prioritization-frameworks
Scannednpx machina-cli add skill phuryn/pm-skills/prioritization-frameworks --openclawPrioritization Frameworks Reference
A reference guide to help you select and apply the right prioritization framework for your context.
Core Principle
Never allow customers to design solutions. Prioritize problems (opportunities), not features.
Opportunity Score (Dan Olsen, The Lean Product Playbook)
The recommended framework for prioritizing customer problems.
Survey customers on Importance and Satisfaction for each need (normalize to 0–1 scale).
Three related formulas:
- Current value = Importance × Satisfaction
- Opportunity Score = Importance × (1 − Satisfaction)
- Customer value created = Importance × (S2 − S1), where S1 = satisfaction before, S2 = satisfaction after
High Importance + low Satisfaction = highest Opportunity Score = best opportunities. Plot on an Importance vs Satisfaction chart — upper-left quadrant is the sweet spot. Prioritizes customer problems, not solutions.
ICE Framework
Useful for prioritizing initiatives and ideas. Considers not only value but also risk and economic factors.
- I (Impact) = Opportunity Score × Number of Customers affected
- C (Confidence) = How confident are we? (1-10). Accounts for risk.
- E (Ease) = How easy is it to implement? (1-10). Accounts for economic factors.
Score = I × C × E. Higher = prioritize first.
RICE Framework
Splits ICE's Impact into two separate factors. Useful for larger teams that need more granularity.
- R (Reach) = Number of customers affected
- I (Impact) = Opportunity Score (value per customer)
- C (Confidence) = How confident are we? (0-100%)
- E (Effort) = How much effort to implement? (person-months)
Score = (R × I × C) / E
9 Frameworks Overview
| Framework | Best For | Key Insight |
|---|---|---|
| Eisenhower Matrix | Personal tasks | Urgent vs Important — for individual PM task management |
| Impact vs Effort | Tasks/initiatives | Simple 2×2 — quick triage, not rigorous for strategic decisions |
| Risk vs Reward | Initiatives | Like Impact vs Effort but accounts for uncertainty |
| Opportunity Score | Customer problems | Recommended. Importance × (1 − Satisfaction). Normalize to 0–1. |
| Kano Model | Understanding expectations | Must-be, Performance, Attractive, Indifferent, Reverse. For understanding, not prioritizing. |
| Weighted Decision Matrix | Multi-factor decisions | Assign weights to criteria, score each option. Useful for stakeholder buy-in. |
| ICE | Ideas/initiatives | Impact × Confidence × Ease. Recommended for quick prioritization. |
| RICE | Ideas at scale | (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort. Adds Reach to ICE. |
| MoSCoW | Requirements | Must/Should/Could/Won't. Caution: project management origin. |
Templates
- Opportunity Score intro (PDF)
- Importance vs Satisfaction Template — Dan Olsen (Google Slides)
- ICE Template (Google Sheets)
- RICE Template (Google Sheets)
Further Reading
Source
git clone https://github.com/phuryn/pm-skills/blob/main/pm-execution/skills/prioritization-frameworks/SKILL.mdView on GitHub Overview
Reference guide to select and apply the right prioritization framework for your context, from Opportunity Score to Kano and MoSCoW. It anchors decisions in solving customer problems, not just shipping features, and includes formulas and templates.
How This Skill Works
Each framework provides a formula or scoring method (e.g., Opportunity Score, ICE, RICE) to quantify value, risk, and effort. The guide also shows when to use each method and provides ready-to-use templates to collect inputs and calculate scores.
When to Use It
- Prioritize customer problems before proposing solutions (Opportunity Score) to identify the highest-impact opportunities.
- Need a quick, lightweight prioritization for fast decision-making (ICE).
- Scale prioritization across many ideas or teams (RICE) for greater granularity.
- Require multi-factor decisions with stakeholder buy-in (Weighted Decision Matrix).
- Understand customer expectations and requirements without committing to a solution (Kano Model).
Quick Start
- Step 1: Gather inputs for your chosen framework (e.g., Importance, Satisfaction, Reach, Impact, Confidence, Ease).
- Step 2: Compute the score using the framework's formula (e.g., Opportunity Score, ICE, RICE).
- Step 3: Rank opportunities and document decisions with the provided templates.
Best Practices
- Center analysis on problems/opportunities, not features.
- Normalize input scales (e.g., 0–1) for consistent comparisons.
- Be explicit about inputs, assumptions, and data sources.
- Compare multiple frameworks (e.g., RICE vs ICE) to validate priorities.
- Leverage templates and keep data updated as inputs evolve.
Example Use Cases
- A product team uses Opportunity Score to surface top customer problems and deprioritize lower-importance needs.
- An agile backlog is triaged with ICE to quickly sort ideas by impact, confidence, and ease.
- RICE is applied across a large feature portfolio to balance reach, value, confidence, and effort.
- MoSCoW is used to manage a time-boxed release’s requirements with clear must/should/could/won't items.
- Kano Model is used to understand which features are must-be versus attractive, informing roadmap influence.
