qa-aman/prioritization

Overview

Based on Continuous Discovery Habits by Teresa Torres + RICE scoring. Torres's key insight: teams prioritize solutions when they should be prioritizing opportunities (unmet user needs). Map opportunities first, then generate solutions. Use RICE to score which opportunity is worth pursuing.

Workflow

Step 1: Separate opportunities from solutions

Before scoring anything, sort the backlog into:

• Opportunities - unmet user needs, pain points, desires ("users can't track their progress")
• Solutions - specific things to build ("add a dashboard")

Prioritize at the opportunity level. For each opportunity, generate 2-3 possible solutions. This prevents locking into one solution prematurely.

Step 2: Build the Opportunity Solution Tree (optional, for complex backlogs)

Outcome (what business result do we want?)
  └── Opportunity 1 (unmet user need)
        └── Solution A
        └── Solution B
  └── Opportunity 2
        └── Solution C

Step 3: RICE Score each opportunity

| Opportunity | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort | RICE | |-------------|-------|--------|------------|--------|------|

• Reach - Users affected per period (number)
• Impact - Effect per user: 0.25 / 0.5 / 1 / 2 / 3
• Confidence - How sure are you: 100% / 80% / 50%
• Effort - Person-weeks (number)
• Formula: (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort

Step 4: Apply MoSCoW for stakeholder alignment

Use RICE scores to inform MoSCoW bucketing:

• Must Have - Highest RICE, directly tied to outcome
• Should Have - High value, not critical this cycle
• Could Have - Nice to have, cut if pressed
• Won't Have - Explicitly out this cycle

Step 5: Identify assumption gaps

Torres's approach: before committing to a solution, list the riskiest assumptions. Flag items where confidence is low and assumptions are untested.

Step 6: Recommend clearly

State: "Focus on X, Y, Z this cycle. Reason: [one sentence per item]."

Anti-Patterns

1. Prioritizing solutions before opportunities Bad: "Should we build a dashboard or a report export?" Good: "The opportunity is: users can't track progress. Which solution best addresses that?"

2. Scoring without assumptions Bad: RICE scores presented as facts. Good: "Confidence = 50% because we haven't validated this with users yet."

3. Everything is Must Have Bad: Stakeholders protect everything by labeling it critical. Good: Force constraint: "You have 3 Must Have slots. Pick 3." Scarcity reveals real priorities.

4. No connection to outcome Bad: Prioritizing features that don't tie to a measurable business outcome. Good: Every top-priority item maps to an explicit outcome at the top of the tree.

Quality Checklist

• [ ] Opportunities separated from solutions before scoring
• [ ] RICE scores have stated assumptions
• [ ] Confidence reflects actual evidence level
• [ ] MoSCoW: no more than 40% of items in Must Have
• [ ] Top priorities connect to a stated business outcome
• [ ] Clear recommendation with reasoning at the end