Skill v1.0.0
currentAutomated scan100/100version: "1.0.0" name: prioritization-frameworks description: "Reference guide to 9 prioritization frameworks with formulas, when-to-use guidance, and templates — RICE, ICE, Kano, MoSCoW, Opportunity Score, and more. Use when selecting a prioritization method, comparing frameworks like RICE vs ICE, or learning how different prioritization approaches work."
Prioritization 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)