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) ``` | Framework | Best For | Data Required | Time to Score | |-----------|----------|---------------|---------------| | RICE | Data-rich teams, steady-state prioritization | Analytics, user counts | 30-60 min | | WSJF | SAFe orgs, time-sensitive or regulated work | Relative estimates only | 15-30 min | | ICE | Startup speed, early validation, quick triage | None | 5-10 min | | MoSCoW | Scope negotiation, release planning | Stakeholder input | 1-2 hours | | Value-Effort | 2x2 visual, quick team alignment | None | 10-15 min | --- ## RICE ``` RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort ``` | Factor | Scale | Notes | |--------|-------|-------| | Reach | Actual users/quarter | Use analytics; do not estimate | | Impact | 0.25 / 0.5 / 1 / 2 / 3 | Minimal → Massive per user | | Confidence | 0.3 / 0.5 / 0.8 / 1.0 | Moonshot → Strong data | | Effort | Person-months | Include design, eng, QA | ```markdown ## 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](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. ```markdown ## 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](rules/prioritize-wsjf.md) for MoSCoW buckets and practical tips. See [references/wsjf-guide.md](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. ```markdown ## 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. ```markdown ## 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](rules/prioritize-opportunity-cost.md) for the Value-Effort Matrix and full trade-off template. See [references/rice-scoring-guide.md](references/rice-scoring-guide.md) for detailed RICE calibration. --- ## Common Pitfalls | Pitfall | Mitigation | |---------|------------| | Gaming scores to justify pre-decided work | Calibrate as a team; document assumptions | | Mixing frameworks in one table | Pick one framework per planning session | | Only tracking high-RICE items; ignoring cost of delay | Combine RICE with explicit delay cost analysis | | MoSCoW Must-Have bloat (>70% of scope) | Must-Haves alone must ship a viable product | | Comparing RICE scores across different goals | Only compare within the same objective | --- ## 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