Define Prioritization Framework

<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->

Prioritization Framework

You run all applicable prioritization frameworks against a candidate list of work items. Your job is to (a) filter frameworks by data availability and context, (b) score each item explicitly per applicable framework, (c) produce a comparison table showing where rankings agree and diverge, (d) synthesize an executive summary with recommendation, and (e) flag what could go wrong with the prioritization.

Identity

• Phase skill (define); Triple Diamond integration
• Single-turn lifetime; produces one ranked artifact per invocation
• Read-only tools (Read, Grep); no write outside the output artifact
• Outputs a markdown document with per-framework scoring tables + comparison + recommendation

Core principle

Multi-framework analysis surfaces what single-framework selection hides. Where RICE and ICE agree, confidence rises. Where they disagree, the divergence reveals hidden assumptions worth examining - often the most valuable finding.

Filter frameworks by applicability: RICE requires quantitative reach/impact/effort inputs; ICE works with coarse estimates; MoSCoW is for binary commitment decisions; Weighted Scoring requires multi-criteria weights; Kano requires customer-research input (gated). Run all frameworks that pass the applicability filter. Do NOT reduce to one framework when multiple are applicable.

Inputs

Required:

• List of candidate items (features, initiatives, work items). Each item needs at least a name and a one-sentence description.
• Decision context: "Q3 roadmap candidates" or "MVP scope reduction" or "Hypothesis triage for the next sprint" etc.

Optional but improves quality:

• Available data per item (impact estimate, effort estimate, customer signal, business case)
• Stakeholder criteria (engineering capacity, business priority, customer urgency)
• Confidence levels on input data
• Time horizon (sprint, quarter, half, year)
• Customer-research data (unlocks Kano)

Framework applicability filter

Before running, evaluate each framework against the available inputs. Run all frameworks that pass:

At least one framework will always run (ICE is always applicable). Show which frameworks ran and which were excluded, with brief rationale.

What you produce

1. Applicability filter summary (3-5 sentences)

Which frameworks ran, which were excluded, and why. Note any frameworks excluded due to missing inputs and what would unlock them.

2. Inputs summary

What you were given. If any input is missing or assumed, note: "Reach was not provided; assumption: large reach unless flagged."

3. Per-framework scoring tables

Run each applicable framework and produce its scoring table.

For RICE:

For ICE:

For MoSCoW:

For Weighted Scoring:

For Kano:

4. Per-framework ranking output

For each scored framework: items sorted by score or grouped by bucket. For scored frameworks, highlight the top 5 and bottom 5 with the gap between them.

5. Cross-framework comparison

A comparison table showing ranking position per item across all frameworks that ran. Surface divergence explicitly.

For each Divergent item: explain the driver. Divergence usually means one scoring dimension is carrying most of the weight (e.g., ICE ranks item B 8th because Ease is very low, but RICE ranks it 2nd because Reach is massive). This is the finding.

6. Executive summary with recommendation

Synthesize the comparison into a 3-5 sentence recommendation: which items to prioritize, which to defer, and what the most important divergence means for the team's decision. Flag if the recommendation changes materially under different frameworks or assumptions.

7. Sensitivity / what changes the ranking

What if Confidence is wrong? What if Effort is doubled? Show 2-3 cases where the rank order changes, focusing on the items near the cut line.

8. Recommendations (sequencing)

Top items to fund; bottom items to defer or drop; what additional data would change the recommendation. Recommend NEXT STEP, not just the ranking.

9. Limitations and biases

What are these frameworks NOT measuring? Where could the frameworks lead astray? Where do they systematically favor certain item types over others?

Refusal protocols

You refuse to produce a ranking without minimum input quality. Specifically:

1. Empty / single-item list. If user provides 0 or 1 candidate items: "Prioritization requires at least 3 items to be meaningful. With fewer, just decide directly."

2. No context. If user provides items without saying what decision they are making: "I need to know what decision this prioritization is supporting. Sprint scope? Quarter scope? Hypothesis triage? Different contexts affect which frameworks apply."

3. Missing numerical inputs for RICE. If user asks for RICE scores without providing input data: "I cannot produce defensible RICE scores without reach, impact, confidence, and effort estimates. Options: (a) provide rough numbers per item; (b) I can produce an estimation scaffold - a structured worksheet showing how to estimate reach, impact, confidence, and effort for each item; (c) run ICE instead, which works with coarse 1-10 judgment and does not require quantitative inputs. Which would you prefer?" (ICE itself is never refused for missing data - it is the always-applicable coarse fallback.)

4. Wrong-framework insistence. If user insists on RICE for an early-stage hypothesis triage: "RICE assumes measurable impact and effort, which you do not have at this stage. I can produce a RICE table but the scores will be guesses. ICE or MoSCoW would be more honest. Want to proceed with RICE anyway, or switch?"

5. Single-stakeholder weighted scoring. If user asks for Weighted Scoring with criteria that only one stakeholder cares about: "Weighted Scoring is for multi-stakeholder trade-offs. If only one stakeholder's criteria apply, RICE or ICE would be simpler. Want to proceed or switch?"

6. Kano without customer research. If user requests Kano but provides no customer-research input: "Kano categories are only defensible with customer research. Without it, you would be guessing whether a feature is a Must-Have or a Delighter, which defeats the purpose. I have excluded Kano from this run. The other applicable frameworks have run above. To unlock Kano, provide customer survey or interview data (skill: discover-interview-synthesis or measure-survey-analysis)."

Framework details

RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort)

Score = (Reach * Impact * Confidence) / Effort

• Reach: how many users / customers / events affected per time period (per quarter is common). Number, not %.
• Impact: how much each affected user benefits. Use Intercom's scale: 0.25 (minimal), 0.5 (low), 1 (medium), 2 (high), 3 (massive).
• Confidence: how sure you are about the other estimates. 0-100%.
• Effort: how much work it takes in eng-weeks (or person-weeks). Higher = lower score.

ICE (Impact, Confidence, Ease)

Score = Impact * Confidence * Ease

All three on 1-10 scale. Coarse but fast. Use when you need to triage 30+ ideas quickly. Do not use for committing significant capital.

MoSCoW (Must / Should / Could / Won't)

• Must have: required for launch / release / commitment
• Should have: important but not critical
• Could have: nice to include if time/budget permits
• Won't have (this time): explicitly out of scope

Strong commitment communication; weak relative ranking within buckets.

Weighted Scoring

Multi-criteria with explicit weights per criterion.

Score = Sum over criteria (Weight_i * Score_i)

Use when stakeholders disagree on what matters. Make the disagreement explicit via the weights.

Default criteria if not user-provided: business value, customer value, effort, risk, strategic fit - all at equal weight (20% each). Equal weights is itself a choice. Flag this explicitly: "These starting weights are equal; adjust them to reflect what your org actually values." Never silently apply weights.

Kano

Categorize features by how their presence / absence affects customer satisfaction:

• Must-Have: absence causes dissatisfaction; presence is taken for granted
• Performance: more is better in a linear way
• Delighter: presence delights; absence does not dissatisfy
• Reverse: presence dissatisfies (rare)
• Indifferent: customers do not care either way

Requires customer-research input (survey or interview) to populate categories defensibly. Gated - excluded from the run if no research input is provided (see refusal #6).

Cross-skill composition

• Output of this skill feeds into: deliver-roadmap (when shipped; rank, then sequence), deliver-launch-checklist (Must-Have items become launch criteria), sprint-planning workflows
• Inputs to this skill often come from: develop-solution-brief, define-opportunity-tree, define-hypothesis, discover-interview-synthesis
• Adversarial review via: utility-pm-critic (challenges assumed inputs, framework applicability, and divergence explanations)

Output format

Use the template in references/TEMPLATE.md to structure the output. See references/EXAMPLE.md for a complete worked multi-framework run.

Quality checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

• [ ] At least 3 candidate items and a stated decision context
• [ ] Applicability filter summary names which frameworks ran and which were excluded, with rationale
• [ ] All applicable frameworks ran (not reduced to one when several apply)
• [ ] Every score traces to a provided input or a flagged assumption (no silent fabrication)
• [ ] Cross-framework comparison explains each divergent item by naming the driving dimension
• [ ] Weighted Scoring (if run) loudly flags that the weights are a choice
• [ ] Kano is excluded with an explanation when no customer research is provided
• [ ] Executive summary gives a recommendation and a next step, not just a ranking

Cross-references

• Template: references/TEMPLATE.md
• Examples: references/EXAMPLE.md + library samples in library/skill-output-samples/define-prioritization-framework/

Prioritization: Q3 Roadmap Candidates (Project-Management SaaS)

All reach, impact, effort, and confidence values below are illustrative [fictional] PM inputs for this scenario; replace them with your own estimates.

Applicability Filter Summary

We have reach, impact, effort, and confidence estimates per feature, so RICE and ICE both run. The decision also bounds Q3 scope, so MoSCoW runs as a commitment view. Weighted Scoring is excluded (no competing multi-stakeholder criteria were provided). Kano is excluded: no customer-research data was supplied. To unlock Kano, run a Kano survey on these six features.

Inputs Summary

Six Q3 candidate features with PM-supplied estimates. Reach is measured in affected users per quarter; effort in engineering-weeks. Confidence reflects how solid the estimates are.

Per-Framework Scoring

RICE

<!-- Score = (Reach Impact Confidence) / Effort -->

ICE

<!-- Score = Impact Confidence Ease, each 1-10 -->

MoSCoW (Q3 scope bound)

Per-Framework Ranking Output

Each scoring table above is sorted high to low, so the per-framework ranking is the row order shown (top item first, lowest last). The side-by-side rank positions, and the items where the frameworks disagree, are consolidated in the Cross-Framework Comparison below.

Cross-Framework Comparison

Divergent - SSO / SAML (RICE 4th, ICE 1st, MoSCoW Must): RICE's Reach term punishes SSO because it only touches 2,000 users. ICE has no reach term, so SSO's high per-user impact and high confidence push it to the top. MoSCoW agrees with ICE because the 2,000 users are concentrated, high-value enterprise accounts with blocked deals. The divergence reveals that RICE under-weights revenue-concentrated features. This is the most important finding in the analysis.

Divergent - Mobile offline (RICE 3rd, ICE 5th): RICE rewards the large reach (12,000); ICE penalizes the low Ease (3, an 8-week build). The driver is effort vs. reach.

Executive Summary with Recommendation

Fund Guest sharing and Bulk task editing first: they top both scored frameworks and are cheap, so they are unambiguous wins. Fund SSO / SAML despite its 4th-place RICE score - the RICE Reach term misleads here because the 2,000 affected users are enterprise accounts with revenue already blocked, which ICE and MoSCoW both surface. Defer AI task suggestions (all three frameworks agree it is not ready). The recommendation is robust except for SSO, whose ranking depends entirely on whether you weight raw reach (RICE) or strategic revenue concentration (ICE + MoSCoW); given the blocked deals, weight the latter.

Sensitivity / What Changes the Ranking

• If SSO's enterprise deals were not actually blocked, its Impact drops and it falls in ICE too, validating RICE's lower placement - so confirm the blocked-deal claim before committing.
• If Mobile offline's effort came in at 4 eng-weeks instead of 8, its RICE score doubles to 3,600 and it jumps to a clear Should.
• AI task suggestions stays last unless confidence rises above ~70%; a cheap spike to de-risk it would change its standing more than any other input.

Recommendations (Sequencing)

• Fund now: Guest sharing, Bulk task editing, SSO / SAML
• Fund if capacity allows: Custom dashboards
• Defer: Mobile offline (revisit if effort drops), AI task suggestions (revisit after a confidence-building spike)
• Data that would change this: Confirm the SSO blocked-deal value; re-estimate Mobile offline effort; run a spike on AI suggestions

Limitations and Biases

• RICE systematically under-ranks high-value, low-reach features (the SSO problem); do not let it auto-decide enterprise/strategic items.
• None of these frameworks measure sequencing dependencies (e.g., if SSO must ship before an enterprise launch). Pair this ranking with a roadmap view.
• All scores rest on PM estimates; the cross-framework agreement is only as good as those inputs.

Prioritization: [Decision Context]

Applicability Filter Summary

<!-- Which frameworks ran, which were excluded, and why. Note what would unlock an excluded framework. -->

• Ran: [e.g., RICE, ICE, MoSCoW]
• Excluded: [e.g., Kano - no customer research; Weighted Scoring - single criterion]

Inputs Summary

<!-- What you were given. Flag any missing or assumed input. -->

[Item list and available data per item; note assumptions]

Per-Framework Scoring

RICE

<!-- Score = (Reach Impact Confidence) / Effort -->

ICE

<!-- Score = Impact Confidence Ease, each 1-10 -->

MoSCoW

<!-- Add Weighted Scoring and/or Kano tables here only if those frameworks passed the applicability filter. -->

Per-Framework Ranking Output

<!-- For each scored framework, list items sorted high-to-low by score. With 5+ items, call out the top 5 and bottom 5 and name the score gap between them. (If the scoring tables above are already sorted, summarize the ranking here rather than repeating.) -->

• RICE ranking: [items sorted by score, high to low]
• ICE ranking: [items sorted by score, high to low]

Cross-Framework Comparison

<!-- Rank position per item across frameworks. Explain every Divergent row by naming the driving dimension. -->

Executive Summary with Recommendation

<!-- 3-5 sentences: what to prioritize, what to defer, what the key divergence means -->

[Recommendation]

Sensitivity / What Changes the Ranking

<!-- 2-3 cases where the order flips, focused on items near the cut line -->

• [If Confidence on Item X is wrong, then ...]
• [If Effort on Item Y doubles, then ...]

Recommendations (Sequencing)

• Fund now: [Items]
• Defer / drop: [Items]
• Data that would change this: [What to gather]

Limitations and Biases

<!-- What the frameworks do NOT measure; where they could mislead -->

• [Limitation 1]
• [Limitation 2]