# Prioritization — RICE, MoSCoW, and Impact Mapping

<!-- hint:slides topic="Prioritization frameworks: RICE scoring, MoSCoW classification, Impact Mapping, and when to use each" slides="5" -->

## Why Prioritization Is Hard

Every product team has more ideas than capacity. Prioritization is the discipline of choosing what to build (and what to say no to) based on evidence rather than opinion. Without a framework, decisions default to whoever argues loudest.

## RICE Scoring

RICE gives each initiative a numeric score based on four factors:

**Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) ÷ Effort**

| Factor | Definition | Scale |
|--------|-----------|-------|
| **Reach** | How many users/customers will this affect per quarter? | Number (e.g., 500 users) |
| **Impact** | How much will it move the target metric per user? | 3 = massive, 2 = high, 1 = medium, 0.5 = low, 0.25 = minimal |
| **Confidence** | How sure are you about the estimates above? | 100% = high, 80% = medium, 50% = low |
| **Effort** | Person-months of work required | Number (e.g., 2 person-months) |

### Example

| Feature | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort | Score |
|---------|-------|--------|------------|--------|-------|
| Onboarding redesign | 2000 | 2 | 80% | 3 | 1067 |
| Dark mode | 5000 | 0.5 | 100% | 1 | 2500 |
| API v2 | 200 | 3 | 50% | 6 | 50 |

Dark mode wins — high reach, low effort, even though impact per user is small.

### When to Use RICE

RICE works best when you have data for Reach and can estimate Effort. It struggles with exploratory or strategic initiatives where confidence is inherently low.

## MoSCoW

MoSCoW sorts features into four buckets for a specific release or timebox:

| Bucket | Meaning | Guideline |
|--------|---------|-----------|
| **Must** | Non-negotiable. The release fails without these. | ~60% of effort |
| **Should** | Important but not critical. Painful to leave out. | ~20% of effort |
| **Could** | Nice to have. Include if time permits. | ~20% of effort |
| **Won't** | Explicitly out of scope for this release. | 0% |

### Key Principles

1. **"Won't" is not "never"** — it means "not this time." Items can move to Must in the next cycle.
2. **Start with Must** — define the minimum viable delivery first.
3. **Time-box the discussion** — MoSCoW works best with constraints.

### When to Use MoSCoW

MoSCoW excels at scoping a fixed timebox (sprint, release, quarter). It's qualitative and fast — good for workshops with mixed stakeholders.

## Impact Mapping

Impact Mapping connects business goals to deliverables through a tree structure:

```mermaid
flowchart LR
    Goal[Business Goal] --> Actor1[Actor 1]
    Goal --> Actor2[Actor 2]
    Actor1 --> Impact1[Impact 1]
    Actor1 --> Impact2[Impact 2]
    Actor2 --> Impact3[Impact 3]
    Impact1 --> Del1[Deliverable A]
    Impact2 --> Del2[Deliverable B]
    Impact3 --> Del3[Deliverable C]
```

| Level | Question | Example |
|-------|----------|---------|
| **Goal** | Why are we doing this? | "Increase trial-to-paid conversion by 15%" |
| **Actors** | Who can help or hinder? | New users, sales team, competitors |
| **Impacts** | How should actor behavior change? | "New users understand value in first 5 minutes" |
| **Deliverables** | What can we build to cause that impact? | Onboarding wizard, value dashboard |

### When to Use Impact Mapping

Impact mapping shines at the strategy level — connecting quarterly OKRs to actual features. It forces you to ask "why" before "what."

## Value vs. Effort Matrix

A simple 2×2 matrix for quick visual triage:

| | Low Effort | High Effort |
|---|-----------|-------------|
| **High Value** | Quick wins — do first | Big bets — plan carefully |
| **Low Value** | Fill-ins — do if idle | Money pit — avoid |

Plot each feature on the matrix. Start top-left (quick wins), then tackle big bets.

## Comparing Frameworks

```mermaid
flowchart TD
    Start[What are you prioritizing?] --> Q1{Numeric data available?}
    Q1 -->|Yes| RICE[Use RICE]
    Q1 -->|No| Q2{Fixed timebox?}
    Q2 -->|Yes| MoSCoW[Use MoSCoW]
    Q2 -->|No| Q3{Strategic alignment?}
    Q3 -->|Yes| ImpactMap[Use Impact Mapping]
    Q3 -->|No| ValueEffort[Use Value/Effort Matrix]
```

| Framework | Best For | Weakness |
|-----------|----------|----------|
| RICE | Backlog ranking with data | Requires numeric estimates |
| MoSCoW | Scoping a release | Subjective bucket placement |
| Impact Mapping | Connecting strategy to features | Time-consuming for small decisions |
| Value/Effort | Quick triage in workshops | Oversimplifies complex trade-offs |

## Communicating Prioritization Decisions

The hardest part of prioritization isn't the framework — it's explaining "no" to stakeholders.

1. **Show the data** — share the RICE scores or impact map
2. **Explain trade-offs** — "We chose A over B because Reach is 10× higher"
3. **Offer timelines** — "B is a Should for Q3" is better than "we're not doing B"
4. **Invite input** — "Does this ranking match your understanding of customer pain?"

## Best Practices

1. **Use one framework consistently** — switching frameworks mid-cycle confuses stakeholders
2. **Re-prioritize regularly** — priorities shift as you learn more
3. **Make "Won't" explicit** — unstated no's create misaligned expectations
4. **Separate prioritization from estimation** — don't conflate "how important" with "how hard"
5. **Document the reasoning** — future you will forget why X beat Y