rice-impact-matrix

RICE + Strategic Alignment Skill

Produce a prioritisation output that balances quantitative RICE scoring with qualitative strategic fit — because the highest RICE score isn't always the right next bet.

Required Inputs

Ask the user for these if not provided:

• List of initiatives or features to prioritise (names and brief descriptions)
• Current strategic priorities or OKRs (needed to rate strategic alignment)
• Reach estimates (users affected per quarter — even rough estimates work)
• Effort estimates (person-months — from engineering if available)
• Quarter or planning period

Two-Stage Process

Stage 1: RICE Scoring

• Reach: Users affected per quarter
• Impact: 3/2/1/0.5/0.25 scale
• Confidence: 100% / 80% / 50%
• Effort: Person-months
• RICE = (R × I × C) / E

Stage 2: Strategic Alignment Score

Rate each initiative against your current strategic priorities (provided as input):

• Directly supports top OKR: +3
• Supports secondary OKR: +2
• Neutral: +1
• Contradicts strategic direction: -1

Final Priority Score

Combined Score = RICE Score + (Strategic Alignment × 10)

Validate — Flag any initiative where RICE score and strategic alignment conflict sharply (e.g., high RICE, low alignment). These require an explicit team conversation before sequencing.

Output Structure

Priority Matrix — [Quarter]

| Initiative | RICE Score | Strategic Alignment | Combined Score | Quadrant | Recommendation |

|------------|------------|--------------------|--------------------|----------|----------------|

| [name] | [score] | [score] | [combined] | [Now/Next/Later/Drop] | [action] |

Quadrant Definitions

• Now: High RICE + High Strategic Alignment → Build this quarter
• Next: High RICE + Lower Alignment → Queue for next quarter
• Later: Lower RICE + High Alignment → Revisit when capacity allows
• Drop: Low RICE + Low Alignment → Remove from backlog

Recommendations

[Top 5 initiatives with rationale for sequencing]

Scoring Rubric (0–40)

Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.

| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |

|---|---|---|---|

| Scoring integrity | Invented or uniform component values; 100% confidence everywhere | All components estimated, but confidence levels unexamined and scales inconsistent across rows | Every component sourced or explicitly flagged; no unvalidated 100%s; 50%-confidence rows marked and scale choices (e.g. reach units) stated |

| Strategic-alignment rigour | Alignment rated on "feels strategic" with no reference to priorities | Ratings given but not tied to named OKRs; nothing scores negative | Every rating maps to a specific OKR by name; initiatives that contradict strategy actually receive −1 |

| Conflict surfacing | Combined score presented as the definitive ranking | Sharp RICE-vs-alignment divergences are visible in the table but never discussed | Every sharp divergence is flagged with an explicit conversation recommendation (owner, forum, and a scoreable alternative where one exists) |

| Quadrant decisiveness | Everything lands in "Now"; no Drops | Quadrants used, but Drop recommendations are vague ("deprioritise") and capacity is ignored | Honest distribution including specific Drop actions with re-entry conditions, and sequencing checked against actual capacity |

Quality Checks

• [ ] All RICE components have an estimate (even if low confidence — flag those)
• [ ] Strategic alignment is rated against specific OKRs, not general "feels strategic"
• [ ] Conflicts between RICE rank and strategic alignment are explicitly flagged
• [ ] "Drop" recommendations are specific — not just "low priority, deprioritise"
• [ ] Confidence levels on estimates are noted where weak (drives the 50% confidence flag)

Anti-Patterns

• [ ] Do not treat the combined score as a definitive ranking — use it to structure a conversation, not replace one
• [ ] Do not rate strategic alignment as "high" because an initiative feels important without mapping it to a specific OKR
• [ ] Do not place all initiatives in the "Now" quadrant — a matrix with no "Drop" recommendations is not credible
• [ ] Do not ignore the conflict flag when RICE rank and strategic alignment sharply diverge
• [ ] Do not accept 100% confidence on estimates that have not been validated with data