prioritization-frameworks
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
ChinesePrioritization Frameworks
优先级排序框架
Quantitative and qualitative frameworks for ranking features, initiatives, and backlog items.
用于对功能、举措和待办事项进行排序的定量与定性框架。
RICE Framework
RICE框架
Developed by Intercom, RICE provides a data-driven score for comparing features.
RICE由Intercom开发，为功能对比提供数据驱动的评分体系。
Formula
计算公式
RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / EffortRICE评分 = (覆盖用户数 × 影响程度 × 置信度) / 投入成本Factors
评估维度
| Factor | Definition | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Reach | Users/customers affected per quarter | Actual number |
| Impact | Effect on individual user | 0.25 (minimal) to 3 (massive) |
| Confidence | How sure are you? | 0.5 (low) to 1.0 (high) |
| Effort | Person-months required | Actual estimate |
| 维度 | 定义 | 评分范围 |
|---|---|---|
| 覆盖用户数（Reach） | 每季度受影响的用户/客户数量 | 实际数值 |
| 影响程度（Impact） | 对单个用户的影响 | 0.25（极小）至3（极大） |
| 置信度（Confidence） | 对结果的确定程度 | 0.5（低）至1.0（高） |
| 投入成本（Effort） | 所需的人月数 | 实际估算值 |
Impact Scale
影响程度评分标准
| Score | Level | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Massive | Fundamental improvement |
| 2 | High | Significant improvement |
| 1 | Medium | Noticeable improvement |
| 0.5 | Low | Minor improvement |
| 0.25 | Minimal | Barely noticeable |
| 分数 | 等级 | 描述 |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 极大 | 根本性改进 |
| 2 | 高 | 显著改进 |
| 1 | 中 | 可感知的改进 |
| 0.5 | 低 | 微小改进 |
| 0.25 | 极小 | 几乎不可感知 |
Confidence Scale
置信度评分标准
| Score | Level | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | High | Strong data, validated |
| 0.8 | Medium | Some data, reasonable assumptions |
| 0.5 | Low | Gut feeling, little data |
| 分数 | 等级 | 依据 |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 高 | 可靠数据，已验证 |
| 0.8 | 中 | 部分数据，合理假设 |
| 0.5 | 低 | 直觉判断，数据不足 |
Example Calculation
计算示例
markdown
Feature: Smart search with AI suggestions
Reach: 50,000 users/quarter (active searchers)
Impact: 2 (high - significantly better results)
Confidence: 0.8 (tested in prototype)
Effort: 3 person-months
RICE = (50,000 × 2 × 0.8) / 3 = 26,667markdown
功能：带AI建议的智能搜索
覆盖用户数：50,000 用户/季度（活跃搜索用户）
影响程度：2（高 - 搜索结果显著优化）
置信度：0.8（原型已测试）
投入成本：3 人月
RICE评分 = (50,000 × 2 × 0.8) / 3 = 26,667RICE Template
RICE模板
markdown
| Feature | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort | RICE Score |
|---------|-------|--------|------------|--------|------------|
| Feature A | 10,000 | 2 | 0.8 | 2 | 8,000 |
| Feature B | 50,000 | 1 | 1.0 | 4 | 12,500 |
| Feature C | 5,000 | 3 | 0.5 | 1 | 7,500 |markdown
| 功能 | 覆盖用户数 | 影响程度 | 置信度 | 投入成本 | RICE评分 |
|---------|-------|--------|------------|--------|------------|
| 功能A | 10,000 | 2 | 0.8 | 2 | 8,000 |
| 功能B | 50,000 | 1 | 1.0 | 4 | 12,500 |
| 功能C | 5,000 | 3 | 0.5 | 1 | 7,500 |ICE Framework
ICE框架
Simpler than RICE, ICE is ideal for fast prioritization.
ICE比RICE更简洁，适合快速优先级排序。
Formula
计算公式
ICE Score = Impact × Confidence × EaseICE评分 = 影响程度 × 置信度 × 实现难度Factors (All 1-10 Scale)
评估维度（均为1-10分制）
| Factor | Question |
|---|---|
| Impact | How much will this move the metric? |
| Confidence | How sure are we this will work? |
| Ease | How easy is this to implement? |
| 维度 | 问题 |
|---|---|
| 影响程度 | 该功能能在多大程度上推动指标增长？ |
| 置信度 | 我们对该功能的效果有多大把握？ |
| 实现难度（Ease） | 该功能实现起来有多容易？ |
Example
示例
markdown
Feature: One-click checkout
Impact: 9 (directly increases conversion)
Confidence: 7 (similar features work elsewhere)
Ease: 4 (requires payment integration work)
ICE = 9 × 7 × 4 = 252markdown
功能：一键结账
影响程度：9（直接提升转化率）
置信度：7（同类功能在其他场景已验证有效）
实现难度：4（需要支付集成开发）
ICE评分 = 9 × 7 × 4 = 252ICE vs RICE
ICE与RICE对比
| Aspect | RICE | ICE |
|---|---|---|
| Complexity | More detailed | Simpler |
| Reach consideration | Explicit | Implicit in Impact |
| Effort | Person-months | 1-10 Ease scale |
| Best for | Data-driven teams | Fast decisions |
| 对比项 | RICE | ICE |
|---|---|---|
| 复杂度 | 更详细 | 更简洁 |
| 用户覆盖考量 | 明确包含 | 隐含在影响程度中 |
| 投入成本 | 人月数 | 1-10分制的实现难度 |
| 适用场景 | 数据驱动型团队 | 快速决策 |
WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First)
WSJF（加权最短作业优先）
SAFe framework optimizing for economic value delivery.
SAFe框架，优化经济价值交付。
Formula
计算公式
WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job SizeWSJF = 延迟成本 / 作业规模Cost of Delay Components
延迟成本构成
Cost of Delay = User Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction| Component | Question | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| User Value | How much do users/business want this? | 1-21 (Fibonacci) |
| Time Criticality | Does value decay over time? | 1-21 |
| Risk Reduction | Does this reduce risk or enable opportunities? | 1-21 |
| Job Size | Relative effort compared to other items | 1-21 |
延迟成本 = 用户价值 + 时间紧迫性 + 风险降低| 构成部分 | 问题 | 评分范围 |
|---|---|---|
| 用户价值 | 用户/业务对该功能的需求程度？ | 1-21（斐波那契数列） |
| 时间紧迫性 | 价值是否会随时间衰减？ | 1-21 |
| 风险降低 | 该功能是否能降低风险或创造机会？ | 1-21 |
| 作业规模 | 相对其他事项的投入成本 | 1-21 |
Time Criticality Guidelines
时间紧迫性指导标准
| Score | Situation |
|---|---|
| 21 | Must ship this quarter or lose the opportunity |
| 13 | Competitor pressure, 6-month window |
| 8 | Customer requested, flexible timeline |
| 3 | Nice to have, no deadline |
| 1 | Can wait indefinitely |
| 分数 | 场景 |
|---|---|
| 21 | 本季度必须上线，否则错失机会 |
| 13 | 竞品压力，6个月窗口期 |
| 8 | 客户需求，时间灵活 |
| 3 | 锦上添花，无截止日期 |
| 1 | 可无限期推迟 |
Example
示例
markdown
Feature: GDPR compliance update
User Value: 8 (required for EU customers)
Time Criticality: 21 (regulatory deadline)
Risk Reduction: 13 (avoids fines)
Job Size: 8 (medium complexity)
Cost of Delay = 8 + 21 + 13 = 42
WSJF = 42 / 8 = 5.25markdown
功能：GDPR合规更新
用户价值：8（欧盟客户必备）
时间紧迫性：21（监管截止日期）
风险降低：13（避免罚款）
作业规模：8（中等复杂度）
延迟成本 = 8 + 21 + 13 = 42
WSJF = 42 / 8 = 5.25MoSCoW Method
MoSCoW方法
Qualitative prioritization for scope management.
用于范围管理的定性优先级排序法。
Categories
分类
| Priority | Meaning | Guideline |
|---|---|---|
| Must Have | Non-negotiable for release | ~60% of effort |
| Should Have | Important but not critical | ~20% of effort |
| Could Have | Nice to have if time permits | ~20% of effort |
| Won't Have | Explicitly out of scope | Documented |
| 优先级 | 含义 | 指导原则 |
|---|---|---|
| Must Have（必备） | 发布不可或缺的功能 | 约占60%的投入 |
| Should Have（重要） | 重要但非核心功能 | 约占20%的投入 |
| Could Have（可选） | 时间允许时可实现的功能 | 约占20%的投入 |
| Won't Have（排除） | 明确排除在范围外的功能 | 需文档记录 |
Application Rules
应用规则
- Must Have items alone should deliver a viable product
- Should Have items make product competitive
- Could Have items delight users
- Won't Have prevents scope creep
- 必备功能单独应能交付可用产品
- 重要功能提升产品竞争力
- 可选功能提升用户满意度
- 排除功能防止范围蔓延
Template
模板
markdown
undefinedmarkdown
undefinedRelease 1.0 MoSCoW
1.0版本MoSCoW分类
Must Have (M)
必备（M）
- User authentication
- Core data model
- Basic CRUD operations
- 用户认证
- 核心数据模型
- 基础CRUD操作
Should Have (S)
重要（S）
- Search functionality
- Export to CSV
- Email notifications
- 搜索功能
- CSV导出
- 邮件通知
Could Have (C)
可选（C）
- Dark mode
- Keyboard shortcuts
- Custom themes
- 深色模式
- 键盘快捷键
- 自定义主题
Won't Have (W)
排除（W）
- Mobile app (Release 2.0)
- AI recommendations (Release 2.0)
- Multi-language support (Release 3.0)
undefined- 移动端应用（2.0版本）
- AI推荐（2.0版本）
- 多语言支持（3.0版本）
undefinedKano Model
卡诺模型（Kano Model）
Categorize features by customer satisfaction impact.
根据对客户满意度的影响对功能进行分类。
Categories
分类
| Type | Absent | Present | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must-Be | Dissatisfied | Neutral | Login works |
| Performance | Dissatisfied | Satisfied | Fast load times |
| Delighters | Neutral | Delighted | AI suggestions |
| Indifferent | Neutral | Neutral | About page design |
| Reverse | Satisfied | Dissatisfied | Forced tutorials |
| 类型 | 缺失时 | 存在时 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 必备型 | 不满意 | 中立 | 登录功能正常可用 |
| 期望型 | 不满意 | 满意 | 页面加载速度快 |
| 兴奋型 | 中立 | 愉悦 | AI智能建议 |
| 无差异型 | 中立 | 中立 | 关于页面设计 |
| 反向型 | 满意 | 不满意 | 强制教程 |
Kano Survey Questions
卡诺模型调研问题
For each feature, ask two questions:
- "How would you feel if this feature was present?"
- "How would you feel if this feature was absent?"
Answer options: Like it, Expect it, Neutral, Can tolerate, Dislike
针对每个功能，提出两个问题：
- “如果该功能存在，您的感受如何？”
- “如果该功能缺失，您的感受如何？”
回答选项：喜欢、期望、中立、可接受、厌恶
Framework Selection Guide
框架选择指南
| Situation | Recommended Framework |
|---|---|
| Data-driven team with metrics | RICE |
| Fast startup decisions | ICE |
| SAFe/Agile enterprise | WSJF |
| Fixed scope negotiation | MoSCoW |
| Customer satisfaction focus | Kano |
| Strategic alignment | Value vs. Effort Matrix |
| 场景 | 推荐框架 |
|---|---|
| 数据驱动型团队，具备完善指标 | RICE |
| 初创团队快速决策 | ICE |
| SAFe/敏捷企业 | WSJF |
| 固定范围协商 | MoSCoW |
| 关注客户满意度 | 卡诺模型 |
| 战略对齐 | 价值-投入矩阵 |
Common Pitfalls
常见误区
| Pitfall | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Gaming the scores | Calibrate as a team regularly |
| Ignoring qualitative factors | Use frameworks as input, not gospel |
| Analysis paralysis | Set time limits on scoring sessions |
| Inconsistent scales | Document and share scoring guidelines |
| 误区 | 应对措施 |
|---|---|
| 刻意操控评分 | 定期团队校准评分标准 |
| 忽略定性因素 | 将框架作为参考，而非绝对标准 |
| 分析瘫痪 | 为评分环节设置时间限制 |
| 评分标准不一致 | 文档化并共享评分指南 |
Practical Tips
实用技巧
- Calibrate together: Score several items as a team to align understanding
- Revisit regularly: Priorities shift—rescore quarterly
- Document assumptions: Why did you give that Impact score?
- Combine frameworks: Use ICE for quick triage, RICE for final decisions
- 团队共同校准：团队一起对部分项目评分，统一理解
- 定期重新评估：优先级会变化，每季度重新评分
- 记录假设前提：记录为何给出该影响程度评分
- 组合使用框架：用ICE快速筛选，用RICE做最终决策
Related Skills
相关技能
- - Strategic context for prioritization
product-strategy-frameworks - - Connect priorities to measurable goals
okr-kpi-patterns - - Detailed specs for prioritized items
requirements-engineering
- - 优先级排序的战略背景
product-strategy-frameworks - - 将优先级与可衡量目标关联
okr-kpi-patterns - - 为已排序的项目编写详细规格
requirements-engineering
References
参考资料
- RICE Deep Dive
- WSJF Calculator
Version: 1.0.0 (January )
- RICE深度解析
- WSJF计算器
版本: 1.0.0（1月）