The Uncommon vs. the Popular in Product Management Frameworks - GIST Vs. RICE

Are frameworks important in Product Management? Yes, they are as they act as guiding stars in making decisions. But sticking to one framework for all your decision making may not work in the favour of the product. In India, most Product Managers I have met talk about SWOT, MoSCoW, Value-Effort Matrix, KANO, DACI and the very popular RICE frameworks(RICE- most used). And most Product Managers stick to their favourite frameworks for all their products. Let's look at a very uncommon framework - GIST and see how it stacks up with the reigning, defending, undisputed champion of frameworks - RICE.

What’s GIST Planning All About?

GIST stands for:

• Goals: Think of these as your big dreams. They’re the reason you’re doing this whole product thing in the first place. "Increase market share by 20%" or "Slash customer churn by 15%" are examples of these lofty targets.

• Ideas: These are the shiny new features or strategies you’re pondering. They’re your brainstorming session’s best ideas—like adding a nice CRM feature or supercharging your analytics.

• Step-Projects: Rather than committing to a year-long development plan, step-projects are your short-term experiments. These projects, lasting weeks or months, let you test ideas quickly. Think of them as mini-trials where you see what works without affecting or impacting the main programs in your organization.

• Tasks: These are the nitty-gritty details—the daily grind of executing your step-projects. They include everything from designing the user interface to coding and testing.

Picture an IT company developing a new cloud-based software. Traditional methods would have them drawing up a detailed roadmap with feature launches planned out over the next 12 to 18 months. Sounds organized, right? But what happens if a new technology pops up halfway through? With GIST, the process is more like a series of sprinting steps:

• Setting Goals: They set broad goals like “Capture 20% more market share in SMBs” or “Cut customer churn by 15%.”

• Generating Ideas: They brainstorm ideas such as adding a CRM feature or beefing up data analytics.

• Step-Projects: Instead of jumping straight into a full-scale feature, they build a basic prototype and gather feedback in a couple of months. This way, they know if their idea is golden or just fool’s gold.

• Executing Tasks: Break down those prototypes into manageable tasks, like designing the UI or setting up user testing.

With GIST, the team can pivot fast based on what users actually need, which means less time and money wasted on features that don’t hit the mark. Now let's see how GIST compares with RICE with scenarios.

1. Adaptability vs. Rigid Roadmaps

Imagine a cybersecurity company developing a ne feature and new technology emerges.

GIST: GIST Planning’s iterative nature and focus on short-term step-projects make it highly adaptable. This flexibility is crucial in IT projects where technologies and market conditions evolve rapidly. GIST encourages regular reassessment of goals and ideas, allowing teams to pivot based on new information or feedback.

GIST’s iterative approach allows the team to adjust quickly if a new technology emerges, avoiding the sunk costs of a rigidly planned roadmap.

RICE: RICE is a prioritization framework that provides a structured way to score and rank features or projects based on Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort. While it offers clarity and a quantitative approach to prioritization, it tends to favor longer-term planning and can be less flexible in rapidly changing environments. If RICE is used in the same scenario, the team might be locked into a predetermined plan based on initial reach and impact scores. Adjustments to the plan could be slower, potentially causing delays in adapting to new technologies.

GIST’s iterative nature is better suited for environments with high uncertainty and rapid changes. It allows teams to adapt quickly, whereas RICE’s focus on scoring and ranking can lead to slower adjustments.

2. Focus on Learning and Validation

Imagine an IT startup exploring new features for their cloud service.

GIST: GIST emphasizes the importance of learning and validating ideas through step-projects. This approach allows teams to test assumptions and gather feedback early, ensuring that only viable ideas move forward. It supports a lean methodology where experimentation is key.

Using GIST, the company can run multiple small-scale step-projects to test user reactions. This iterative feedback loop ensures that features are refined based on real-world data.

RICE: RICE helps prioritize ideas based on expected impact, reach, confidence, and effort. It’s useful for evaluating and ranking ideas but does not inherently focus on iterative validation.

The company might prioritize features based on initial impact scores. However, without an iterative testing phase, they risk investing heavily in features that might not resonate with users.

GIST’s iterative validation process provides more actionable insights and reduces the risk of investing in unproven ideas. It allows for real-world testing and adaptation, which is crucial for high-uncertainty projects.

3. Reduced Risk through Iteration

GIST’s emphasis on short-term step-projects and tasks helps in managing risk by allowing teams to test ideas incrementally. This approach minimizes the impact of failures and enables continuous improvement. In a large IT firm developing a new enterprise software suite, using GIST allows the team to release and test individual modules as they progress. This incremental approach reduces the risk of major failures and allows for continuous adjustments based on user feedback.

RICE helps in prioritizing features based on their potential ROI by scoring reach, impact, confidence, and effort. It’s effective for assessing the relative value of ideas but may not address the incremental testing of ideas. This approach could lead to higher risk if the software does not meet user expectations, as there is less room for iterative testing.

Ideal Use Cases for GIST and RICE:

GIST

• High Uncertainty: GIST is well-suited for projects with significant uncertainty, such as exploring new technologies or entering emerging markets.

• Rapidly Changing Markets: For IT projects where market conditions and customer needs evolve quickly, GIST’s flexibility and iterative approach are advantageous.

• Innovation and Experimentation: GIST supports a culture of innovation by allowing teams to experiment with ideas and validate their assumptions through step-projects.

• Startups and New Product Development: Startups benefit from GIST’s lean approach, which helps in minimizing risk and maximizing learning during the early stages of product development.

RICE

• Well-Defined Goals: RICE is effective when goals and metrics are well-defined, and there is a need to prioritize features based on expected impact and effort.

• Stable Environments: In environments with less variability and uncertainty, RICE’s structured approach to prioritization can be beneficial.

While both GIST Planning and RICE offer valuable frameworks for product management, GIST Planning stands out in scenarios where flexibility, iterative learning, and rapid adaptation are crucial. For IT projects characterized by high uncertainty, fast-paced changes, and a need for continuous validation, GIST provides a more adaptable and risk-managed approach compared to RICE’s more rigid, score-based prioritization. By leveraging GIST Planning, product teams can navigate the complexities of IT projects with greater agility and responsiveness, ultimately driving more successful outcomes. Not trying to make a case for GIST planning here. Just saying there is one more lesser-known framework to explore :)

Add your thoughts in the comment section to discuss more.