prioritization-effort-impact

What this skill does

# Prioritization: Effort-Impact Matrix

## 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: Gather items and clarify scoring**

Collect all items to prioritize (features, bugs, initiatives, etc.) and define scoring scales for effort and impact. See [Scoring Frameworks](#scoring-frameworks) for effort and impact definitions. Use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for structure.

**Step 2: Score effort and impact**

Rate each item on effort (1-5: trivial to massive) and impact (1-5: negligible to transformative). Involve subject matter experts for accuracy. See [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for advanced scoring techniques like Fibonacci, T-shirt sizes, or RICE.

**Step 3: Plot matrix and identify quadrants**

Place items on 2x2 matrix and categorize into Quick Wins (high impact, low effort), Big Bets (high impact, high effort), Fill-Ins (low impact, low effort), and Time Sinks (low impact, high effort). See [Common Patterns](#common-patterns) for typical quadrant distributions.

**Step 4: Create prioritized roadmap**

Sequence items: Quick Wins first, Big Bets second (after quick wins build momentum), Fill-Ins during downtime, avoid Time Sinks unless required. See [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) for roadmap structure.

**Step 5: Validate and communicate decisions**

Self-check using [resources/evaluators/rubric_prioritization_effort_impact.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_prioritization_effort_impact.json). Ensure scoring is defensible, stakeholder perspectives included, and decisions clearly explained with rationale.

## Common Patterns

**By domain:**

- **Product backlogs**: Quick wins = small UX improvements, Big bets = new workflows, Time sinks = edge case perfection
- **Technical debt**: Quick wins = config fixes, Big bets = architecture overhauls, Time sinks = premature optimizations
- **Bug triage**: Quick wins = high-impact easy fixes, Big bets = complex critical bugs, Time sinks = cosmetic issues
- **Strategic initiatives**: Quick wins = process tweaks, Big bets = market expansion, Time sinks = vanity metrics
- **Marketing campaigns**: Quick wins = email nurture, Big bets = brand overhaul, Time sinks = minor A/B tests

**By stakeholder priority:**

- **Execs want**: Quick wins (visible progress) + Big bets (strategic impact)
- **Engineering wants**: Technical debt quick wins + Big bets (platform work)
- **Sales wants**: Quick wins that unblock deals + Big bets (major features)
- **Customers want**: Quick wins (pain relief) + Big bets (transformative value)

**Typical quadrant distribution:**
- Quick Wins: 10-20% (rare, high-value opportunities)
- Big Bets: 20-30% (strategic, resource-intensive)
- Fill-Ins: 40-50% (most backlogs have many low-value items)
- Time Sinks: 10-20% (surprisingly common, often disguised as "polish")

**Red flags:**
- ❌ **No quick wins**: Likely overestimating effort or underestimating impact
- ❌ **All quick wins**: Scores probably not calibrated correctly
- ❌ **Many time sinks**: Cut scope or reject these items
- ❌ **Effort/impact scores all 3**: Need more differentiation (use 1-2 and 4-5)

## Scoring Frameworks

**Effort dimensions (choose relevant ones):**
- **Time**: Engineering/execution hours (1=hours, 2=days, 3=weeks, 4=months, 5=quarters)
- **Complexity**: Technical difficulty (1=trivial, 5=novel/unprecedented)
- **Risk**: Failure probability (1=safe, 5=high-risk)
- **Dependencies**: External blockers (1=none, 5=many teams/approvals)
- **Cost**: Financial investment (1=$0-1K, 2=$1-10K, 3=$10-100K, 4=$100K-1M, 5=$1M+)

**Impact dimensions (choose relevant ones):**
- **Users affected**: Reach (1=<1%, 2=1-10%, 3=10-50%, 4=50-90%, 5=>90%)
- **Business value**: Revenue/savings (1=$0-10K, 2=$10-100K, 3=$100K-1M, 4=$1-10M, 5=$10M+)
- **Strategic alignment**: OKR contribution (1=tangential, 5=critical to strategy)
- **User pain**: Problem severity (1=nice-to-have, 5=blocker/crisis)
- **Risk reduction**: Mitigation value (1=minor, 5=existential risk)

**Composite scoring:**
- **Simple**: Average of dimensions (Effort = avg(time, complexity), Impact = avg(users, value))
- **Weighted**: Multiply by importance (Effort = 0.6×time + 0.4×complexity)
- **Fibonacci**: Use 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 instead of 1-5 for exponential differences
- **T-shirt sizes**: S/M/L/XL mapped to 1/2/3/5

**Example scoring (feature: "Add dark mode"):**
- Effort: Time=3 (2 weeks), Complexity=2 (CSS), Risk=2 (minor bugs), Dependencies=1 (no blockers) → **Avg = 2.0 (Low)**
- Impact: Users=4 (80% want it), Value=2 (retention, not revenue), Strategy=3 (design system goal), Pain=3 (eye strain) → **Avg = 3.0 (Medium-High)**
- **Result**: Medium-High Impact, Low Effort → **Quick Win!**

## Guardrails

**Ensure quality:**

1. **Include diverse perspectives**: Don't let one person score alone (eng overestimates effort, sales overestimates impact)
   - ✓ Get engineering, product, sales, customer success input
   - ❌ PM scores everything solo

2. **Differentiate scores**: If everything is scored 3, you haven't prioritized
   - ✓ Force rank or use wider scale (1-10)
   - ✓ Aim for distribution: few 1s/5s, more 2s/4s, many 3s
   - ❌ All items scored 2.5-3.5

3. **Question extreme scores**: High-impact low-effort items are rare (if you have 10, something's wrong)
   - ✓ "Why haven't we done this already?" test for quick wins
   - ❌ Wishful thinking (underestimating effort, overestimating impact)

4. **Make scoring transparent**: Document why each score was assigned
   - ✓ "Effort=4 because requires 3 teams, new infrastructure, 6-week timeline"
   - ❌ "Effort=4" with no rationale

5. **Revisit scores periodically**: Effort/impact change as context evolves
   - ✓ Re-score quarterly or after major changes (new tech, new team size)
   - ❌ Use 2-year-old scores

6. **Don't ignore dependencies**: Low-effort items blocked by high-effort prerequisites aren't quick wins
   - ✓ "Effort=2 for task, but depends on Effort=5 migration"
   - ❌ Score task in isolation

7. **Beware of "strategic" override**: Execs calling everything "high impact" defeats prioritization
   - ✓ "Strategic" is one dimension, not a veto
   - ❌ "CEO wants it" → auto-scored 5

## Quick Reference

**Resources:**
- **Quick start**: [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) - 2x2 matrix template and scoring table
- **Advanced techniques**: [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) - RICE, MoSCoW, Kano, weighted scoring
- **Quality check**: [resources/evaluators/rubric_prioritization_effort_impact.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_prioritization_effort_impact.json) - Evaluation criteria

**Success criteria:**
- ✓ Identified 1-3 quick wins to execute immediately
- ✓ Sequenced big bets into realistic roadmap (don't overcommit)
- ✓ Cut or deferred time sinks (low ROI items)
- ✓ Scoring rationale is transparent and defensible
- ✓ Stakeholders aligned on priorities
- ✓ Roadmap has capacity buffer (don't schedule 100% of time)

**Common mistakes:**
- ❌ Scoring in isolation (no stakeholder input)
- ❌ Ignoring effort (optimism bias: "everything is easy")
- ❌ Ignoring impact (building what's easy, not what's valuable)
- ❌ Analysis paralysis (perfect scores vs good-enough prioritization)
- ❌ Not saying "no" to time sinks
- ❌ Overloading roadmap (filling every week with big bets)
- ❌ Forgetting maintenance/support time (assuming 100% project capacity)

**When to use alternatives:**
- **Weighted scoring (RICE)**: When you need more nuance than 2x2 (Reach × Impact × Confidence / Effort)
- **MoSCoW**: When prioritizing for fixed scope/deadline (Must/Should/Could/Won't)
- **Kano model**: When evaluating customer satisfaction (basic/performance/delight features)
- **ICE score**: Simpler than