This tip offers a framework for easily prioritizing projects, ideas, work, goals, etc., and using your choice of prioritization approach, a number of which are contrasted below.
You can quickly create something like this (assuming you’re on any Asana paid plan):
I’d recommend starting this way:
- Make a new project
- You do not need any Sections (just use the List view which used “Untitled section” behind the scenes) and might consider a Section custom field instead if you want to categorize the rows, then Group by that, and Save view
- Enter (or paste from where they now live, or import from a CSV) your items to be prioritized to they now appear as tasks in this project.
Do the above regardless of whether the project/idea might become a task or project in Asana once undertaken.
(Note: If you happen to already have all your projects in a portfolio, you can adjust all these instructions to carry out the prioritization in the portfolio for the project rows, instead of in a project for the task rows that represent a project, as this post covers.)
You only need to value the task title so far, though if you want, you can fill in the Description or add links there if the task title isn’t clear enough.
Now you need to choose a scheme to use to prioritize. I’ve included one quick AI comparison of some methods, including a comparison table. Take it with a grain of salt, but see if one speaks to you.
My basic recommendation is to use the second row in the table below, “Generic weighted scoring / multi‑criteria,” which can be tweaked for quick-and-dirty use or for a more detailed, painstaking prioritization exercise.
I’m a fan of Kepner-Tregoe Decision Analysis for many years and I mentioned it in my prompt, so that’s why it appears as the first row in the table, I imagine.. That’s likely too time-consuming for all but the most critical decisions, but the crux of the numeric part of its approach is found in Generic weighted scoring / multi‑criteria.
I’d recommend starting with the most important criterion for you (say “Value”) and creating a numeric custom field for it. You could prioritize with that single field by entering a value (decide on either 0-5 or 0-10) for each project/idea, then sort in descending order on that field; you’re done!
But in most cases, you’d at least want to add at least an additional numeric custom field (say, “Ease of Effort”) or two (see the AI advice below for more ideas).
If you have two or more numeric custom fields, add a Score custom field of type Formula. Specify a simple formula to implement the generic weighted scoring / multi‑criteria calculation.
Make sure the weights total 1. Value all the cells you’ve created with a number (use the same scale for all, 0-5 or 0-10). Sort (descending) your project by Score (see the first screenshot above for the results).
You can duplicate tabs and save different ones based on your different custom fields if those views might help you, say, to discover easy effort work irrespective of the other measures.
AI-generated info about prioritization schemes
Below is the output of AI. The table might be helpful to quickly peruse some alternative methods.
Methods to consider
- Kepner-Tregoe Decision Analysis (see below)
- Weighted scoring / multi‑criteria scoring (generalized cost–benefit with weights).parabol+1
- RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort).kickassdevelopers+1
- WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First / Cost of Delay ÷ Duration).altexsoft+1
- MoSCoW (Must/Should/Could/Won’t).bigtime+2
- Impact–Effort or Value–Effort matrix.teamgantt+1
- Eisenhower / Urgent–Important matrix (for more operational portfolios).bigtime+1
Each can be implemented in a spreadsheet or tool like Asana via custom fields and formulas, then used to sort/segment projects.transparentchoice+2
How Kepner-Tregoe works
Kepner-Tregoe Decision Analysis defines objectives (musts vs wants), weights the “want” criteria, scores each alternative, and adjusts for risk to pick the best‑fit option for a given situation. It is highly structured, documentation‑heavy, and explicitly separates decision quality (fit to criteria) from risk exposure.purplegriffon+2
Typical KT steps for a project decision: clarify situation, define decision objectives, distinguish musts from wants, weight wants, score alternatives, analyze risks, and choose the highest‑scoring acceptable option.iienstitu+1
Comparison overview table
Project prioritization approaches vs Kepner‑Tregoe
| Method | Core idea | Inputs & scoring | Strengths vs KT | Weaknesses vs KT | When it’s a better fit than KT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kepner‑Tregoe Decision Analysis iienstitu+2 | Structured decision process: define objectives, weight criteria, score options, analyze risks. | Qualitative and quantitative criteria, split into “musts” and weighted “wants”; risk assessment as a separate pass.iienstitu+1 | Very rigorous; transparent rationale; excellent for high‑stakes, ambiguous choices.iienstitu+2 | Slow; requires facilitation and stakeholder time; heavier than most portfolio needs. | One‑off or infrequent, high‑impact project choices (e.g., platform re‑architecture, major vendor selection).iienstitu+1 |
| Generic weighted scoring / multi‑criteria parabol+2 | List criteria, assign weights, score each project, compute weighted total. | Criteria such as strategic fit, ROI, risk, customer value, cost; each scored 1–5 or 1–10 and multiplied by weight.parabol+2 | Almost as structured as KT but simpler; easy to explain; works well for a whole portfolio; spreadsheet‑friendly.parabol+2 | Less explicit about “musts”; risk often folded into one column instead of a separate analysis; can feel subjective if scales are loose.parabol+1 | You want KT‑like transparency but need something light enough to run quarterly on dozens of projects. |
| RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort)kickassdevelopers+2 | Compute RICE score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) ÷ Effort to rank items.kickassdevelopers+1 | Estimates of how many people are affected, how strongly, how confident you are, and implementation effort.kickassdevelopers+1 | Quantitative and compact; good for ranking many small/medium initiatives; easy to automate in tools.kickassdevelopers+2 | Narrow set of dimensions; ignores explicit strategy alignment and detailed risk; estimates can be noisy.kickassdevelopers+1 | Product or growth‑style backlogs where impact and effort are known reasonably well and decisions are frequent.kickassdevelopers+2 |
| WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First)kickassdevelopers+2 | Prioritize by Cost of Delay ÷ Job Duration to maximize economic throughput.kickassdevelopers+1 | Cost of delay broken into components (e.g., business value, time criticality, risk reduction), scored relatively; duration as relative size.kickassdevelopers+1 | Optimizes flow and ROI in queues; great in scaled agile portfolios; focuses teams on economic impact per time unit.kickassdevelopers+2 | Assumes reasonably stable CoD estimates; less focus on qualitative fit or non‑economic criteria than KT.kickassdevelopers+1 | Agile environments (e.g., SAFe) with many competing projects or epics and need to keep value flowing continuously.kickassdevelopers+2 |
| MoSCoW (Must/Should/Could/Won’t)bigtime+2 | Bucket requirements or projects by criticality: must, should, could, won’t.bigtime+1 | Qualitative stakeholder judgment about what is essential for an outcome or timebox.bigtime+2 | Extremely simple; great for workshops and expectation management; low setup overhead.bigtime+1 | Coarse granularity; doesn’t inherently rank within buckets; can devolve into politics without scoring.bigtime+1 | Early scoping, release planning, or when stakeholders need a shared language more than a precise ranking.bigtime+1 |
| Impact–Effort / Value–Effort matrix teamgantt+2 | Place items on a 2×2 grid (high/low impact vs high/low effort) to decide what to do now/later.teamgantt+1 | Rough estimates of impact (or value) and effort for each project.teamgantt+1 | Visual; quick to run with a group; good at exposing “quick wins” vs “time sinks”.teamgantt+1 | Binary thresholds lose nuance; no explicit risk or strategy dimension; not as defensible as KT for big bets.teamgantt+2 | Team or leadership workshops where you need a fast shared view of which projects to start, park, or drop. |
| Eisenhower / Urgent–Important matrix bigtime+1 | Classify work by urgency and importance; focus on important, de‑emphasize merely urgent.bigtime+1 | Judgments about how time‑critical and strategically important each project is.bigtime+1 | Great at countering fire‑drill culture; simple mental model; aligns with time‑management practices.bigtime+1 | Very high‑level; “importance” is underspecified; not suitable alone for capital‑intensive decisions.bigtime+1 | Operational or departmental portfolios where the main problem is too many urgent requests crowding out strategic projects. |
How they differ conceptually from KT
- Rigor vs throughput
- KT and generic weighted scoring emphasize decision quality and explicit trade‑offs across many criteria.parabol+2
- RICE, WSJF, and matrices focus on quickly ranking a stream of work to maximize value flow over time.teamgantt+3
- Granularity
- KT is best for a small number of consequential decisions; the process cost is high per item.purplegriffon+1
- RICE, WSJF, MoSCoW, and Impact–Effort scale better when you have dozens or hundreds of candidate projects.ppm+3
- Risk handling
- KT has a dedicated risk analysis step with explicit consideration of downside and mitigation.iienstitu+1
- Most other frameworks either bundle risk into one dimension (e.g., cost of delay, confidence) or ignore it.kickassdevelopers+2
Practical selection heuristics
- Use KT or weighted scoring for:
- Cross‑functional, politically sensitive choices that require a defensible audit trail.transparentchoice+2
- Few, high‑impact, infrequent decisions (e.g., “which of these 4 big bets do we fund?”).
- Use WSJF or RICE for:
- Ongoing backlogs where you frequently re‑prioritize and can estimate impact/effort reasonably.altexsoft+3
- Use MoSCoW or matrices for:
- Early‑stage triage, alignment sessions, or when you need to quickly separate viable from non‑viable work without over‑engineering the process.teamgantt+3
For an Asana‑based portfolio, a pragmatic pattern is: MoSCoW or Impact–Effort for initial funneling, RICE or weighted scoring for day‑to‑day portfolio ranking, and KT‑style analysis reserved for the few bets where you truly need that level of rigor.parabol+2
- Kepner-Tregoe Decision Analysis: A… | IIENSTITU
- Kepner-Tregoe Method | Purple Griffon
- 9 Prioritization Frameworks + Tools to Help You Use Them | Parabol
- https://kickassdevelopers.com/blog/moscow-vs-rice-vs-wsjf-vs-kano-choosing-the-right-prioritization-model-for-mobile-teams
- From RICE to WSJF: 13 Prioritization Techniques to Improve Your Project’s Workflow | PPM Express
- Most Popular Prioritization Techniques and Methods
- Project Prioritization That Works: Guide and Examples
- Project Prioritization: The Ultimate Guide
- Project Prioritization: A Practical Guide with Examples
- The Kepner-Tregoe Matrix
- Product Prioritization Frameworks | Productboard
- Prioritization frameworks | Atlassian
- 9 Prioritization Frameworks & Which to Use in 2025
- https://kepner-tregoe.com/training/intro-to-decision-analysis/
- How to pick a prioritisation framework - RICE, ICE, PIE, PXL or HIPE?
Larry Berger, Forum Leader, Asana Services Partner, Trilogi Solutions