Choosing What Comes First: A Guide to Prioritizing What to Build Next

Product Management Prioritization Frameworks: A Primer

In product management, effective prioritization is a linchpin of success. With limited resources, teams must choose what to build and when. But with so many competing ideas, it’s crucial to use a structured prioritization approach. Here’s an overview of popular prioritization frameworks, guidance on when each fits best, and a sense of what excellent prioritization looks like.

• RICE Scoring
  • RICE—short for Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort—is a scoring system that allows product teams to prioritize tasks based on their potential reach and impact, balanced by confidence in the outcome and effort required.
    • Reach measures the number of people impacted.
    • Impact gauges the potential impact on each user.
    • Confidence reflects how certain the team is about their reach and impact estimates.
    • Effort assesses the resources needed to complete the task.
  • When to Use: RICE works well in growth-stage companies needing to balance innovation and scalability. It’s particularly useful when resources are constrained, and every task needs a clear ROI assessment.
  • Maturity Stage: RICE is ideal for teams with a clear user base and when scaling is essential.
  • What Good Prioritization Looks Like with RICE: Teams focusing on high-impact, high-confidence projects with reasonable effort scores will maintain momentum while proving value consistently. Avoid tasks with low confidence unless they’re high-reward and low-effort.
• ICE Scoring
  • Similar to RICE, ICE stands for Impact, Confidence, and Ease. Here, Ease replaces Reach and assesses the simplicity of execution.
    • Impact indicates the potential outcome if successful.
    • Confidence shows certainty in the impact estimate.
    • Ease is a gauge of how simple or difficult the project is to execute.
  • When to Use: ICE is ideal for startup environments where quick decisions and rapid experimentation are necessary.
  • Maturity Stage: Early-stage companies benefit most from ICE, as it encourages quick wins and rapid iteration without needing extensive validation data.
  • What Good Prioritization Looks Like with ICE: Effective use of ICE prioritizes high-impact, easy-to-execute projects, especially in areas where there’s high confidence. This framework empowers teams to test, learn, and refine ideas before investing heavily.
• MoSCoW Method
  • The MoSCoW Method—Must-Have, Should-Have, Could-Have, Won’t Have—is an intuitive framework that categorizes items based on necessity rather than numerical scoring.
    • Must-Haves are critical for launch or project success.
    • Should-Haves add substantial value but aren’t critical.
    • Could-Haves are low-priority nice-to-haves.
    • Won’t Haves are tasks deprioritized for now.
  • When to Use: MoSCoW is helpful when deadlines are fixed, such as with new feature launches or seasonal releases.
  • Maturity Stage: The method works at any company maturity level but is particularly useful for mid-sized companies with established roadmaps needing fine-tuning.
  • What Good Prioritization Looks Like with MoSCoW: Effective prioritization here focuses on what must be done while identifying areas to revisit later, ensuring no energy is wasted on lower-priority elements.
• Kano Model
  • The Kano Model helps teams understand the relationship between customer satisfaction and investment in a feature, dividing features into categories like Basic Needs, Performance Needs, and Delighters.
    • Basic Needs are features users expect; their absence causes dissatisfaction.
    • Performance Needs improve satisfaction linearly.
    • Delighters add unexpected joy and brand loyalty.
    • When to Use: Use the Kano Model when prioritizing features to improve customer satisfaction or loyalty, especially if you want to avoid feature bloat.
  • Maturity Stage: Great for early and mid-stage companies with a firm user base. It’s particularly effective when the goal is to surprise and delight existing customers.
  • What Good Prioritization Looks Like with the Kano Model: A good prioritization mix includes basic needs to prevent dissatisfaction, performance features to meet expectations, and strategic delighters to outshine competitors.
• Value vs. Effort Matrix
  • The Value vs. Effort Matrix is a simple but powerful tool that maps features according to value (impact) and effort (resource investment). It identifies Quick Wins (high-value, low-effort), Big Bets (high-value, high-effort), Fill-ins (low-value, low-effort), and Time Sinks (low-value, high-effort).
  • When to Use: Great for small or resource-constrained teams needing to maximize impact without overcommitting.
  • Maturity Stage: Suitable at any company stage; however, early and growth-stage startups can especially benefit due to limited resources.
  • What Good Prioritization Looks Like with the Value vs. Effort Matrix: Teams focus first on Quick Wins and selectively choose Big Bets. Avoiding Time Sinks prevents waste, while Fill-ins keep minor improvements on the radar without diverting too many resources.
• Weighted Scoring Model
  • The Weighted Scoring Model assigns values to tasks based on multiple weighted criteria (e.g., customer value, revenue potential, strategic alignment).
  • When to Use: This method works well in companies with complex strategies where prioritization must align closely with business goals.
  • Maturity Stage: Best for mature companies with defined strategies that need to prioritize competing initiatives.
  • What Good Prioritization Looks Like with Weighted Scoring: Tasks that align with strategic goals and have clear business benefits will be prioritized, ensuring resources are directed toward initiatives that fulfill high-level objectives.
• Opportunity Scoring (or Opportunity/Solution Tree)
  • Opportunity Scoring, part of the Opportunity/Solution Tree framework, focuses on scoring features or tasks based on how well they address core customer needs or problems.
  • When to Use: Best for teams exploring new markets or new features in response to user feedback.
  • Maturity Stage: Ideal for mature companies with a solid customer base and product-market fit, especially those investing in continuous customer feedback loops.
  • What Good Prioritization Looks Like with Opportunity Scoring: Teams focus on initiatives that solve the biggest customer pain points. Prioritization efforts reveal a deep commitment to customer needs over vanity features.

When to Use Which Framework

• Early-Stage Startups: Frameworks like ICE, Value vs. Effort Matrix, and MoSCoW are ideal, emphasizing rapid experimentation and quick wins.
• Growth-Stage Companies: RICE, Kano, and Value vs. Effort are valuable as teams scale and must maximize ROI and customer satisfaction.
• Mature Companies: Weighted Scoring, RICE, and Opportunity Scoring offer the depth needed for complex prioritization in line with strategic objectives.

What Good Prioritization Looks Like

Effective prioritization:

• Aligns with Strategic Goals: Initiatives tie back to clear business objectives.
• Balances Quick Wins and Strategic Projects: Quick wins keep momentum; big projects drive long-term success.
• Responds to Customer Needs: Customer feedback and satisfaction are front and center.
• Optimizes for ROI: Resource investment is carefully balanced with expected returns.

Wrapping up…

In any stage of growth, choosing a prioritization framework that aligns with company goals, team size, and market position is essential. Effective prioritization isn’t just about what’s next on the list; it’s a deliberate strategy to drive growth and customer loyalty.