supervisors or collaborators
5. Schedule monthly reviews to reassess categorisation as research evolves

Best research phases to use the MoSCoW

 

Doing a MoSCoW reflection at certain milestones during your research project will prevent you from going down the wrong rabbit hole. Here’s when to use it:

• Research design phase
• Project scoping and planning
• Literature review planning
• Methodology development
• Data analysis planning
• Chapter/paper outlining

Strengths and limitations

 

Strengths

• Provides clear permission to exclude certain elements
• Creates explicit agreement on priorities with supervisors and collaborators
• Offers flexibility as research evolves
• Forces concrete decisions about research scope

Limitations

• Less useful for day-to-day task management
• Requires regular revisiting as research progresses
• May need supervisor buy-in for effective implementation
• Doesn't address scheduling or time allocation directly

The Pareto Principle in research productivity

 

Finding your high-impact 20% activities

 

The Pareto Principle, often called the "80/20 rule," suggests that roughly 80% of effects come from 20% of causes. In research contexts, this has profound implications:

• 80% of your useful findings may come from 20% of your experiments
• 80% of your citations may come from 20% of your publications
• 80% of your progress may come from 20% of your working time
• 80% of your insights may come from 20% of your reading

The power of Pareto thinking lies in identifying which activities constitute your vital 20% - your highest-leverage work that delivers disproportionate results.

The 80/20 rule only works when you are still spending 80% of your time on unnecessary activities; however, once you have mastered this rule and spend most of your time on valuable activities, there is nothing “useless” to cut down on. At this point, this principle is no longer relevant your “20%” is now filling the full container. However, I don’t think we should interpret it that literally, and we should just always be aware of how we spend our time to create the biggest impact. Simply put, it is a way of deciding whether the juice is worth the squeeze.

 

The 80/20 rule in research action

One of my PhD students struggled with writing productivity until she tracked her output. She discovered that writing between 7-9 AM consistently produced nearly 75% of her usable daily word count, despite representing only 25% of her writing time. Restructuring her schedule to protect and extend this high-productivity period dramatically accelerated her thesis completion.

Self-assessment questions to identify your 20%

 

Ask yourself these targeted questions to uncover your high-leverage activities:

1. During which specific time periods do you produce your best research work?
2. In which physical or digital environments do you make the most significant progress?
3. Which specific research tasks consistently generate momentum for subsequent work?
4. Which journals, authors, or resources consistently provide the most valuable insights?
5. Which aspects of your work consistently receive positive supervisor feedback?
6. Which research activities energise rather than deplete you?
7. Looking back at periods of rapid progress, which activities dominated your time?

I recommend keeping a "Pareto Research Journal" for two weeks, logging all research activities and rating them on both time invested and value produced. Patterns usually emerge quickly, revealing your personal 20%.

Common resistance points and how to overcome them

 

While the Pareto Principle is powerful, researchers often resist its implications:

Resistance 1: "Everything in research is essential"

Solution: Challenge this assumption by ranking tasks by impact rather than seeing them as binary essential/non-essential. Consider what would happen if each element were omitted—some losses would be far more significant than others.

Resistance 2: "I can't predict which activities will be high-value"

Solution: While research inherently involves uncertainty, patterns of productivity are often more predictable than we acknowledge. Retrospective analysis of past productive periods can reveal reliable patterns.

Resistance 3: "This feels like cutting corners"

Solution: Pareto thinking isn't about reducing quality but the strategic allocation of finite resources. Frame it as "focus" rather than "elimination."

Resistance 4: "My supervisor expects comprehensive work"

Solution: Frame Pareto discussions with supervisors around resource optimisation rather than work reduction. Most experienced academics appreciate strategic thinking about research priorities.

Comparative analysis: Choosing the right framework

 

Decision matrix based on research stage and needs

 

Different prioritisation frameworks serve different needs at various research stages:

Research Stage	Primary Challenge	Recommended Framework	Rationale
Early exploration of topic	Direction setting	Eisenhower + Pareto	Categorise your reading according to importance and urgency: Important + Urgent: Core foundational papers/concepts you need to understand immediately Important + Not Urgent: Deeper theoretical frameworks to explore over time Urgent + Not Important: Trending topics that may provide context but aren't fundamental Not Important + Not Urgent: Tangential areas you can safely deprioritise Identify the ~20% of papers/sources that will give you ~80% of the foundational knowledge
Research Proposal	Scope definition	MoSCoW	Helps determine essential vs. optional elements
Analysis phase	Analytical depth decisions	MoSCoW	Clarifies which analyses are essential vs. exploratory
Writing phase	Time management	Eisenhower	Balances writing with other demands
Revision phase	Feedback implementation	MoSCoW	Categorises feedback by importance
Multiple project management	Competing priorities	Eisenhower + Pareto	Helps triage across different projects and guides you as to where the quick wins are

 

Combining frameworks for maximum effectiveness

 

The most sophisticated approach combines these frameworks:

1. Begin with the MoSCoW Method to define your research scope and components
2. Apply the Pareto Principle to identify your highest-leverage activities
3. Use the Eisenhower Matrix for weekly and daily planning and to account for demands outside our research lives

This integrated approach creates a natural flow from strategic research decisions to tactical implementation.

I call this the "Prioritisation Cascade," and it's transformed how my most successful doctoral students approach their research planning.

 

When to switch between different approaches

 

Certain trigger points should prompt you to revisit or switch frameworks:

• Switch to MoSCoW when: Scope creep occurs, new opportunities arise, or supervisor feedback suggests direction changes
• Apply Pareto analysis when: Progress stalls, time shortages emerge, or you need to make difficult resource allocation decisions
• Implement Eisenhower triage when: Multiple deadlines compete, urgent demands increase, or work-life balance deteriorates

 

The flexibility to shift between frameworks as circumstances change represents prioritisation mastery in research contexts.

Implementation: Putting prioritisation into practice

 

The weekly research prioritisation protocol

To implement these frameworks effectively, I recommend this weekly protocol:

 

Monday morning review (30 minutes)

• Review research vision and current phase objectives
• Apply MoSCoW to current research phase elements
• Identify Pareto high-leverage activities for the week
• Apply Eisenhower Matrix to the week's tasks
• Schedule protected time for Quadrant 2 activities

Daily morning planning (10 minutes)

• Apply Eisenhower Matrix to the day's tasks
• Honour scheduled Quadrant 2 activities as far as possible
• Identify one "must have" daily priority

Friday reflection (20 minutes)

• Evaluate week's progress and prioritisation effectiveness
• Note patterns in high-value activities
• Adjust approach for coming week

Accountability and supervision conversations

 

Discussing prioritisation explicitly with supervisors transforms these relationships:

• Share your prioritisation frameworks during supervision meetings
• Frame questions around relative importance rather than binary inclusion
• Request feedback on your "must have" and “should have” versus "could have" and “won’t have” categorisations
• Discuss Pareto patterns you've identified in your research progress

When a student brings a prioritised task list to our supervisory meetings, the conversation becomes significantly more productive. We’ll spend less time on administrative concerns and more time on substantive research direction.

FAQs about research prioritisation

 

How do I convince my supervisor to accept my prioritisation decisions?

 

Frame discussions around research quality rather than workload reduction. Most supervisors respond positively to statements like: "To ensure I can deliver excellent work on the core methodology, I propose moving these three exploratory analyses to a 'could have' status. Does that align with your view of the research priorities?"

Can these frameworks work for collaborative research projects?

 

Absolutely, in fact, they become even more valuable in collaborative contexts. Using explicit prioritisation frameworks reduces misalignment and creates a shared language for discussing project decisions. I recommend introducing these frameworks early in collaborative projects and revisiting them during key project meetings.

How often should I revisit my prioritisation categories?

 

For doctoral research:

• MoSCoW categories: Review quarterly or at research phase transitions
• Pareto analysis: Conduct monthly to identify shifting patterns
• Eisenhower implementation: Apply weekly and daily

Won't focusing on just 20% of activities make my research too narrow?

 

The Pareto Principle doesn't suggest doing only 20% of all possible activities - rather, it highlights that some activities yield disproportionate returns. You'll still conduct comprehensive research but strategically emphasise high-yield areas. Think of it as strategic intensity rather than narrowing.

Conclusion

 

Prioritisation frameworks aren't merely theoretical tools - they're transformative approaches that can radically alter your research effectiveness. The researchers I supervise who implement these frameworks consistently demonstrate three outcomes:

1. More focused and coherent research outputs
2. Reduced stress and improved work-life balance
3. Faster completion times without sacrificing quality

After implementing the prioritisation cascade, James discovered that the question isn't whether you can afford to prioritise - it's whether you can afford not to.

Your research deserves this level of strategic thinking. I encourage you to begin with just one framework - whichever resonates most with your current challenges - and experience how clarity of priority transforms your academic work.

Your next Steps

Ready to transform your research productivity through strategic prioritisation?

1. Block 30 minutes this week to conduct your first prioritisation review
2. Select one framework to implement fully for the next two weeks
3. Schedule a conversation with your supervisor about research priorities using your chosen framework

Remember, the goal isn't perfect prioritisation - it's better research through more intentional choices about where you invest your limited time and energy.

Looking for ongoing support throughout your research journey? The Research Masterminds Success Academy offers live workshops, helpful resources, and a supportive community of fellow PhD students. It's a space designed to help you develop academic skills, maintain motivation, and complete your research while still enjoying life beyond your studies. 

Join today!

Thank you for the cover photo by Tara Winstead