How to use the Feature Prioritization Matrix.
Prioritization needs explicit criteria and consistent interpretation. A score without evidence can make a subjective preference look objective.
Make the workflow fit your task.
Define criteria, scales and evidence requirements before comparing features. Score consistently, keep unknowns visible and inspect trade-offs before turning the result into a priority discussion or commitment.
- What you provide
- Feature list and supplied scoring criteria.
- What you get
- Transparent ranked matrix with trade-offs.
See the input and the result.
Illustrative input and output · a teaching example, not a live WebAct run
Example input
Compare features using supplied 1–5 scores, with higher better. Criteria: customer need weight 0.6; strategic fit weight 0.4. CSV validation scores 5 and 4. Theme colors scores 2 and 3. Evidence quality is not supplied.
Completed example
CSV validation: 5 × 0.6 + 4 × 0.4 = 4.6. Theme colors: 2 × 0.6 + 3 × 0.4 = 2.4. Ranking under these inputs: CSV validation first. Review gap: validate the score evidence and inspect effort, dependencies and obligations before treating the ranking as a delivery decision.
Load this input into the prompt, then copy it to WebAct to try the task. Your result may differ from the illustration.
Decisions and troubleshooting.
Should the highest weighted score automatically determine the roadmap?
Use the score as one input. Dependencies, obligations and uncertainty may require a different sequence or further investigation.
Why does the matrix mostly confirm the team's prior preferences?
Check whether weights and scores were chosen after seeing the outcome. Define them consistently and document evidence for each value.
Try it with your own source.
Replace the example with your material in the task prompt. Keep the requirements you need, then copy the task into WebAct.
Customize and copy the task ↑