prioritization
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
ChinesePrioritization Frameworks
优先级排序框架
Score, rank, and justify backlog decisions using the right framework for the situation.
根据具体场景选择合适的框架，对待办事项决策进行评分、排序和论证。
Decision Tree: Which Framework to Use
决策树：如何选择框架
Do you have a hard deadline or regulatory pressure?
YES → WSJF (Cost of Delay drives sequencing)
NO → Do you have reach/usage data?
YES → RICE (data-driven, accounts for user reach)
NO → Are you in a time-boxed planning session?
YES → ICE (fast, 1-10 scales, no data required)
NO → Is this a scope negotiation with stakeholders?
YES → MoSCoW (bucket features, control scope creep)
NO → Value-Effort Matrix (quick 2x2 triage)| Framework | Best For | Data Required | Time to Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICE | Data-rich teams, steady-state prioritization | Analytics, user counts | 30-60 min |
| WSJF | SAFe orgs, time-sensitive or regulated work | Relative estimates only | 15-30 min |
| ICE | Startup speed, early validation, quick triage | None | 5-10 min |
| MoSCoW | Scope negotiation, release planning | Stakeholder input | 1-2 hours |
| Value-Effort | 2x2 visual, quick team alignment | None | 10-15 min |
是否存在硬性截止日期或监管压力？
是 → WSJF（延迟成本驱动排序）
否 → 是否有触达/使用数据？
是 → RICE（数据驱动，考虑用户触达范围）
否 → 是否处于时间盒规划会议中？
是 → ICE（快速评估，采用1-10评分，无需数据）
否 → 是否在与利益相关方进行范围协商？
是 → MoSCoW（对功能进行分类，控制范围蔓延）
否 → 价值-工作量矩阵（快速2x2分类）| 框架 | 最佳适用场景 | 是否需要数据 | 评分耗时 |
|---|---|---|---|
| RICE | 数据充足的团队、稳定状态下的优先级排序 | 分析数据、用户数量 | 30-60分钟 |
| WSJF | 采用SAFe框架的组织、时间敏感或受监管的工作 | 仅需相对估算 | 15-30分钟 |
| ICE | 追求速度的初创公司、早期验证、快速分类 | 无需数据 | 5-10分钟 |
| MoSCoW | 范围协商、版本规划 | 利益相关方输入 | 1-2小时 |
| 价值-工作量 | 2x2可视化、快速团队对齐 | 无需数据 | 10-15分钟 |
RICE
RICE
RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort| Factor | Scale | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Reach | Actual users/quarter | Use analytics; do not estimate |
| Impact | 0.25 / 0.5 / 1 / 2 / 3 | Minimal → Massive per user |
| Confidence | 0.3 / 0.5 / 0.8 / 1.0 | Moonshot → Strong data |
| Effort | Person-months | Include design, eng, QA |
markdown
undefinedRICE 评分 = (触达范围 × 影响力 × 置信度) / 工作量| 因素 | 评分范围 | 说明 |
|---|---|---|
| 触达范围 | 每季度实际用户数 | 使用分析数据；不要估算 |
| 影响力 | 0.25 / 0.5 / 1 / 2 / 3 | 从“极小”到“极大”（按单用户计算） |
| 置信度 | 0.3 / 0.5 / 0.8 / 1.0 | 从“天马行空”到“数据充分” |
| 工作量 | 人月 | 包含设计、开发、QA |
markdown
undefinedRICE Scoring: [Feature Name]
RICE 评分示例：[功能名称]
| Feature | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smart search | 50,000 | 2 | 0.8 | 3 | 26,667 |
| CSV export | 10,000 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 10,000 |
| Dark mode | 30,000 | 0.25 | 1.0 | 1 | 7,500 |
See [rules/prioritize-rice.md](rules/prioritize-rice.md) for ICE, Kano, and full scale tables.
---| 功能 | 触达范围 | 影响力 | 置信度 | 工作量 | 评分 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 智能搜索 | 50,000 | 2 | 0.8 | 3 | 26,667 |
| CSV导出 | 10,000 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 10,000 |
| 深色模式 | 30,000 | 0.25 | 1.0 | 1 | 7,500 |
查看 [rules/prioritize-rice.md](rules/prioritize-rice.md) 获取ICE、Kano及完整评分表。
---WSJF
WSJF
WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Size
Cost of Delay = User Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction (1-21 Fibonacci each)Higher WSJF = do first. Fibonacci scale (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21) forces relative sizing.
markdown
undefinedWSJF = 延迟成本 / 任务规模
延迟成本 = 用户价值 + 时间紧迫性 + 风险降低 （每项采用1-21斐波那契评分）WSJF 分数越高，越优先处理。斐波那契量表（1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21）用于强制相对规模估算。
markdown
undefinedWSJF: GDPR Compliance Update
WSJF 示例：GDPR合规更新
User Value: 8 (required for EU customers)
Time Criticality: 21 (regulatory deadline this quarter)
Risk Reduction: 13 (avoids significant fines)
Job Size: 8 (medium complexity)
Cost of Delay = 8 + 21 + 13 = 42
WSJF = 42 / 8 = 5.25
See [rules/prioritize-wsjf.md](rules/prioritize-wsjf.md) for MoSCoW buckets and practical tips.
See [references/wsjf-guide.md](references/wsjf-guide.md) for the full scoring guide.
---用户价值: 8 (欧盟客户必需)
时间紧迫性: 21 (本季度有监管截止日期)
风险降低: 13 (避免高额罚款)
任务规模: 8 (中等复杂度)
延迟成本 = 8 + 21 + 13 = 42
WSJF = 42 / 8 = 5.25
查看 [rules/prioritize-wsjf.md](rules/prioritize-wsjf.md) 获取MoSCoW分类及实用技巧。
查看 [references/wsjf-guide.md](references/wsjf-guide.md) 获取完整评分指南。
---ICE
ICE
ICE Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease (all factors 1-10)No user data required. Score relative to other backlog items. Useful for early-stage products and rapid triage sessions.
ICE 评分 = 影响力 × 置信度 × 易用性 (所有因素采用1-10评分)无需用户数据。相对于其他待办事项进行评分。适用于早期产品和快速分类会议。
MoSCoW
MoSCoW
Bucket features before estimation. Must-Haves alone should ship a viable product.
markdown
undefined在估算前对功能进行分类。仅“必须拥有”的功能就应该能交付一个可用的产品。
markdown
undefinedRelease 1.0 MoSCoW
1.0版本MoSCoW分类
Must Have (~60% of effort)
必须拥有 (~60%工作量)
- User authentication
- Core CRUD operations
- 用户认证
- 核心CRUD操作
Should Have (~20%)
应该拥有 (~20%)
- Search, export, notifications
- 搜索、导出、通知
Could Have (~20%)
可以拥有 (~20%)
- Dark mode, keyboard shortcuts
- 深色模式、键盘快捷键
Won't Have (documented out-of-scope)
不会拥有（已记录为范围外）
- Mobile app (Release 2.0)
- AI features (Release 2.0)
---- 移动端应用（2.0版本）
- AI功能（2.0版本）
---Opportunity Cost & Trade-Off Analysis
机会成本与取舍分析
When two items compete for the same team capacity, quantify what delaying each item costs per month.
markdown
undefined当两个工作项竞争同一团队资源时，量化每个工作项每月延迟的成本。
markdown
undefinedTrade-Off: AI Search vs Platform Migration (Q2 eng team)
取舍分析：AI搜索 vs 平台迁移（Q2开发团队）
Option A: AI Search
选项A: AI搜索
- Cost of Delay: $25K/month (competitive risk)
- RICE Score: 18,000
- Effort: 6 weeks
- 延迟成本: 每月2.5万美元（竞争风险）
- RICE评分: 18,000
- 工作量: 6周
Option B: Platform Migration
选项B: 平台迁移
- Cost of Delay: $5K/month (tech debt interest)
- RICE Score: 4,000
- Effort: 8 weeks
- 延迟成本: 每月5000美元（技术债务利息）
- RICE评分: 4,000
- 工作量: 8周
Recommendation
建议
Human decides. Key factors:
- Q2 OKR: Increase trial-to-paid conversion (favors AI Search)
- Engineering capacity: Only one team, sequential not parallel
- Customer commitment: No contractual deadline for either
See [rules/prioritize-opportunity-cost.md](rules/prioritize-opportunity-cost.md) for the Value-Effort Matrix and full trade-off template.
See [references/rice-scoring-guide.md](references/rice-scoring-guide.md) for detailed RICE calibration.
---由人工决策。关键因素:
- Q2 OKR: 提高试用转付费转化率（倾向AI搜索）
- 开发能力: 只有一个团队，只能串行而非并行处理
- 客户承诺: 两者均无合同截止日期
查看 [rules/prioritize-opportunity-cost.md](rules/prioritize-opportunity-cost.md) 获取价值-工作量矩阵及完整取舍模板。
查看 [references/rice-scoring-guide.md](references/rice-scoring-guide.md) 获取详细RICE校准方法。
---Common Pitfalls
常见陷阱
| Pitfall | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Gaming scores to justify pre-decided work | Calibrate as a team; document assumptions |
| Mixing frameworks in one table | Pick one framework per planning session |
| Only tracking high-RICE items; ignoring cost of delay | Combine RICE with explicit delay cost analysis |
| MoSCoW Must-Have bloat (>70% of scope) | Must-Haves alone must ship a viable product |
| Comparing RICE scores across different goals | Only compare within the same objective |
| 陷阱 | 缓解措施 |
|---|---|
| 操纵分数来证明预先决定的工作合理性 | 团队共同校准；记录假设 |
| 在同一个表格中混合使用多种框架 | 每次规划会议选择一种框架 |
| 只跟踪高RICE分数的工作项；忽略延迟成本 | 将RICE与明确的延迟成本分析结合使用 |
| MoSCoW“必须拥有”功能膨胀（超过70%范围） | 仅“必须拥有”的功能就应该能交付一个可用的产品 |
| 跨不同目标比较RICE分数 | 仅在同一目标内进行比较 |
Related Skills
相关技能
- — Full PM toolkit (value prop, market sizing, competitive analysis, user research, business case)
product-frameworks - — Convert prioritized features into product requirements documents
write-prd - — Define and instrument the metrics that feed RICE reach/impact scores
product-analytics - — Set the objectives that determine which KPIs drive RICE impact scoring
okr-design - — TAM/SAM/SOM analysis that informs strategic priority
market-sizing - — Competitor context that raises or lowers WSJF time criticality scores
competitive-analysis
Version: 1.0.0
- — 完整PM工具包（价值主张、市场规模、竞争分析、用户研究、商业案例）
product-frameworks - — 将优先级排序后的功能转换为产品需求文档
write-prd - — 定义并监测为RICE提供触达/影响力分数的指标
product-analytics - — 设定目标，确定哪些KPI驱动RICE影响力评分
okr-design - — TAM/SAM/SOM分析，为战略优先级提供信息
market-sizing - — 竞争对手背景，影响WSJF时间紧迫性评分
competitive-analysis
版本: 1.0.0