PM Prioritisation Examples
(2026 Edition)
5 real-style examples using RICE, impact-effort, and Kano — with reasoning and takeaway for each.
Practice Prioritisation Daily — Free →Example 1: RICE scoring for Q3 backlog
Scenario: A PM at a learning app has 8 candidate features for Q3. Which ships?
Approach: RICE (Reach × Impact × Confidence ÷ Effort)
Feature A: 50K reach × 3 impact × 0.8 confidence ÷ 4 weeks = 30. Feature B: 10K × 5 × 0.6 ÷ 2 = 15. Ship A first; B second.
💡 Takeaway: RICE wins the tie between Feature A and B. But RICE doesn't replace judgment — the PM overrides to ship C first because it unblocks a strategic partnership.
Example 2: Impact-effort on a 2x2
Scenario: Team has 6 ideas for an onboarding improvement sprint.
Approach: Impact-effort matrix; prioritise high-impact / low-effort
High-impact/low-effort: better error messages (quick win). High-impact/high-effort: redesign Step 2 (big bet). Low-impact/low-effort: copy tweaks (fillers). Low-impact/high-effort: animated transitions (skip).
💡 Takeaway: Ship quick wins first while scoping the big bet. Kill the fillers to maintain focus.
Example 3: Kano categorisation
Scenario: Fintech PM deciding which features to include in Q4 release.
Approach: Kano: Basic / Performance / Delighter
Basic: 2FA, instant receipts (users expect these — missing would kill satisfaction). Performance: faster load time (more = better). Delighter: personalised savings tips (unexpected, boosts NPS).
💡 Takeaway: Must ship Basic; invest in Performance; pick 1 Delighter. Skipping Basic fails even if Delighters are great.
Example 4: Strategic override
Scenario: RICE says feature X wins. But a strategic competitor just launched Y.
Approach: RICE + strategic context
RICE score favours X (customer-requested, easy). But Y ships competitor advantage in 3 months. Shifting to Y now is higher cost, lower short-term RICE — but protects against long-term competitive threat.
💡 Takeaway: Frameworks inform; they don't replace strategic judgment. Senior PMs override RICE when strategy demands.
Example 5: Saying no to a founder request
Scenario: Founder asks to add Feature Z mid-sprint. Current sprint has 2 high-RICE items.
Approach: Surface trade-off explicitly
Z scores lower on RICE than current items. Instead of yes/no, PM presents: 'To add Z, we defer [current item]. Want that swap?' Founder, seeing the trade-off, withdraws Z.
💡 Takeaway: Best 'no' is making the trade-off visible. Founders often ask for things without realising what they displace.
5 Patterns Across Great Prioritisation
Frameworks are scaffolding, not verdicts — senior PMs override them when needed
Always surface the trade-off — what's the thing you're NOT doing?
Score honestly — inflated confidence scores are the #1 RICE abuse
Multiple frameworks triangulate — use 2–3 rather than relying on one
Document reasoning — future-you and future-PMs benefit
FAQ
Do PMs actually use RICE and similar frameworks?
Yes, but often loosely. Few PMs calculate exact RICE scores for every item. Many use RICE as a thinking structure — 'what's the reach, impact, confidence, effort?' — without reducing to a single number. The value is structured comparison, not precision scoring.
What's the biggest prioritisation mistake PMs make?
Pretending prioritisation is objective. RICE, ICE, Kano — all are opinionated inputs dressed up as math. The confidence score is judgment. The impact score is guess. PMs who treat their RICE scores as truth get overconfident. PMs who treat them as structured guesses stay calibrated.
Practice Prioritisation Daily
Daily scenarios on RICE, impact-effort, trade-offs, and prioritisation judgment.
Start Free Trial →