RICE, ICE or impact and effort: which scoring model when
Half an hour into prioritisation, two people are arguing about whether RICE or ICE is the better model, and nobody has scored a single idea. The argument is usually a proxy. The real question is what decision the room needs to make, and once that is clear the model almost picks itself. This guide explains the four common models and tells you which one to pick when.
Why the model is the wrong first question
A scoring model turns gut feeling into numbers the team can compare, and which numbers you need depends on the decision. A first cut after a workshop needs something you can finish in half an hour. An investment decision needs criteria the stakeholders have agreed on.
The four models
Impact and effort matrix
Two scores per idea, impact and effort, usually from 1 to 5, and four quadrants: quick wins, big bets, fill-ins and time sinks. No formula beyond "high impact, low effort first". A first cut in 30 minutes, best with 10 to 60 roughly comparable ideas. The impact and effort matrix has its own guide.
ICE
Impact, confidence and ease, each from 1 to 10, multiplied: ICE = impact × confidence × ease. Built for growth experiments: a fast ranking of twenty ideas you plan to test, not build. Confidence is the useful part. It forces the person who says "this will double sign-ups" to also say how sure they are.
RICE
Reach × impact × confidence ÷ effort. Reach is counted in people per period (customers per quarter, users per month), effort in person-months. RICE is for product backlogs where ideas differ a lot in how many people they touch. A fix every customer passes through and a feature for three accounts should not get the same score.
Weighted scoring
Several criteria (strategic fit, revenue potential, risk, time to market), each with a weight; every idea is scored per criterion and the weighted scores summed. Slower to set up, but the only model that carries an investment decision with several stakeholders, because the argument about what matters happens once.
Side by side
| Model | Inputs | Best for | Time needed | Weak spot |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Impact and effort matrix | Impact, effort (1 to 5 each) | First cut, 10 to 60 comparable ideas | 30 minutes | Everything is "high impact" if the definition is vague |
| ICE | Impact, confidence, ease (1 to 10 each, multiplied) | Fast ranking of experiments and growth ideas | 45 to 60 minutes | Scores drift between people |
| RICE | Reach × impact × confidence ÷ effort | Product backlogs where reach varies a lot | Half a day with data | Needs real reach numbers; false precision without them |
| Weighted scoring | Several criteria with weights | Investment decisions with several stakeholders | A session for the weights, then scoring | Weights get negotiated to please everyone |
Decision guide
- Name the decision. Write it on the wall: first cut, ranking or investment. If the room cannot agree on that sentence, stop and fix it before anyone scores.
- Count the ideas. Under ten, skip the formulas and talk. Between 10 and 60, the matrix or ICE handles it. Over 60, filter first.
- Check whether reach differs. If some ideas touch every customer and others a handful, use RICE. Without reach, those ideas get the same impact score and the ranking is wrong from the start.
- Check whether stakeholders disagree on what matters. If sales wants revenue, operations wants cost and the CEO wants strategic fit, use weighted scoring and spend the first half hour on the weights.
- Otherwise, matrix or ICE. Matrix for a workshop room with sticky notes and a first cut. ICE when the ideas are experiments and you want confidence made visible.
- Whichever model: score silently, discuss the gaps, write the reason. Everyone scores alone first, then you discuss only the ideas where scores differ by more than two points. Finish with one line per idea on why it landed where it did.
The model changes the conversation, not the truth. If someone proposes switching from ICE to RICE halfway through the session, the criteria were never agreed. Go back to step one instead of swapping formulas.
Scores that look precise and are not
- Every confidence score is 80 %. Nobody is being honest about uncertainty. Ask for a reason behind any score above 70 %: a test, data, a customer conversation.
- Effort guessed by people who will not do the work. A sales lead estimating developer effort produces fiction. Get someone from the team that would build it into the room, or score effort later.
- Mixing kinds of ideas in one ranking. A pricing change, a new feature and a hiring request cannot share a scale. Split them into separate rounds.
- A formula nobody in the room can explain. If the facilitator needs a spreadsheet to say why idea 12 beat idea 7, the team will quietly re-rank it in the corridor.
Score and prioritise ideas with your team
IdeaHone scores ideas against your criteria, shows them on a matrix and keeps the reasons, so the decision is clear and traceable.
What is the difference between RICE and ICE?
RICE adds reach, counted in people per period, and swaps ease for effort in person-months. ICE is faster and suits experiments; RICE suits backlogs where ideas differ a lot in how many people they affect.
Can I use RICE for innovation ideas?
Only if you can estimate reach and effort honestly, which early-stage ideas rarely allow. Start with the matrix or ICE and move to RICE once the survivors have data behind them.
Which prioritisation method is best for workshops?
The impact and effort matrix. It needs no spreadsheet, finishes in 30 minutes, and gives ten people a first cut they can all see on the wall. Save ICE and RICE for the follow-up.
