There are a number of problems that come with the use of the fixed mindset prioritisation patterns.
The definitions of the prioritisation categories can be ambiguous and open to interpretation, which can lead to confusion and disagreements among stakeholders. Everybody had a slightly different perspective on what is used to define High vs Medium.
Once work has been assigned with its relevant prioritisation categories, and given its comparative prioritisation ranking, it can be difficult to change its priority. It is often a “one and done process” and this results in inflexibility and a lack of adaptability in the face of changing requirements or circumstances.
The prioritisation pattern can lead to an unbalanced workload, with a disproportionate amount of attention and resources being directed towards the high effort and high importance work, while the other categories are neglected and never delivered.
The prioritisation patterns often do not take into account the interdependencies between work, which can result in suboptimal outcomes.
While the use of “scores” to prioritise work gives an impression that prioritisation has been performed on a scientific basis, the logic that assigned those scores is based on opinion and is obfuscated.
The prioritisation process is often arduous and there is little appetite to iterate it once the initial prioritisation has been done.