← Back to all products
$39
Roadmap Planning System
Quarterly and annual roadmap templates with prioritization frameworks (RICE, ICE, MoSCoW), capacity planning, and stakeholder views.
Markdown
📄 Product Preview
Try the interactive reader and demo tools below, or get the full product with all content unlocked.
📖 Interactive Reader (Free Preview) ⚙ Try Demo Tools 📦 Download Free Sample📁 File Structure 19 files
roadmap-planning-system/
├── LICENSE
├── README.md
├── frameworks/
│ └── prioritization-guide.md
├── free-sample.zip
├── guide/
│ ├── 01_roadmapping-guide.md
│ ├── 02_roadmap-planning-system.md
│ └── 03_what-s-inside.md
├── guides/
│ └── roadmapping-guide.md
├── index.html
├── spreadsheets/
│ ├── capacity-tracker.csv
│ ├── ice-prioritization.csv
│ ├── moscow-prioritization.csv
│ └── rice-prioritization.csv
└── templates/
├── annual-roadmap.md
├── capacity-planning.md
├── now-next-later.md
├── quarterly-roadmap.md
├── stakeholder-view-engineering.md
└── stakeholder-view-executive.md
📖 Documentation Preview README excerpt
Roadmap Planning System
PM Toolkit Pro | $39
A complete roadmap planning system for technical product managers. Includes quarterly and annual roadmap templates, three prioritization framework spreadsheets (RICE, ICE, MoSCoW) with realistic sample data, capacity planning tools, stakeholder-specific view templates, and a comprehensive roadmapping guide.
What's Inside
Roadmap Templates (`templates/`)
| Template | Purpose |
|---|---|
quarterly-roadmap.md | 13-week roadmap with weekly milestones, dependencies, and risk tracking |
annual-roadmap.md | Four-quarter strategic roadmap tied to company objectives and themes |
now-next-later.md | Outcome-focused roadmap that avoids premature date commitments |
capacity-planning.md | Team capacity calculator with allocation percentages and availability tracking |
stakeholder-view-executive.md | High-level roadmap view for executives — outcomes and timelines, no implementation details |
stakeholder-view-engineering.md | Detailed technical roadmap for engineering — dependencies, architecture decisions, tech debt |
Prioritization Spreadsheets (`spreadsheets/`)
| File | Framework | What's Included |
|---|---|---|
rice-prioritization.csv | RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort) | 15 sample items scored with formulas explained |
ice-prioritization.csv | ICE (Impact, Confidence, Ease) | 15 sample items with scoring rubric |
moscow-prioritization.csv | MoSCoW (Must/Should/Could/Won't) | 20 sample items categorized with rationale |
capacity-tracker.csv | Capacity allocation | 8-person team across 13 weeks with utilization data |
Frameworks (`frameworks/`)
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
prioritization-guide.md | When to use RICE vs ICE vs MoSCoW, scoring rubrics, calibration techniques |
Guides (`guides/`)
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
roadmapping-guide.md | End-to-end guide: discovery through delivery, stakeholder buy-in, roadmap maintenance |
Features
- Three roadmap formats — quarterly for execution, annual for strategy, now-next-later for early-stage or uncertain environments
- Three prioritization frameworks — RICE, ICE, and MoSCoW with fully scored sample data so you see how the math works
- Capacity planning — calculate available engineering hours, account for holidays/on-call/meetings, and match capacity to roadmap commitments
- Stakeholder-specific views — same roadmap, different lenses: executives see outcomes; engineers see dependencies and tech debt
- Scoring rubrics — every prioritization framework includes a calibration rubric so your team scores consistently
- Sample data throughout — not blank templates; every spreadsheet and template includes realistic sample items you can reference or modify
- Dependency tracking — quarterly roadmap template includes cross-team dependency mapping with status tracking
Quick Start
1. Read the roadmapping guide — guides/roadmapping-guide.md gives you the mental model (15 min read)
2. Choose your roadmap format — quarterly, annual, or now-next-later based on your org's maturity
... continues with setup instructions, usage examples, and more.
📄 Content Sample frameworks/prioritization-guide.md
Prioritization Framework Guide
When to use RICE vs ICE vs MoSCoW, how to score items consistently, and techniques for calibrating your team's scoring.
Framework Comparison
| Aspect | RICE | ICE | MoSCoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best for | Quantitative backlog ranking | Quick brainstorming sessions | Release scope decisions |
| Speed | Slow (requires data) | Fast (gut + discussion) | Medium (requires alignment) |
| Output | Sortable numeric score | Sortable numeric score | Categorized buckets |
| Data required | Reach needs real numbers | All dimensions are subjective | Requires stakeholder input |
| Team size | Works solo or in groups | Best in groups (3-7 people) | Best in groups with stakeholders |
| Bias risk | Low (formula-driven) | Medium (subjective scoring) | High (politics and anchoring) |
| When to avoid | Early-stage with no data | High-stakes decisions | Small teams without stakeholders |
RICE Framework
How It Works
RICE Score = (Reach x Impact x Confidence%) / Effort
| Dimension | What It Measures | How to Score |
|---|---|---|
| Reach | How many users will this affect in a defined time period? | Absolute number (e.g., 5,000 users/quarter) |
| Impact | How much will each affected user benefit? | Scale: 3 (massive), 2 (high), 1 (medium), 0.5 (low), 0.25 (minimal) |
| Confidence | How confident are you in your estimates? | Percentage: 100%, 80%, 50%, 20% |
| Effort | How much work is this for the team? | Person-weeks of effort |
Scoring Rubric
Impact Scale:
- 3 (Massive): Fundamentally changes the user's workflow. Users would notice immediately if it disappeared.
- 2 (High): Significant improvement. Users mention it positively in feedback.
- 1 (Medium): Noticeable improvement. Makes things easier but doesn't transform the experience.
- 0.5 (Low): Minor improvement. Users might not notice unless it's pointed out.
- 0.25 (Minimal): Barely noticeable. Mostly cosmetic or edge-case improvement.
Confidence Scale:
- 100% (High): You have data from user research, analytics, and/or competitor analysis. You've built similar things before.
- 80% (Moderate): You have some data. Reasonable assumptions with some unknowns.
- 50% (Low): Limited data. Based primarily on intuition and indirect signals.
- 20% (Moonshot): Speculation. No data. Could be huge or could be a waste of time.
... and much more in the full download.