/prioritization-methods

name: prioritization-methods
description: "RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, Kano, and Value vs Effort prioritization frameworks. Use when prioritizing features, ranking a backlog, scoping an MVP, or making trade-off decisions. Trigger on: 'prioritize my features', 'RICE scoring', 'what should I build first', 'rank my backlog', 'MVP scoping'."

Prioritization Methods & Frameworks

Overview

Data-driven frameworks for feature prioritization, backlog ranking, and MVP scoping. Choose the right framework based on your context: data availability, team size, and decision type.

When to Use This Skill

**Auto-loaded by agents**:

• `feature-prioritizer` - For RICE/ICE scoring, MVP scoping, and backlog ranking

**Use when you need**:

• Choosing between competing features
• Building quarterly roadmaps
• Backlog prioritization
• Saying "no" with evidence
• Clear prioritization decisions
• Resource allocation decisions
• MVP scoping decisions

---

Seven Core Frameworks

1. RICE Scoring (Intercom)

**Formula**: (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort

**Best for**: Large backlogs (20+ items) with quantitative data

**Components**:

• **Reach**: Users impacted per quarter
• **Impact**: 0.25 (minimal) to 3 (massive)
• **Confidence**: 50% (low data) to 100% (high data)
• **Effort**: Person-months to ship

**Example**:

Dark Mode: (10,000 × 2.0 × 0.80) / 1.5 = 10,667

**When to use**: Post-PMF with metrics, need defendable priorities, data-driven culture

**Template**: `assets/rice-scoring-template.md`

---

2. ICE Scoring (Sean Ellis)

**Formula**: (Impact + Confidence + Ease) / 3

**Best for**: Quick experiments, early-stage products, limited data

**Components** (each 1-10):

• **Impact**: How much will this move the needle?
• **Confidence**: How sure are we?
• **Ease**: How simple to implement?

**Example**:

Email Notifications: (8 + 9 + 7) / 3 = 8.0

**When to use**: Growth experiments, startups, need speed over rigor

**Template**: `assets/ice-scoring-template.md`

---

3. Value vs Effort Matrix (2×2)

**Quadrants**:

• **Quick Wins** (high value, low effort) - Do first
• **Big Bets** (high value, high effort) - Strategic
• **Fill-Ins** (low value, low effort) - If capacity
• **Time Sinks** (low value, high effort) - Avoid

**Best for**: Visual presentations, portfolio planning, quick assessments

**When to use**: Clear communication, strategic planning, need visualization

**Template**: `assets/value-effort-matrix-template.md`

---

4. MoSCoW Method

**Categories**:

• **Must Have** (60%) - Critical for launch
• **Should Have** (20%) - Important but not critical
• **Could Have** (20%) - Nice-to-have
• **Won't Have** - Explicitly out of scope

**Best for**: MVP scoping, release planning, clear scope decisions

**When to use**: Fixed timeline, need to cut scope, binary go/no-go decisions

**Template**: `assets/moscow-prioritization-template.md`

---

5. Kano Model

**Categories**:

• **Basic Needs (Must-Be)**: Expected, dissatisfiers if absent
• **Performance Needs**: More is better, linear satisfaction
• **Excitement Needs (Delighters)**: Unexpected joy
• **Indifferent**: Users don't care
• **Reverse**: Users prefer without it

**Best for**: Understanding user expectations, competitive positioning, roadmap sequencing

**When to use**: Strategic planning, differentiation strategy, multi-release planning

**Template**: `assets/kano-model-template.md`

---

6. Weighted Scoring

**Process**:

1. Define criteria (User Value, Revenue, Strategic Fit, Effort) 2. Assign weights (must sum to 100%) 3. Score features (1-10) on each criterion 4. Calculate weighted score

**Example**:

Criteria: User Value 40%, Revenue 30%, Strategic 20%, Ease 10%
Feature: (8 × 0.40) + (6 × 0.30) + (9 × 0.20) + (5 × 0.10) = 7.3

**Best for**: Multiple criteria, complex trade-offs, custom needs

**When to use**: Balancing priorities, transparent decisions

**Template**: `assets/weighted-scoring-template.md`

---

7. Opportunity Scoring (Jobs-to-be-Done)

**Formula**: Importance + Max(Importance - Satisfaction, 0)

**Process**:

1. Identify customer jobs (outcomes, not features) 2. Survey: Rate importance (1-5) and satisfaction (1-5) 3. Calculate opportunity = importance + gap 4. Prioritize high-opportunity jobs (>7.0)

**Best for**: Outcome-driven innovation, understanding underserved needs, feature gap analysis

**When to use**: JTBD methodology, finding innovation opportunities, validation

**Template**: `assets/opportunity-scoring-template.md`

---

Choosing the Right Framework

**Need speed?** → ICE (fastest)

**Have user data?** → RICE (most rigorous)

**Visual presentation?** → Value/Effort (clear visualization)

**MVP scoping?** → MoSCoW (forces cuts)

**User expectations?** → Kano (strategic insights)

**Complex criteria?** → Weighted Scoring (custom)

**Outcome-focused?** → Opportunity Scoring (JTBD)

**Detailed comparison**: `references/framework-selection-guide.md`

Complete decision tree, framework comparison table, combining strategies

---

Best Practices

**1. Be Consistent**

• Use same framework across team
• Document assumptions explicitly
• Update scores as you learn

**2. Combine Frameworks**

• RICE for ranking + Value/Effort for visualization
• MoSCoW for release + RICE for roadmap
• Kano for strategy + ICE for tactics

**3. Avoid Common Pitfalls**

• Don't prioritize by HiPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion)
• Don't ignore effort (value alone insufficient)
• Don't set-and-forget (re-prioritize regularly)
• Don't game the system (honest scoring)

**4. Clear Communication**

• Show your work (transparent criteria)
• Visualize priorities clearly
• Explain trade-offs explicitly
• Document "why not" for rejected items

**5. Iterate and Learn**

• Track actual vs estimated impact
• Refine scoring over time
• Calibrate team estimates
• Learn from misses

---

Templates and References

Assets (Ready-to-Use Templates)

Copy-paste these for immedi