Decoding Prioritization Frameworks in Product Management
As product managers in the Tech field, we are responsible for making tough decisions about which features or projects to focus on, all while considering limited resources and time constraints. To help with these tasks, many prioritization approaches exist.
However, recently, there have been so many approaches and so many guides for choosing from a variety of different frameworks that I decided to conduct a brief analysis and present a way to systematize them, hoping this will aid in navigating among the methodologies.
In this article, we will examine the most popular prioritization techniques and also dig into the very essence of how most of them function, trying to understand why fundamentals are more important than frameworks themselves.
Importance and issues of prioritization frameworks
Prioritization is an important aspect of product management for several reasons. First and foremost, it ensures the efficient allocation of effort. With limited time, money, and personnel, it is essential to prioritize tasks and features to maximize impact. Prioritization also helps align product development with overall business goals. By focusing on high-impact projects, you can ensure that your product strategy aligns with the company’s objectives.
However, in the world of product management, numerous techniques are designed to standardize the execution of prioritization. Such eclecticism results in numerous methods, often remarkably similar to each other, leading to confusion. This underscores the importance of understanding the underlying principles of these techniques, rather than just memorizing them.
In my interpretation, popular prioritization methods can be categorized into two main types: Those that offer prioritization based on a visual scale, and those that offer prioritization based on a single score. Let’s look at the popular methods of both types.
Score-type prioritization techniques
In such prioritization methods, ranking is typically accomplished by multiplying and/or dividing different numbers representing project-impacting factors, such as development cost or business metrics impact. I can say that this is a one-dimensional representation of the ranking of projects.
RICE and ICE Scoring
RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort) scoring is a comprehensive framework for prioritizing tasks or features based on multiple criteria. It assigns a numerical score to each item, allowing product managers to compare and rank them objectively. Here’s how it works:
- Reach: Evaluate the number of users who will be affected by a specific feature within a given timeframe.
- Impact: Assess the potential impact of the feature on users and the business. Use a scale from minimal to massive to quantify the expected effect.
- Confidence: Determine the level of confidence in the estimated reach and impact of the feature. Express this as a percentage, reflecting the certainty of the data or assumptions used.
- Effort: Evaluate the effort required to implement the feature, considering development time, cost, and resource availability.
To calculate the RICE score, multiply the Reach, Impact, and Confidence values, and divide by Effort. This final score represents the total impact per unit of effort and can be used to prioritize tasks or features.
In the same subtitle, I include ICE scoring, which differs in one parameter (Effort and Ease can be considered the same parameter, only upside down) and formula. Generally, they are so similar that I consider them as variations of one another, differing only in one parameter — Reach. The challenge with these approaches lies in accurately assessing your projects according to all the necessary criteria.
PIE framework
It stands for Potential, Importance, and Ease, three dimensions to consider when deciding what to work on next. Here’s a breakdown of each element:
- Potential: This dimension assesses a feature or project's possible impact or benefits on the business or customers. It involves estimating the potential return on investment (ROI), growth opportunities, or user engagement that could result from implementing a particular feature.
- Importance: This aspect evaluates how critical a feature or project is to the company’s goals, strategy, or customer needs. It involves considering the urgency of the need, the alignment with business objectives, and the importance to key stakeholders or target users.
- Ease: This dimension looks at the feasibility and resources required to implement the feature or project. It includes assessing the technical complexity, and the time needed for development, in short, about the same as with ICE.
This approach is similar to the previous two, yet it presents a slightly different perspective on the parameters. Notably, it employs a straightforward calculation of the average value to derive a score.
The MoSCoW Method
Another popular prioritization framework is the MoSCoW method. This simple and effective technique categorizes tasks or features into four groups: Must-haves, Should-haves, Could-haves, and Won’t-haves. Must-haves are essential features or tasks that the product cannot function without. These could be legal requirements, safety considerations, or critical business needs. Should-haves are important features that add significant value but are not critical for basic functionality. Could-haves are desirable features that can be implemented if resources allow. Won’t-haves are features or tasks that are not a priority for the current development cycle but may be considered in the future.
The concept is quite straightforward. You might wonder why I categorized this prioritization method under ‘score type’ despite the absence of an explicit score. Recall that I referred to these methods as one-dimensional. This particular method essentially provides a similar linear measurement but with a scale limited to only four values: 4 for ‘Must-have’ and 1 for ‘Won’t-have.’ It does not rigorously establish criteria, offering a more subjective approach to prioritization, yet it provides a clear and comprehensible scale.
Having covered these methods, let’s now move on to explore equally intriguing concepts.
Visual-type prioritization techniques
In the second type of prioritization, as I interpret it, a second dimension emerges. Here, tasks are not represented in just one dimension, but two, and they are typically displayed visually on a board of some sort.
The Value vs. Effort Matrix
One more valuable prioritization technique is the Value vs. Effort Matrix, its variations are also known as the Quick wins matrix, Value vs. Complexity, etc. Sometimes with slight differences. This visual framework helps evaluate tasks or features based on their perceived value and the effort required to implement them. To use this method, start by listing all the tasks or features that need prioritization. Then, assess the value of each item, considering factors such as potential impact on revenue, user satisfaction, or strategic alignment. Simultaneously, evaluate the effort required to implement each task or feature, considering development time, and cost. Plot each item on a matrix, with value on the horizontal axis and effort on the vertical axis (or vice versa, it’s actually not that important). This visual representation allows you to identify high-value, low-effort tasks or features that should be prioritized. Conversely, tasks or features in the high-left quadrant, indicating low value and high effort, can be deprioritized or reconsidered.
For me, this method offers one of the most adaptable solutions. But remember that the choice of what specific criteria Effort and Value must contain is up to you.
The Eisenhower Matrix
The Eisenhower Matrix, also known as the Urgent-Important Matrix, is a prioritization framework that helps product managers categorize tasks or features based on their urgency and importance (a bit obvious explanation). The matrix consists of four quadrants:
- Urgent and Important: High-priority tasks or features that require immediate attention. These items have both a significant impact on the product’s success and tight deadlines.
- Important, but not Urgent: Tasks or features that are essential for long-term success but do not have immediate deadlines. These items should be scheduled and given appropriate attention in the future.
- Urgent, but not Important: Tasks or features that are time-sensitive but do not contribute significantly to the product’s strategic goals. These items can often be delegated to team members or addressed quickly.
- Neither Urgent nor Important: Low-priority tasks or features that can be eliminated or postponed. These items do not contribute significantly to the product’s success and can be safely deprioritized.
A distinctive feature of this method is its emphasis on the concept of urgency, which can be useful in some products. In other elements, it looks almost like The Value vs. Effort Matrix.
The Kano Model
The Kano Model is a product prioritization matrix that evaluates features based on their potential impact on customer satisfaction. It categorizes features into three groups (a number of groups may have variations): Basic features, Performance features, and Delighters. Basic features are the minimum requirements that customers expect from the product. These features are essential for meeting customer needs and avoiding dissatisfaction. Performance features are aspects that improve the product’s overall performance and can increase customer satisfaction when implemented effectively. Delighters are innovative features that go above and beyond customer expectations, creating a competitive advantage and delighting users.
An experienced product manager may notice that, for the first time in my article, the words ‘satisfaction’ and ‘user’ are used together. The user-centricity is what I appreciate most about this framework, but more importantly, behind Kano, there is a whole theory created by Noriaki Kano, which can divide your features into many categories, depending on the framework’s different variants.
I must point out that the Kano model is more complex than it appears at first glance. I highly recommend delving deeper into it if it captures your interest. For the moment, my intention is to provide a basic understanding of it.
Conclusion: Prioritization for Product Management Success
As you might infer, my analysis and self-developed typology converge on a singular idea. Despite the abundance of frameworks, most of them boil down to an attempt to determine the priority of a feature or project based on two main parameters — the cost of implementation and the effect it will produce. The convergence of most frameworks on these two parameters stems from basic logic and common-sense considerations, often called ‘Best Practices.’
In a practical work environment, your responsibility extends beyond prioritizing features to ensuring transparency of the principles for creating your backlog for your team, stakeholders, and other departments. Therefore, it is crucial to remember the fundamental principles that underpin almost any framework you select. With this understanding, you’ll be able to convincingly justify your decisions without bewildering your colleagues with complex formulas or visualizations of popular frameworks.
Also, bear in mind that effective prioritization is a continual process, necessitating ongoing evaluation and adjustment. As you gather feedback and data, reevaluate the prioritization of tasks and features to ensure you deliver the maximum value to your users and achieve your product goals.
So, embrace the challenge, leverage the frameworks, and prioritize your way to success in the dynamic field of product management.
