Home / Phase-2 / Prioritization Frameworks
Phase 2
Prioritization Frameworks (RICE, MoSCoW, Kano, Impact/Effort)
A product team’s backlog is always bigger than its capacity. The real challenge isn’t generating ideas — it’s knowing what to prioritize. That’s where prioritization frameworks come in. These structured approaches provide clarity, reduce bias, and help teams make decisions that balance customer value, effort, and strategy. In this module, we’ll explore four of the most widely used frameworks — RICE, MoSCoW, Kano, and the Impact/Effort Matrix — and examine how each supports better decision-making.
1. RICE Scoring Model
Created by Intercom, the RICE model quantifies priorities using a simple formula: RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) ÷ Effort.
Benefits: Helps minimize bias, creates defensible decisions, balances value vs. cost.
Best For: Comparing many competing ideas across a backlog.
Pitfall: Heavily reliant on estimation accuracy.
2. MoSCoW Prioritization
This method groups requirements into categories: Must-have, Should-have, Could-have, and Won’t-have (this time).
Benefits: Simple, easy for cross-functional teams, sets clear expectations.
Best For: Release planning or time-boxed projects.
Pitfall: Can be subjective without a consistent scoring system.
3. Kano Model
Dr. Noriaki Kano’s framework focuses on customer satisfaction vs. feature implementation, categorizing features into Basic, Performance, and Delighters.
Benefits: Emphasizes the emotional impact of features on customers.
Best For: Understanding customer perception and prioritizing innovation.
Pitfall: Requires research (surveys, interviews) to categorize features accurately.
4. Impact/Effort Matrix
A simple visual grid that plots initiatives on two axes: Impact vs. Effort, identifying Quick Wins, Big Bets, Fill-Ins, and Money Pits.
Benefits: Intuitive, fast, visual, and great for workshops.
Best For: Cleaning up bloated backlogs and creating team alignment.
Pitfall: Can oversimplify complex initiatives.