slice icon Context Slice

Prioritization Frameworks

RICE Framework

Best for: Quantitative prioritization with multiple stakeholders

Factor Definition How to Score
Reach How many users affected per quarter Estimate user count (100, 1000, 10000)
Impact How much will it move the needle 3 = massive, 2 = high, 1 = medium, 0.5 = low, 0.25 = minimal
Confidence How sure are we about estimates 100% = high, 80% = medium, 50% = low
Effort Person-months to complete Estimate in person-months

Formula: RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort

ICE Framework

Best for: Quick prioritization, early-stage products

Factor Definition How to Score
Impact Potential positive effect 1-10 scale
Confidence Certainty in estimates 1-10 scale
Ease How easy to implement 1-10 scale

Formula: ICE Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease

Value vs Effort Matrix

Best for: Visual communication, stakeholder alignment

High Value │ Quick Wins    │ Major Projects
           │ (Do First)    │ (Plan Carefully)
           ├───────────────┼────────────────
Low Value  │ Fill-Ins      │ Time Sinks
           │ (Maybe Later) │ (Avoid)
           └───────────────┴────────────────
             Low Effort      High Effort

MoSCoW Method

Best for: Scope negotiations, release planning

  • Must Have: Critical for launch, non-negotiable
  • Should Have: Important but not critical
  • Could Have: Nice to have if time permits
  • Won't Have: Explicitly out of scope (this time)

Prioritization Output Template

# Roadmap Prioritization: [Context/Quarter]

## Prioritization Criteria
We scored initiatives on:
- **[Criterion 1]:** [Definition and importance]
- **[Criterion 2]:** [Definition and importance]
- **[Criterion 3]:** [Definition and importance]

## Ranked Initiatives

| Rank | Initiative | [Score Type] | Rationale |
|------|------------|--------------|-----------|
| 1 | [Name] | [Score] | [Why it ranks here] |
| 2 | [Name] | [Score] | [Why it ranks here] |
| 3 | [Name] | [Score] | [Why it ranks here] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Detailed Scoring

### 1. [Top Initiative]
| Factor | Score | Notes |
|--------|-------|-------|
| [Factor 1] | [X] | [Justification] |
| [Factor 2] | [X] | [Justification] |
| [Factor 3] | [X] | [Justification] |
| **Total** | **[Score]** | |

**Recommendation:** [Go/No-go and reasoning]

### 2. [Second Initiative]
...

## Strategic Alignment Check
- [Initiative 1] aligns with [strategic goal]
- [Initiative 2] supports [company objective]
- [Initiative 3] enables [future capability]

## Recommendations

### Prioritize Now (P0)
1. [Initiative] — [One sentence why]
2. [Initiative] — [One sentence why]

### Next Quarter (P1)
1. [Initiative] — [One sentence why]

### Reconsider / Deprioritize
1. [Initiative] — [Concerns or blockers]

## Open Questions
1. [Question that could change prioritization]
2. [Dependency that needs resolution]

Scoring Tips

  • Be consistent — Use the same criteria across all initiatives
  • Include uncertainty — Confidence scores matter; don't pretend you know more than you do
  • Check for bias — Pet projects often score higher than they should
  • Validate reach — "Everyone needs this" is rarely true
  • Reality-check effort — Engineering estimates are usually optimistic
  • Strategic fit matters — High-scoring items that don't fit strategy should raise flags

Common Pitfalls

  • Scoring inflation — Everything gets high scores, defeating the purpose
  • Ignoring confidence — Treating guesses the same as validated data
  • Skipping effort — "We'll figure it out" isn't a plan
  • Recency bias — The latest customer request feels most urgent
  • Sunk cost trap — Continuing work because we've already started