“People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully.” — Steve Jobs
As a product leader, I am often asked, “How should we prioritize what’s on the roadmap?”
This is an important and near-universal question that, in reality, has two parts. First, what should be prioritized and why? Second, what approach or framework should we use?
For product managers, prioritization is loved and hated, critical yet risky, a source of tension and frustration. No wonder it’s frequently recognized as one of the hardest parts of the job. Who enjoys saying no, after all? Not me.
I definitely second these feelings — love, hate, risk, tension, and frustration. Prioritization is a pain and a drain, but it also happens to be one of the most important decisions a product team makes.
Prioritization and product success, therefore, go hand in hand.
Making matters worse, there are a seemingly endless number of ways to prioritize. It’s as if the founders of product management thought about making the job simultaneously difficult and confusing.
Thankfully, at least the goal of prioritization is universal — pick the most important outcome and feature to focus on that drives the highest value in the shortest time for the lowest level of effort.
Simple right — queue the eye rolls.
Some days, I hated my job. It felt like everyone was chasing me with pins, out to pop my balloon.
Of course, this is the wrong attitude toward a job, but I couldn’t help it.
Upon reflection, as a mid-level product manager, it came down to saying no, feeling like I was always disappointing someone, and feeling forced to prioritize what we put on the roadmap.
Every meeting where I needed to make a decision and set a priority felt like a fight — a fight with design, engineering, marketing, sales, stakeholders, and ultimately, customers. A fight in which the play was frozen until I made a call.
Being in that situation sucks. It’s like being the referee for a FIFA World Cup championship match. No matter what you decide, certain players will disagree and argue their case, and one team, along with millions of fans, will always be unhappy.
Everyone providing input. Everyone on edge. Yet that’s exactly what I needed to get comfortable with, making the call.
So that’s what I started doing — I’d leave the meeting and decide. And that pissed everyone off — a real no-win situation.
Then I realized something. I wasn’t aggravating the team by making a call. They just didn’t understand why I made the call I did, how I decided on the priority, and why I couldn’t do it in front of the group.
At this point, I realized three things:
- First, I need to share why I made the call I did and what drove the decision. More on this in a bit when we review the goals of prioritization.
- Second, I needed to share the framework I used — at first, I didn’t necessarily have one, but ultimately landed on one that is often used.
- Third, the decision needed to be made in the open. I needed to be transparent and invite debate — great, more meetings and arguing.
I also thought back to a story shared with me at a recent product training session — the story of Kodak and why prioritization was critical. I’ll recap quickly.
Despite being a pioneer in the photography industry and holding a vast portfolio of digital patents, Kodak failed to prioritize the transition to digital photography effectively. This reluctance stemmed from a fear of cannibalizing their highly profitable film business.
While Kodak did invest in developing digital technologies, including digital cameras and photo sharing, they did not fully commit to and prioritize these innovations, allowing competitors like Canon to dominate the digital side of the business. Kodak’s hesitation and misaligned priorities led to its inability to capitalize on its technological advancements, ultimately resulting in the company filing for bankruptcy in 2012.
I didn’t want to be the next Kodak. I needed to get my act together and prioritize- a terrifying thought and a ton of pressure.
Game on.
Without prioritization, you don’t have a roadmap, at least one that the team can realistically deliver.
So what’s the goal of prioritization — what’s the why behind what gets picked?
When it comes to the roadmap, prioritization ensures the most critical outcome and feature with the highest value that works within the given constraints is developed first by:
1. Aligning with the Strategy:
Ensuring the roadmap aligns with the company and product’s overall vision, goals, and strategic objectives, ensuring that every effort contributes to long-term success and competitive advantage.
2. Maximizing Value:
Ensuring that the items selected for development provide the most significant benefit to users and stakeholders, addressing critical needs and solving high-priority market problems.
3. Optimizing Resources and Constraints:
Efficiently using the available resources (time, budget, talent) by focusing on the most important and impactful work, avoiding waste on less critical or low-value tasks, and optimizing for constraints.
Okay, so how do we accomplish this?
This is where my opinion diverges from that of hardcore prioritization disciples, all of whom have what they consider ‘the right’ method.
The short of it is that there is no ‘right’ method and no perfect framework.
Instead, product managers should choose which method best aligns with their company, product, team, and constraints. As a more analytically minded individual who prefers quant vs. qual, I tend to lean toward the RICE method of prioritization, which, of course, gets a lot of criticism.
As a refresher, here is a quick summary of the four methods I will discuss below:
- RICE stands for Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort. A quantitative prioritization framework helps product managers evaluate and compare different initiatives.
- The Kano Model categorizes product features based on customer satisfaction and functionality implementation.
- MoSCoW is an acronym standing for Must Have, Should Have, Could Have, and Won’t Have. It’s a prioritization technique used to help stakeholders understand the significance of initiatives.
- The Value vs. Effort method is a prioritization technique that evaluates potential features or initiatives based on two key factors: the value they provide to customers or the business and the effort required to implement them. It’s a visual approach that helps product managers and stakeholders make informed decisions about resource allocation and feature prioritization.
Now that we got that out of the way, here are a few considerations that can help you choose:
*Note: My goal for this section is to help you decide which one to use, not teach you how to use each method. Some of those hardcore prioritization disciples I mentioned have excellent resources available on how to apply each one.
1. Nature of the Product and Market
- Complexity of the Decision or Product: I find RICE or Value vs. Effort often works better for complex products with multiple features and user segments. For simple decisions, a straightforward method like MoSCoW might suffice.
- Market Maturity: For products in a mature market, where user expectations are well-defined, the MoSCoW method might be all you need for maintaining and enhancing core functionalities.
2. Stakeholder and Customer Involvement
- Stakeholder Preferences: If stakeholders have strong opinions and varying priorities and are collaborative, a transparent and collaborative method like the MoSCoW method can help manage expectations and align priorities. RICE or Value vs. Effort works better in politically charged environments or situations of significant disagreement, given objectivity.
- Customer Feedback: The Kano model can be beneficial for products where customer feedback is critical, as it focuses on customer satisfaction and identifying features that delight users.
3. Team Dynamics and Resources
- Team Capacity and Skills: If the team has limited resources or varying skill sets, the RICE or Value vs. Effort Matrix can help balance high-value, low-effort features to optimize productivity.
- Decision-Making Style: If the team prefers data-driven and analytical approaches, the Rice or Value vs. Effort Matrix provides a clear visual representation of priorities.
4. Strategic Goals and Objectives
- Alignment with Strategy: If the primary focus is on aligning with strategic goals and objectives, methods that consider business value and strategic alignment, like the Value vs. Effort Matrix, are advantageous.
- Innovation vs. Maintenance: For products focusing on innovation, the Kano model helps prioritize features that delight users. For products needing maintenance, the MoSCoW method ensures essential features are not overlooked.
5. Time Constraints and Urgency
- Need for Speed: If you need to identify and implement high-priority features quickly, the MoSCoW method provides a straightforward categorization that can be rapidly applied.
- Long-Term Planning: The Value vs. Effort Matrix allows for a more nuanced evaluation of features in longer-term planning, balancing short-term and long-term goals.
Again, there is no perfect method. And sometimes you need to use two.
Of course, experience is also important. If the team is familiar with a method and it has proven effective, stick with it.
Two final points.
First, don’t constantly change your method of prioritization. You need to stick with it for some time to determine if it’s working. Constant shifting will drive the team crazy, negate your ability to compare past prioritization to current and create an opportunity to question your priorities.
Second, you can use more than one method. There can be a primary and secondary. And if you do plan to change your method of prioritization, plan to run the old and new in parallel for some time to solve for the challenges mentioned in the first point.
Considering these factors, you can choose the prioritization method that best fits your situation and goals.
Prioritization evokes a number of emotions, yet it is a critical skill required to create effective product roadmaps and drive product success. But it’s not just about making hard choices; it’s about making the right choices given context and constraints.
While it may be challenging, embracing prioritization as a core part of your role will lead to focus, a more productive team, and better outcomes.
And remember, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to prioritization. The key is to choose while consistently and transparently applying a method that aligns with your product, team, company, and business environment. There is no perfect method.
As you refine your prioritization skills, you’ll make more informed decisions, align stakeholders more effectively, and ultimately deliver greater value to your users and your business.
So, take the time to master prioritization — it’s an investment that will pay dividends throughout your career.
Your company, product, team, and users will thank you.
