Picking a prioritization framework

Roadmap OS ships with 6 prioritization frameworks built in. Different decisions need different lenses — pick the one that matches your situation.

The 6 frameworks

1. RICE

Reach × Impact × Confidence ÷ Effort

Best for:

• Early-stage product when you have rough estimates
• Comparing initiatives where reach varies a lot

Weakness: confidence multiplier hides bias. Easy to game by lowering confidence on competing initiatives.

2. ICE

Impact × Confidence × Ease

Best for:

• Rapid-fire prioritization (hackathons, brainstorms)
• When you don't have data; gut-feel scoring is okay

Weakness: less rigorous than RICE. Fine for triage, not for committing.

3. MoSCoW

Must / Should / Could / Won't

Best for:

• Stakeholder alignment
• Forcing explicit "Won't" decisions
• Scoping a release ("what must be in v1, what can wait?")

Weakness: not really prioritization — it's bucketing. Doesn't tell you order within a bucket.

4. Kano

Basic / Performance / Delighter

Best for:

• Balancing must-have vs differentiating features
• Customer research-driven prioritization
• Product-market-fit work

Weakness: requires user research to score correctly; not a desk exercise.

5. Cost of Delay (CD3)

Urgency × Value ÷ Job Duration

Best for:

• Date-sensitive opportunities
• When delaying an initiative has measurable revenue / risk cost

Weakness: requires estimates of revenue impact. Most teams don't have this data; the framework rewards rigor that smaller teams can't afford.

6. Value vs Effort matrix

2D scatter: Value (Y) vs Effort (X)

Best for:

• Visual review with stakeholders
• Quick triage of 20+ initiatives
• Identifying Quick Wins, Big Bets, Fillers, Money Pits

Weakness: oversimplifies. A 2x2 hides nuance.

How to use frameworks in Roadmap OS

Prioritization → New Scoring Round → Pick Framework

For each framework, score initiatives across the relevant criteria:

• RICE / ICE — fill in numbers (1-10 typically)
• MoSCoW — drag initiatives into Must / Should / Could / Won't columns
• Kano — score on Basic / Performance / Delighter
• Cost of Delay — fill in urgency, value, effort
• Value-Effort — drag dots on the 2D matrix

The killer feature: compare across frameworks

Same initiative, scored across multiple frameworks, often gets different rankings.

Prioritization → Frameworks tab → select 2-3 frameworks

Example:

Initiative	RICE rank	MoSCoW	Cost of Delay	Where they disagree
Mobile app v2	#1	Must	#4	RICE high, CoD low — investigate
Hardware cert renewal	#5	Must	#1	CoD high — likely the urgent one
Marketing site redesign	#3	Could	#8	RICE inflated by reach; CoD says it's not urgent

The interesting analysis isn't the score — it's where the frameworks disagree. That's where your assumptions are weakest. Investigate before committing.

When NOT to score everything

Don't run RICE on a 200-item backlog. Score the top 15-20 — anything below that is noise.

Don't re-score every quarter just because. Re-scoring is useful when:

• The strategic context shifts (market change, new constraint)
• Customer data changes (NPS drop, support ticket spike)
• A team change reshuffles capacity

Recommended cadence

• Quarterly: RICE or Cost of Delay across top 20 initiatives
• Per major decision: MoSCoW or Kano workshop with stakeholders
• Weekly: quick ICE on backlog grooming
• Per release: Value vs Effort matrix to triage what makes the cut

Next steps

• Detailed RICE guide
• Value vs Effort Matrix
• Comparing across frameworks