Almost everyone we speak to these days is dealing with the same reality. Drinking out of the proverbial firehose. Too much to do, not enough time. Everything is a priority, everything is urgent, and therefore, get it done at all costs. And that’s just at work. We come home, and we still want to live our best lives, be the best parents we can be, maintain a semblance of fitness and health, not to mention sleep... but the clock has just 24 hours.

I’ve been around on this planet for a while and can attest to the fact that even for me, it feels like this is just being amplified. Does it have to do with the relentless pace of change, the relentless pace of life? Does it have to do with the “instant” gratification we have gotten used to (remember when dial up was a thing? Remember when you’d lose your connection if the phone rang? Remember what life was like BEFORE the internet?!?!)? Does it have to do with the prevalence of everything available to us via Tik Tok, Instagram and Pinterest in addition to the mainstream media?
 
Whatever the cause, we can be aware of four key things.

• It won’t stop unless we stop it, and no matter how hard we try, the day will continue to have just 24 hours in it
• Stopping it looks like relentless prioritization
• Relentless prioritization requires alignment and communication
• Saying no to things and letting go is going to challenge us (bigly!)

It won’t stop unless we stop it

I’m about to say something that may be challenging to hear...but I’m going to share it anyways. It’s our fault we’re stuck here.

Does that sting? Probably, but it’s meant with the best intended kindness. How can we ever expect anything to change if we just take it all on? Do it all? Our organizational leadership might be thrilled that they’re seeing a constant flow of work, but do they see the personal toll it takes? The amount of burnout I’m running into these days is hard to witness. So many good people, strong and amazing, suffer under the weight of exhaustion and do not see a way out, but when do we ever say no? Do we ever say no to leadership, do we ever say no to our own (un)realistic expectations?  

The only way we can stop it is to say no. We shouldn’t be mean about it, but I do think it prudent to ask any or all of the following questions:

• "How is this aligned with our overarching organizational vision?”
• “How does this compare to other top priority initiatives I'm currently working on (higher or lower priority?)”
• “What of x, y, and z do you recommend I stop doing so that I can prioritize this?”
• “How much wiggle room is there on the delivery date?”

Assuming we’ve asked the above questions and continue to be challenged by ambiguity around the prioritization of the work in our backlog (pipeline, list, queue etc.), we can then flip to the next point, which is “stopping it looks like relentless prioritization”.

Stopping it looks like relentless prioritization

Part of the reason we often feel overwhelmed by the work is because we’re not clear what priority is. We may know what tasks require immediate attention, but are we always clear on whether those requiring immediate attention are important? It may be that they are urgent, but completely unimportant in the grand scheme of things. It’s very common in the business world today that we’re working on all the things, but many of those things aren’t the things that will make a difference. It’s therefore discerning these from the ones that do make a difference that is going to help us, and one of the best ways that we can do that is by using a prioritization framework.

Relentless prioritization requires communication and alignment

Prioritization frameworks put a visible and stringent methodology by which we can assess things against others. When used in a team or organizational setting, they can act like a magic pill, because what they also serve to do is create visibility and alignment around how we define priorities. They often force communication around how different teams understand “common” terms without assuming that our definition is the only one. For instance, how do we define “important” as a team, what criteria need to be met to be deemed “important”? These are the brilliant conversations we can have when we bring in a prioritization framework.

Letting go of things is going to challenge us (bigly!)

We don’t walk into these pickles of having too much to do in not enough time intentionally. We do because we are all just trying to do our best, like helping others and often get a sense of satisfaction for a job well done. However, like we’ve gathered, we can’t keep saying yes to everything if we want to have some work/life balance. This means we must let go of things, down-prioritize and maybe even totally remove items that just aren’t on top of our radar for the moment.  

When we use prioritization frameworks, often the cream just rises to the top, making it easier to contextualize and let go of some of the lower priority items. When we see everything in relation to one another, we really start to feel much better about our plan to tackle it all.

We recently worked with a team who were trying to figure out what initiatives to fund in the following year and realized that they really didn’t have any clear baseline by which to judge priority items. Without having this, everything was being funded, even if it meant they didn’t have the operating budget to support many of those initiatives, and even if it meant that those initiatives were funded by debt.

When we come in, we often work with organizations to create this first layer of visibility, but if you’re reading here and just curious about how you can get started without having to call in the pros (we’re here if you want help though!), we will explore three prioritization frameworks we love.  

Introduction to Prioritization Frameworks

Our three selected prioritization frameworks are the following:

• Eisenhower Matrix
• Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF)
• RICE Framework for Prioritization

There are obviously many more to pick from, but we figured this would be a great assortment to start from, as they each serve different purposes and have varying degrees of complexity.

Eisenhower Matrix

‍

We start with the Eisenhower Matrix as it really is the simplest to implement and use. The Eisenhower Matrix gets at what can often be a very often overlooked fact, especially in a stressful environment, and that is that just because something is urgent, does not mean it is also important.

Dwight D. Eisenhower famously used his namesake matrix to manage his duties as President, focusing on tasks that were urgent and important.

I have sometimes seen the complete mobilization of forces when something is urgent, just to later find out that it wasn’t very important in relation to everything else that was on the list. The Eisenhower Matrix is best used in smaller teams where people are generally aligned around a shared goal. It’s also great to apply to our own personal to-do lists that seem ever-growing, to give some control and restore a sense of agency to our worlds.

How the Eisenhower Matrix Works

Tasks are categorized based on their urgency and importance:

• Urgent and Important tasks are top priorities and need immediate attention.
• Important but Not Urgent tasks are significant but can be scheduled for later.
• Urgent but Not Important tasks should be delegated or automated.
• Neither Urgent nor Important tasks can be eliminated.

Benefits of the Eisenhower Matrix

• Simple Yet Effective: Easy to understand and implement.
• Reduces Stress: Helps in focusing on what truly matters. ‍
• Improves Time Management: Ensures that important tasks are not overlooked.

If it was good enough for the President of the US, chances are it might work for us as well.

Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF)

When the Eisenhower Matrix is not enough, and you need a level up, we really like to use Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF). This is a great prioritization tool that gets at understanding Return on Investment. It's not always possible to do proper ROI assessments, business cases or the like to prioritize initiatives in relation to one another, and so we use the relative estimation ranking that Agile (Scrum) is so well known for. “ROI by Proxy” is maybe an alternate name for WSJF. This framework gets at understanding the Cost of Delay (how costly it will be for us to delay working on this) / Job Duration (how long this will take for us to get out).

WSJF is calculated using the formula:

WSJF = Cost of Delay / Job Duration

• Cost of Delay factors in the business value, time criticality, and risk reduction/opportunity enablement. We assign relative values to business value, time criticality and risk reduction / opportunity enablement and then add them up. That is then our numerator value.
• Job Duration refers to the time required to complete the task. This is assigned a relative value and acts as our denominator.

By dividing the Cost of Delay by the Job Duration, you prioritize tasks that offer the highest return on investment in the shortest time.

WSJF is a winner when there are disparate stakeholders with different priorities across the organization, and the team doing the work needs a clear and easily defensible method of understanding what is truly a priority. It moves the HIPPO out of the room and helps maximize economic benefit to the organization by sequencing jobs based on relative ROI.

Benefits of WSJF

• Maximizes Economic Benefit: Ensures that the tasks with the highest value and shortest duration are completed first.
• Reduces Time to Market: Helps in delivering high-value features more quickly.
• Aligns with Business Goals: Focuses on tasks that significantly impact business outcomes.

The idea is simple yet powerful—focus on completing the tasks that offer the highest value in the shortest amount of time.

RICE Framework for Prioritization

Lastly, we bring in the RICE Framework. The RICE Framework took off in the last few years where organizations heavily started focusing their efforts on product. RICE doesn’t have to be used by product teams however, and is just as useful in organizational support teams like HR, Marketing and IT.

The four factors RICE evaluates tasks based on are:

• Reach: How many people will be impacted by the task.
• Impact: The level of impact the task will have on those people.
• Confidence: Your confidence level in the estimates for reach and impact.
• Effort: The amount of effort required to complete the task.

RICE works by scoring each factor and then multiplying the first three factors and dividing them by the last. RICE score is calculated using the formula:

RICE Score = (Reach * Impact * Confidence) / Effort

• Reach is usually measured in the number of people or events per time period.
• Impact is scored from 0.25 (minimal impact) to 3 (massive impact).
• Confidence is a percentage that reflects the certainty of the estimates.
• Effort is measured in person-months.

Benefits of the RICE Framework

• Comprehensive Evaluation: Considers multiple dimensions, making it a holistic approach.
• Objective Decision-Making: Provides a quantifiable way to prioritize tasks.
• Flexibility: Can be adapted to different types of projects and industries.

The RICE Framework is strong at helping teams decide which ideas to pursue by balancing reach, impact, confidence, and effort. Discover how Intercom employs the RICE Framework.

Implementing Prioritization Frameworks

Choosing the Right Framework

Selecting the right prioritization framework depends on your specific needs and context. WSJF is excellent for maximizing economic returns, RICE offers a comprehensive evaluation, and the Eisenhower Matrix is perfect for quick decision-making.  

Whichever one you choose to try on for size, we generally recommend starting small. Just like we spot test new cleaning detergents, we might want to spot test our prioritization framework on a few initiatives to see how it does.  

We also recommend customizing it if what you get out of the box isn’t quite right for your needs. While the Eisenhower Matrix and RICE are pretty “What you see is what you get”, you can customize the factors you evaluate the Cost of Delay against in WSJF. You can also always consider a more “balanced scorecard” type of a prioritization approach if you need something totally custom.

Lastly, we recommend regularly reviewing how the chosen framework is fitting your needs, and making adjustments as needed. Seldom do we make the perfect pancake in the first round, and so just like the pancakes, we may need to tweak here and there until we get it just right.

If you’re ready to take your team's focus to the next level, you can start by experimenting with these frameworks and see how they can transform your workflow. For more tips and personalized guidance, consider booking a consultation with our experts. We love helping you make your team the best it can be!