Apply RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, Kano, and Value vs Effort frameworks. Use when prioritizing features, roadmap planning, or making trade-off decisions.
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.
Auto-loaded by agents:
feature-prioritizer - For RICE/ICE scoring, MVP scoping, and backlog rankingUse when you need:
Formula: (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
Best for: Large backlogs (20+ items) with quantitative data
Components:
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
Formula: (Impact + Confidence + Ease) / 3
Best for: Quick experiments, early-stage products, limited data
Components (each 1-10):
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
Quadrants:
Best for: Visual presentations, portfolio planning, quick assessments
When to use: Clear communication, strategic planning, need visualization
Template: assets/value-effort-matrix-template.md
Categories:
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
Categories:
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
Process:
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
Formula: Importance + Max(Importance - Satisfaction, 0)
Process:
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
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
1. Be Consistent
2. Combine Frameworks
3. Avoid Common Pitfalls
4. Clear Communication
5. Iterate and Learn
Copy-paste these for immediate use:
assets/rice-scoring-template.md - Reach × Impact × Confidence / Effortassets/ice-scoring-template.md - Impact + Confidence + Ease / 3assets/value-effort-matrix-template.md - 2×2 visualizationassets/moscow-prioritization-template.md - Must/Should/Could/Won'tassets/kano-model-template.md - Expectation analysisassets/weighted-scoring-template.md - Custom criteria scoringassets/opportunity-scoring-template.md - Jobs-to-be-done prioritizationWhen you need comprehensive guidance:
references/framework-selection-guide.md - Choose the right framework, comparison table, combining strategies, decision treeProblem: Too many features, limited resources
Solution: Use prioritization framework
Context-Based Selection:
├─ Lots of data? → RICE
├─ Need speed? → ICE
├─ Visual presentation? → Value/Effort
├─ MVP scoping? → MoSCoW
├─ User expectations? → Kano
├─ Complex criteria? → Weighted Scoring
└─ Outcome-focused? → Opportunity Scoring
Always: Document, communicate, iterate
Books:
Tools:
Articles:
"Everything scores the same priority": Your scoring criteria are too coarse. Increase granularity -- use 1-10 instead of 1-5. Or you're not differentiating on Effort enough. Recalibrate by anchoring your highest and lowest items first, then score the rest relative to those.
"Stakeholders disagree on scores": Use the framework as a discussion tool, not a calculator. When scores diverge, the value is in surfacing the disagreement, not resolving it with math. Have stakeholders defend their scores, then converge.
"I don't know which framework to pick": Start with RICE. It's the most widely applicable. Switch to Kano if you need to understand customer delight vs. expectations, or MoSCoW if you need a quick yes/no cut for a deadline.
roadmap-frameworks - Turn priorities into roadmapsspecification-techniques - Spec prioritized featuresproduct-positioning - Strategic positioning and differentiationKey Principle: Choose one framework, use it consistently, iterate. Don't over-analyze - prioritization should enable decisions, not paralyze them.
