What is Product Prioritization Framewoks?

Product prioritization frameworks are methodologies or approaches used by product managers to determine which features, tasks, or projects should be prioritized based on various criteria. These frameworks help product managers make informed decisions about where to allocate resources and focus their efforts.

What is Prioritization in Product Management?

Prioritization in product management is the process of determining which features, tasks, or projects should be prioritized based on various criteria. This involves evaluating the potential impact, value, and urgency of each item and making informed decisions about where to allocate resources and focus efforts. Prioritization helps product managers ensure that they are working on the most important and impactful items and helps them manage their workload and resources effectively.

What are product prioritization frameworks?

Product Prioritization Frameworks are organized plans used by product managers and teams to decide what things to work on first in building or improving a product. These plans help them choose where to put their time and effort based on different factors like what customers need, how much it benefits the business, or specific goals.

Choosing the appropriate prioritization framework enables you to address key questions:

1. Are we focusing on the most valuable tasks for the business?
2. Are we providing essential value to our customers?
3. Does our work align with the overall business goals?
4. Can we successfully launch this product to the market?

Common Product Prioritization Frameworks

Some common product prioritization frameworks include :

1. MoSCoW Method
2. Kano Model
3. RICE Score
4. WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First)
5. Value vs. Effort Matrix
6. Eisenhower Matrix

Let us see about each framework in detail:

MoSCoW Method

The MoSCoW method is a prioritization technique used in product management and software development to categorize requirements or features based on their importance and impact on the product.

MoSCoW Method full form

The acronoym “MoSCoW” stands for:

• Must have (Mo)
• Should have (S)
• Could have (Co)
• Won’t have (W)

MoSCoW Prioritization

Features of MoSCoW Method

The MoSCoW method is a prioritization technique that helps product managers and teams determine which features or requirements should be included in a product or release based on their importance and impact.

The method categorizes features into four categories:

1. Must have: These are features that are critical for the product’s success and must be included in the current release or iteration. They are essential for meeting the product’s core functionality and requirements. If a feature is not included in the “Must have” category, it means that the product cannot be considered complete or functional.
2. Should have: These are features that are important but not critical for the product’s success. They are desirable and add value to the product, but they are not essential for meeting the product’s core functionality and requirements. Features in this category should be included in the current release or iteration if possible, but they can be deferred to future releases if necessary.
3. Could have: These are features that are nice to have but not essential for the product’s success. They are not critical for meeting the product’s core functionality and requirements, but they add value and enhance the user experience. Features in this category can be included in a future release or iteration if there is time and resources available, but they are not a priority.
4. Won’t have: These are features that are not important and will not be included in the current release or any future releases. They are not critical for meeting the product’s core functionality and requirements, and they do not add significant value to the product. Features in this category are deprioritized and will not be considered for inclusion in the product.

Advantages of MoSCoW Method:

1. Clear Prioritization: The MoSCoW method provides a clear and simple way to prioritize features and requirements based on their importance and impact. This helps product managers and teams focus on the most important and impactful features, ensuring that they are included in the product or release.
2. Flexibility: The MoSCoW method allows for flexibility in prioritization. Features can be categorized into the “Must have”, “Should have”, “Could have”, and “Won’t have” categories based on their importance and impact, allowing for a more nuanced approach to prioritization.
3. Collaboration: The MoSCoW method encourages collaboration and communication among stakeholders. It provides a common language and framework for discussing and prioritizing features, helping to align the team and stakeholders on the priorities for the product or release.

Disadvantages of MoSCoW Method:

1. Subjectivity: The MoSCoW method is subjective and relies on the judgment of the product manager and team members to determine the importance and impact of features. This can lead to bias and disagreements about prioritization.
2. Lack of Quantitative Metrics: The MoSCoW method does not provide quantitative metrics for prioritization. It relies on qualitative assessments of importance and impact, which can be difficult to measure and compare.
3. Limited Scope: The MoSCoW method is limited in scope and does not take into account other factors that may affect prioritization, such as cost, effort, or risk. This can lead to incomplete or biased prioritization.

The MoSCoW method helps product managers prioritize features and requirements by categorizing them into these four categories based on their importance and impact. This helps ensure that the most important and impactful features are included in the product or release, while less important or less impactful features are deprioritized or deferred to future releases.

Kano Model in Product Prioritization

The Kano model helps us understand what features will really make customers happy. In Image provided below. On the horizontal line, we have three types of features:

1. Must-haves (Basic Features): These are things your product must have. If you don’t have them, people won’t even consider buying your product.
2. Performance Features: The more you work on these, the happier customers will be. It’s like adding extra goodness to your product.
3. Delighters (Excitement Features): These are cool surprises. Customers don’t expect them, but when they get them, it makes them super happy.

• On the vertical line, we measure customer satisfaction. At the bottom, it’s like the product didn’t meet their needs at all. As you go up, satisfaction increases until it’s fully met at the top.
• To understand what people want, you ask them questions using a Kano questionnaire. You figure out how they feel about having or not having specific features.

Here’s the key idea: The more you focus on improving features in each of these categories, the happier your customers will be. So, it’s about wisely spending your time and resources to create a product that really satisfies your customers.

Kano Model

Features of Kano Model

1. Basic Features: These are features that customers expect and are considered essential for the product to meet its basic requirements. They are necessary but do not necessarily lead to customer satisfaction or delight. Examples include a car having four wheels or a smartphone having a battery.
2. Performance Features: These are features that customers use to evaluate and compare products. They are important for customer satisfaction and can differentiate a product from its competitors. Examples include a car having good fuel efficiency or a smartphone having a high-resolution camera.
3. Excitement Features: These are features that exceed customer expectations and can delight customers. They are not essential for the product to meet its basic requirements but can provide a competitive advantage. Examples include a car having a built-in navigation system or a smartphone having facial recognition.

Use Case of Kano Model

The Kano Model is used by product managers to prioritize features and requirements based on their impact on customer satisfaction and delight. It helps product managers understand which features are essential, which are important for differentiation, and which can provide a competitive advantage.

Benefits of Kano Model

1. Customer-Centric: The Kano Model is customer-centric and helps product managers understand customer needs and preferences.
2. Prioritization: The Kano Model helps product managers prioritize features and requirements based on their impact on customer satisfaction and delight.
3. Competitive Advantage: The Kano Model helps product managers identify features that can provide a competitive advantage and differentiate their product from competitors.

Drawbacks of Kano Model

1. Subjectivity: The Kano Model is subjective and relies on the judgment of the product manager and team members to categorize features.
2. Complexity: The Kano Model can be complex and difficult to apply in practice, especially for products with a large number of features.
3. Limited Scope: The Kano Model is limited in scope and does not take into account other factors that may affect prioritization, such as cost, effort, or risk.

Overall, the Kano Model is a useful framework for understanding customer needs and preferences and prioritizing features based on their impact on customer satisfaction and delight.

RICE Score in Product Prioritization

The RICE Score is a prioritization framework developed by Intercom that helps product managers and teams prioritize features and projects based on their potential impact and feasibility.

The acronym “RICE” stands for:

• Reach (R)
• Impact (I)
• Confidence(C)
• Effort (E)

RISCE Scoring Model

Let’s explain each:

1. Reach:
   • Defines the number of users or customers who will be affected by the project or feature. It helps in estimating the potential audience and impact.
2. Impact:
   • Measures the degree of positive change the project or feature is expected to bring. It could include factors such as revenue increase, user satisfaction improvement, or other relevant metrics.
   • It use a multiple choice scale
     • 3 = massive impact
     • 2 = high impact
     • 1 = medium impact
     • 0.5 = low
     • 0.25 = minimal
3. Confidence:
   • Represents the level of certainty or confidence the team has in the estimations for reach and impact. It considers the amount of available data, user feedback, or other factors influencing the project’s success.
   • It Uses a % Score where,
     • 100 % high confidence
     • 80 % medium confidence
     • 50 % low confidence
4. Effort:
   • Quantifies the resources (time, money, manpower) required to complete the project. This includes development, testing, and any other necessary tasks.

How to Calculate RICE Score Model

RICE Score = (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort

Use Case of RICE Score Model

The RICE Score is used by product managers and teams to prioritize features and projects based on their potential impact and feasibility. It helps product managers make informed decisions about where to allocate resources and focus their efforts.

Benefits of RICE Score Model

1. Objective: The RICE Score provides an objective and data-driven approach to prioritization.
2. Comprehensive: The RICE Score takes into account multiple factors, including reach, impact, confidence, and effort, to provide a comprehensive view of the potential impact and feasibility of features and projects.
3. Flexible: The RICE Score can be customized and adapted to match the specific needs and goals of the product manager and the team.

Drawbacks of RICE Score Model

1. Complexity: The RICE Score can be complex and difficult to apply in practice, especially for features and projects with a large number of variables and dependencies.
2. Subjectivity: The RICE Score relies on the judgment of the product manager and team members to estimate reach, impact, confidence, and effort, which can be subjective and biased.
3. Limited Scope: The RICE Score is limited in scope and does not take into account other factors that may affect prioritization, such as cost, risk, or strategic alignment.

Overall, the RICE Score is a useful framework for prioritizing features and projects based on their potential impact and feasibility.

WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First) in Product Prioritization

WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First) is a prioritization framework developed by Don Reinertsen that helps product managers and teams prioritize features and projects based on their value and urgency. It assigns weights to features based on their cost of delay, job size, and risk reduction, and prioritizes features with the highest WSJF score.

WSJF stands for Weighted Shortest Job First.

Features of WSJF

1. Cost of Delay: The cost of delaying a feature or project in terms of lost revenue or opportunity. It helps product managers understand the urgency and importance of the feature or project and prioritize features with a high cost of delay.
2. Job Size: The size of the feature or project in terms of complexity or effort required. It helps product managers understand the effort and resources required to implement the feature or project and prioritize features with a smaller job size.
3. Risk Reduction: The potential risk reduction or mitigation that the feature or project provides. It helps product managers understand the potential impact and value of the feature or project and prioritize features with a higher risk reduction.

Use Case of WSJF

WSJF is used by product managers and teams to prioritize features and projects based on their value and urgency. It helps product managers make informed decisions about where to allocate resources and focus their efforts.

Benefits of WSJF

1. Objective: WSJF provides an objective and data-driven approach to prioritization.
2. Comprehensive: WSJF takes into account multiple factors, including cost of delay, job size, and risk reduction, to provide a comprehensive view of the value and urgency of features and projects.
3. Flexible: WSJF can be customized and adapted to match the specific needs and goals of the product manager and the team.

Drawbacks of WSJF

1. Complexity: WSJF can be complex and difficult to apply in practice, especially for features and projects with a large number of variables and dependencies.
2. Subjectivity: WSJF relies on the judgment of the product manager and team members to estimate cost of delay, job size, and risk reduction, which can be subjective and biased.
3. Limited Scope: WSJF is limited in scope and does not take into account other factors that may affect prioritization, such as cost, effort, or strategic alignment.

Overall, WSJF is a useful framework for prioritizing features and projects based on their value and urgency.

Value vs. Effort Matrix in Product Prioritization

The Value vs. Effort Matrix is a prioritization framework that helps product managers and teams prioritize features and projects based on their value and effort required. It categorizes features into four quadrants based on their value and effort: high value, low effort; high value, high effort; low value, low effort; and low value, high effort.

Features of Value vs. Effort Matrix

1. High Value, Low Effort: Features that provide high value with low effort. They are quick wins and should be prioritized.
2. High Value, High Effort: Features that provide high value but require significant effort. They are important but may require more resources and time.
3. Low Value, Low Effort: Features that provide low value with low effort. They are low priority and may not be worth pursuing.
4. Low Value, High Effort: Features that provide low value and require significant effort. They are low priority and may not be worth pursuing.

Use Case of Value vs. Effort Matrix

The Value vs. Effort Matrix is used by product managers and teams to prioritize features and projects based on their value and effort required. It helps product managers make informed decisions about where to allocate resources and focus their efforts.

Benefits of Value vs. Effort Matrix

1. Objective: The Value vs. Effort Matrix provides an objective and data-driven approach to prioritization.
2. Comprehensive: The Value vs. Effort Matrix takes into account both value and effort required to provide a comprehensive view of the priority of features and projects.
3. Flexible: The Value vs. Effort Matrix can be customized and adapted to match the specific needs and goals of the product manager and the team.

Drawbacks of Value vs. Effort Matrix

1. Complexity: The Value vs. Effort Matrix can be complex and difficult to apply in practice, especially for features and projects with a large number of variables and dependencies.
2. Subjectivity: The Value vs. Effort Matrix relies on the judgment of the product manager and team members to estimate value and effort required, which can be subjective and biased.
3. Limited Scope: The Value vs. Effort Matrix is limited in scope and does not take into account other factors that may affect prioritization, such as cost, risk, or strategic alignment.

Overall, the Value vs. Effort Matrix is a useful framework for prioritizing features and projects based on their value and effort required.

Eisenhower Matrix in Product Prioritization

The Eisenhower Matrix, also known as the Urgent-Important Matrix, is a prioritization framework that helps product managers and teams prioritize tasks and deliverables based on their urgency and importance. It categorizes tasks into four quadrants: urgent and important, important but not urgent, urgent but not important, and not urgent and not important.

Features of Eisenhower Matrix

1. Urgent and Important: Tasks that are both urgent and important and should be prioritized. They require immediate attention and are critical for the product or project’s success.
2. Important but Not Urgent: Tasks that are important but not urgent and should be scheduled for later. They are important for the product or project’s success but do not require immediate attention.
3. Urgent but Not Important: Tasks that are urgent but not important and should be delegated or deprioritized. They require immediate attention but are not critical for the product or project’s success.
4. Not Urgent and Not Important: Tasks that are neither urgent nor important and should be deprioritized. They do not require immediate attention and are not critical for the product or project’s success.

Use Case of Eisenhower Matrix

The Eisenhower Matrix is used by product managers and teams to prioritize tasks and deliverables based on their urgency and importance. It helps product managers make informed decisions about where to allocate resources and focus their efforts.

Benefits of Eisenhower Matrix

1. Objective: The Eisenhower Matrix provides an objective and data-driven approach to prioritization.
2. Comprehensive: The Eisenhower Matrix takes into account both urgency and importance to provide a comprehensive view of the priority of tasks and deliverables.
3. Flexible: The Eisenhower Matrix can be customized and adapted to match the specific needs and goals of the product manager and the team.

Drawbacks of Eisenhower Matrix

1. Complexity: The Eisenhower Matrix can be complex and difficult to apply in practice, especially for tasks and deliverables with a large number of variables and dependencies.
2. Subjectivity: The Eisenhower Matrix relies on the judgment of the product manager and team members to estimate urgency and importance, which can be subjective and biased.
3. Limited Scope: The Eisenhower Matrix is limited in scope and does not take into account other factors that may affect prioritization, such as cost, effort, or strategic alignment.

Overall, the Eisenhower Matrix is a useful framework for prioritizing tasks and deliverables based on their urgency and importance.

Conclusion

Product prioritization frameworks are like guides that help teams decide what to focus on first. They consider factors like how many people will benefit, how much impact a project will have, how certain we are about our estimates, and how much effort it will take.