<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Prioritisation on RoadmapOne Blog</title>
    <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/tags/prioritisation/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Prioritisation on RoadmapOne Blog</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-GB</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://roadmap.one/blog/tags/prioritisation/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation, The Science of Sequencing Strategy</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-objective-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-objective-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>Objective prioritisation is the brutal art of choosing which objectives to fund first. Learn how RICE, ICE, WSJF, MoSCoW, NPV, ARR, Kano, Cost of Delay, Payback Period, Buy a Feature, ROI, Benefit, and more turn infinite backlogs into executable roadmaps.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Dot Voting Has No Business Near Your Roadmap</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-22-dot-voting/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-22-dot-voting/</guid>
      <description>Dot Voting is everywhere—design sprints, retros, roadmap workshops. It belongs in facilitation, not prioritisation. Here&amp;rsquo;s why democracy produces roadmaps that reflect politics, not value.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GE-McKinsey Matrix: Board-Level Portfolio Strategy, Not Feature Prioritisation</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-23-ge-mckinsey-matrix/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-23-ge-mckinsey-matrix/</guid>
      <description>The GE-McKinsey Matrix helps boards decide which product lines deserve investment. It&amp;rsquo;s portfolio strategy, not feature prioritisation—here&amp;rsquo;s when the 9-box grid earns its complexity over simpler alternatives.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Product Lifecycle Stage: The Tag That Changes Everything About Prioritisation</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-25-product-lifecycle-stage/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-25-product-lifecycle-stage/</guid>
      <description>Product Lifecycle Stage—Introduction, Growth, Maturity, Decline—is a tagging framework that changes how you interpret prioritisation scores. A high-BRICE initiative for a declining product might still be the wrong investment.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Stack Ranking: The Prioritisation Panacea That Never Works</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-33-stack-ranking/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-33-stack-ranking/</guid>
      <description>Stack ranking feels like the ultimate prioritisation solution—just order everything from 1 to N and execute. In practice, it ignores capacity, dependencies, and team skills. The item ranked last often must be built before the item ranked first. Roadmaps are art as much as science.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The 100 Dollar Test Is an Alignment Tool Disguised as Prioritisation</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-21-100-dollar-test/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-21-100-dollar-test/</guid>
      <description>The 100 Dollar Test forces trade-offs by giving stakeholders fake money to allocate. It&amp;rsquo;s better for alignment than prioritisation—the real value is the conversation it creates, not the numbers it produces.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Eisenhower Matrix Has No Place in Roadmap Planning</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-19-eisenhower-matrix/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-19-eisenhower-matrix/</guid>
      <description>The Eisenhower Matrix isn&amp;rsquo;t a prioritisation framework—it&amp;rsquo;s vocabulary. Learn when the Urgent/Important grid helps board conversations and when it creates dangerous blind spots in your roadmap.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Weighted Scoring Is Subjectivity Wrapped in a Veneer of Objectivity</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-20-weighted-scoring/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-20-weighted-scoring/</guid>
      <description>Weighted Scoring promises customised prioritisation through bespoke criteria and adjustable weights. In practice, it usually produces score-gaming theatre. Learn when it works, when it fails, and why simpler frameworks usually win.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: BRICE</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-7-brice-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-7-brice-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>BRICE extends RICE with Business Importance—forcing teams to explicitly score strategic alignment before reach and impact. Stop building high-impact features that don&amp;rsquo;t matter to the business.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: Benefit</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-17-benefit-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-17-benefit-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>Benefit prioritisation ranks objectives by pure value delivered—revenue gained or costs saved—over 12, 18, or 24 months. No ratios, no formulas, just pounds. The simplest framework the board will actually understand.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: ROI (Return on Investment)</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-16-roi-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-16-roi-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>ROI prioritisation ranks objectives by benefit-to-cost ratio over 12, 18, or 24 months—simpler than NPV, more financially credible than gut instinct. When finance demands numbers but won&amp;rsquo;t accept spreadsheet theatre.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: ARR</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-11-arr-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-11-arr-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>ARR prioritisation ranks features by the recurring revenue at stake—letting your highest-value customers vote with their wallets. When does revenue-driven roadmapping create strategic clarity, and when does it turn your product into a consulting service?</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: Buy a Feature</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-15-buy-a-feature-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-15-buy-a-feature-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>Buy a Feature prioritisation turns stakeholder alignment into a budgeting game—give them fake money, price features by cost, let them buy what matters. Works brilliantly until the exec with the loudest voice monopolises the budget.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: Cost of Delay</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-13-cost-of-delay-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-13-cost-of-delay-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>Cost of Delay prioritisation quantifies the economic damage from waiting—then divides by duration to find maximum value per time. Every week you delay shipping costs £X. Which features cost the most to postpone?</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: Kano</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-12-kano-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-12-kano-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>Kano prioritisation sequences features by customer satisfaction psychology: Must-Haves first (or your product isn&amp;rsquo;t viable), then Performance, then Delighters. Ship the basics before chasing wow moments.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: NPV</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-10-npv-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-10-npv-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>NPV prioritisation brings finance-grade rigour to roadmap decisions by calculating the present value of future cash flows. When should product teams embrace the spreadsheet complexity—and when should they run?</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: Payback Period</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-14-payback-period-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-14-payback-period-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>Payback Period prioritisation ranks features by time to recover investment—the CFO&amp;rsquo;s favourite metric because it answers &amp;lsquo;when do I get my money back?&amp;rsquo; Simpler than NPV, more intuitive than IRR, but blind to what happens after break-even.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: ICE</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-2-ice-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-2-ice-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>Sean Ellis&amp;rsquo;s ICE framework—Impact × Confidence × Ease—is RICE&amp;rsquo;s scrappy younger sibling. Built for speed over precision, ICE thrives when startups need decisions today, not perfect data tomorrow.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: Manual</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-5-manual-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-5-manual-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>Manual prioritisation—a simple 1-10 scale—is what you use when frameworks feel like theatre and executive judgment beats algorithmic scoring. It&amp;rsquo;s not surrender; it&amp;rsquo;s pragmatism about how decisions actually get made.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: MoSCoW</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-3-moscow-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-3-moscow-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>MoSCoW—Must have, Should have, Could have, Won&amp;rsquo;t have—is prioritisation stripped to its brutal essence. Perfect for fixed deadlines when stakeholders need to see exactly what gets cut if the timeline slips.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: PIE</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-9-pie-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-9-pie-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>Chris Goward&amp;rsquo;s PIE framework—Potential × Importance × Ease—prioritises experiments and features by upside if successful. Built for growth teams optimising conversion, now used everywhere fast decisions matter.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Objective Prioritisation: RICE</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-1-rice-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-1-rice-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>Intercom&amp;rsquo;s RICE framework—Reach × Impact × Confidence ÷ Effort—turns gut instinct into quantitative roadmap decisions. Learn when RICE is your best weapon, and when it betrays you.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Opportunity Scoring (Ulwick): The JTBD Prioritisation Framework That Finds Unmet Customer Needs</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-8-opportunity-scoring/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-8-opportunity-scoring/</guid>
      <description>Ulwick&amp;rsquo;s Opportunity Scoring formula (Importance + max(Importance − Satisfaction, 0)) finds the customer needs competitors miss. A practical guide to the Strategyn/JTBD prioritisation framework—with worked examples and implementation steps.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Value vs Complexity Matrix: The Visual Prioritisation Framework for Product Teams</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-6-value-complexity-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-6-value-complexity-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>The Value vs Complexity Matrix is a visual 2×2 prioritisation grid that sorts every objective into Quick Wins, Major Projects, Fill-ins, or Money Pits. Plot value against complexity and see your entire roadmap at a glance.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>WSJF Prioritisation: Cost of Delay ÷ Job Size (Weighted Shortest Job First)</title>
      <link>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-4-wsjf-prioritisation/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://roadmap.one/blog/posts/blog8-4-wsjf-prioritisation/</guid>
      <description>WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First) prioritises by Cost of Delay divided by Job Size. The formula: (Business Value + Time Criticality + Risk Reduction) ÷ Job Size. A practical guide to the SAFe prioritisation framework—with worked examples, Fibonacci scoring, and when WSJF fails.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
