RICE: Simple prioritization for product managers¶
McBride, S. (2018). RICE: Simple prioritization for product managers. Intercom Blog.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Prioritization
- Product management: RICE scoring (reach, impact, confidence, effort), as introduced by McBride (2018) at Intercom; MoSCoW method (must, should, could, won't); value-vs.-effort matrices; roadmap sequencing; feature-request triage.
This sourceOriginal presentation of the RICE (Reach × Impact × Confidence ÷ Effort) scoring framework developed at Intercom to replace opinion-driven debates with a single comparable score per initiative.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
The Intercom-style post defines RICE (reach, impact, confidence, effort) and its scoring; it does not mention MoSCoW, value-effort matrices or triage, and the cached text carries no author or company name.
“RICE is an acronym for the four factors we use to evaluate each project idea: reach, impact, confidence and effort.”
- Product management: RICE scoring (reach, impact, confidence, effort), as introduced by McBride (2018) at Intercom; MoSCoW method (must, should, could, won't); value-vs.-effort matrices; roadmap sequencing; feature-request triage.
Mechanisms¶
- Funnel Experiment Backlog
- Sizing each item by recoverable yield, an ICE/RICE-style
This sourceDefines RICE prioritization as reach multiplied by impact and confidence, divided by effort, to rank work consistently by expected impact per unit of effort rather than salience alone.
- Sizing each item by recoverable yield, an ICE/RICE-style
- Gap-Closure Experiment Backlog
- The backlog turns these into candidate experiments and ranks them with an explicit rule — a RICE-style score
This sourceDefines RICE as an explicit prioritization score combining reach, impact, confidence, and effort.
- The backlog turns these into candidate experiments and ranks them with an explicit rule — a RICE-style score
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 3 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:e3f42359f157 · see in the full table