Starting with WSJF, which is the suggested prioritization for enterprises adopting SAFe, people find that the variables used to estimate the cost of delay are not well aligned with the typical language used when prioritizing defects. We tend not to talk about the value of fixing a defect, the reduction of risk, or the business opportunity created when fixing defects.

When discussing defects the conversation often considers how many people are affected, the impact on these people, and the severity of that impact. For this conversation, the RICE prioritization model is a better fit for the language used. Looking at the first 2 parameters we see that this model provides a better alignment with the conversation:

• Reach represents the number of people affected, and
• Impact represents the consequence of the defect’s effect.

The shortcoming with RICE, when used with defects, is that it, like most prioritization models, is intended to be used on a single backlog of similar items. But, not all of the work in a backlog is the same type of work. A backlog typically has a number of work types, such as New Features, Work on Technical Debt, or Maintenance items. SAFe handles this using Capacity Allocations. Defects are another type of work and should have a capacity allocation, but then there are sub-categories for defects that we need to consider.