Method guideProduct Strategy

RICE Scoring

A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.

ComplexityMedium

Time60-90 min

Participants2-10

FormatWorkshop + async

MaturityEstablished

Plan prioritization

Prerequisite

What needs to be finished first

Complete firstComparable decision frame

All initiatives use the same goal, period and units.

Mixed reach and effort units produce a misleadingly precise ordering.

Complete firstTraceable estimates

Each factor has evidence or explicit assumptions; people doing the work help estimate effort.

Scores without an estimation basis amplify individual opinions.

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

Shared scoring table, clearly described initiatives, usage data, customer evidence and effort estimates.

People / roles

Product · domain and customer perspective · Engineering · decision owner

Pre-read

Gather initiatives, usage data, impact hypotheses and effort ranges. Record the period, source and uncertainty.

Time needed

60–90 minutes for a prepared comparison; research separately.

Setup

Use one row per initiative. Reach counts affected people in the chosen period. Impact expresses the effect per person on the shared goal. For example, use Intercom’s scale of 3 / 2 / 1 / 0.5 / 0.25. Enter Confidence as a percentage, such as 100 / 80 / 50 for different levels of supporting evidence. Effort covers total work in person-months and must be greater than zero.

Core question

The one question this method answers

Which initiative promises the greatest expected contribution to our goal relative to effort?

Flow

Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall

RICE ranks initiatives by reach, impact, confidence, and effort. The score supports shared prioritisation and makes uncertainty and justified exceptions visible.

Calculate RICE with consistent assumptions

Fictional worked example

Fictional example: two improvements to a booking app compared over the same quarter. All numbers are invented.

RICE = Reach × Impact × (Confidence / 100) / Effort

Fictional worked example
Initiative	Reachpeople / quarter	Impactfactor	Confidence%	Effortperson-months	Score
Simplify booking	1,200	2	80%	4	480
Add reminders	600	3	50%	2	450

Simplify booking: Evidence: Fictional: usage data and several interviews; effort estimated together.
Add reminders: Evidence: Fictional: bounded reach; high impact is still only an assumption.

480 is slightly ahead of 450. If booking effort rises from 4 to 6 person-months, its score drops to 320. The ordering depends on an uncertain assumption.

RICE by Intercom · original example calculation

1
Frame
Frame the comparison
Goal
Every row answers the same decision question.
Inputs for this step
- Prioritization question
- Described initiatives
Actions
- Agree on one shared goal and period.
- Align scope, reach units and effort units across all rows.
Output
Comparison frame
Goal · period · units
Quality check
Are the initiatives meaningfully comparable?
Pitfall
One initiative counts annual users, another quarterly users. Use the same period for every value.
Timing: 10–15 minutes as a guide.
2
Impact
Estimate Reach and Impact
Goal
Expected impact has a traceable basis.
Inputs for this step
- Usage data and customer evidence
Actions
- Estimate affected people in the period and record the source.
- Estimate impact per person on the shared goal using the agreed scale.
Output
Impact estimate
Reach · Impact · evidence
Quality check
Is reach counted only once? Does impact refer to the same goal?
Pitfall
Large reach is also treated as high impact. Estimate impact per affected person.
Timing: 15–20 minutes with prepared data.
3
Evidence
Add Confidence and Effort
Goal
All four factors use consistent, justified estimates.
Inputs for this step
- Evidence quality
- Estimates from those doing the work
Actions
- Set confidence from the supporting evidence and enter it as a percentage.
- Estimate total effort across roles in person-months and record uncertain ranges.
Output
Complete factors
Confidence · Effort · assumptions
Quality check
Is confidence grounded in evidence? Is effort positive and complete?
Pitfall
Enthusiasm replaces evidence; effort covers implementation alone. Label evidence and include required analysis, design and implementation work.
Timing: 15–20 minutes for a prepared scope.
4
Review
Check score and sensitivity
Goal
The ranking is mathematically correct and uncertainty is visible.
Inputs for this step
- Four factors per initiative
Actions
- Divide Reach × Impact × (Confidence / 100) by Effort.
- Vary uncertain inputs across plausible ranges and check for ranking changes.
Output
Reviewed ranking
Score · range · ranking changes
Quality check
Is 80 percent calculated as 0.8? Does the ordering survive plausible changes?
Pitfall
Decimal places suggest precision the estimates do not support. Check a decision-relevant effort range and show its effect.
Timing: 10–20 minutes.
5
Decision
Set a justified priority
Goal
The next step and its reasons are traceable.
Inputs for this step
- Reviewed ranking
- Dependencies and commitments
Actions
- Review results against dependencies, strategic goals and mandatory commitments.
- Record priority, justified exceptions, owner and review date.
Output
Prioritization decision
Priority · reasons · owner · review date
Quality check
Are exceptions to the score explained? Is the next review clear?
Pitfall
The highest number becomes a binding commitment without context. Document score and decision separately, with relevant reasons.
Timing: 10–15 minutes.

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Sketch: what the artifact looks like

RICE Scoring · PriorisierungsformelReach, Impact, Confidence und Effort transparent schätzen und zu einem vergleichbaren Score verbinden

Form

Versioned RICE table with factors, units, sources, assumptions, sensitivity checks and a reasoned prioritization decision.

Versioning / ownership

Record scope, date, evidence version and owner. Document changes with their reason and next review date.

Tool alternatives

Paper with a prepared grid
Shared spreadsheet
Digital whiteboard with a table

rice-working-template.md

Prepare comparable initiatives and the evidence needed for estimates.

RICE Scoring: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

Run a prioritization comparison Time: 60 to 90 minutes with prepared inputs

Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

Materials: Shared scoring table, clearly described initiatives, usage data, customer evidence and effort estimates.
Roles: Product · domain and customer perspective · Engineering · decision owner
Advance information: Gather initiatives, usage data, impact hypotheses and effort ranges. Record the period, source and uncertainty.
Overall time needed: 60–90 minutes for a prepared comparison; research separately.
Setup: Use one row per initiative. Reach counts affected people in the chosen period. Impact expresses the effect per person on the shared goal. For example, use Intercom’s scale of 3 / 2 / 1 / 0.5 / 0.25. Enter Confidence as a percentage, such as 100 / 80 / 50 for different levels of supporting evidence. Effort covers total work in person-months and must be greater than zero.

Prepare for the work steps

Frame: Frame the comparison

Prioritization question
Described initiatives

Impact: Estimate Reach and Impact

Usage data and customer evidence

Evidence: Add Confidence and Effort

Evidence quality
Estimates from those doing the work

Review: Check score and sensitivity

Four factors per initiative

Decision: Set a justified priority

Reviewed ranking
Dependencies and commitments

Calculate RICE with consistent assumptions

RICE = Reach × Impact × (Confidence / 100) / Effort

Initiative	Reach (people / quarter)	Impact (factor)	Confidence (%)	Effort (person-months)	Score	Evidence

Agree on the same period, goal and units before entering values. Enter Confidence as a percentage. Record sources and open assumptions for each initiative; Effort must be greater than zero.

RICE by Intercom · original example calculation

Frame: Frame the comparison

Expected artifact: Comparison frame

Goal · period · units

Entry:

...

Are the initiatives meaningfully comparable?

Impact: Estimate Reach and Impact

Expected artifact: Impact estimate

Reach · Impact · evidence

Entry:

...

Is reach counted only once?
Does impact refer to the same goal?

Evidence: Add Confidence and Effort

Expected artifact: Complete factors

Confidence · Effort · assumptions

Entry:

...

Is confidence grounded in evidence?
Is effort positive and complete?

Review: Check score and sensitivity

Expected artifact: Reviewed ranking

Score · range · ranking changes

Entry:

...

Is 80 percent calculated as 0.8?
Does the ordering survive plausible changes?

Decision: Set a justified priority

Expected artifact: Prioritization decision

Priority · reasons · owner · review date

Entry:

...

Are exceptions to the score explained?
Is the next review clear?

Open questions and next steps

...

Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/rice/run-sheet

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.

rice-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example: booking app

Shared frame: Improvements over the same quarter; Reach in people and Effort in person-months.

Simplify booking: 1,200 × 2 × 0.8 / 4 = 480.
Add reminders: 600 × 3 × 0.5 / 2 = 450.

Uncertainty: Six rather than four person-months reduces the first score to 320. Resolve this effort range before making a firm commitment.

Decision: The ordering informs discussion. Dependencies and mandatory commitments receive a separate documented rationale.

Pitfalls

Recognize symptoms and steer against them

Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow

Frame the comparisonOne initiative counts annual users, another quarterly users.View in phase
Estimate Reach and ImpactLarge reach is also treated as high impact.View in phase
Add Confidence and EffortEnthusiasm replaces evidence; effort covers implementation alone.View in phase
Check score and sensitivityDecimal places suggest precision the estimates do not support.View in phase
Set a justified priorityThe highest number becomes a binding commitment without context.View in phase

Stop criteria

When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach

Periods or units differ: align the comparison frame.

Initiatives have very different scope: split them sensibly or compare separately.

Reach or effort is almost unknown: clarify the critical uncertainty first.

A mandatory commitment determines delivery: treat it explicitly outside the score ordering.

Small estimation changes reverse priorities: seek evidence or make a robust partial decision.

Where to go next?

Product Strategy

OKRs

Ties prioritized initiatives to an objective with checkable key results.

Agile

WSJF

Uses reach and impact as input for an economic reweighting of the ranking.

View in playbookClarify Prioritization and RoadmapMove from many initiatives to transparent order, scope, and explicit trade-offs.

Finished the method guide?

Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.

Go to profile More methods