Apply Prioritization Framework

Apply Prioritization Framework

Purpose

Help teams apply the right prioritization framework to their context and produce a ranked list with explicit, shared rationale — replacing gut-feel debates with structured criteria.

Skill type

Conceptual skill

Use this skill when

• A backlog or list of initiatives needs to be prioritized
• Team members disagree on priority and need a shared framework
• A framework choice needs to be made (RICE vs. MoSCoW vs. opportunity scoring)
• A current priority list needs to be re-evaluated after new data or strategy shifts

Do not use this skill when

• The goal is strategic portfolio prioritization (use prioritize-strategic-bets)
• The goal is roadmap structure (use build-roadmap-prioritization)

Required inputs

• List of initiatives or features to prioritize
• Prioritization context: what goal does priority serve?

Optional inputs

• Effort estimates
• Impact estimates or data
• Strategic goals or OKRs
• Team capacity

Upstream context

Works best when:

• Goals are defined
• Initiatives are described clearly enough to estimate

If upstream context is missing

Select the lightest-weight framework that works with available data. Flag assumptions in the scoring.

Downstream handoff

Output can feed:

• build-roadmap-prioritization (prioritized items → roadmap)
• write-requirements-prd (top-priority items go into requirements)

Instructions

1. Select the appropriate framework based on context:
   • RICE (Reach × Impact × Confidence ÷ Effort): good for data-rich teams with volume to compare
   • MoSCoW (Must/Should/Could/Won't): good for scoping a release against constraints
   • ICE (Impact × Confidence × Ease): good for quick, low-data scoring
   • Opportunity Scoring: good for comparing items on user importance vs. current satisfaction
2. Define scoring criteria and scales before scoring (prevents post-hoc rationalization).
3. Score each item against the criteria.
4. Produce a ranked list.
5. Review for obvious mismatches — do high scores actually reflect strategic intent?
6. Document assumptions behind key scores.

Output

Provide:

• Framework selected with rationale
• Scoring criteria and scale definitions
• Scored and ranked list
• Top 3–5 items with brief rationale
• Items that scored high but should be deprioritized for strategic reasons (and why)
• Assumptions behind key scores

Risks / caveats

• Scoring frameworks create false precision — they structure discussion, not replace judgment
• Define criteria before scoring, not after (prevents anchoring to preferred outcomes)
• RICE is often gamed — review estimates for inflation