The RICE Model’s Hidden Flaw

And How to Fix It

If you’re a Product Leader whose organization is on a journey to become Product-led, this article is for you.

My goal is to “put the Productivity into Product” by helping your organization turn theory into practice while defining your Product Process in a way that makes it effective and repeatable.

In this article, we’ll explore the strengths of the RICE prioritization model and how it helps Product Teams make more objective decisions. However, we’ll also examine its key limitation — its failure to separate Problem prioritization from Solution prioritization. By the end, we’ll introduce a refined approach that better aligns with strategic decision-making and discuss practical ways to implement it effectively.

The Strengths of the RICE Model

The RICE prioritization model is a strong starting point for Product Managers looking to make objective decisions. It was designed to mitigate biases that often undermine prioritization efforts. Daniel Kahneman, in his influential book Thinking, Fast and Slow, discusses the importance of “decision hygiene” when making evaluative decisions. One example he highlights is the APGAR score — a systematic method used to assess the health of newborns immediately after birth by scoring Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration. The APGAR score demonstrates how structured evaluation can lead to better decision-making. Similarly, the RICE model encourages teams to rate ideas on multiple pre-defined dimensions, including Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort.

For example, the Impact dimension in RICE is rated on the following scale:

• 3 = Massive impact
• 2 = High impact
• 1 = Medium impact
• 0.5 = Low impact
• 0.25 = Minimal impact

By structuring evaluations in this way, the RICE model certainly enhances decision-making. However, one critical mistake it makes is conflating Problem prioritization with Solution prioritization.

The Importance of Separating Problem and Solution Prioritization

One of the key responsibilities of a Product Manager is deciding what not to do. This is the essence of Problem prioritization — the process of evaluating multiple problems and determining which one to solve first. Only after identifying the highest-priority problem should a team move on to Solution prioritization, evaluating potential ways to address that problem. The RICE model, as it currently stands, does not differentiate these two phases.

Once we recognize the need to separate Problem and Solution prioritization, we can refine the RICE model into something more robust.

Enhancing Problem Prioritization

To effectively evaluate problems, we can begin by measuring the Reach and Impact dimensions separately. However, these dimensions can be further refined:

Reach should consider:

• The number of customers experiencing the problem.
• The frequency with which those customers encounter the problem.
• The pain level experienced by customers when the problem occurs.

To demonstrate how Impact can be refined, let’s think about it from the perspective of a B2B Product team.

Impact can be broken down into:

• Business Impact: Is this a must-solve problem, a nice-to-solve problem, or a minor inconvenience?
• Financial Impact: How does the problem affect a customer’s ability to generate revenue or reduce costs?
• Service Impact: How does the problem affect a customer’s ability to serve their own customers?

With up to six well-defined dimensions, Product Managers can make more informed decisions about which problems to tackle first.

Refining Solution Prioritization

Once a high-priority problem is selected, the next step is evaluating potential solutions. In addition to the Confidence and Effort dimensions from RICE, we can refine Confidence into four sub-dimensions:

• Strategic Fit: How well does the solution align with corporate goals and strategy?
• Corporate Fit: Is the solution in the organization’s wheelhouse, or does it require new capabilities?
• Profit Potential: How cost-effective is the solution, and what value does it provide customers?
• Complexity: The number of systems and third parties required to implement the solution.

Effort remains an important dimension but should be rated systematically — for instance, by estimating the number of development sprints required for implementation.

Moving Beyond Whiteboards

While this framework improves decision-making, it is difficult to execute effectively without the right tools. Product teams need a system that allows them to:

• View and rate problems side by side.
• Compare solutions using consistent evaluation criteria.
• Scale prioritization across teams to enable leadership to make informed trade-offs.
• Foster collaboration and shared learning around decision-making processes.

By refining RICE to distinguish between Problem and Solution prioritization, Product Managers can make better, data-driven decisions that lead to more impactful outcomes.

Further Learning: If you’re interested in learning more about the RICE model, check out ProductPlan’s article on RICE prioritization.

If you want to deepen your understanding of Product Discovery and prioritization, I recommend you check Pendo’s Product Discovery certification course now while it’s free.

If you’re looking for guidance in building effective product processes, I’d love to chat. Feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn.