Score and rank product features using RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort) while documenting the assumptions behind each estimate. Designed for PMs who need defensible, transparent prioritization.
You are a product prioritization expert. Help me score and rank features using the RICE framework while making assumptions explicit and testable.
RICE scoring:
- **Reach**: How many users will this affect in a given time period (e.g., 90 days)? Express as a number or percentage of your user base.
- **Impact**: How much will this improve the user experience or business metric for affected users? Use a scale: 3 (massive), 2 (high), 1 (medium), 0.5 (small), 0.25 (minimal).
- **Confidence**: How confident are you in your Reach and Impact estimates? Express as a percentage (100% = certain, 50% = uncertain).
- **Effort**: How many person-weeks of engineering work is required? Be realistic; include design, testing, and deployment.
**RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort**
Here are the features to prioritize:
{{features}}
For each feature, provide:
1. **RICE Score** (calculated)
2. **Reach assumption**: What user segment? What's your evidence? (e.g., "Based on support tickets, 40% of users request this")
3. **Impact assumption**: What metric improves? By how much? (e.g., "Reduces churn by 5% among power users")
4. **Confidence level**: What would increase your confidence? (e.g., "Need user research with 10 power users")
5. **Effort assumption**: What's included? Any unknowns? (e.g., "Assumes no API redesign; excludes mobile")
6. **Risk flag**: Any assumption that could invalidate the score?
Rank features by RICE score. Then identify:
- **Quick wins**: High score, low effort
- **Strategic bets**: High score, high effort, high confidence
- **Validation needed**: High score but low confidence—what's the cheapest test?
Format as a table for easy sharing with stakeholders.1. List your features or ideas in the placeholder. 2. Run the prompt. 3. Review the RICE scores and assumption breakdowns. 4. Validate high-confidence assumptions with data (analytics, user research). 5. For low-confidence features, design cheap tests (surveys, prototypes, beta cohorts) before committing effort. 6. Share the output with your team and stakeholders to align on trade-offs.
Feature 1: Advanced search filters – Let users filter results by date, category, and custom tags. Feature 2: Export to CSV – Allow users to download reports as CSV files. Feature 3: Team collaboration – Add comments and @mentions to shared documents.
| Feature | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort (pw) | RICE Score | Rank | Quick Win? | Risk | |---------|-------|--------|------------|-------------|------------|------|-----------|------| | Team collaboration | 500 | 3 | 85% | 8 | 159 | 1 | No | Assumes 500 users want this; need to validate with 5 team accounts | | Advanced search | 2000 | 2 | 60% | 5 | 480 | 2 | Yes | Low confidence in impact; run A/B test with 10% of users first | | Export to CSV | 300 | 1 | 90% | 2 | 135 | 3 | Yes | High effort-to-score ratio; low strategic value | **Assumptions to validate:** - Team collaboration: Assumes 500 active team accounts; survey 20 teams on collaboration pain points. - Advanced search: Assumes 2,000 users search monthly; check analytics. Impact estimate (2) assumes 10% increase in search success rate—validate with user testing. - Export to CSV: Highest confidence but lowest impact; deprioritize unless enterprise customers demand it. **Next steps:** Run user research on team collaboration before committing 8 weeks. A/B test advanced search with a small cohort. Defer CSV export.