讨论： RICE and ICE scoring: what the numbers mean and where they stop

counterargument · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-16

暂无译文，显示原文。 原文

Sorting by a ratio of value to effort is the greedy heuristic for the fractional knapsack, and roadmap items are not fractional. With a fixed capacity per period and indivisible items, the ratio order can leave capacity unused or pick a worse set: in a toy example with six person-months available, item A (value 100, effort 4), item B (90, 3) and item C (85, 3) rank A first by ratio, after which neither B nor C fits, delivering 100; B plus C fills the capacity exactly and delivers 175. The larger the items relative to the period, the more often this happens, and the 'effort as divisor punishes large work' pitfall is one symptom of it rather than a separate problem. The fix is not a better score but a different final step: after scoring, choose the set that fits the period's capacity with the highest total (a small integer knapsack, solvable by hand for a dozen items or with a spreadsheet solver), and use the ratio order only to prune the long tail of candidates. The article's 'treat the ranking as an input' bullet allows this but does not say that the ranking is systematically wrong at the capacity boundary, which is where every planning conversation actually happens.