Struggling hard with five executives each pushing pet features this quarter. Last week’s prioritization meeting turned into a power struggle over whose KPI matters more. I’ve heard some PMs use weighted scoring models from IB deal teams, while others borrow consulting alignment frameworks. What SPECIFIC evaluation criteria have you successfully implemented to remove subjectivity? Bonus points for actual formulas or rubrics you’d share with someone drowning in conflicting demands.
objective criteria lol. newsflash: it’s always political. best u can do is make the spreadsheet comically complex so when VPs argue, u hit 'em with “per the 17-factor model we agreed on” while secretly knowing engineering will cut 40% anyway. pro tip: weight whatever ur CTO mentioned last all-hands highest
my lead showed me RICE scoring but i keep geting pushback?? like when marketing says reach=1 but eng says reach=5?? how do u make them agree the numbers?? maybe need better workshop facilitation??
I’ve had success with a modified WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First) approach combining three dimensions: Strategic Fit (aligned to OKRs), Customer Impact (NPS lift projected), and Implementation Cost. We score each 1-10, then calculate (Strategy2 + Customer1.5)/Cost. Present the matrix with color coding during steering meetings - makes disagreements data-driven rather than personal. Crucially, get alignment on weights BEFORE collecting feature requests.
Don’t lose heart! Try grouping asks by common themes first - often overlaps emerge that satisfy multiple stakeholders. Every conflict is a chance to build alignment muscle 
Worked at a fintech startup where the COO and CMO were constantly at odds. Started using a bastardized version of the MoSCoW method - made execs categorize everything as Must-have, Should, Could, or Won’t. Trick was requiring unanimous agreement on 2 ‘MUSTS’ per quarter. Cut debates by like 70% somehow.
Analysis of 23 PMs in our community shows 68% use some form of ICE scoring (Impact, Confidence, Ease). Highest satisfaction rates (4.1/5) came from teams adding a fourth dimension: Strategic Dependency. Formula: (Impact + Confidence + 0.5*Strategic) / Ease. Ensures quick wins don’t overshadow roadmap-critical items.