Use a Prioritisation Framework for Objectivity
Without a clear structure, prioritisation often falls victim to stakeholder opinions, loudest voices, or internal biases. To avoid this, start by using a prioritisation framework such as PIE, ICE, or RICE to objectively log and rank website changes based on the merits of each opportunity.
PIE Framework
The PIE Framework has three factors by which to rank a website change or opportunity.
- Potential – How much impact could this change have, if implemented successfully?
- Importance – How critical is this change to business objectives and user experience?
- Ease – How much effort or cost is required to execute?
Start by rating each website change against each of the three factors on a scale of 1-10. Next, take the average score across the three factors, and you will arrive at a PIE Score for the website change. You can now quickly and easily compare PIE scores for each of your website opportunities, with the high potential, high importance, and easy to execute changes bubbling to the top of the list.
However, while this framework is quick to do, this process is subjective and relies on the experience and opinions of the people ranking the items.
ICE Framework
The ICE Framework is like PIE, with its three ranking factors.
- Impact – Similar to PIE’s ‘potential’ ranking factor, how significant will the expected result be if successful?
- Confidence – How certain are we that this change will lead to the expected impact?
- Ease – How much effort or cost is required to execute?
Similar to PIE, by scoring each factor on a 1-10 scale, but this time summing the total score, you can arrive at an ICE score between 3 and 30 which allows you to compare the merits of one opportunity against another.
While the PIE framework differs with its ‘importance’ factor which ties opportunities to overall business goals, the ICE framework is a little more user-centred with consideration around its ‘confidence’ factor – i.e. based on the data we have, how confident are we in the website change will make an impact?
However, both PIE and ICE are top-level and at risk of stakeholder subjectivity.
RICE
The RICE framework aims to remove some of the subjectivity of PIE and ICE by introducing data to its ranking factors.
- Reach – How many people will be affected by the change or opportunity? Factor in page views by device split and where on the page you change will be. For example, for a change halfway down a single web page that receives 10,000 visitors per month, we can expect 50% of people to be affected be the change.
- Impact – How much impact will this website change have? Rank on a scale of 3 for Massive impact, 2 for High impact, 1 for Medium impact, 0.5 for Low impact, and 0.25 for minimal impact
- Confidence – How certain are we that this change will lead to the expected impact? Rank on a scale of 100% for High confidence, 80% for Medium confidence, and 50% for Low confidence
- Effort – How many ‘people months’ will it take to deliver the project? So, for one week of design and one week of development, this would be 0.5. For two weeks of a designer and 6 weeks of a developer, this would be 2.
Once you have assigned your score to each factor, use the following formula to arrive at your RICE score for each opportunity.
- (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort
Again, you can now sort the list of opportunities to see which ones bubble to the top.
Jaywing’s Prioritisation Model
While the ICE, PIE and RICE frameworks offer strong starting points, Jaywing’s own custom prioritisation model builds upon them by incorporating additional layers of user experience insight and data triangulation for a more objective assessment. This ensures that prioritisation is not only based on estimated ease of implementation and actual reach, but critically, confidence gained from data-informed user-centred research.