The Backlog Arsenal: Sampling a Variety of Prioritization Methods

Introduction

Amidst the chaos of product development, taking the time to refine and prioritize the backlog is essential. It brings order, focus, and a clear path to success. Embracing backlog refinement can lead to growth, efficiency, and remarkable achievements.

In this article, we will delve into the most popular models for task prioritization, exploring their significance and explaining why utilizing them is crucial.

ICE: Streamlining Decision-Making with Speed

This particular model serves as a straightforward and accessible tool for implementing goals and objectives. For those venturing into prioritization techniques for the first time, it offers an ideal entry point.

The origins of ICE can be traced back to growth hacking, a methodology renowned for its swift acquisition of diverse skills. Recently, this approach has gained considerable popularity in the realm of management prioritization.

Process

• Impact serves as an indicator to gauge the potential economic growth or improvement in crucial metrics resulting from implementing an initiative or technology.
• Confidence is a measure of the belief in the successful execution of a task, often influenced by other criteria.
• Ease is an assessment of the level of effort and resources required to complete a project.

The mechanism uses?a scale from 1 to 10?for each indicator.

Example

In the example below, we proceed with the Community tab as it's of the highest priority.

Pros

• Simplicity and ease of understanding
• Quick decision-making process
• Structured framework based on objective criteria

Cons

• Potential oversimplification of complex factors
• Lack of precise quantitative values
• Potential neglect of long-term strategic considerations

RICE: Data-Driven Approach

The RICE method, created by Intercom, has gained significant popularity among product management teams as a means of prioritizing features when developing a product roadmap. This approach serves to minimize biased opinions during grooming meetings and promotes the adoption of data-driven decision-making.

The RICE framework is particularly well-suited for established products with an existing user base and accessible product usage data. However, when prioritizing new products or Minimum Viable Products (MVPs), it is advisable to opt for the ICE method instead.

Process

The RICE and ICE components share similarities, but they diverge in terms of objectivity and assessment approach.

• Reach represents the number of individuals impacted by a feature or its implementation.
• Impact signifies the benefit derived from the feature's implementation on the final product or the overall project. Scale used is 3 = massive impact (XL), 2 = high impact (L), 1 = medium impact (M), 0.5 = low impact (S), 0.25 = minimal impact (XS)
• Confidence reflects the level of conviction in the successful execution of a feature. It is quantified as a percentage, allowing for adjustment even when concrete evidence of impact is lacking.
• Effort measures the labor costs associated with implementation. It is quantified by the number of team members involved in each project stage per month.

To clarify, if a project consists of multiple stages—planning (1 person) for 1 week, design (1 person) for 3 weeks, and development (2 persons) for 4 weeks— the total effort would amount to 4 team members working for 8 weeks. In this scenario, the effort would be equivalent to two.

Example

In the example below, we proceed with the Grammar warning as it's of the highest priority.

Pros

• Emphasis on impact and high-value items
• Transparency and collaboration among team members.
• Consideration of effort for resource management

Cons

• Potential oversight of other important aspects
• Limited adaptability to all project types
• Potential for bias in scoring

WSJF: Optimal Prioritization for Efficient Work Structuring

Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF) is a tool used in the?Scaled Agile Framework?(SAFe) to help teams prioritize a list of initiatives. A team calculates each initiative’s score as the cost of delay?divided by the job’s size or duration. The team then prioritizes those items that receive the highest ratings. The most versatile and efficient prioritization model, IMO.

Process

In this model, the calculations are simplified to a single formula. The complexity lies in the numerator, where the cost of delay is derived from the combination of three evaluation criteria. It is this element that truly enhances the effectiveness of WSJF.

For effective evaluation of features according to WSJF, StoryPoints or ScrumPoints are often used. These indicators show the laboriousness or complexity of backlog tasks. They are based on the Fibonacci number series.

• Cost of Delay: Get the right stakeholders together and collectively estimate the CoD relative to other jobs in the backlog. The figure below illustrates the three primary components of CoD for any particular job.

• Job size can be challenging to determine, especially early on, when the available capacity and time needed for each job are unknown. Job size can be used as a good proxy for the duration.

Example

In the example below, we proceed with the Mobile App as it's of the highest priority/WSJF score.

Pros

• Rational decision-making based on multiple criteria
• Consideration of Cost of Delay to minimize financial losses
• Efficient resource allocation for high-value tasks

Cons

• Complexity in evaluation and assigning weights
• Potential subjective bias in weighting criteria
• Dependence on accurate data for evaluation

MoSCoW: Prioritizing with Musts, Shoulds, Coulds, and Won'ts?

The acronym MoSCoW represents four categories of initiatives: must-have, should-have, could-have, and won’t-have, or will not have right now. Some companies also use the “W” in MoSCoW to mean “wish.”

The MoSCoW concept enables PM/PO's to effectively prioritize tasks, even under time constraints. When faced with limited resources, such as a tight budget, MoSCoW helps identify initiatives that can be accomplished within those limitations.

Example

Pros

• Simplicity and ease of understanding
• Clear categorization and prioritization structure
• Focus on critical needs with the Must Have category

Cons

• Lack of granularity for detailed prioritization
• Limited differentiation between Should Have and Could Have categories
• Subjectivity in prioritization within each category

MoSCoW x KANO: Wombo Combo

By combining the straightforwardness of MoSCoW with the customer-centric perspective provided by Kano (see image below), we can explore the range of requirements we are delivering.

Mapping requirements to Kano provides deeper insights into our requirements and facilitates more informed decision-making regarding requirement priority. For teams working in iterative cycles, it becomes crucial to strike a balance between meeting baseline expectations, enhancing linear satisfiers, and incorporating delightful elements to keep stakeholders excited. The combination of these factors may vary throughout the project's lifecycle, with an initial focus on baseline expectations and linear satisfiers, gradually introducing more delighters as the project progresses.

Conclusion

Prioritizing is a complex and lengthy process.

The selection of a prioritization model is contingent upon the intricacy of the backlog and the objectives of the manager. It is wise to experiment with various mechanisms, as personal experience will guide one in identifying the most efficacious and user-friendly model. The key lies in rigorous testing, testing, and more testing!

NOTE: The techniques/methods mentioned above are not the only ones out there. There are plenty of other options. But these are my personal favorites.