Product Prioritization Frameworks: When to Use RICE vs 2x2 Matrices

Want the full story? Listen to my complete interview with Kari Ostevik, where we discuss how to effectively lead without authority and build high-performing product teams.

Every product team faces the eternal question: what should we build next? With limited resources and endless possibilities, prioritization becomes the key differentiator between successful products and those that flounder in the market. After interviewing Kari Ostevik, who has led product teams at startups that have raised over $500M in funding, I’ve gained fascinating insights into how top product leaders approach this challenge.

The truth is, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to product prioritization. Different frameworks serve different purposes, and knowing when to use each one can make the difference between shipping features your customers love and building things nobody wants. In my conversation with Kari, she highlighted two primary frameworks she relies on: the RICE scoring model and the 2x2 prioritization matrix.

Let’s dive deep into when and how to use each framework, drawing from Kari’s real-world experience and my own observations working with product teams. Whether you’re a product manager trying to build the right things or a marketing leader looking to influence the product roadmap, understanding these frameworks will help you make better decisions.

The RICE Framework: Perfect for Growth Experiments

The RICE framework (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort) shines when you’re evaluating multiple smaller initiatives, particularly in growth-focused environments. “If I’m doing a lot of growth experiments, I love to use a RICE matrix to evaluate risk, impact, confidence, and ease in more of a numerical way,” Kari explains during our conversation.

This framework works particularly well when you need to compare initiatives that might seem incomparable at first glance. For instance, how do you weigh a UI improvement against a new feature? RICE provides a structured way to evaluate these different types of projects against each other.

The beauty of RICE is that it forces you to think quantitatively about each component. You’re not just saying something has “high impact” - you’re putting a number to it. This helps remove some of the subjective elements that often creep into prioritization discussions and provides a clear rationale for your decisions.

When to Use 2x2 Matrices: Larger Feature Decisions

While RICE works well for growth experiments, Kari notes that “more of my career has been centered around prioritizing larger features and then smaller features within those larger features. And I prefer to use a two by two matrix.” The classic ease/value matrix provides a simple but effective way to visualize and discuss priorities.

The power of the 2x2 matrix lies in its simplicity and facilitating meaningful discussions. As Kari points out, “When you get to that two by two and talking through why you’re putting something above something else or to the right of something else, I think is a really important practice.” It’s not just about the final placement - it’s about the conversation that gets you there.

This approach works particularly well in cross-functional settings where you need to build consensus. The visual nature of the matrix makes it easy for everyone to understand and contribute to the discussion, regardless of their technical background.

Combining Frameworks for Better Results

Smart product teams don’t limit themselves to just one framework. Instead, they might use a 2x2 matrix for high-level roadmap planning, then apply RICE scoring to prioritize the specific features within each quadrant. This hybrid approach allows you to maintain strategic alignment while still making data-driven decisions at a tactical level.

The key is knowing when to use each tool. As Kari emphasizes, different situations call for different approaches. When you’re running lots of small experiments, RICE provides the numerical precision you need. For bigger strategic decisions, the simplicity and clarity of a 2x2 matrix often works better.

Making These Frameworks Work in Practice

The real challenge isn’t understanding these frameworks - it’s implementing them effectively. During our conversation, Kari shared several practical tips for making prioritization frameworks work in the real world:

First, always involve cross-functional teams in the prioritization process. “I love working sessions,” Kari says, “getting a cross-functional team together to talk about what that prioritization should be.” This ensures you’re getting diverse perspectives and building buy-in across the organization.

Second, make sure you’re backing up your prioritization with real data. Kari emphasizes the importance of “doing the groundwork, like doing proper user interviews, looking at whatever data you can have and creating a story.”

The Role of Data in Prioritization

While frameworks provide structure, data provides substance. During our discussion, Kari highlighted the importance of balancing quantitative and qualitative data in the prioritization process. She regularly analyzes Gong recordings, Salesforce data, and user interviews to inform prioritization decisions.

However, Kari also warns against becoming too data-driven: “I have worked one place where I felt like we were too data driven… when you’re so focused on certain metrics in certain time frames, I think you can be a little bit short-sighted and lose like the holistic prop of the product.”

Building Consensus Around Priorities

One of the most challenging aspects of prioritization isn’t the framework choice - it’s getting everyone aligned behind the decisions. Kari shared several effective techniques for building consensus, including structured workshops and the use of dot voting to ensure everyone’s voice is heard.

“I love to do this in a physical environment if possible,” Kari explains when discussing prioritization workshops. “Everyone gets a couple minutes to describe their different variations… then sometimes at this stage, I do dot voting. So again, this is a way to make sure we understand what people see as a strong solution or idea.”

The Future of Product Prioritization

As products become more complex and teams more distributed, the way we prioritize continues to evolve. Kari points out that “the role of a PM is shifting towards more of your job is evaluating Build vs. Buy because there’s just so many more products than there were 10 years ago.”

This evolution means our prioritization frameworks need to adapt as well. While RICE and 2x2 matrices remain valuable tools, we might need to incorporate new dimensions like build vs. buy considerations, technical debt implications, or platform strategic alignment.

The key is maintaining flexibility while still providing enough structure to make informed decisions. As Kari demonstrates throughout our conversation, successful product leaders know how to adapt their approach based on the specific context and needs of their organization.

Want to hear more insights from Kari Ostevik, including her thoughts on leading without authority and building effective cross-functional relationships? Listen to the full interview here.