prioritization-frameworks（优先顺序框架）

Prioritization Framework Expert

Overview

A comprehensive reference to 9 prioritization frameworks with automated scoring, ranking, and guidance on which framework to use in which situation. The core principle: prioritize problems (opportunities), not features. Features are solutions to problems. If you prioritize features directly, you skip the step of understanding whether the problem is worth solving.

When to Use

• Backlog Grooming -- Too many items, need to rank them objectively.
• Quarterly Planning -- Deciding which initiatives to invest in.
• Stakeholder Alignment -- Need a structured way to resolve competing priorities.
• Feature Triage -- Quick sorting of a long list into actionable categories.

Framework Decision Tree

Use this to pick the right framework for your situation:

START: What are you prioritizing?
  |
  +-- Customer problems/opportunities
  |     -> Opportunity Score (recommended)
  |
  +-- Features or initiatives
  |     |
  |     +-- Need a quick sort (< 15 items)?
  |     |     -> ICE or Impact vs Effort
  |     |
  |     +-- Need rigorous scoring (15+ items)?
  |     |     -> RICE
  |     |
  |     +-- Need stakeholder buy-in on criteria?
  |     |     -> Weighted Decision Matrix
  |     |
  |     +-- Need to categorize requirements?
  |           -> MoSCoW
  |
  +-- Personal PM tasks
  |     -> Eisenhower Matrix
  |
  +-- High-uncertainty initiatives
  |     -> Risk vs Reward
  |
  +-- Understanding user expectations (not prioritizing)
        -> Kano Model

The 9 Frameworks

1. Opportunity Score (Recommended for Customer Problems)

Source: Dan Olsen, *Lean Product Playbook*

Formula: Score = Importance x (1 - Satisfaction)

• Importance (0-10): How important is this problem to the customer?
• Satisfaction (0-1): How well do existing solutions satisfy this need? (0 = not at all, 1 = perfectly)

Why it works: It identifies the biggest gaps between what customers need and what they currently have. High importance + low satisfaction = high opportunity.

Example:

"Finding products quickly" scores highest because it is very important and poorly solved today.

2. ICE -- Impact x Confidence x Ease

Best for: Quick prioritization of a short list (under 15 items).

Formula: Score = Impact x Confidence x Ease

All three scored 1-10:

• Impact: How much will this move the target metric?
• Confidence: How sure are we about the impact estimate?
• Ease: How easy is this to implement? (10 = trivial, 1 = massive effort)

Strengths: Fast, simple, includes uncertainty. Weakness: Subjective. Different people give different scores. Best used as a starting point for discussion, not a final answer.

3. RICE -- (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort

Best for: Rigorous prioritization of a longer list.

Formula: Score = (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort

• Reach: How many users/customers will this affect in a given time period? (number)
• Impact: How much will it affect each user? (3 = massive, 2 = high, 1 = medium, 0.5 = low, 0.25 = minimal)
• Confidence: How sure are we? (100% = high, 80% = medium, 50% = low)
• Effort: Person-months of work required (number)

Strengths: Reach adds a dimension that ICE misses. Effort is estimated in real units, not abstract scores. Weakness: Requires more data (reach estimates, effort sizing).

4. Eisenhower Matrix

Best for: Personal task management for PMs, not product prioritization.

Quadrants:

• Q1 (Do First): Crisis, deadline-driven. Handle immediately.
• Q2 (Schedule): Strategic work, planning, prevention. This is where PMs should spend most of their time.
• Q3 (Delegate): Interruptions, some meetings, some emails. Hand off if possible.
• Q4 (Eliminate): Time-wasters, unnecessary meetings. Stop doing these.

5. Impact vs Effort (2x2 Matrix)

Best for: Quick visual triage in a group setting.

Quadrants:

How to use: Plot items on a whiteboard. Discuss placement. The conversation matters more than the exact position.

6. Risk vs Reward

Best for: Initiatives with significant uncertainty.

Extension of Impact vs Effort that adds an uncertainty dimension:

• Reward = Expected impact if successful
• Risk = Probability of failure x cost of failure

Quadrants:

7. Kano Model

Best for: Understanding customer expectations. Not for prioritization directly.

Categories:

• Must-Be (Basic): Customers expect these. Absence causes dissatisfaction. Presence does not cause delight. (Example: a login page works.)
• One-Dimensional (Performance): More is better, linearly. (Example: faster page loads = happier users.)
• Attractive (Delighters): Unexpected features that create excitement. Absence does not cause dissatisfaction. (Example: automatic dark mode based on system setting.)
• Indifferent: Customers do not care either way.
• Reverse: Some customers actively dislike this feature.

Use Kano to understand, then use another framework (RICE, ICE) to prioritize.

8. Weighted Decision Matrix

Best for: Multi-factor decisions that need stakeholder buy-in.

Process:

1. Define criteria (e.g., customer impact, revenue potential, technical feasibility, strategic alignment).
2. Assign weights to each criterion (must sum to 100%).
3. Score each option against each criterion (1-5 or 1-10).
4. Multiply scores by weights and sum.
5. Rank by total weighted score.

Strengths: Transparent, auditable, gets stakeholders to agree on criteria before scoring. Weakness: Time-consuming. Best for 5-10 high-stakes decisions, not 50-item backlogs.

9. MoSCoW

Best for: Requirements categorization within a fixed scope.

Categories:

• Must Have: Non-negotiable. Without these, the release has no value.
• Should Have: Important but not critical. Painful to leave out but the release still works.
• Could Have: Desirable. Include if time and resources allow.
• Won't Have (this time): Explicitly out of scope. Acknowledged but deferred.

Rule of thumb: Must-Haves should be no more than 60% of the total effort. If everything is a Must-Have, nothing is.

Core Principle: Prioritize Problems, Not Features

Features are solutions. Problems are what matter. Two teams can build different features to solve the same problem. If you prioritize features, you lock in a solution before understanding the problem space.

Workflow:

1. List customer problems (use Opportunity Score to rank them).
2. Pick the top problems to solve.
3. Generate multiple solution ideas for each problem.
4. Prioritize solutions using RICE or ICE.
5. Build the highest-scoring solutions.

This two-step approach (prioritize problems, then prioritize solutions) produces better outcomes than a single pass over a feature list.

Tools

Supported frameworks: rice, ice, opportunity, moscow, weighted

Troubleshooting

Success Criteria

• Prioritization framework selected using the Decision Tree, not by habit or preference
• All items scored with consistent definitions for each dimension (documented before scoring begins)
• Results reviewed and discussed as a team, not treated as a mechanical ranking
• Top-priority items have clear next steps (assigned to sprints, PRDs, or experiments)
• Prioritization is repeated at least quarterly, or when significant new information arrives
• The two-step approach is followed: prioritize problems first (Opportunity Score), then prioritize solutions (RICE/ICE)
• MoSCoW Must-Haves never exceed 60% of total effort for a release

Scope & Limitations

In Scope:

• 9 prioritization frameworks with scoring, ranking, and explanation (RICE, ICE, Opportunity Score, Eisenhower, Impact vs. Effort, Risk vs. Reward, Kano, Weighted Decision Matrix, MoSCoW)
• Automated scoring and ranking for RICE, ICE, Opportunity Score, MoSCoW, and Weighted Decision Matrix
• Framework selection guidance via Decision Tree
• Demo data for each framework to illustrate input/output formats

Out of Scope:

• Real-time Jira/Linear backlog integration (manual JSON input required)
• Cost-of-delay or WSJF calculations (see senior-pm/ skill for SAFe portfolio prioritization)
• User research to gather importance/satisfaction data for Opportunity Score (see product-team/ skills)
• Strategic portfolio allocation decisions (see senior-pm/ skill)

Important Caveats:

• No framework produces a "correct" answer. Prioritization frameworks are decision-support tools that structure conversation, not algorithms that replace judgment.
• RICE and ICE are best for data-rich environments. If your reach and impact estimates are pure guesses, the precision of the formula is misleading.
• The most successful teams combine frameworks: start with Opportunity Score to identify the right problems, then use RICE to rank solutions. Single-framework teams often prioritize solutions to the wrong problems.
• For teams with 50+ people or multiple stakeholder groups, use WSJF or Weighted Decision Matrix with agreed criteria to ensure buy-in.

Integration Points

Tool Reference

prioritization_scorer.py

Scores and ranks items using 5 supported prioritization frameworks. Outputs sorted results with scores, formulas, and category breakdowns.

Input JSON schema by framework:

• RICE: {"items": [{"name": "...", "reach": N, "impact": N, "confidence": N, "effort": N}]}
• ICE: {"items": [{"name": "...", "impact": N, "confidence": N, "ease": N}]}
• Opportunity: {"items": [{"name": "...", "importance": N, "satisfaction": N}]}
• MoSCoW: {"items": [{"name": "...", "category": "must|should|could|wont", "effort": N}]}
• Weighted: {"items": [{"name": "...", "scores": {"criterion": N}}], "criteria": [{"name": "...", "weight": N}]}

References

• references/prioritization-guide.md -- Detailed formulas, decision tree, and facilitation tips
• assets/prioritization_matrix_template.md -- Scoring templates for each framework