Prioritization

Prioritization Frameworks

Score, rank, and justify backlog decisions using the right framework for the situation.

Decision Tree: Which Framework to Use

Do you have a hard deadline or regulatory pressure?
  YES → WSJF (Cost of Delay drives sequencing)
  NO  → Do you have reach/usage data?
          YES → RICE (data-driven, accounts for user reach)
          NO  → Are you in a time-boxed planning session?
                  YES → ICE (fast, 1-10 scales, no data required)
                  NO  → Is this a scope negotiation with stakeholders?
                          YES → MoSCoW (bucket features, control scope creep)
                          NO  → Value-Effort Matrix (quick 2x2 triage)

---

RICE

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

## RICE Scoring: [Feature Name]

| Feature     | Reach  | Impact | Confidence | Effort | Score  |
|-------------|--------|--------|------------|--------|--------|
| Smart search| 50,000 | 2      | 0.8        | 3      | 26,667 |
| CSV export  | 10,000 | 0.5    | 1.0        | 0.5    | 10,000 |
| Dark mode   | 30,000 | 0.25   | 1.0        | 1      |  7,500 |

See rules/prioritize-rice.md for ICE, Kano, and full scale tables.

---

WSJF

WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Size
Cost of Delay = User Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction  (1-21 Fibonacci each)

Higher WSJF = do first. Fibonacci scale (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21) forces relative sizing.

## WSJF: GDPR Compliance Update

User Value:       8   (required for EU customers)
Time Criticality: 21  (regulatory deadline this quarter)
Risk Reduction:   13  (avoids significant fines)
Job Size:          8  (medium complexity)

Cost of Delay = 8 + 21 + 13 = 42
WSJF = 42 / 8 = 5.25

See rules/prioritize-wsjf.md for MoSCoW buckets and practical tips. See references/wsjf-guide.md for the full scoring guide.

---

ICE

ICE Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease    (all factors 1-10)

No user data required. Score relative to other backlog items. Useful for early-stage products and rapid triage sessions.

---

MoSCoW

Bucket features before estimation. Must-Haves alone should ship a viable product.

## Release 1.0 MoSCoW

### Must Have (~60% of effort)
- [ ] User authentication
- [ ] Core CRUD operations

### Should Have (~20%)
- [ ] Search, export, notifications

### Could Have (~20%)
- [ ] Dark mode, keyboard shortcuts

### Won't Have (documented out-of-scope)
- Mobile app (Release 2.0)
- AI features (Release 2.0)

---

Opportunity Cost & Trade-Off Analysis

When two items compete for the same team capacity, quantify what delaying each item costs per month.

## Trade-Off: AI Search vs Platform Migration (Q2 eng team)

### Option A: AI Search
- Cost of Delay: $25K/month (competitive risk)
- RICE Score: 18,000
- Effort: 6 weeks

### Option B: Platform Migration
- Cost of Delay: $5K/month (tech debt interest)
- RICE Score: 4,000
- Effort: 8 weeks

### Recommendation
Human decides. Key factors:
1. Q2 OKR: Increase trial-to-paid conversion (favors AI Search)
2. Engineering capacity: Only one team, sequential not parallel
3. Customer commitment: No contractual deadline for either

See rules/prioritize-opportunity-cost.md for the Value-Effort Matrix and full trade-off template. See references/rice-scoring-guide.md for detailed RICE calibration.

---

Common Pitfalls

---

Related Skills

• product-frameworks — Full PM toolkit (value prop, market sizing, competitive analysis, user research, business case)
• write-prd — Convert prioritized features into product requirements documents
• product-analytics — Define and instrument the metrics that feed RICE reach/impact scores
• okr-design — Set the objectives that determine which KPIs drive RICE impact scoring
• market-sizing — TAM/SAM/SOM analysis that informs strategic priority
• competitive-analysis — Competitor context that raises or lowers WSJF time criticality scores

---

Version: 1.0.0

RICE Scoring Guide

Comprehensive guide for using RICE prioritization effectively.

RICE Formula

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

Reach Scoring

Estimate how many users/customers will be affected per quarter.

Calculating Reach

Reach = (Users affected) / (Total users) × 10

Example:
- Total MAU: 10,000
- Users who use search: 8,000
- Reach for search improvement: 8,000/10,000 × 10 = 8

Impact Scoring

How much will this move the needle on your goal?

Impact Assessment Questions

1. What metric does this affect? 2. By how much will it change? 3. What's the baseline? 4. What's the target?

Confidence Scoring

How certain are you about Reach and Impact estimates?

Confidence Calibration

• Used similar feature before? → +0.2
• Have user research? → +0.2
• Have analytics data? → +0.2
• New domain/technology? → -0.2
• Many unknowns? → -0.2

Effort Scoring

Person-weeks of work to ship (design, development, testing).

Effort Estimation Tips

• Include all disciplines (design, eng, QA)
• Add buffer for unknowns (1.2-1.5x)
• Consider dependencies
• Account for coordination overhead

Example Scoring

## Feature: Advanced Search Filters

### Reach: 8
- 80% of users use search at least once/week
- Source: Analytics dashboard

### Impact: 2.0
- Support tickets about search: 40/week
- Expected reduction: 50%
- Secondary: +10% search completion rate

### Confidence: 0.8
- Have user interview data (5 users)
- Similar feature at competitor successful
- No A/B test yet

### Effort: 2
- Design: 0.5 weeks
- Backend: 1 week
- Frontend: 0.5 weeks

### RICE Score
(8 × 2.0 × 0.8) / 2 = 6.4

Common Mistakes

When NOT to Use RICE

• Mandatory compliance/security work
• Technical debt paydown
• Infrastructure investments
• Strategic bets with long payoff

WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First) Guide

Framework for prioritizing when time-to-market matters.

WSJF Formula

WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Size

Higher WSJF = Higher priority (do first)

Cost of Delay Components

Cost of Delay = User Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction

User Value (1-10)

How much do users need this?

Time Criticality (1-10)

How urgent is the timing?

Risk Reduction (1-10)

Does delay increase risk?

Job Size (1-10)

Relative size compared to other work.

Example Calculation

## Feature: Security Patch for CVE

### User Value: 6
- Affects enterprise customers
- Not user-facing but required for compliance

### Time Criticality: 9
- CVE published, 90-day disclosure window
- Competitors already patched

### Risk Reduction: 10
- Active exploitation in the wild
- Potential data breach

### Cost of Delay: 6 + 9 + 10 = 25

### Job Size: 3
- Known fix, straightforward implementation
- ~1 week of work

### WSJF: 25 / 3 = 8.33

When to Use WSJF

• Multiple time-sensitive items competing
• Opportunity windows exist
• Dependencies create bottlenecks
• Need to justify "why now"

WSJF vs RICE

Visualization

              HIGH Time Criticality
                      │
           ┌──────────┼──────────┐
           │    DO    │   DO     │
           │   FIRST  │  SECOND  │
HIGH ──────┼──────────┼──────────┼────── LOW
User Value │    DO    │   DO     │  User Value
           │  THIRD   │  LAST    │
           └──────────┼──────────┘
                      │
              LOW Time Criticality

Rule Categories

1. RICE & ICE Scoring (prioritize) — HIGH — 1 rule

RICE scoring with reach, impact, confidence, effort scales. ICE quick scoring variant.

• prioritize-rice.md — Quantitative feature scoring with calibration guidance

2. WSJF & MoSCoW (prioritize) — HIGH — 1 rule

WSJF cost of delay formula, time criticality, MoSCoW scope negotiation.

• prioritize-wsjf.md — SAFe-aligned prioritization and scope categorization

3. Opportunity Cost (prioritize) — HIGH — 1 rule

Value-effort matrix, cost of delay analysis, trade-off flagging.

• prioritize-opportunity-cost.md — Opportunity cost quantification and trade-off frameworks

Opportunity Cost & Trade-Off Analysis

Patterns for making prioritization decisions that account for what you give up, not just what you gain. Complements RICE and WSJF scoring with opportunity cost reasoning.

Value-Effort Matrix

A 2x2 matrix for rapid feature sequencing based on expected value and required effort.

               HIGH VALUE
                   |
    Do Next        |     Do First
    (High value,   |     (High value,
     high effort)  |      low effort)
                   |
  -----------------+-----------------
                   |
    Consider       |     Quick Win
    (Low value,    |     (Low value,
     high effort)  |      low effort)
                   |
               LOW VALUE
  HIGH EFFORT                LOW EFFORT

Scoring for Placement

• Value (1-10): Combine user impact, strategic alignment, revenue potential
• Effort (1-10): Engineering weeks, cross-team coordination, risk
• Threshold: Value >= 6 is "high value", Effort >= 6 is "high effort"

Cost of Delay Analysis

Quantify what it costs to NOT do something each time period it is delayed.

## Cost of Delay: [Feature Name]

### Revenue Impact
- Lost revenue per month of delay: $X
- Source: [Pipeline data, churn analysis, competitive loss]

### User Impact
- Users affected: N
- Workaround cost per user per month: X hours

### Strategic Impact
- Competitive window closes in: N months
- Regulatory deadline: [date or N/A]

### Total Cost of Delay
$X/month (quantified) + [qualitative strategic cost]

Delay Cost Categories

Trade-Off Flagging Template

When two options compete for the same resources, surface the trade-off explicitly for human decision-makers. Do not make the call -- present the data.

## Trade-Off: [Decision Title]

### Context
[Why this trade-off exists -- shared resources, timeline conflict, etc.]

### Option A: [Name]
- **Pros:** [List 2-3 concrete benefits with data]
- **Cons:** [List 2-3 concrete downsides with data]
- **RICE Score:** [If available]
- **Cost of Delay:** [$/month]

### Option B: [Name]
- **Pros:** [List 2-3 concrete benefits with data]
- **Cons:** [List 2-3 concrete downsides with data]
- **RICE Score:** [If available]
- **Cost of Delay:** [$/month]

### Recommendation
Human decides. Key factors to weigh:
1. [Factor 1 -- e.g., Q2 OKR alignment]
2. [Factor 2 -- e.g., team capacity next sprint]
3. [Factor 3 -- e.g., customer commitment]

Sequencing Principles

When features have dependencies or shared resources, use these sequencing rules:

1. Highest cost-of-delay first -- unless blocked by dependencies 2. Unblock others early -- a low-value enabler that unblocks 3 high-value items ships first 3. Reduce risk early -- unknowns first, known work later (fail fast) 4. Batch small items -- group Quick Wins into a single sprint to clear the backlog

Incorrect -- prioritizing by gut feel:

Priority list:
1. AI search (CEO wants it)
2. Dashboard redesign (designer is excited)
3. CSV import (seems easy)

Correct -- opportunity cost matrix with explicit trade-offs:

Priority list (by cost of delay):
1. CSV import -- $30K/month blocked deals, 1 week effort (Do First)
2. AI search -- $25K/month competitive risk, 6 week effort (Do Next)
3. Dashboard redesign -- $0 cost of delay, nice-to-have (Consider)

Trade-off flagged: AI search vs platform migration for same
eng team in Q2. See trade-off analysis doc for decision.

RICE & ICE Prioritization

RICE Framework

Developed by Intercom for data-driven feature comparison.

Formula

RICE Score = (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort

Factors

Impact Scale

Confidence Scale

Example Calculation

Feature: Smart search with AI suggestions

Reach: 50,000 users/quarter (active searchers)
Impact: 2 (high - significantly better results)
Confidence: 0.8 (tested in prototype)
Effort: 3 person-months

RICE = (50,000 x 2 x 0.8) / 3 = 26,667

RICE Scoring Template

ICE Framework

Simpler than RICE, ideal for fast prioritization.

ICE Score = Impact x Confidence x Ease

All factors on 1-10 scale.

ICE vs RICE

Kano Model

Categorize features by customer satisfaction impact.

Framework Selection Guide

Common Pitfalls

Incorrect — RICE without documented assumptions:

Feature A: RICE = 8,000
Feature B: RICE = 12,500
Priority: B, then A

Correct — RICE with transparent scoring:

Feature B: Smart search with AI
- Reach: 50,000 users/quarter (active searchers)
- Impact: 2 (high - significantly better results)
- Confidence: 0.8 (tested in prototype)
- Effort: 3 person-months
RICE = (50,000 × 2 × 0.8) / 3 = 26,667

WSJF & MoSCoW Prioritization

WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First)

SAFe framework optimizing for economic value delivery.

Formula

WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Size

Higher WSJF = Higher priority (do first)

Cost of Delay Components

Cost of Delay = User Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction

Time Criticality Guidelines

Example

Feature: GDPR compliance update

User Value: 8 (required for EU customers)
Time Criticality: 21 (regulatory deadline)
Risk Reduction: 13 (avoids fines)
Job Size: 8 (medium complexity)

Cost of Delay = 8 + 21 + 13 = 42
WSJF = 42 / 8 = 5.25

WSJF vs RICE

MoSCoW Method

Qualitative prioritization for scope management.

Categories

Application Rules

1. Must Have items alone should deliver a viable product 2. Should Have items make product competitive 3. Could Have items delight users 4. Won't Have prevents scope creep

Template

## Release 1.0 MoSCoW

### Must Have (M)
- [ ] User authentication
- [ ] Core data model
- [ ] Basic CRUD operations

### Should Have (S)
- [ ] Search functionality
- [ ] Export to CSV
- [ ] Email notifications

### Could Have (C)
- [ ] Dark mode
- [ ] Keyboard shortcuts
- [ ] Custom themes

### Won't Have (W)
- Mobile app (Release 2.0)
- AI recommendations (Release 2.0)
- Multi-language support (Release 3.0)

Practical Tips

1. Calibrate together: Score several items as a team to align understanding 2. Revisit regularly: Priorities shift -- rescore quarterly 3. Document assumptions: Why did you give that Impact score? 4. Combine frameworks: Use ICE for quick triage, RICE for final decisions

Incorrect — MoSCoW without viable Must-Have set:

Must Have:
- User auth, CRUD, search, export, AI features,
  mobile app, analytics, notifications (90% of scope)

[Product not viable with just Must-Have items]

Correct — Must-Have delivers viable product:

Must Have (60% of effort):
- User authentication
- Core data model
- Basic CRUD operations

Should Have (20%):
- Search, export, notifications

Could Have (20%):
- Dark mode, keyboard shortcuts