Prioritization for Product Managers

You’ve definitely come across a busy intersection with multitudes of cars, pedestrians, and signals on a particularly hectic day. Amidst that chaos is usually a traffic controller who skillfully choreographs, at his/her discretion, the movement of all the parties, picking who stops and who goes , coordinating the flow to ensure a seamless journey for everyone involved. Surprisingly, this role shares more than just a passing resemblance to the art of prioritization in product management.

Just as a traffic controller decides which vehicles to let through and when, product managers face a similar challenge in determining which features, tasks, and projects deserve the green light. This parallel might seem unlikely, but upon closer inspection, the essence of making split-second decisions amidst complexity and limited resources resonates with both.

What is Product Prioritization?

Product prioritization is a strategy used to decide what products, features, or initiatives product management or engineering teams should work on first. Each product prioritization decision compares customer needs, business goals, and team constraints to decide what work to prioritize.

The reality of building products is that you can never get everything done — priorities shift, resources are reallocated, funding is scarce. As product managers, it’s our job to make sure we’re working on the most important things first. We need to ruthlessly prioritize features before we run out of resources.

So what do you prioritize?

To successfully prioritize tasks, you must first have a clear grasp of what is significant. Here are key factors commonly taken into account during the prioritization process.

• User Needs: Understanding and addressing the needs, pain points, and preferences of your target users
• Alignment with Roadmap: Ensuring that prioritized features align with the product roadmap and overall product strategy.
• Market Demand: Identifying trends, analyzing competitors, and ensuring your product aligns with current market demands.
• Long-Term Sustainability: Ensuring that product decisions support the product’s sustainability, scalability, and growth
• Resource Allocation:Efficiently allocating time, budget, and team resources to maximize product development and improvement.
• User Impact: Evaluating the potential positive impact of a feature on user experience and satisfaction.
• Feasibility: Assessing the technical, design, and resource feasibility of implementing a feature or enhancement.
• Urgency: Addressing critical issues and urgent tasks that require immediate attention.

Please note that these priorities may vary based on the specific product, company, and industry, but they provide a comprehensive overview of the key considerations for a product manager when prioritizing.

So how do you prioritize?

To prioritize in product management, frameworks are often employed.

The choice of prioritization framework/method largely depends on the specific context, objectives, and the nature of the product you’re working on. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution, and that’s where the variety of prioritization frameworks comes into play. Each framework offers a unique perspective and methodology tailored to different circumstances.

The ideal prioritization framework serves as a compass, providing solutions to questions like:

Is the task with the most business value our current focus?

Are we giving customers the value they need?

Is our work aligned with bigger business goals?

Can we successfully launch this product to the market?

Now that you are all caught up on what prioritization is all about as well as what to consider whilst prioritizing let’s delve into five of the most widely used prioritization frameworks.

1. RICE Framework

RICE empowers product managers to tackle initiatives with the highest potential to influence specific objectives. This method evaluates each feature or initiative based on four key aspects: Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort, forming the acronym RICE.

Image by Roadmunk

Then, those individual numbers get turned into one overall score using a formula. This formula gives product managers a standardized number that can be applied across any type of initiative that needs to be added to the roadmap.

After running each feature by this calculation, you’ll get a final RICE score. You can then use that final score to rank the order in which you’ll tackle the idea, initiative or feature. Below is an example of what it’ll look like once the score has been calculated.

Pros of the RICE framework:

• It provides a straightforward ranking for tasks and features
• It relies on quantifiable metrics, enhancing objectivity and reducing bias.
• RICE scoring can be adjusted to suit different projects, timelines, and priorities, making it versatile and adaptable to changing circumstances.

Cons of the RICE framework:

• While RICE is effective for measuring short-term impact, it might not fully capture long-term or strategic considerations, potentially neglecting larger-scale initiatives.
• Metrics like reach and confidence can change as new information becomes available, potentially leading to fluctuations in prioritization.
• Assessing the confidence level of a feature’s success can be subjective and dependent on individual perceptions, potentially leading to inconsistencies in scoring.

2. The MoSCoW Framework

This is another popular prioritization technique in product management. It helps teams categorize and prioritize tasks based on their importance and urgency. The name “MoSCoW” is derived from the first letter of each category: Must have, Should have, Could have, and Won’t have (this time).

Prioritization revolves around early delivery of the most pressing business value. The primary focus lies on swiftly executing the “Must Have” initiatives, while the “Should Have” and “Could Have” features, though significant, are susceptible to being deprioritized in the face of resource constraints or looming deadlines.

Pros:

• MoSCoW provides clear and distinct priority levels for tasks, making it easier to determine what needs immediate attention and what can be deferred.
• It ensures that crucial tasks are identified and addressed first, helping teams deliver essential features or functions promptly.
• The method allows for flexibility by categorizing tasks based on their relative importance. This enables teams to adapt quickly to changing circumstances.

Cons:

• MoSCoW’s categorization may lack the nuance required for complex projects, potentially oversimplifying the prioritization process.
• Determining which tasks fall into each category can be subjective, leading to potential discrepancies in how different team members categorize items.
• MoSCoW doesn’t explicitly consider the trade-offs between different tasks. For example, it might not address situations where a “Must Have” task conflicts with another “Must Have” task due to limited resources.

3. KANO Framework

This framework utilizes a dual-axis framework, with implementation values plotted along the horizontal axis and customer satisfaction levels along the vertical axis. The implementation values quantify the extent to which a customer need is fulfilled and are divided into three primary categories:

• Must-haves or Basic Features: These are foundational functionalities that are imperative for your product. Their absence leads customers to dismiss your product as a potential solution to their needs.
• Performance Features: As investment in these features increases, so does the degree of customer satisfaction. Strengthening these aspects enhances overall product experience.
• Delighters or Excitement Features: These are unexpected features that generate a sense of delight among customers. While not anticipated, these elements create positive and memorable experiences.

On the vertical axis, customer satisfaction levels are represented, ranging from unmet needs on the left to fully met needs on the right. The methodology to extract customer insights involves crafting a Kano questionnaire. This questionnaire prompts customers to express their sentiments when presented with or without particular features

The core idea of the Kano model is that the more time you spend investing resources (time, money, effort) to create, innovate and improve the features in each of those buckets, the higher the level of customer satisfaction will be.

Pros

• By categorizing features into the 3 categories the model helps product managers prioritize efforts, resources, and investments more effectively.
• Kano analysis assists in making informed decisions about which features to include or enhance based on their potential impact on customer satisfaction and overall product success.
• Implementing delighters can set a product apart from competitors, fostering customer loyalty and advocacy, and potentially boosting market share.

Cons

• Developing and administering Kano questionnaires can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, especially in gathering and interpreting customer responses accurately.
• Interpretation of customer responses may involve subjectivity, leading to potential bias in categorizing features into different Kano categories.
• While the Kano model provides qualitative insights, it may not provide a robust quantitative analysis of the potential impact of different features on customer satisfaction.

4. Opportunity Scoring Framework

Opportunity scoring involves assigning scores to various opportunities or ideas based on predefined criteria. These criteria encompass factors such as market demand, potential user impact, technical feasibility, alignment with company objectives, and resource requirements. By quantifying these aspects, product managers can objectively compare and prioritize opportunities, ensuring that the chosen path aligns with the overarching strategy.

The method of opportunity scoring employs a Satisfaction and Importance graph to gauge and sequence opportunities. After compiling a roster of desired outcomes, the next step involves surveying customers, posing two pivotal questions:

How crucial is this outcome or feature? Request customers to rank these in terms of importance?

How content are customers with existing solutions?

Plotting these responses on the graph yields a visual representation of the features that bear utmost significance to customers (the outcomes) yet register subpar satisfaction levels within your product. These are the features that warrant top-tier priority for your next sprint.

Pros

• This method ensures that prioritized opportunities directly align with the company’s strategic goals and overall vision.
• By assigning scores based on factors like impact and feasibility, resources can be efficiently allocated to high-potential opportunities.
• The scoring system allows for quick adjustments as market conditions, user preferences, and business priorities evolve.

Cons

• Implementing and maintaining an opportunity scoring framework might require substantial time and effort.
• The method may not capture intangible factors or qualitative aspects that are crucial for certain decision-making scenarios.
• The dynamic nature of markets and user needs can render initially assigned scores less relevant over time

5. Value vs Effort Matrix

The Value vs. Effort Matrix stands as a visual framework for product prioritization, aiding product managers in assessing tasks or features by considering their perceived value against the effort needed for execution.

It is a simple 4 quadrant prioritization matrix with Value on the Y-axis and Effort on the X-axis.

Analyzing the graph reveals these categories:

Quick Wins- (High Value + Low Effort)

Big Bets- (High Value + High Effort)

Maybes- (Low Value + Low Effort)

Time Sinks- (Low Value + High Effort)

Pros

• The matrix makes it easy to prioritize tasks or features based on their relative value and effort. This clarity helps teams focus on high-value, low-effort items first.
• It aligns tasks or features with strategic goals. It ensures that efforts are directed toward items that contribute the most to overall business objectives.
• It simplifies communication among team members and stakeholders. It provides a common framework for discussing priorities and facilitates effective collaboration.

Cons:

• While the matrix offers a straightforward approach, it may oversimplify the complexities of certain tasks. Factors beyond value and effort, such as technical feasibility or dependencies, may not be fully considered.
• The matrix assumes that value and effort remain constant, which may not hold true as projects progress. Market conditions, user feedback, and technological advancements can impact these factors.

Challenges that arise during Prioritization

1. Limited Resources

Challenge: There’s often a scarcity of resources, including time, budget, and manpower, which makes it challenging to address all tasks simultaneously.

Solution: Conduct thorough resource analysis to understand constraints. Prioritize tasks that align with strategic goals, have the most significant impact, and can be executed within available resources.

2. Conflicting Stakeholder Demands

Challenge: Different stakeholders may have conflicting priorities, leading to disagreements and delays in decision-making.

Solution: Establish clear communication channels to facilitate open discussions. Align stakeholders on overall objectives and criteria for prioritization. Involve stakeholders early in the process to address conflicts upfront.

3. Lack of Objective Criteria:

Challenge: Without objective criteria, prioritization decisions might be influenced by personal biases or emotions.

Solution: Define a set of quantifiable criteria, such as business value, user impact, and technical feasibility. Assign weights to each criterion and use them as a basis for objective decision-making.

4. Ever-Changing Market Conditions:

Challenge:Market dynamics, user preferences, and competitive landscape evolve over time, making it challenging to stick to a predefined prioritization plan.

Solution: Regularly review and reassess priorities based on updated market information. Embrace an iterative approach to adapt to changing conditions and remain responsive to user needs.

5. Feature Overload:

Challenge: Introducing too many features simultaneously can overwhelm users and dilute the impact of each feature.

Solution: Prioritize a minimal set of features that address core user needs and deliver value. Consider phased feature releases to maintain user engagement and focus.

Remember, prioritization is not just a task; it’s a strategic mindset that shapes the trajectory of our products. By embracing its principles and utilizing the tools at our disposal, we can create products that truly resonate with our audience and lead to meaningful outcomes. So, as you embark on your prioritization journey, keep in mind that each choice you make contributes to the bigger picture — a product that not only meets needs but also drives innovation and growth.