Top 10 Prioritization Frameworks for Product Managers

Value vs. Complexity Quadrant

The Value vs. Complexity Quadrant is a popular framework for product managers. It can be used to assess the impact and complexity of potential features.

Source

The quadrant is divided into four sections:

- High value, high complexity

- High value, low complexity

- Low value, high complexity

- Low value, low complexity

Features that are high value and high complexity are typically the most difficult to develop. However, they can also have the biggest impact on the business. Therefore, it is important to carefully consider these features before deciding whether or not to prioritize them.

Low-value, low-complexity features are typically not worth developing because they will have little impact on the business. However, there may be some exceptions to this rule. For example, if a low-value, low-complexity feature is pretty easy to develop, it might still be worth doing if it can help the product team learn more about the customer or the market.

High-value, low-complexity features are typically the most important for product managers to focus on. These are the features that will have the biggest impact on the business but are not too difficult to develop.

Low-value, high-complexity features should usually be avoided. These features will have little impact on the business and will be very difficult to develop. However, there may be some exceptions to this rule. For example, if a low-value, high-complexity feature is necessary for the product to meet a regulatory requirement, it may still be worth developing.

The Kano Model

The Kano Model is another popular prioritization framework used to assess the impact and complexity of potential features.

Source

The model is divided into three categories:

- Must-haves

- Nice-to-haves

- Do not want

Must-have features are those that are necessary for the product to be successful. These are the features that customers will expect and will be disappointed if they are not included.

Nice-to-have features are those that would be nice to have but are not essential. These features may improve the product but they are not necessary for a product to be successful.

Do not want features are those that customers do not want and will not use. These features may make the product worse.

The Kano Model is a popular framework for product managers because it can help them assess the impact and complexity of potential features. Using this model, product managers can prioritize the development of features that are most important to the business and customers.

Weighted Scoring Prioritization

Weighted scoring is another popular prioritization framework. It can be used to assess the impact and complexity of potential features.

Source

The framework assigns a weight to each criterion, such as customer need, business value, and technical feasibility. The weights are then used to calculate a score for each potential feature. The feature with the highest score is typically the one that should be developed first.

Weighted scoring is a popular framework for product managers because it can help them assess the impact and complexity of potential features. By using this framework, product managers can prioritize the development of features that are most important to the business and customers.

The RICE framework

The RICE framework is another popular prioritization framework used to assess the impact and complexity of potential features.

Source

The RICE framework stands for Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort.

Reach is a measure of how many users will be affected by a feature.

Impact is a measure of how much of a difference the feature will make for users.

Confidence is a measure of how confident the product team is that the feature will be successful.

Effort is a measure of how much effort will be required to develop the feature.

ICE Scoring Model

The ICE Scoring Model is another popular prioritization framework. It is also widely used to assess the impact and complexity of potential features.

Source

The ICE Scoring Model is similar to the RICE framework but with a few changes. The biggest change is that instead of using Confidence as a criterion, it uses Engagement.

Engagement is a measure of how interested and excited users are about a feature.

As a framework, ICE can help product managers assess the impact and complexity of potential features. By using this framework, product managers can prioritize the development of features that are most important to the business and customers.

The MoSCoW Method

The MoSCoW Method is another popular prioritization framework.

Source

The MoSCoW Method is a way of prioritizing features by dividing them into four categories:

- Must have

- Should have

- Could have

- Won't have

Must-have features are those that are necessary for the product to be successful. These are the features that customers will expect and will be disappointed if they are not included.

Should-have features are the ones that would be nice to have but are not essential. These features may improve the product but they are not necessary for it to be successful.

Could-have features are those that would be nice to have but are not essential. These features may improve the product but they will not make a significant difference.

Won't have features that customers do not want and will not use. These features may make the product worse.

Opportunity Scoring

Opportunity Scoring is another popular prioritization framework widely used by product managers to assess the impact and complexity of potential features.

Source

The Opportunity Scoring framework assigns a score to each potential feature based on three criteria: customer need, business value, and technical feasibility. The feature with the highest score is typically the one that should be developed first.

As a framework, opportunity scoring can assist in creating alignment between the product team and stakeholders. By using this framework, product managers can prioritize the development of features that are most important to the business and customers.

The 3x3 Prioritization Matrix

The 3x3 Prioritization Matrix is a simple and efficient tool used to rank features based on three factors: impact, effort, and urgency. This framework divides features into three distinct categories, allowing product managers to easily identify which features should be developed first.

Source

Categories in the 3x3 Matrix:

• High Impact, High Effort: These features should be carefully evaluated. Although they can yield significant returns, they also require substantial resources, so they may be pushed back in favor of easier wins.
• High Impact, Low Effort: These features should be the priority. They promise significant value with minimal resources, making them low-hanging fruit.
• Low Impact, Low Effort: These are the features that are quick to implement but offer little to no impact on the product's success. They can be done if resources allow but shouldn’t be a top priority.
• Low Impact, High Effort: These features should typically be avoided, as they require a lot of effort for minimal return.

This matrix is ideal for teams that need to make quick decisions and prioritize tasks based on the impact they will have on the overall product strategy. It’s simple to use and works well for managing short-term goals and project deadlines.

The Cost of Delay (CoD) Framework

The Cost of Delay (CoD) framework is a powerful tool for prioritizing product features by quantifying the financial impact of delaying a feature’s development. By understanding the cost of not launching a feature immediately, product managers can make better decisions about which features to prioritize based on their urgency and potential revenue impact.

Source

How It Works:

• Cost of Delay is calculated by determining how much money a delayed feature will cost the company per unit of time. This could be in terms of lost revenue, customer dissatisfaction, or missed opportunities.
• By comparing the Cost of Delay with the development time (Effort), product managers can use this framework to decide which features to prioritize first.

Imagine two features:

• Feature A has a high cost of delay, meaning that if it’s delayed, it will cost the company significantly due to market demand or customer expectations.
• Feature B has a low cost of delay, meaning its impact won’t be as immediately felt.

The product manager would prioritize Feature A despite it being more complex or resource-intensive because the long-term impact of delaying it outweighs the effort required.

This framework is especially useful for product managers working on products in fast-paced markets or those with a strong focus on revenue or customer retention. It helps teams focus on the features that will have the most significant impact on the business in the shortest amount of time.

The Impact vs. Effort Matrix

The Impact vs. Effort Matrix is a classic tool for prioritization that helps product managers decide which features or tasks will provide the most value with the least amount of effort. It’s a simple yet highly effective way to quickly assess which features will deliver the most impact for the resources they require.

Source

How It Works:

• Impact refers to how much value a feature will add to the product or business, such as improving customer satisfaction, increasing revenue, or enhancing user experience.
• Effort refers to the amount of time, resources, or technical complexity needed to implement a feature.

The matrix is divided into four quadrants:

1. High Impact, Low Effort (Quick Wins): These are the features you should prioritize. They offer significant value and are easy to implement, so they deliver a strong return on investment (ROI).
2. High Impact, High Effort (Major Projects): These features offer significant value but are resource-intensive. They may need to be planned over the long term or worked on in phases.
3. Low Impact, Low Effort (Low-Hanging Fruit): These are simple features that don’t add much value but can be implemented quickly. They should be considered if there are spare resources or if you need small improvements.
4. Low Impact, High Effort (Time Wasters): These features are not worth pursuing because they require substantial resources with minimal return.

This matrix is ideal for teams that want to quickly assess a long list of potential features or tasks and sort them into a manageable framework. It’s particularly useful for prioritizing smaller, incremental tasks or deciding between competing ideas for product improvements.

Increases the Success Rates of Strategic Projects

Using a prioritization framework, product managers can increase the chances that their strategic projects will be successful. While no framework is perfect, all of them can provide a structure and guidance that can help product managers make better decisions.

Reduces the Risk of Developing Features that are Not Used

Another benefit of using a prioritization framework is that it can reduce the risk of developing features that are not used. By using a framework, product managers can avoid developing features that are not important to the business or customers.

Increases the Alignment and Focus of Senior Management Teams Around Strategic Goals

Prioritization frameworks can also help increase the alignment and focus of senior management teams around strategic goals. By using a framework, product managers can ensure that everyone is on the same page and working towards the same goal.

Clears All Doubts for The Operational Teams when Faced with Decisions

Last but not the least, prioritization frameworks can also clear all doubts for the operational teams when they are faced with decisions. By using a framework, product managers can provide a clear and concise explanation of why certain features are being developed and others are not.

Prioritization frameworks can also help you make better decisions. By using a framework, product managers can avoid making decisions that are not in the best interest of the business or customers.