I really love numbers; I love how they can hardly be misinterpreted. Growing up, math was my favorite subject, and it still is. Coming into design, one area that always bothered me was resource allocation, aka feature prioritization. While there were a ton of prioritization frameworks out there, none really did it for me, and I always wondered how math could somehow be applied to make this particular task easier. These thoughts lingered in my mind until one day, I had an idea.

Imagine the typical product team, a talented huddle of designers, developers, and strategists. Everyone brimming with ideas, constantly synthesizing a vibrant mix of features that could elevate their product. But eventually, the elephant in the room becomes obvious — the all-important question of where to begin. How do they choose which ideas to champion first?

Deciding this is hardly ever straightforward; you have to consider a good amount of both qualitative and quantitative data, along with stakeholder opinions. To solve this, I came up with a method that takes into consideration key factors deduced from the gathered research data and stakeholder knowledge of their industry, and mathematically combines all these into scores that can then be used to decide priority.

In this article, I will do my best to walk you through this process as concisely as possible.

The User Whisperer and the Crystal Ball

To ensure that the scoring done in the later parts of this process is as accurate as possible, there are essential steps that need to be taken before the prioritization itself starts.

User discovery: Here you need to dive into the hearts and minds of your users, try to figure out what their needs are, both functional and emotional. User research should ideally be your compass, guiding you towards features that address their pain points and spark some level of joy or ease at least.

Competition discovery: Try not to operate in a vacuum. Keeping an eye on the competition and emerging market trends is vital. Work to find out what others are doing well and what gaps you can fill. This foresight will help you identify features that position your product for future success.

Effort Consensus Meeting: Here, the team (especially the dev team) and the designers need to align on how much resources it will take, both tangible and intangible, to bring the ideated features to life.

The Sorting Hat of Features: Categorizing for Clarity

Before moving into the nitty-gritty of scoring and prioritization, you’ll need to bring a little order to the chaos by organizing the features you’ve synthesized with the help of all your research.

There are three main buckets in the prioritization process:

The Non-Negotiables: These are the essential features, the bedrock upon which our product rests. They address core user needs and without them, the entire experience crumbles. Think of them as the air we breathe — indispensable for survival.

The Negotiables: Important, yes, but with a touch of flexibility. These features enhance the experience, but there’s room for creative problem-solving in their implementation. Perhaps a scaled-down version can be developed initially, with room for future expansion based on user feedback.

The Delight-Focused: These are the sprinkles on the cupcake, the features designed to surprise and delight our users. They elevate the experience from good to great, fostering deeper engagement and brand loyalty.

By meticulously sorting features into these categories, you can create a clear roadmap. You ensure the foundation is built first, followed by the essential enhancements, and finally, the delightful surprises. After it’s all been categorized, we need to figure out what to tackle first within each category. This is where the formulas and scoring start to come in.

The Scorecard: Weighing What Matters

Now, for the final step. The metrics below will need to be assigned a value between 1–7, with “1” being low / not very desired and “7” being high / very desired / very aligned.

User Desirability Score (UDS): This metric evaluates user interest in a feature, focusing on the extent of desire and delight it brings, rated on a scale from 1 to 7. It measures the anticipated positive impact on user experience. This score is also influenced by the designer’s and the team’s knowledge of how often users use or are likely to use the feature. While primarily this score should be assigned by the designers who represent user perspectives gathered through research interactions, they should also consider stakeholder thoughts on how desirable they think the feature is to their users.

Stakeholder Desirability Score (SDS): This score rates stakeholder interest, considering the feature’s potential impact on the company and expected return on investment (ROI). It ranges from 1 to 7, reflecting the value stakeholders perceive in the feature, and is mainly assigned by the company’s stakeholders.

Strategy Alignment Score (SAS): This assesses how well a feature aligns with the company’s long-term strategy and vision. The score, ranging from 1 to 7, measures the feature’s congruence with the company’s goals and strategic direction. This metric is jointly assigned by designers and stakeholders.

Market Trend Alignment Score (MTAS): This score evaluates the feature’s alignment with current and emerging market trends, including user behavior shifts, technological advancements, and industry dynamics. Rated on a 1 to 7 scale, it reflects the product’s positioning in the evolving market. Predominantly influenced by stakeholders, this is also a joint assignment metric.

Competitive Differentiation Score (CDS): This evaluates the feature’s potential to differentiate the product in the market. It assesses if the feature fills a market gap, offers superiority to competitors, or adds a unique value proposition. Rated from 1 to 7, this score emphasizes the feature’s uniqueness and competitive edge. This joint assignment metric is influenced by insights from designers’ competition research and stakeholders’ industry knowledge.

Effort Score (ES): This estimates the effort and resources required for feature development. Rated on a 1 to 7 scale, it gauges the feasibility and resource intensity of the development, considering time, cost, and labor. This metric is mainly influenced by design and development teams, who reach a consensus on the effort required from both design and development perspectives.

The Formula for Success

These scores are meticulously added up, giving us an Impact Score. But resources are finite. So we factor in the Effort Score, revealing the Feature Prioritization Score (FPS). Features with high impact and lower development effort take center stage.

Impact Score (IS): Calculated by adding the User Desirability Score, Stakeholder Desirability Score, Strategy Alignment Score, Market Trend Alignment Score, and Competitive Differentiation Score.

IS=UDS+SDS+SAS+MTAS+CDS

Feature Prioritization Score (FePS): Determined by dividing the Impact Score by the Effort Score.

FPS=IS/ES

Flow Total Prioritization Score (TPS): The sum of all individual Feature Prioritization Scores in that flow / feature set.

TPS=SumofallFPS

This prioritization approach ensures a data-driven yet user-centric focus. It’s a framework that balances the desires of users and stakeholders, keeping a keen eye on the market and the product’s strategic direction, all while being mindful of development constraints.

The idea is that flows* with the highest prioritization scores i.e high impact and lower effort requirements, are focused on first and then within those flows*, the features that rank highest are designed/developed first, in that specific descending order.

Conclusion

This framework allows for a clear and concise prioritization of features, considering user and stakeholder preferences, strategic alignment, market trends, and resource requirements through a simple, mathematical approach. Thanks for reading, and I hope this gives you some insight into how to prioritize features with a purpose.