Prioritization, from a 2x2 to research-backed
Five frameworks for picking what to build next, in a suggested learning sequence. Start with the Impact/Effort Matrix when you need a sketch on a whiteboard. Add numbers with ICE for quick triage, RICE when reach matters, and Weighted Scoring when your team has its own criteria. Use Kano to examine how customers respond to a feature being present or absent. Pick the lightest one that actually produces a decision.
Suggested learning order
Start with the visual sketch, add numbers as the stakes get higher, customize the criteria when generic ones don't fit, then validate with real customers.
- 1
Impact/Effort Matrix
Map your backlog by expected impact and effort
- 2
ICE Scoring
Compare ideas with Impact, Confidence, and Ease scores
- 3
RICE Scoring
Rank features using Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort
- 4
Weighted Scoring
Score options using criteria and weights your team chooses
- 5
Kano Model
Classify features by their effect on customer satisfaction
All Prioritize calculators
Rank features using Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort
10 min · beginner
Compare ideas with Impact, Confidence, and Ease scores
8 min · beginner
Score options using criteria and weights your team chooses
15 min · intermediate
Map your backlog by expected impact and effort
5 min · beginner
Classify features by their effect on customer satisfaction
20 min · advanced
Go deeper in the Learning Hub
Frequently asked questions
Choose a method that fits the decision and available evidence. Impact/Effort offers a visual comparison; ICE uses three scored estimates; RICE includes reach and effort; Weighted Scoring lets you choose criteria; Kano uses customer responses. No framework settles dependencies or strategy by itself.
Triage first: remove duplicates, clarify poorly defined work, and identify mandatory items. You might use Impact/Effort for an initial comparison, then score a shortlist with ICE or RICE. Keep high-effort work visible when its impact or dependencies justify it; a two-pass process is an option, not a guaranteed better result.
ICE compares Impact, Confidence, and Ease. RICE adds Reach and uses an explicit Effort estimate. Use RICE when estimating the number of people affected helps the decision; use ICE when a simpler scored comparison fits. Neither requires the other first. See /compare/rice-vs-ice for the formulas and trade-offs.
Anchor the scales with examples, ask relevant people to score independently, then discuss differences. Compare estimates with outcomes after delivery. A missed prediction can reflect weak assumptions or changed conditions, so investigate before changing the rubric.
Include people who understand the impact, customer evidence, and implementation work. Independent estimates can reveal disagreement before the team settles on shared assumptions. Agree who makes the final decision; there is no universal requirement for three scorers or one scoring role per discipline.
You can compare debt and features using their effects on customer outcomes, delivery cost, reliability, and risk, or reserve capacity for debt and prioritize within it. A 10–20% allocation, such as 15%, is an illustrative planning choice, not an industry requirement. Debt that causes user-visible problems may still require structural work beyond a bug fix.
Choose a calculator
Start with the suggested first calculator or explore the full toolkit.