Prioritization Workshop Template

Aim for 10-20 candidates. Fewer than 10 and the exercise feels trivial. More than 20 and the dot voting and scoring rounds take too long. If your backlog has 50+ candidates, have the PM pre-filter to the top 20 based on strategic fit and stakeholder input before the workshop. Be transparent about what was cut and why.

Disagreement is expected. The workshop's value is making the trade-offs visible, not eliminating conflict. When a stakeholder disagrees, ask them to articulate what they would cut to make room. Prioritization is a zero-sum game given fixed capacity. If they cannot name a trade-off, the disagreement is about wanting more resources, not about priority order.

RICE works well for most product teams because it balances customer impact with effort. If your team's primary constraint is risk rather than effort, consider the [ICE framework](/frameworks) instead (Impact, Confidence, Ease). The [RICE vs ICE vs MoSCoW comparison](/compare/rice-vs-ice-vs-moscow) can help you choose. Whichever framework you pick, use it consistently across workshops so scores are comparable over time.

Quarterly is the standard cadence for most teams. This aligns with planning cycles and gives enough time for committed items to ship before the next reprioritization. If your market moves faster (early-stage startup, competitive pressure), run a lighter version monthly. Between workshops, use the [RICE Calculator](/tools/rice-calculator) to score ad-hoc requests without convening the full group.

Items below the line go into a "parking lot" for the next quarter. Do not delete them. Some will become more urgent as market conditions change. The PM should communicate the "not now" decision to the original requestor with a clear rationale: "We scored this at X. It was ranked #4. Our capacity supports 3 items this quarter. It is the top candidate for Q3." This transparency builds trust even when the answer is no. ---