Skip to content
LeanSuite

Practical guide · Kaizen and continuous improvement

Prioritization matrix: types, a worked example and how to run one

Short answer

A prioritization matrix is a grid or table that ranks a list of options against the same criteria, so a team can agree what to do first. The common versions are an impact and effort grid, an urgent and important grid (the Eisenhower matrix) and a weighted scoring table.

Use a prioritization matrix when you have more ideas than time. For improvement ideas, score each one for impact and effort, place it on a 2x2 grid and start with the high impact, low effort box. When several things matter in different amounts, give each criterion a weight and add up the weighted scores. Either way, agree scales and weights before scoring and score alone before you talk. The total starts the discussion. The team makes the decision.

Last reviewed:

What is a prioritization matrix?

A prioritization matrix compares options on the same few criteria and turns the comparison into an order. You will also see it called a priority matrix, an impact effort matrix, a decision matrix or a weighted scoring model. The names overlap. The method inside matters more than the label.

In a plant the options are usually improvement ideas from a gemba walk, the suggestion box or a kaizen event, and the list outruns the team's time. The matrix makes people say why one idea beats another, on criteria agreed first. The Minnesota Department of Health's improvement toolbox adds that it surfaces disagreements and limits hidden agendas.

It ranks options you already have. It does not find ideas or tell you which problem is biggest. For that, count first with a Pareto chart or rank failure risks in an FMEA, then use the matrix on the ways to fix what the data found.

Types of prioritization matrix and when each one fits

The four common prioritization matrices and when each one fits

  • Impact and effort grid (2x2)

    The question it answers
    Which ideas give the most for the least work?
    How it scores
    Each idea is placed by impact and by effort, in one of four boxes.
    Use it when
    A long list of kaizen ideas needs a first cut in under an hour.

  • Urgent and important grid (Eisenhower matrix)

    The question it answers
    What do I do now, schedule, hand over or drop?
    How it scores
    Each task is placed by urgency and by importance.
    Use it when
    It is one person's own list, such as a supervisor's week.

  • Weighted criteria matrix

    The question it answers
    Which option meets several needs best, when they matter in different amounts?
    How it scores
    Each option scores 1 to 5 per criterion. Scores are multiplied by weights and added.
    Use it when
    Three to six criteria matter, or the choice must be defended.

  • Pugh matrix

    The question it answers
    Which solution concept beats today's way of doing the job?
    How it scores
    Each concept is marked better, same or worse than one reference, the datum.
    Use it when
    You are choosing between solution designs early. See the Pugh matrix guide.
The grid sorts, the weighted table ranks, and the Eisenhower grid is for one person's own list. The Pugh matrix compares solutions, not ideas.

The impact and effort grid is what most plants mean by a prioritization matrix for kaizen ideas. The boxes are quick wins (high impact, low effort), major projects (high impact, high effort), fill-ins (low impact, low effort) and drops (low impact, high effort). Sources vary on the names. The position is what counts.

The urgent and important grid is the Eisenhower matrix. Urgent and important work is done now. Important but not urgent gets a date. Urgent but not important is handed on. The rest is dropped. The saying behind it is attributed to Dwight D. Eisenhower, who by Wikipedia's account credited it to an unnamed former college president. It suits one person's own list. It is a poor fit for ranking improvement ideas, because the argument over an idea is rarely about timing.

A weighted criteria matrix, also called a weighted decision matrix, is the grid's more careful relative. It earns its extra effort when an idea helps on one criterion and costs on another.

Which prioritization matrix fits the job?

  1. Is it your own task list for the week, not ideas for a team?

    If yes

    Use the urgent and important grid, the Eisenhower matrix.

  2. Are you choosing between solution designs, against today's way of doing the job?

    If yes

    Use a Pugh matrix, with today's way as the datum.

  3. Do three to six criteria matter in different amounts, or must you defend the choice?

    If yes

    Use a weighted criteria matrix, with the weights agreed before scoring.

  4. Every answer right

    Use an impact and effort grid for a first cut of a long list of ideas, then weight the ones that stay close.

Three questions in order. A list of your own tasks for the week: use the urgent and important grid. Choosing between solution designs against today's way: use a Pugh matrix. Several criteria that matter in different amounts, or a choice you must defend: use a weighted criteria matrix. Otherwise use an impact and effort grid.

Most plant ideas end at the last card. The grid is the fast first cut, and the weights come in only where the grid cannot settle it.

Impact effort matrix: six ideas on one line

Illustrative example. Line 2 is a packing line, and the team's goal for the quarter is to cut lost time and strain on it. A gemba walk and the suggestion box gave six ideas. The supervisor, two operators, a maintenance technician and a process engineer each score impact and effort from 1 to 5 alone, then agree one number per idea. Impact 5 is the biggest gain against the goal. Effort 5 is the most work, cost and disruption. They give no 3s: a 3 sits on the line and avoids the decision.

Illustrative: six Line 2 ideas scored for impact and effort
IdeaImpactEffortBox
A. Glue gun spares shadow board21Fill-in
B. Jam sensor and andon light52Quick win
C. Film roll change standard41Quick win
D. New case sealer55Major project
E. Label printer moved24Drop
F. Packing table raised44Major project

The six ideas on the impact and effort grid

Example numbers
  • AGlue gun spares shadow board (impact 2, effort 1)
  • BJam sensor and andon light (impact 5, effort 2)
  • CFilm roll change standard (impact 4, effort 1)
  • DNew case sealer (impact 5, effort 5)
  • ELabel printer moved (impact 2, effort 4)
  • FPacking table raised (impact 4, effort 4)

Impact and effort grid. Quick wins: B and C. Major projects: D and F. Fill-ins: A. Drops: E.

Midline at 3, so scores of 4 and 5 are high and 1 and 2 are low. B and C, in yellow, are the quick wins. The picture does the sorting that a list of numbers makes you do in your head.

B and C are quick wins and start this week. D and F are major projects, and each needs a cost case and a sponsor before anyone orders anything. A is a fill-in for a spare hour. E is dropped, with the reason on the card: a lot of work for a small gain.

Weighted decision matrix: the same six ideas with weights

The grid used one number for impact, which hides that the goal has two parts, strain and lost time, and that ease matters too. A weighted matrix splits them. Before anyone scored, the team agreed three criteria and shared 100 points: safety and strain 40, downtime saved 35, ease 25. Each idea scores 1 to 5 on each, 5 always being better, so on ease a 5 means the least work.

The same six ideas scored on three weighted criteria

Example numbers

  • B. Jam sensor and andon light

    Safety and strain (40)
    2
    Downtime saved (35)
    5
    Ease (25)
    4

    Weighted score: 3.55

    Rank 1

  • C. Film roll change standard

    Safety and strain (40)
    1
    Downtime saved (35)
    4
    Ease (25)
    5

    Weighted score: 3.05

    Rank 2

  • F. Packing table raised

    Safety and strain (40)
    5
    Downtime saved (35)
    1
    Ease (25)
    2

    Weighted score: 2.85

    Rank 3

  • D. New case sealer

    Safety and strain (40)
    2
    Downtime saved (35)
    5
    Ease (25)
    1

    Weighted score: 2.80

    Rank 4

  • A. Glue gun spares shadow board

    Safety and strain (40)
    1
    Downtime saved (35)
    2
    Ease (25)
    5

    Weighted score: 2.35

    Rank 5

  • E. Label printer moved

    Safety and strain (40)
    1
    Downtime saved (35)
    2
    Ease (25)
    2

    Weighted score: 1.60

    Rank 6

Weights were agreed before scoring: 40, 35 and 25 add to 100. A 5 is always the better outcome, so on ease a 5 means the least work.

Each score is the weights times the scores, divided by 100. For B: (40 × 2 + 35 × 5 + 25 × 4) / 100 = (80 + 175 + 100) / 100 = 3.55. For F: (40 × 5 + 35 × 1 + 25 × 2) / 100 = (200 + 35 + 50) / 100 = 2.85.

B and C lead on both views, and E is last on both. F is the interesting one. On the grid it was a major project. With strain weighted at 40 it climbs to third, only 0.05 ahead of the new sealer, which is a tie for practical purposes. Now the equal weights check, each score the plain average of the three. B is 3.67, C is 3.33, F, D and A all come to 2.67, and E is 1.67. F's place depends on the weight on strain, which is the argument to have before scoring, not after.

Weighted score against the equal weights check

Example numbers

  • B. Jam sensor and andon light

    3.55 weighted
    3.67 equal weights

  • C. Film roll change standard

    3.05 weighted
    3.33 equal weights

  • F. Packing table raised

    2.85 weighted
    2.67 equal weights

  • D. New case sealer

    2.80 weighted
    2.67 equal weights

  • A. Glue gun spares shadow board

    2.35 weighted
    2.67 equal weights

  • E. Label printer moved

    1.60 weighted
    1.67 equal weights

Weighted score, then equal weights score: B. Jam sensor and andon light 3.55 and 3.67; C. Film roll change standard 3.05 and 3.33; F. Packing table raised 2.85 and 2.67; D. New case sealer 2.80 and 2.67; A. Glue gun spares shadow board 2.35 and 2.67; E. Label printer moved 1.60 and 1.67.

B and C lead either way. F, D and A tie when the weights are equal, so F's third place rests on the weight given to strain.

The Minnesota Department of Health toolbox describes a fuller method that weighs each criterion against every other in pairs. It suits 3 to 8 people, 5 to 10 options and 3 to 6 criteria. Sharing 100 points by agreement, as here, is quicker, and it is how the free template works.

How to run a prioritization session with a team

Running a prioritization session in six steps

  1. 1

    Write the goal in one line

  2. 2

    Put each idea on a card

  3. 3

    Agree the scales before scoring

  4. 4

    Score alone, then together

  5. 5

    Place or total, then cut a line

  6. 6

    Write the decision on the cards

Steps 3 and 4 protect the result: scales and weights fixed before anyone scores, and scores made alone before anyone talks.
  1. 1

    Write the goal in one line

    What are you choosing for? Without one, each person scores against a different goal.

  2. 2

    Put each idea on a card

    Give every card the same detail: what it is, the result you expect, the effort and the risks. Split a huge idea or join tiny ones, so the sizes compare.

  3. 3

    Agree the scales before scoring

    Write what a 1 and a 5 mean on each scale, and which way effort runs. Set and write down the weights now.

  4. 4

    Score alone, then together

    Everyone scores every card on paper, then all reveal together. Discuss any gap of two points or more: someone knows something the others do not.

  5. 5

    Place or total, then cut a line

    Put the cards on the grid, or add up the weighted scores. Draw the line where the team's time runs out.

  6. 6

    Write the decision on the cards

    Each card gets one outcome: do now, plan, do when there is time, or drop with a reason. Name an owner and a date for the first two.

Keep the group small. Atlassian's team playbook runs its grid, with urgency across and impact up, for 3 to 6 people in about 60 minutes on index cards and a whiteboard. It also suggests limiting the must-have box to about 40 percent of capacity, so work arriving mid-quarter has room.

Common prioritization matrix mistakes

Five prioritization matrix mistakes and what to do about each

  • Mistake

    Scoring alone

    What goes wrong: One view becomes the team's, and the loudest or most senior person's ideas rise.

    Do this instead

    Score on your own first, reveal together, and discuss the gaps of two points or more.

  • Mistake

    Padding the criteria

    What goes wrong: Scoring drags, and minor criteria can add up and select an option that fails a must-have.

    Do this instead

    Keep three to six. Make real must-haves pass or fail tests, not points.

  • Mistake

    Everything scores 4 or 5

    What goes wrong: Nobody calls their own idea small, so scores bunch at the top and the ranking says nothing.

    Do this instead

    Score against the other ideas on the list, use the whole 1 to 5 range, and give no 3s on a grid.

  • Mistake

    Choosing the weights after seeing the result

    What goes wrong: Weights set afterwards bend toward the idea someone already likes.

    Do this instead

    Agree and write down the weights before the first score. Run the equal weights check.

  • Mistake

    Treating the score as the decision

    What goes wrong: Scores are judgements, not measurements. A 0.05 gap is a tie.

    Do this instead

    Read the ranking as the start of a conversation, and talk the close ones through.

Four of the five fixes are about order: agree the rules first, score alone, then discuss. The fifth is about humility: a score is a judgement.

Wikipedia's article on the decision matrix method makes the last point plainly: the criteria are arbitrary, the values are guesses rather than measurements, and the finished table can look more scientific than its inputs justify. Where you have a real count, such as minutes lost per shift, use it for the score.

What to do after the matrix

A ranking is worth nothing until it becomes work with a name on it.

  • Quick wins go on the rolling action item list with one owner and one date, and the weekly review keeps them honest. The 5W1H questions turn each into a full action in six lines.
  • Small changes inside the team's own area can go straight in. The kaizen guide shows how an idea gets from card to closed.
  • Major projects get a sponsor, a cost case and a project charter first.
  • Drops stay on the list with the reason, so the idea does not return next month as if new.
  • Score the list again next quarter. Effort and impact both move.

Then measure. Count the lost minutes before and after each change, so the next matrix scores impact from what happened.

Prioritization matrix templates and software

The free prioritization matrix template scores up to 20 ideas on up to six weighted criteria, repeats the ranking with equal weights as a check, and plots each idea on an effort and benefit grid, in Excel and PDF. For ideas to start from, the kaizen ideas bank lists 120 examples with their effort. To rank hazards, use the risk assessment matrix.

In LeanSuite, the Idea Management page says each idea can get a prioritization score from its reach, impact, confidence and ease, and that admins can change the formula to match your goals. The Quality Prioritization Matrix gives every internal and customer defect an AA, A, B or C priority and turns the top ones into Kaizen or CAPA projects. Kaizen & Projects tracks each project through to results.

Idea Management

Rank ideas in LeanSuite

Each idea can get a prioritization score from its reach, impact, confidence and ease, and admins can change the formula to match your goals.

See Idea Management

Go deeper

This page is the short version. These guides cover each part in full.

All our articles on this subject are in the kaizen and continuous improvement topic.

Free templates and tools

Key terms

Lean glossary

Doing this in LeanSuite

See it on your own lines

Bring the problem you are working on to a 45-minute demo. Or look around with sample data first, or pilot LeanSuite on your own lines for 90 days, with the setup done by our team.

Book a 45-minute demoClick through the interactive demoStart a 90-day pilot

FAQ

Questions about prioritization matrix

  1. A prioritization matrix is a grid or table that ranks options against the same criteria so a team can agree what to do first. The usual versions are an impact and effort grid, an urgent and important grid and a weighted scoring table. In a plant it is used to order a long list of improvement ideas.

  2. An impact effort matrix is a 2x2 prioritization grid. Each idea is placed by how much it would gain and how much work it would take. High impact and low effort is a quick win to do first. High impact and high effort is a major project to plan. Low impact and low effort is a fill-in. Low impact and high effort is dropped.

  3. The Eisenhower matrix is one kind of prioritization matrix. It sorts tasks by urgent and important into do now, schedule, delegate and drop. It suits one person's own to-do list. Other prioritization matrices rank ideas by impact and effort, or score them on weighted criteria, which suits a team choosing between improvements.

  4. A weighted decision matrix scores each option on the same criteria, multiplies each score by the weight of the criterion, and adds the results to rank the options. Agree the weights before scoring, so they cannot be bent toward a favourite. Treat close totals as ties and check the ranking again with all weights equal.

  5. Write the goal in one line, put each idea on a card, and agree what a 1 and a 5 mean on every scale. Each person scores alone, then the team reveals scores together and discusses the big gaps. Place the ideas on the grid or add up the weighted scores, then write a decision and an owner on each card.

  6. Use the grid for a first cut of a long list, when one number for impact is enough. Use a weighted matrix when several criteria matter in different amounts, for example strain, downtime and ease, or when the choice has to be defended. It takes longer, so run it only on the ideas the grid left in play.

  7. The Minnesota Department of Health's improvement toolbox describes its version for 3 to 8 people, 5 to 10 options and 3 to 6 criteria. More criteria slow the scoring and let minor ones add up to a total that overrides a real must-have, so keep the must-haves as pass or fail tests.

  8. Agree them before anyone scores. A quick way is to share 100 points across the criteria by discussion, as the example on this page does. The Minnesota toolbox weighs each criterion against every other in pairs, which takes longer. Then run the ranking again with equal weights, and if the order changes, talk about why.

  9. Usually yes. People use priority matrix, prioritization matrix, impact effort matrix and decision matrix for much the same job: ranking options on shared criteria. The real difference is the method inside, a 2x2 grid with two axes or a table with weighted criteria, so check which one a template uses.

Related guides and tools

More method guides

Or browse the topics, the full library and the lean glossary.

Rather see it on your own problem?

Bring the problem you are stuck on, and we will show you on a call how LeanSuite handles it.

Schedule Demo

Pass it on

We want LeanSuite to be the best place on the internet for lean help. If this was useful, send it to someone on your team or in your network who needs it.