With the challenge of identifying what feature/functionality should be prioritized, ICE and its cousin RICE framework have come to the rescue once again. At face value they may look the same, but when used to assess priority, combined can provide better leading indicators. I’ve also recommended another dimension to RICE & ICE, which further strengthens the frameworks – RICEO and ICEO.

What is ICE and RICE?

Both of these frameworks are utilized to make priority calls on which features/functionalities to prioritize. Whilst, we have the concept of T-Shirt sizing (S,M,L) in Agile, these frameworks can come into play even to set directional guidance. Furthermore, can also force an organization to think more strategically.

ICE:

I = Impact – What value will the feature/functionality bring to the product/customer
C = Confidence – It maybe a hypothesis vs based on quantifiable data. Confidence circumvents that by providing a confidence level in %

E = Ease or Effort required to implement the feature/functionality 

RICE:

R = Reach i.e how many customers will use this feature/functionality

I = Impact – What value will the feature/functionality bring to the product/customer
C = Confidence – It maybe a hypothesis vs based on quantifiable data. Confidence circumvents that by providing a confidence level in %

E = Ease or Effort required to implement the feature/functionality

Either could be considered somewhat subjective, but better than the alternative, which is to do nothing. Here’s an example:

Feature/Functionality

Reach

(1-5 High)

Impact

(1-5 High)

Confidence %

(1-100% High)

Ease/Effort

(1-5 High)

Total

(R*I*C)/E

Total

(I*C*E)

1

5

5

70%

3

6

11

2

5

4

80%

5

3

16

3

3

5

65%

5

2

16

4

4

3

60%

1

7

2


Which one to use ICE vs RICE?

Actually, you can use both. As can be seen above, based on the ICE results, feature 2 & 3 carry the same priority, but with RICE you can see that 2 is slightly higher.

What do be aware off?

If the Reach is not known, i.e your product is not necessarily a B2C (business to consumer), rather B2B (business to business), then you can start with ICE. RICE can still be used, once you can gauge the value that feature/functionality could add to the target business.

Also in B2B case, one can consider scale beyond 1 target customer to other customers. Consider SalesForce, which is primarily used by enterprises. If a function add can add value for multiple enterprises, the one time investment can yield extended ROI (return on investment). Therefore the reach and confidence should be high.

What could be improved in the frameworks:

If one is to consider the Opportunity lost i.e if the feature/functionality is not developed, leading to market share erosion, the frameworks can also provide a leading indicator of competitive advantage. Here’s my version of ICE/RICE with Opportunity lost built in - ICEO or RICEO

Feature/Functionality

Reach

(1-5 High)

Impact

(1-5 High)

Confidence %

(1-100% High)

Ease/Effort

(1-5 High)

Oppo Los

(1-5 High)

Total

(R*I*C)/E

Total

(I*C*E)

Total w/ O

(R*I*C*O)/E

Total w/ O

(I*C*E*O)

1

5

5

70%

3

1

6

11

6

11

2

5

4

80%

5

3

3

16

10

48

3

3

5

65%

5

3

2

16

6

49

4

4

3

60%

1

1

7

2

7

2


Here you can see that feature/functionality 2 should be a priority based on both ICEO and RICEO, then 3, followed 1 and 4.

To all the product owners out there, feel free to try this ICEO & RICEO hypothesis and share your feedback commentary – Happy prioritization.