Setting Priorities: Why "Everything Is Important" Means Nothing Is Important
"That's all top priority."
If you hear (or say) this sentence, you have a problem. Because if everything has priority, nothing has priority.
Prioritizing doesn't mean deciding what's important. It means deciding what's more important than something else – and not doing the other thing.
Why Setting Priorities Is So Hard
The Dilemma
REALITY:
- More tasks than time
- Every stakeholder thinks their topic is most important
- Everything sounds reasonable and sensible
- FOMO: What if we leave out the wrong thing?
RESULT WITHOUT PRIORITIZATION:
- Everything gets started, nothing gets finished
- Constant context switching
- Stress and overload
- In the end: Less accomplished than possible
The Cost of Missing Prioritization
| Without Prioritization | With Prioritization |
|---|---|
| 10 things 30% done | 3 things 100% done |
| Constant context switches | Deep work possible |
| Burnout risk | Sustainable performance |
| Reactive to everything | Proactive on the right things |
| Unhappy stakeholders | Clear expectations |
Framework 1: The Eisenhower Matrix
The most classic framework for personal and team prioritization.
URGENT NOT URGENT
┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────┐
IMPORTANT │ DO │ DECIDE │
│ (Immediately) │ (Schedule) │
│ │ │
│ - Prod Incident │ - Strategy work │
│ - Deadline today│ - Team development │
│ - Critical bug │ - Tech debt │
├─────────────────┼─────────────────────┤
NOT │ DELEGATE │ DELETE │
IMPORTANT │ (Hand off) │ (Eliminate) │
│ │ │
│ - Status emails │ - Unnecessary mtgs │
│ - Routine tasks │ - Nice-to-haves │
│ - Simple questions│ - Perfectionism │
└─────────────────┴─────────────────────┘
How to Use the Matrix
DO (Important + Urgent):
- Handle immediately
- Don't delegate
- These are real priorities
DECIDE (Important + Not Urgent):
- Schedule a fixed time
- This is where long-term leverage lies
- This quadrant is often neglected
DELEGATE (Not Important + Urgent):
- Hand off if possible
- Do quickly if yourself
- Don't invest too much time
DELETE (Not Important + Not Urgent):
- Eliminate
- Say no
- Don't push to "someday"
The Most Common Mistake
PROBLEM:
Most people spend too much time
in "Urgent" (DO + DELEGATE) and too little
in "Important but Not Urgent" (DECIDE).
EXAMPLE:
- Answer emails (urgent, not important) ✓
- Strategy for next quarter (important, not urgent) ✗
RESULT:
Always busy, but never on what matters.
Firefighting mode instead of shaping.
Framework 2: RICE Scoring
RICE is perfect for product and feature prioritization.
The Formula
RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort
R - REACH: How many people/users does it affect?
I - IMPACT: How strong is the effect? (0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 3)
C - CONFIDENCE: How sure are we? (0-100%)
E - EFFORT: How much work? (Person-weeks)
Example
FEATURE A: New Onboarding Flow
- Reach: 1000 new users/month
- Impact: 2 (high)
- Confidence: 80%
- Effort: 4 weeks
Score = (1000 × 2 × 0.8) / 4 = 400
FEATURE B: Dark Mode
- Reach: 5000 active users
- Impact: 0.5 (minimal)
- Confidence: 100%
- Effort: 2 weeks
Score = (5000 × 0.5 × 1.0) / 2 = 1250
→ Although Dark Mode has less impact,
it has a higher RICE score due to
reach and lower effort.
Impact Scale
3.0 = Massive Impact (Game Changer)
2.0 = High Impact
1.0 = Medium Impact
0.5 = Low Impact
0.25 = Minimal Impact
Benefits of RICE
- Objective: Numbers instead of gut feeling
- Comparable: Different features on one scale
- Discussion basis: Stakeholders can challenge assumptions
- Documented: Decisions are traceable
Framework 3: MoSCoW
MoSCoW is ideal for scope decisions and roadmap planning.
M - MUST HAVE: Without this, nothing works
S - SHOULD HAVE: Important, but workaround possible
C - COULD HAVE: Nice to have
W - WON'T HAVE: Explicitly not (this time)
Example: MVP for New Feature
MUST HAVE:
- User can log in
- Core functionality X works
- Data is saved
SHOULD HAVE:
- Password reset
- Email notifications
- Better error messages
COULD HAVE:
- Dark mode
- Export function
- Social login
WON'T HAVE (this release):
- Multi-language
- Offline mode
- Admin dashboard
The Power of "Won't Have"
WHY "WON'T" IS SO IMPORTANT:
1. CLARITY
Everyone knows what's NOT coming.
2. PROTECTION
Scope creep is prevented.
3. FOCUS
Team can concentrate on Must/Should.
4. EXPECTATION MANAGEMENT
Stakeholders aren't surprised.
Framework 4: Value vs. Effort Matrix
Simple 2x2 for quick prioritization.
LOW EFFORT HIGH EFFORT
┌──────────────────┬──────────────────┐
HIGH │ QUICK WINS │ BIG BETS │
VALUE │ (Do now!) │ (Plan) │
│ │ │
│ "Low hanging │ "Strategic │
│ fruit" │ investments" │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────┤
LOW │ FILL-INS │ MONEY PITS │
VALUE │ (If time) │ (Avoid!) │
│ │ │
│ "Nice to have, │ "Why are we │
│ easy to do" │ doing this?" │
└──────────────────┴──────────────────┘
The Order
- Quick Wins: First – quick successes, momentum
- Big Bets: Then – long-term leverage
- Fill-Ins: In between – when capacity is available
- Money Pits: Never – cost more than they deliver
Framework 5: ICE Scoring
Faster than RICE, good for quick decisions.
ICE Score = Impact × Confidence × Ease
I - IMPACT: 1-10 (how big is the effect?)
C - CONFIDENCE: 1-10 (how sure are we?)
E - EASE: 1-10 (how easy is it?)
Score = I × C × E (max 1000)
Example
TASK A: Implement caching
- Impact: 8
- Confidence: 7
- Ease: 5
Score: 8 × 7 × 5 = 280
TASK B: Change button color
- Impact: 2
- Confidence: 9
- Ease: 10
Score: 2 × 9 × 10 = 180
→ Caching has higher score despite
lower ease, because Impact > everything
Prioritization in Tech Daily Life
Sprint Planning
PROCESS:
1. GO THROUGH BACKLOG
- What's there?
- Rough estimates
2. APPLY FRAMEWORK
- Value/Effort for all items
- MoSCoW for the sprint
3. CHECK CAPACITY
- What fits?
- Buffer for unexpected (20%)
4. COMMITMENT
- Must Haves must fit
- Should Haves depending on capacity
- Could Haves = bonus
IMPORTANT:
Sprint Commitment = Must + Should
Not: "We'll do everything"
Roadmap Planning
QUARTERLY:
1. DEFINE THEMES
- What are the 2-3 big themes?
- Alignment with business goals
2. PRIORITIZE FEATURES
- RICE for all candidates
- Create ranking
3. SEQUENCING
- Consider dependencies
- Quick wins early
- Plan big bets
4. COMMUNICATE
- Roadmap is a plan, not a promise
- Review regularly
Daily Prioritization
MORNING ROUTINE (5 min):
1. TOP 3
- What are the 3 most important things today?
- If only ONE of them is possible – which one?
2. EISENHOWER CHECK
- Is my day in the right quadrant?
- What can I delegate/eliminate?
3. BLOCK TIME
- When do I do the Top 3?
- Protect calendar
EVENING ROUTINE (2 min):
- What did I accomplish?
- What do I move to tomorrow?
Learning to Say No
Why Saying No Is Hard
FEARS:
- I'll disappoint others
- I'll miss an opportunity
- I'll seem uncooperative
- I won't be important anymore
RESULT:
- Too much on the plate
- Nothing done right
- Burnout
How to Say No Constructively
Technique 1: The "Yes, if..."
INSTEAD OF:
"No, that's not possible."
BETTER:
"Yes, I can do that – if we
postpone [other project].
What has priority?"
Technique 2: The "Not now"
"That's a good point. Right now we're
focusing on X. Can we plan this for Q3?"
Technique 3: The "Who else?"
"I'm not the right person for this.
Have you talked to [name]?"
Technique 4: The Transparent No
"I have to say no because my capacity
is currently on [Project X]. If I take
this on, [concrete consequence] will suffer."
Saying No as a Leader
AS A LEADER YOU ALSO HAVE TO SAY NO FOR YOUR TEAM:
"The team can't take on this feature.
We're committed to [sprint goal].
Option A: We plan it for next sprint.
Option B: We pull something else out.
What makes sense?"
Common Prioritization Mistakes
Mistake 1: Everything Is P1
PROBLEM:
"Everything is top priority"
= No prioritization
= Chaos
SOLUTION:
Force Ranking: If you could only do ONE
thing – which one?
Then: Which one second?
And so on.
Mistake 2: The Loud Stakeholder Wins
PROBLEM:
Whoever makes the most noise gets
their features/tasks prioritized.
SOLUTION:
- Transparent prioritization criteria
- Scoring system (RICE/ICE)
- All stakeholders see the ranking
- Discussion based on criteria, not volume
Mistake 3: Sunk Cost
PROBLEM:
"We've already invested 3 months,
so we have to continue."
REALITY:
The invested time is gone.
The question is: Is it worth the NEXT hour?
SOLUTION:
Regularly evaluate: Would we start this TODAY?
If no → stop.
Mistake 4: Urgent Displaces Important
PROBLEM:
Always in firefighting mode.
Important, not urgent work (tech debt,
strategy, development) never gets done.
SOLUTION:
- Block fixed time for "Decide" quadrant
- Non-negotiable
- Minimum 20% of time
Mistake 5: No Re-Prioritization
PROBLEM:
Priorities from 3 months ago still apply.
But the world has changed.
SOLUTION:
- Review regularly (at least monthly)
- Include new information
- Be willing to change plans
Communicating Prioritization
To Stakeholders
TEMPLATE:
"We've prioritized [N] requests.
Here's the ranking and why:
1. [Feature A] - RICE Score 450
→ Highest impact with moderate effort
2. [Feature B] - RICE Score 320
→ Important for goal X
3. [Feature C] - postponed to Q3
→ Effort too high for current ROI
Questions about the assumptions?"
To the Team
IMPORTANT:
- Why did we prioritize this way?
- What does this mean for the sprint?
- What's explicitly out of scope?
"Our focus this sprint is [goal].
Everything else is nice to have.
If someone comes with other requests:
Point them to me."
Conclusion: Prioritizing Means Giving Up
Good prioritization isn't doing the right thing. It's not doing the wrong thing.
Core Principles:
- Everything can't be important: Force rank
- Use frameworks: Eisenhower, RICE, MoSCoW
- Learn to say no: Constructively and transparently
- Review regularly: Priorities change
- Important > Urgent: Block time for strategy
Your Challenge for Today:
List everything you want to do this week. Then: Cross out half. The remaining items: Rank them 1-N.
Only do #1-3 for real. The rest comes next week – or never.
And that's okay.
Want to understand how you make better decisions as a leader? Our guide to Making Decisions shows frameworks for faster and better decisions. For goal setting: SMART Goals.
