Initial commit

skills/prioritization-methods/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,285 @@
+---
+name: prioritization-methods
+description: Apply RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, Kano, and Value vs Effort frameworks. Use when prioritizing features, roadmap planning, or making trade-off decisions.
+---
+
+# Prioritization Methods & Frameworks
+
+## Overview
+
+Data-driven frameworks for feature prioritization, backlog ranking, and MVP scoping. Choose the right framework based on your context: data availability, team size, and decision type.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+**Auto-loaded by agents**:
+- `feature-prioritizer` - For RICE/ICE scoring, MVP scoping, and backlog ranking
+
+**Use when you need**:
+- Choosing between competing features
+- Building quarterly roadmaps
+- Backlog prioritization
+- Saying "no" with evidence
+- Clear prioritization decisions
+- Resource allocation decisions
+- MVP scoping decisions
+
+---
+
+## Seven Core Frameworks
+
+### 1. RICE Scoring (Intercom)
+
+**Formula**: (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
+
+**Best for**: Large backlogs (20+ items) with quantitative data
+
+**Components**:
+- **Reach**: Users impacted per quarter
+- **Impact**: 0.25 (minimal) to 3 (massive)
+- **Confidence**: 50% (low data) to 100% (high data)
+- **Effort**: Person-months to ship
+
+**Example**:
+```
+Dark Mode: (10,000 × 2.0 × 0.80) / 1.5 = 10,667
+```
+
+**When to use**: Post-PMF with metrics, need defendable priorities, data-driven culture
+
+**Template**: `assets/rice-scoring-template.md`
+
+---
+
+### 2. ICE Scoring (Sean Ellis)
+
+**Formula**: (Impact + Confidence + Ease) / 3
+
+**Best for**: Quick experiments, early-stage products, limited data
+
+**Components** (each 1-10):
+- **Impact**: How much will this move the needle?
+- **Confidence**: How sure are we?
+- **Ease**: How simple to implement?
+
+**Example**:
+```
+Email Notifications: (8 + 9 + 7) / 3 = 8.0
+```
+
+**When to use**: Growth experiments, startups, need speed over rigor
+
+**Template**: `assets/ice-scoring-template.md`
+
+---
+
+### 3. Value vs Effort Matrix (2×2)
+
+**Quadrants**:
+- **Quick Wins** (high value, low effort) - Do first
+- **Big Bets** (high value, high effort) - Strategic
+- **Fill-Ins** (low value, low effort) - If capacity
+- **Time Sinks** (low value, high effort) - Avoid
+
+**Best for**: Visual presentations, portfolio planning, quick assessments
+
+**When to use**: Clear communication, strategic planning, need visualization
+
+**Template**: `assets/value-effort-matrix-template.md`
+
+---
+
+### 4. MoSCoW Method
+
+**Categories**:
+- **Must Have** (60%) - Critical for launch
+- **Should Have** (20%) - Important but not critical
+- **Could Have** (20%) - Nice-to-have
+- **Won't Have** - Explicitly out of scope
+
+**Best for**: MVP scoping, release planning, clear scope decisions
+
+**When to use**: Fixed timeline, need to cut scope, binary go/no-go decisions
+
+**Template**: `assets/moscow-prioritization-template.md`
+
+---
+
+### 5. Kano Model
+
+**Categories**:
+- **Basic Needs (Must-Be)**: Expected, dissatisfiers if absent
+- **Performance Needs**: More is better, linear satisfaction
+- **Excitement Needs (Delighters)**: Unexpected joy
+- **Indifferent**: Users don't care
+- **Reverse**: Users prefer without it
+
+**Best for**: Understanding user expectations, competitive positioning, roadmap sequencing
+
+**When to use**: Strategic planning, differentiation strategy, multi-release planning
+
+**Template**: `assets/kano-model-template.md`
+
+---
+
+### 6. Weighted Scoring
+
+**Process**:
+1. Define criteria (User Value, Revenue, Strategic Fit, Effort)
+2. Assign weights (must sum to 100%)
+3. Score features (1-10) on each criterion
+4. Calculate weighted score
+
+**Example**:
+```
+Criteria: User Value 40%, Revenue 30%, Strategic 20%, Ease 10%
+Feature: (8 × 0.40) + (6 × 0.30) + (9 × 0.20) + (5 × 0.10) = 7.3
+```
+
+**Best for**: Multiple criteria, complex trade-offs, custom needs
+
+**When to use**: Balancing priorities, transparent decisions
+
+**Template**: `assets/weighted-scoring-template.md`
+
+---
+
+### 7. Opportunity Scoring (Jobs-to-be-Done)
+
+**Formula**: Importance + Max(Importance - Satisfaction, 0)
+
+**Process**:
+1. Identify customer jobs (outcomes, not features)
+2. Survey: Rate importance (1-5) and satisfaction (1-5)
+3. Calculate opportunity = importance + gap
+4. Prioritize high-opportunity jobs (>7.0)
+
+**Best for**: Outcome-driven innovation, understanding underserved needs, feature gap analysis
+
+**When to use**: JTBD methodology, finding innovation opportunities, validation
+
+**Template**: `assets/opportunity-scoring-template.md`
+
+---
+
+## Choosing the Right Framework
+
+**Need speed?** → ICE (fastest)
+
+**Have user data?** → RICE (most rigorous)
+
+**Visual presentation?** → Value/Effort (clear visualization)
+
+**MVP scoping?** → MoSCoW (forces cuts)
+
+**User expectations?** → Kano (strategic insights)
+
+**Complex criteria?** → Weighted Scoring (custom)
+
+**Outcome-focused?** → Opportunity Scoring (JTBD)
+
+**Detailed comparison**: `references/framework-selection-guide.md`
+
+Complete decision tree, framework comparison table, combining strategies
+
+---
+
+## Best Practices
+
+**1. Be Consistent**
+- Use same framework across team
+- Document assumptions explicitly
+- Update scores as you learn
+
+**2. Combine Frameworks**
+- RICE for ranking + Value/Effort for visualization
+- MoSCoW for release + RICE for roadmap
+- Kano for strategy + ICE for tactics
+
+**3. Avoid Common Pitfalls**
+- Don't prioritize by HiPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion)
+- Don't ignore effort (value alone insufficient)
+- Don't set-and-forget (re-prioritize regularly)
+- Don't game the system (honest scoring)
+
+**4. Clear Communication**
+- Show your work (transparent criteria)
+- Visualize priorities clearly
+- Explain trade-offs explicitly
+- Document "why not" for rejected items
+
+**5. Iterate and Learn**
+- Track actual vs estimated impact
+- Refine scoring over time
+- Calibrate team estimates
+- Learn from misses
+
+---
+
+## Templates and References
+
+### Assets (Ready-to-Use Templates)
+
+Copy-paste these for immediate use:
+- `assets/rice-scoring-template.md` - Reach × Impact × Confidence / Effort
+- `assets/ice-scoring-template.md` - Impact + Confidence + Ease / 3
+- `assets/value-effort-matrix-template.md` - 2×2 visualization
+- `assets/moscow-prioritization-template.md` - Must/Should/Could/Won't
+- `assets/kano-model-template.md` - Expectation analysis
+- `assets/weighted-scoring-template.md` - Custom criteria scoring
+- `assets/opportunity-scoring-template.md` - Jobs-to-be-done prioritization
+
+### References (Deep Dives)
+
+When you need comprehensive guidance:
+- `references/framework-selection-guide.md` - Choose the right framework, comparison table, combining strategies, decision tree
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+```
+Problem: Too many features, limited resources
+Solution: Use prioritization framework
+
+Context-Based Selection:
+├─ Lots of data? → RICE
+├─ Need speed? → ICE
+├─ Visual presentation? → Value/Effort
+├─ MVP scoping? → MoSCoW
+├─ User expectations? → Kano
+├─ Complex criteria? → Weighted Scoring
+└─ Outcome-focused? → Opportunity Scoring
+
+Always: Document, communicate, iterate
+```
+
+---
+
+## Resources
+
+**Books**:
+- "Intercom on Product Management" (RICE framework)
+- "Hacking Growth" by Sean Ellis (ICE scoring)
+- "Jobs to be Done" by Anthony Ulwick (Opportunity scoring)
+
+**Tools**:
+- Airtable/Notion for scoring
+- ProductPlan for roadmaps
+- Aha!, ProductBoard for frameworks
+
+**Articles**:
+- "RICE: Simple prioritization for product managers" - Intercom
+- "How to use ICE Scoring" - Sean Ellis
+- "The Kano Model" - UX Magazine
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `roadmap-frameworks` - Turn priorities into roadmaps
+- `specification-techniques` - Spec prioritized features
+- `product-positioning` - Strategic positioning and differentiation
+
+---
+
+**Key Principle**: Choose one framework, use it consistently, iterate. Don't over-analyze - prioritization should enable decisions, not paralyze them.