Comparing strengths and drawbacks

RICE, MoSCoW, and the Kano Model each bring unique advantages, but none are free of limitations:

• RICE is effective at quantifying trade-offs and creates defensible rankings that can be explained to stakeholders. Its drawback lies in the time and effort needed to gather reliable data and the risk of producing scores that appear precise but rest on uncertain assumptions.
• MoSCoW is easy to use and ensures clear communication with stakeholders by defining what must be delivered. However, it cannot rank items within categories, and disagreements about what qualifies as a Must Have can stall decisions.
• The Kano Model provides deep insights into customer perceptions, separating essentials from delighters. Yet it demands surveys, analysis, and customer samples, which may not always be practical.

Comparing the frameworks side by side helps highlight that the choice is not about finding the perfect system but about recognizing what best fits the team’s environment. Simplicity, data availability, and company culture all influence which framework works best. Each method creates structure and transparency, but their effectiveness depends on consistent application and awareness of their blind spots.