Why you should avoid Prioritization Frameworks
Prioritize based on objectives and strategy, not spreadsheets and formulas
I sometimes get asked about product/feature prioritization frameworks. In particular, which one(s) do I suggest people use.
Before getting into the answer to that question, let’s define what we mean by prioritization frameworks. These are framework like RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort), WSJF (Weighted Shorted Job First) etc. that are promoted as ways to help product and development teams decide how to prioritize features or work to be done.
Generally speaking, these frameworks require Product Managers or product teams to score each feature or initiative on the factors in the framework, then plug those scores into a formula to come to an overall score for each feature.
At that point you can rank your feature list etc. based on the prioritization scores, with highest scores being more important and prioritized first and lower scoring items done later.
It all works like magic; and if you have a nice spreadsheet, you can score hundreds of features in very little time. Sounds fool proof right?
I’ll be honest, I don’t recommend any of these types of frameworks because they actually lead you down a path of prioritization theatre. i.e. they look like they are helping, but they are not in most cases. Here’s why:
Don’t prioritize features
You shouldn’t be prioritizing “features”. Yes, I said that. Features are implementations that are linked to problems or opportunities. You should be focused on prioritizing problems and opportunities that are tied to higher level goals and strategies. You should not prioritize features.
Why do you have so many features to prioritize?
If you have so many “features” to implement that you need a framework and spreadsheet to prioritize them, then you have another problem that needs to be solved first. Where are all these features coming from? Why are you not able reduce them by other means? This usually indicates a lack of strategy and understanding of real customer and market problems.
The frameworks often work on guesstimates
Frameworks like RICE, WSJF etc. have as inputs, “guesstimates” or qualitative assessments, that go into an equation.
e.g. RICE stands for Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort. Each of those is a subjective assessment that is turned into a number and then used in a calculation.
What’s missing in those subjective assessments is the margin of error (MoE). And there is nowhere in the calculation that includes that.
Why is this important? Here’s the equation to calculate the RICE score.
Each factor (Confidence, Effort etc.) is clearly not an analytic value. It’s a subjective assessment, often defined as Low, Medium, High, or some other similar model. Those assessments are typically converted into some confidence level. eg.
- 1.0 = high confidence
- 0.7 = medium confidence
- 0.5 = low confidence
Effort could be approximated by story points or some other approximation model. You see the issue right? There is margin of error (MoE) in each of these approximations.
If you actually include some meaningful MoE on each value you end up with a LARGE total margin of error on the final results.
Why? Because when you multiply/divide factors each with MoE, the TOTAL MoE is the sum of the individual ones. So if there is a +/- 20% MoE on each factor, you get 80% for the resulting score when using RICE. i.e. +/- 20% times 4 factors. The more factors, the more potential margin of error.
If you look at a bunch of numbers with such huge margins of error, it’s impossible to use them in a meaningful way.
What’s the difference between say, 55 +/- 80% and 75 +/- 80%? In reality, nothing. The MoE is really important.
The same holds true for WSJF. The formula is different, but the issues are the same. The Cost of Delay (Business Value, Time Criticality, Risk Reduction), and ESTIMATED Size all have significant error bars associated with them but are completely ignored in the calculation.
You cannot turn approximates into absolutes just by ignoring the uncertainty.
The frameworks have the feeling of being analytical, but in reality they are not.
They promote bottom-up prioritization
These frameworks promote a bottom up mindset — i.e. prioritizing lists of features. In reality, prioritization starts with objectives and strategy and from there, market problems, user scenarios and use cases etc.
By the time you get down to features — i.e. implementation specifics — you’ve already done a LOT of prioritization. Any “features” that are important shouldn’t need some multi-factor calculation to prioritize.
That’s why I recommend everyone start with vision, objectives and strategies to narrow down focus and then use those as guide posts to decide on specific plans to implement.
There is one scenario where some of these frameworks can be helpful. I’ve used some of these frameworks — e.g. stack ranking, 2D (e.g. value vs. effort) prioritization — in discovery exercises with customers to help understand how THEY see value, impact etc.
The idea is NOT to use the customer statements to actually prioritize work, but to use these tools to elicit deeper discussions with them to understand WHY they see some things as important or high impact, or not important, low impact etc.
Ultimately, the job of Product Management is to get customer/market inputs/insights and marry that with internal goals to make the final prioritization decisions.
Those decisions should NOT be made using spreadsheets and large approximations.
P.S. And don’t get me started about MoSCoW!!
A little feedback please
If you’ve read this far, thank you. I’d like some feedback on the article to make it better. Just 3 questions. Should take 30 seconds at the most, but will really be valuable to me. Thanks in advance.
===> Click here. <===