My UX Toolkit: Feature Prioritization

My UX Toolkit  is a series of posts exploring different tools and techniques used in the user experience design and research process, my understanding of them, and when they can be applied. UX is a broad and varied space that can range from quantitative statistical analysis to graphic design, from branding and content strategy to storyboarding. Here I am trying to scratch the surface of how UXers UX, share my knowledge and further my own understanding of this vast career field. 

When designing a website or app, whether building from scratch or simply redesigning a few key aspects, you will often come to a point where you have to decide which design ideas are feasible and worth pursuing. For me this usually happens after the initial discovery phase of a UX process, between research synthesis and ideation. This can be a part of an agile methodology of UX design, where the design team is pursuing the minimum viable products (MVP) in a short design sprint of 3 or 4 weeks. 

But after taking into consideration stakeholder needs, user goals, research results and constraints like time and budget, how does a UX designer determine which effort will yield the best results? Which feature will create the most engagement? How can the team optimize their time to yield the greatest profit? And how can they determine how to balance client need with that of the users?

There are a few different techniques that can aid in clarifying the steps forward and how time can best be spent in a given UX project. 

Feature Prioritization Matrix

This matrix measures value on the horizontal axis vs cost on the vertical axis. Value considers both the value to the company, things like increased sales or engagement, and value to the user, for example increased delight or ease of use with the product. Cost considers the monetary cost and also the amount of man hours the feature will take to implement. 

Quadrant one represents the greatest value and the least cost to the company, and these features generally should be considered top priority. Quadrant 4 represents the opposite, highest cost with the lowest return in value, and in many cases these features can be abandoned. 

MoSCoW Prioritization

Must Should Could Won’t

This process breaks down feature prioritization into 4 categories: Must, Should, Could, and Won’t (or Wish). This rating system technique is somewhat objective and can be done individually by members of the team who then come back together to discuss their choices. It is a great way to involve stakeholders that are not a part of the UX team and open up a dialogue about differing opinions on specific features. 

RICE

Reach Impact Confidence Effort

This is a numerical scoring system that can be applied to each feature being considered, that can then be measured against each other based on their score.

Reach: The number of people the feature or change will reach. For example, if 500 users are projected to come to a given website in the next quarter, and 25% of users make it to the page where the redesign is featured, the change will reach 125 users. If the change will be seen by all users the reach will be 500 users.

Impact: This rates the positive impact the change will have on individual users. Usually scaled from zero to 3, it is multiplied by the final RICE score. An example would be a change that significantly lowers the bounce rate of the ecommerce website. This would get a high impact score.

Confidence: Here you rate your confidence in how the change will effect the product, from 50% to 100%. This usually will be based on previous UX Research and analytics. Anything less than 50% confidence needs some serious scrutiny and investigation before moving forward. 

Effort: This score is given in person-months, and evaluates how many man hours it will take to complete. For example, if it can be completed by one designer and 2 engineers in 2 weeks the effort score is 1.5 person-months.

The final score can be calculated by the following equation: 

While it may seem like taking this time to carefully evaluate which features should be pursued is wasteful, it can actually yield surprising and illuminating results and save time down the road in the design process. Of equal importance, these techniques aid in decision making, but can also be used as a visual storytelling tool, helpful in justifying design decisions to other members of the team and stakeholders.