Initial commit
This commit is contained in:
Zhongwei Li
374
skills/prioritization-effort-impact/resources/template.md
Normal file
374
skills/prioritization-effort-impact/resources/template.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,374 @@
|
||||
# Prioritization: Effort-Impact Matrix Template
|
||||
|
||||
## Table of Contents
|
||||
1. [Workflow](#workflow)
|
||||
2. [Prioritization Matrix Template](#prioritization-matrix-template)
|
||||
3. [Scoring Table Template](#scoring-table-template)
|
||||
4. [Prioritized Roadmap Template](#prioritized-roadmap-template)
|
||||
5. [Guidance for Each Section](#guidance-for-each-section)
|
||||
6. [Quick Patterns](#quick-patterns)
|
||||
7. [Quality Checklist](#quality-checklist)
|
||||
|
||||
## Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Prioritization Progress:
|
||||
- [ ] Step 1: Gather items and clarify scoring
|
||||
- [ ] Step 2: Score effort and impact
|
||||
- [ ] Step 3: Plot matrix and identify quadrants
|
||||
- [ ] Step 4: Create prioritized roadmap
|
||||
- [ ] Step 5: Validate and communicate decisions
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 1:** Collect all items to prioritize and define scoring scales. See [Scoring Table Template](#scoring-table-template) for structure.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 2:** Rate each item on effort (1-5) and impact (1-5) with stakeholder input. See [Guidance: Scoring](#guidance-scoring) for calibration tips.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 3:** Plot items on 2x2 matrix and categorize into quadrants. See [Prioritization Matrix Template](#prioritization-matrix-template) for visualization.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 4:** Sequence items into roadmap (Quick Wins → Big Bets → Fill-Ins, avoid Time Sinks). See [Prioritized Roadmap Template](#prioritized-roadmap-template) for execution plan.
|
||||
|
||||
**Step 5:** Self-check quality and communicate decisions with rationale. See [Quality Checklist](#quality-checklist) for validation.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Prioritization Matrix Template
|
||||
|
||||
Copy this section to create your effort-impact matrix:
|
||||
|
||||
### Effort-Impact Matrix: [Context Name]
|
||||
|
||||
**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
|
||||
**Scope**: [e.g., Q1 Product Backlog, Technical Debt Items, Strategic Initiatives]
|
||||
**Participants**: [Names/roles who contributed to scoring]
|
||||
|
||||
#### Matrix Visualization
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
High Impact │
|
||||
5 │ Big Bets │ Quick Wins
|
||||
│ [Item names] │ [Item names]
|
||||
4 │ │
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
3 │─────────────────────┼─────────────────
|
||||
│ │
|
||||
2 │ Time Sinks │ Fill-Ins
|
||||
│ [Item names] │ [Item names]
|
||||
1 │ │
|
||||
Low Impact │ │
|
||||
└─────────────────────┴─────────────────
|
||||
5 4 3 2 1
|
||||
High Effort Low Effort
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Visual Plotting** (if using visual tools):
|
||||
- Create 2x2 grid (effort on X-axis, impact on Y-axis)
|
||||
- Place each item at coordinates (effort, impact)
|
||||
- Use color coding: Green=Quick Wins, Blue=Big Bets, Yellow=Fill-Ins, Red=Time Sinks
|
||||
- Add item labels or numbers for reference
|
||||
|
||||
#### Quadrant Summary
|
||||
|
||||
**Quick Wins (High Impact, Low Effort)** - Do First! ✓
|
||||
- [Item 1]: Impact=5, Effort=2 - [Brief rationale]
|
||||
- [Item 2]: Impact=4, Effort=1 - [Brief rationale]
|
||||
- **Total**: X items
|
||||
|
||||
**Big Bets (High Impact, High Effort)** - Do Second
|
||||
- [Item 3]: Impact=5, Effort=5 - [Brief rationale]
|
||||
- [Item 4]: Impact=4, Effort=4 - [Brief rationale]
|
||||
- **Total**: X items
|
||||
|
||||
**Fill-Ins (Low Impact, Low Effort)** - Do During Downtime
|
||||
- [Item 5]: Impact=2, Effort=1 - [Brief rationale]
|
||||
- [Item 6]: Impact=1, Effort=2 - [Brief rationale]
|
||||
- **Total**: X items
|
||||
|
||||
**Time Sinks (Low Impact, High Effort)** - Avoid/Defer ❌
|
||||
- [Item 7]: Impact=2, Effort=5 - [Brief rationale for why low impact]
|
||||
- [Item 8]: Impact=1, Effort=4 - [Brief rationale]
|
||||
- **Total**: X items
|
||||
- **Recommendation**: Cut scope, reject, or significantly descope these items
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Scoring Table Template
|
||||
|
||||
Copy this table to score all items systematically:
|
||||
|
||||
### Scoring Table: [Context Name]
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Item Name | Effort | Impact | Quadrant | Notes/Rationale |
|
||||
|---|-----------|--------|--------|----------|-----------------|
|
||||
| 1 | [Feature/initiative name] | 2 | 5 | Quick Win ✓ | [Why this score?] |
|
||||
| 2 | [Another item] | 4 | 4 | Big Bet | [Why this score?] |
|
||||
| 3 | [Another item] | 1 | 2 | Fill-In | [Why this score?] |
|
||||
| 4 | [Another item] | 5 | 2 | Time Sink ❌ | [Why low impact?] |
|
||||
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
|
||||
|
||||
**Scoring Scales:**
|
||||
|
||||
**Effort (1-5):**
|
||||
- **1 - Trivial**: < 1 day, one person, no dependencies, no risk
|
||||
- **2 - Small**: 1-3 days, one person or pair, minimal dependencies
|
||||
- **3 - Medium**: 1-2 weeks, small team, some dependencies or moderate complexity
|
||||
- **4 - Large**: 1-2 months, cross-team coordination, significant complexity or risk
|
||||
- **5 - Massive**: 3+ months, major initiative, high complexity/risk/dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact (1-5):**
|
||||
- **1 - Negligible**: <5% users affected, <$10K value, minimal pain relief
|
||||
- **2 - Minor**: 5-20% users, $10-50K value, nice-to-have improvement
|
||||
- **3 - Moderate**: 20-50% users, $50-200K value, meaningful pain relief
|
||||
- **4 - Major**: 50-90% users, $200K-1M value, significant competitive advantage
|
||||
- **5 - Transformative**: >90% users, $1M+ value, existential or strategic imperative
|
||||
|
||||
**Effort Dimensions (optional detail):**
|
||||
| # | Item | Time | Complexity | Risk | Dependencies | **Avg Effort** |
|
||||
|---|------|------|------------|------|--------------|----------------|
|
||||
| 1 | [Item] | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | **2** |
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact Dimensions (optional detail):**
|
||||
| # | Item | Users | Business Value | Strategy | Pain | **Avg Impact** |
|
||||
|---|------|-------|----------------|----------|------|----------------|
|
||||
| 1 | [Item] | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | **5** |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Prioritized Roadmap Template
|
||||
|
||||
Copy this section to sequence items into execution plan:
|
||||
|
||||
### Prioritized Roadmap: [Context Name]
|
||||
|
||||
**Planning Horizon**: [e.g., Q1 2024, Next 6 months]
|
||||
**Team Capacity**: [e.g., 3 engineers × 80% project time = 2.4 FTE, assumes 20% support/maintenance]
|
||||
**Execution Strategy**: Quick Wins first to build momentum, then Big Bets for strategic impact
|
||||
|
||||
#### Phase 1: Quick Wins (Weeks 1-4)
|
||||
|
||||
**Objective**: Deliver visible value fast, build stakeholder confidence
|
||||
|
||||
| Priority | Item | Effort | Impact | Timeline | Owner | Dependencies |
|
||||
|----------|------|--------|--------|----------|-------|--------------|
|
||||
| 1 | [Quick Win 1] | 2 | 5 | Week 1-2 | [Name] | None |
|
||||
| 2 | [Quick Win 2] | 1 | 4 | Week 2 | [Name] | None |
|
||||
| 3 | [Quick Win 3] | 2 | 4 | Week 3-4 | [Name] | [Blocker if any] |
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected Outcomes**: [User impact, metrics improvement, stakeholder wins]
|
||||
|
||||
#### Phase 2: Big Bets (Weeks 5-16)
|
||||
|
||||
**Objective**: Tackle high-value strategic initiatives
|
||||
|
||||
| Priority | Item | Effort | Impact | Timeline | Owner | Dependencies |
|
||||
|----------|------|--------|----------|----------|-------|--------------|
|
||||
| 4 | [Big Bet 1] | 5 | 5 | Week 5-12 | [Team/Name] | Quick Win 1 complete |
|
||||
| 5 | [Big Bet 2] | 4 | 4 | Week 8-14 | [Team/Name] | External API access |
|
||||
| 6 | [Big Bet 3] | 4 | 5 | Week 12-18 | [Team/Name] | Phase 1 learnings |
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected Outcomes**: [Strategic milestones, competitive positioning, revenue impact]
|
||||
|
||||
#### Phase 3: Fill-Ins (Ongoing, Low Priority)
|
||||
|
||||
**Objective**: Batch small tasks during downtime, sprint buffers, or waiting periods
|
||||
|
||||
| Item | Effort | Impact | Timing | Notes |
|
||||
|------|--------|--------|--------|-------|
|
||||
| [Fill-In 1] | 1 | 2 | Sprint buffer | Do if capacity available |
|
||||
| [Fill-In 2] | 2 | 1 | Between phases | Nice-to-have polish |
|
||||
| [Fill-In 3] | 1 | 2 | Waiting on blocker | Quick task while blocked |
|
||||
|
||||
**Strategy**: Don't schedule these explicitly; fill gaps opportunistically
|
||||
|
||||
#### Deferred/Rejected Items (Time Sinks)
|
||||
|
||||
**Objective**: Communicate what we're NOT doing and why
|
||||
|
||||
| Item | Effort | Impact | Reason for Rejection | Reconsider When |
|
||||
|------|--------|--------|----------------------|-----------------|
|
||||
| [Time Sink 1] | 5 | 2 | Low ROI, niche use case | User demand increases 10× |
|
||||
| [Time Sink 2] | 4 | 1 | Premature optimization | Performance becomes bottleneck |
|
||||
| [Time Sink 3] | 5 | 2 | Edge case perfection | Core features stable for 6mo |
|
||||
|
||||
**Communication**: Explicitly tell stakeholders these are cut to focus resources on higher-impact work
|
||||
|
||||
#### Capacity Planning
|
||||
|
||||
**Total Planned Work**: [X effort points] across Quick Wins + Big Bets
|
||||
**Available Capacity**: [Y effort points] (team size × time × utilization)
|
||||
**Buffer**: [Z%] for unplanned work, support, bugs
|
||||
**Risk**: [High/Medium/Low] - [Explanation of capacity risks]
|
||||
|
||||
**Guardrail**: Don't exceed 70-80% of available capacity to allow for unknowns
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Guidance for Each Section
|
||||
|
||||
### Guidance: Scoring
|
||||
|
||||
**Get diverse input**:
|
||||
- **Engineering**: Estimates effort (time, complexity, risk, dependencies)
|
||||
- **Product**: Estimates impact (user value, business value, strategic alignment)
|
||||
- **Sales/CS**: Validates customer pain and business value
|
||||
- **Design**: Assesses UX impact and design effort
|
||||
|
||||
**Calibration session**:
|
||||
1. Score 3-5 reference items together to calibrate scale
|
||||
2. Use these as anchors: "If X is a 3, then Y is probably a 2"
|
||||
3. Document examples: "Effort=2 example: Add CSV export (2 days, one dev)"
|
||||
|
||||
**Avoid bias**:
|
||||
- ❌ **Anchoring**: First person's score influences others → use silent voting, then discuss
|
||||
- ❌ **Optimism bias**: Engineers underestimate effort → add 20-50% buffer
|
||||
- ❌ **HIPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion)**: Exec scores override reality → anonymous scoring first
|
||||
- ❌ **Recency bias**: Recent successes inflate confidence → review past estimates
|
||||
|
||||
**Differentiate scores**:
|
||||
- If 80% of items are scored 3, you haven't prioritized
|
||||
- Force distribution: Top 20% are 4-5, bottom 20% are 1-2, middle 60% are 2-4
|
||||
- Use ranking if needed: "Rank all items, then assign scores based on distribution"
|
||||
|
||||
### Guidance: Quadrant Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
**Quick Wins (High Impact, Low Effort)** - Rare, valuable
|
||||
- ✓ Do these immediately
|
||||
- ✓ Communicate early wins to build momentum
|
||||
- ❌ Beware: If you have >5 quick wins, scores may be miscalibrated
|
||||
- ❓ Ask: "If this is so easy and valuable, why haven't we done it already?"
|
||||
|
||||
**Big Bets (High Impact, High Effort)** - Strategic focus
|
||||
- ✓ Schedule 1-2 big bets per quarter (don't overcommit)
|
||||
- ✓ Break into phases/milestones for incremental value
|
||||
- ✓ Start after quick wins to build team capability and stakeholder trust
|
||||
- ❌ Don't start 3+ big bets simultaneously (thrashing, context switching)
|
||||
|
||||
**Fill-Ins (Low Impact, Low Effort)** - Opportunistic
|
||||
- ✓ Batch together (e.g., "polish sprint" once per quarter)
|
||||
- ✓ Do during downtime, sprint buffers, or while blocked
|
||||
- ❌ Don't schedule explicitly (wastes planning time)
|
||||
- ❌ Don't let these crowd out big bets
|
||||
|
||||
**Time Sinks (Low Impact, High Effort)** - Avoid!
|
||||
- ✓ Explicitly reject or defer with clear rationale
|
||||
- ✓ Challenge: Can we descope to make this lower effort?
|
||||
- ✓ Communicate to stakeholders: "We're not doing X because..."
|
||||
- ❌ Don't let these sneak into roadmap due to HIPPO or sunk cost fallacy
|
||||
|
||||
### Guidance: Roadmap Sequencing
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 1: Quick Wins First**
|
||||
- Builds momentum, team confidence, stakeholder trust
|
||||
- Delivers early value while learning about systems/users
|
||||
- Creates psychological safety for bigger risks later
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2: Big Bets Second**
|
||||
- Team is warmed up, systems are understood
|
||||
- Quick wins have bought goodwill for longer timeline items
|
||||
- Learnings from Phase 1 inform Big Bet execution
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3: Fill-Ins Opportunistically**
|
||||
- Don't schedule; do when capacity available
|
||||
- Useful for onboarding new team members (low-risk tasks)
|
||||
- Good for sprint buffers or while waiting on dependencies
|
||||
|
||||
**Dependencies:**
|
||||
- Map explicitly (item X depends on item Y completing)
|
||||
- Use critical path analysis for complex roadmaps
|
||||
- Build slack/buffer before dependent items
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
### By Context
|
||||
|
||||
**Product Backlog (50+ features)**:
|
||||
- Effort: Engineering time + design + QA + deployment risk
|
||||
- Impact: User reach × pain severity × business value
|
||||
- Quick wins: UX fixes, config changes, small integrations
|
||||
- Big bets: New workflows, platform changes, major redesigns
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical Debt (30+ items)**:
|
||||
- Effort: Refactoring time + testing + migration risk
|
||||
- Impact: Developer productivity + future feature velocity + incidents prevented
|
||||
- Quick wins: Dependency upgrades, linting fixes, small refactors
|
||||
- Big bets: Architecture overhauls, language migrations, monolith → microservices
|
||||
|
||||
**Bug Triage (100+ bugs)**:
|
||||
- Effort: Debug time + fix complexity + regression risk + deployment
|
||||
- Impact: User pain × frequency × business impact (revenue/support cost)
|
||||
- Quick wins: High-frequency easy fixes, workarounds for critical bugs
|
||||
- Big bets: Complex race conditions, performance issues, architectural bugs
|
||||
|
||||
**Strategic Initiatives (10-20 ideas)**:
|
||||
- Effort: People × months + capital + dependencies
|
||||
- Impact: Revenue/cost impact + strategic alignment + competitive advantage
|
||||
- Quick wins: Process improvements, pilot programs, low-cost experiments
|
||||
- Big bets: Market expansion, platform bets, major partnerships
|
||||
|
||||
### Common Scenarios
|
||||
|
||||
**All Big Bets, No Quick Wins**:
|
||||
- Problem: Roadmap takes 6+ months for first value delivery
|
||||
- Fix: Break big bets into phases; ship incremental value
|
||||
- Example: Instead of "Rebuild platform" (6mo), do "Migrate auth" (1mo) + "Migrate users" (1mo) + ...
|
||||
|
||||
**All Quick Wins, No Strategic Depth**:
|
||||
- Problem: Delivering small wins but losing competitive ground
|
||||
- Fix: Schedule 1-2 big bets per quarter for strategic positioning
|
||||
- Balance: 70% quick wins + fill-ins, 30% big bets
|
||||
|
||||
**Too Many Time Sinks**:
|
||||
- Problem: Backlog clogged with low-value high-effort items
|
||||
- Fix: Purge ruthlessly; if impact is low, effort doesn't matter
|
||||
- Communication: "We're closing 20 low-value items to focus resources"
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Quality Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before finalizing, verify:
|
||||
|
||||
**Scoring Quality:**
|
||||
- [ ] Diverse stakeholders contributed to scores (eng, product, sales, etc.)
|
||||
- [ ] Scores are differentiated (not all 3s; use full 1-5 range)
|
||||
- [ ] Extreme scores questioned ("Why haven't we done this quick win already?")
|
||||
- [ ] Scoring rationale documented for transparency
|
||||
- [ ] Effort includes time, complexity, risk, dependencies (not just time)
|
||||
- [ ] Impact includes users, value, strategy, pain (not just one dimension)
|
||||
|
||||
**Matrix Quality:**
|
||||
- [ ] 10-20% Quick Wins (if 0%, scores miscalibrated; if 50%, too optimistic)
|
||||
- [ ] 20-30% Big Bets (strategic work, not just small tasks)
|
||||
- [ ] Time Sinks identified and explicitly cut/deferred
|
||||
- [ ] Items clustered around quadrant boundaries re-evaluated (e.g., Effort=2.5, Impact=2.5)
|
||||
- [ ] Visual matrix created (not just table) for stakeholder communication
|
||||
|
||||
**Roadmap Quality:**
|
||||
- [ ] Quick Wins scheduled first (Weeks 1-4)
|
||||
- [ ] Big Bets scheduled second (after momentum built)
|
||||
- [ ] Fill-Ins not explicitly scheduled (opportunistic)
|
||||
- [ ] Time Sinks explicitly rejected with rationale communicated
|
||||
- [ ] Dependencies mapped (item X depends on Y)
|
||||
- [ ] Capacity buffer included (don't plan 100% of capacity)
|
||||
- [ ] Timeline realistic (effort scores × team size = weeks)
|
||||
|
||||
**Communication Quality:**
|
||||
- [ ] Prioritization decisions explained (not just "we're doing X")
|
||||
- [ ] Trade-offs visible ("Doing X means not doing Y")
|
||||
- [ ] Stakeholder concerns addressed ("Sales wanted Z, but impact is low because...")
|
||||
- [ ] Success metrics defined (how will we know this roadmap succeeded?)
|
||||
- [ ] Review cadence set (re-score quarterly, adjust roadmap monthly)
|
||||
|
||||
**Red Flags to Fix:**
|
||||
- ❌ One person scored everything alone
|
||||
- ❌ All scores are 2.5-3.5 (not differentiated)
|
||||
- ❌ Zero quick wins identified
|
||||
- ❌ Roadmap is 100% big bets (unrealistic)
|
||||
- ❌ Time sinks included in roadmap (low ROI)
|
||||
- ❌ No capacity buffer (planned at 100%)
|
||||
- ❌ No rationale for why items were prioritized
|
||||
- ❌ Stakeholders disagree on scores but no discussion happened
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user