ThinkWithPrompt by SynotticThinkWithPrompt

Prioritize a product roadmap or backlog

Scores and orders features with a transparent model (RICE, value vs. effort) and builds a roadmap.

Product & UX DesignRCTFVVAdvancedProductProductivityLeadershipPlan

The prompt

Role: Act as a product manager prioritising the roadmap against strategy. Context: Product strategy and current goals/OKRs: [STRATEGY_OKRS]. Candidate initiatives with what we know (problem, rough value, rough effort, dependencies, risks): [INITIATIVES]. Capacity available per period: [CAPACITY]. Fixed commitments / must-dos: [COMMITMENTS]. Stakeholders and their priorities: [STAKEHOLDERS]. Prioritisation approach preferred (e.g. RICE, weighted scoring): [METHOD]. Goal: Produce a roadmap that is clearly driven by strategy and capacity, with the reasoning visible so stakeholders can challenge the inputs, not the politics. Task: Produce: (1) the scoring model - the factors, their weights, and how each is estimated, tuned to the strategy; (2) each initiative scored with the inputs shown and a confidence level; (3) a now / next / later roadmap that fits capacity and honours commitments, with the explicit trade-offs (what is NOT being done and why); (4) the initiatives whose ranking is most sensitive to a shaky input, and what to validate; (5) how to communicate it to stakeholders. Constraints: Every score must use the stated inputs - do not invent value or effort numbers; mark low-confidence estimates. The roadmap must fit the stated capacity. Make the cost of the commitments/must-dos visible. No initiative ranked on stakeholder seniority. Examples: Score row: 'Initiative | Reach | Impact | Confidence | Effort | Score | Notes'. Trade-off line: 'Choosing [A] over [B] this quarter costs us [expected value of B]; revisit if [condition].' Format: Sections: Scoring model | Scored initiatives (table) | Roadmap (now/next/later) & trade-offs | Sensitivity & what to validate | Stakeholder comms. ~700 words. Verification: Recheck each score against its inputs; list every initiative where a single uncertain input flips its position. Validation: Pressure-test as a stakeholder whose priority did not make 'now': is the reasoning defensible on strategy and capacity grounds? Strengthen the explanation or revisit the call.

Highlighted [brackets] are blanks to replace with your own details.

Fill in the blanks and use this promptMore Product & UX Design prompts

What to fill in

  • STRATEGY_OKRS
  • INITIATIVES
  • CAPACITY
  • COMMITMENTS
  • STAKEHOLDERS
  • METHOD
  • expected value of B
  • condition

How this prompt is built

This prompt follows the RCTFVV structure (Role, Context, Task, Format, Verification, Validation). RCTFVV extends RCTF with two checking steps. Verification asks the model to review its own draft against your requirements; Validation asks it to flag assumptions and gaps you should confirm.

Related prompts

Find more prompts like this