Objective Prioritisation: ROI (Return on Investment)

This is one of RoadmapOne’s articles on Objective Prioritisation frameworks .

Finance wants to know if you’re creating value. They don’t care about your RICE scores, your ICE estimates, or your conviction that “this feature will be huge.” They want a number: for every pound we invest, how many pounds do we get back? ROI prioritisation delivers that number brutally simply—divide the benefit by the build cost, pick your timeframe (12, 18, or 24 months), and you’ve got a ratio. A feature that delivers 4.2x ROI beats one that delivers 1.8x. No discounting, no IRR calculations, no finance degree required.

ROI sits in the sweet spot between RICE’s abstract scores and NPV’s spreadsheet complexity. RICE gives you unitless numbers (847.3 vs 623.1) that mean nothing to CFOs. NPV gives you present-value calculations that require discount rate debates and multi-year cash flow projections. ROI gives you “we invest £100k and get £350k back in 18 months—that’s 3.5× return.” Finance understands multiples. Boards understand multiples. ROI translates product decisions into the language executives already speak.

The framework is deceptively simple: pick a timeframe, estimate the benefit within that window, divide by build cost. But the timeframe choice matters enormously. A platform investment might deliver 0.8x ROI in 12 months but 4.5x over 24 months. A quick win might deliver 2.5x in 12 months and 2.7x over 24 months (minimal compounding). The timeframe reveals whether you’re optimising for near-term recovery or strategic accumulation.

Sign up now to prioritise by ROI multiples

What ROI Actually Calculates

Return on Investment answers: “For every pound we spend building this, how many pounds of benefit do we capture within our chosen timeframe?” If you invest £120k and the feature generates £360k in benefits over 18 months, your ROI is 3.0x. You’ve tripled your investment.

The formula is deliberately simple:

ROI = Benefit (within timeframe) ÷ Build Cost

Where:

• Benefit = Net revenue generated OR cost savings realised within the chosen window (12, 18, or 24 months)
• Build Cost = Total investment to design, build, launch, and support the feature

Unlike NPV, there’s no discounting—a pound in month 6 counts the same as a pound in month 18. Unlike Payback Period, ROI cares about total benefit magnitude, not just when you break even. Unlike RICE, the output is a financially meaningful multiple that CFOs recognise immediately.

The Three Timeframe Variants

RoadmapOne treats 12-month, 18-month, and 24-month ROI as separate frameworks because the timeframe choice fundamentally changes what you’re optimising for.

12-Month ROI suits fast-moving teams prioritising near-term results. Startups with limited runway, growth-stage companies chasing quarterly targets, and organisations where annual planning cycles dominate use 12-month windows. The risk: undervaluing strategic bets that compound slowly.

18-Month ROI balances near-term accountability with medium-term value creation. It’s the default for mature product teams planning across two to three quarters. Long enough to capture compounding benefits, short enough to avoid fantasy projections.

24-Month ROI works for strategic investments where value accumulates over time—platform plays, ecosystem bets, market expansion. Two-year windows let you justify initiatives that build slowly but compound aggressively. The risk: projections become fiction when you’re guessing benefits 18+ months out.

The frameworks are mutually exclusive in RoadmapOne. You pick one timeframe per roadmap and calculate all objectives consistently within that window. This prevents gaming: teams can’t selectively use 12 months for quick wins and 24 months for strategic bets to make everything look good.

ROI in Action: Three Scenarios Across Timeframes

Scenario A: Enterprise SSO Integration

Build Cost: £150,000 (4 engineers × 4 months, plus design, QA, sales enablement)

Benefit Projections:

• Months 1-12: £180,000 (15 enterprise upsells at £12k annual uplift)
• Months 13-18: £120,000 (10 additional upsells)
• Months 19-24: £150,000 (expansion + retention effects)

ROI Calculations:

• 12-month ROI: £180k ÷ £150k = 1.2x
• 18-month ROI: £300k ÷ £150k = 2.0x
• 24-month ROI: £450k ÷ £150k = 3.0x

Verdict: The timeframe dramatically changes priority. On 12-month ROI, this barely beats break-even (1.2x). On 24-month ROI, it’s a strong bet (3.0x). If your roadmap uses 12-month windows, SSO ranks low. On 24-month windows, it ranks high. The feature hasn’t changed—your time horizon has.

Scenario B: Self-Service Onboarding Flow

Build Cost: £80,000 (3 engineers × 3 months)

Benefit Projections:

• Months 1-12: £200,000 (reduced sales support costs + faster conversions)
• Months 13-18: £80,000 (diminishing marginal gains)
• Months 19-24: £40,000 (plateau effect)

ROI Calculations:

• 12-month ROI: £200k ÷ £80k = 2.5x
• 18-month ROI: £280k ÷ £80k = 3.5x
• 24-month ROI: £320k ÷ £80k = 4.0x

Verdict: Self-service delivers strong ROI across all timeframes, but returns front-load heavily. The 12-to-18 month jump (2.5x to 3.5x) is larger than the 18-to-24 jump (3.5x to 4.0x). This suggests quick payback with modest compounding—ideal for teams prioritising liquidity and near-term wins.

Scenario C: API Platform for Third-Party Integrations

Build Cost: £400,000 (8 engineers × 6 months, plus infrastructure and documentation)

Benefit Projections:

• Months 1-12: £100,000 (initial 3 partnerships, slow ramp)
• Months 13-18: £200,000 (network effects accelerate, 8 partnerships)
• Months 19-24: £400,000 (15+ partnerships, ecosystem momentum)

ROI Calculations:

• 12-month ROI: £100k ÷ £400k = 0.25x (negative value creation)
• 18-month ROI: £300k ÷ £400k = 0.75x (still underwater)
• 24-month ROI: £700k ÷ £400k = 1.75x (positive, but modest)

Verdict: ROI exposes the platform’s long-payoff reality. On 12-month windows, it’s a disaster (0.25x). Even on 24-month windows, it underperforms self-service onboarding (1.75x vs 4.0x). But this is where ROI’s limits show: the platform’s year-three value (£800k annually) and strategic ecosystem effects aren’t captured in 24-month ROI. Pure ROI ranking kills strategic bets that compound beyond your measurement window.

When ROI Is Your Best Weapon

ROI excels in four contexts.

First: Finance-driven organisations that reject “soft” prioritisation. RICE and ICE feel like product theatre to CFOs. ROI speaks their language—benefit multiples, investment returns, value creation. When you need board approval or finance sign-off, presenting “4.2x ROI over 18 months” gets taken seriously.

Second: Transparent trade-off conversations. ROI makes opportunity cost explicit. “We’re choosing Feature A (3.5x ROI) over Feature B (2.1x ROI) because it delivers 67% more value per pound invested.” Stakeholders can debate benefit estimates or challenge build costs, but the trade-off logic is transparent.

Third: Balanced portfolios across time horizons. Calculate ROI on all three timeframes for each objective, then analyse distribution. If high-12-month-ROI features dominate, you’re optimising for quick wins but starving compounding bets. If high-24-month-ROI features dominate, you’re betting on the future but risking near-term liquidity. Use timeframe distribution to balance.

Fourth: Hybrid prioritisation with strategic overrides. Use ROI to rank revenue-generating and cost-saving features, then segment strategic investments separately. Tag platform work, technical debt, and ecosystem plays as “Strategic Bet,” fund them explicitly, and track whether their long-term value (beyond ROI windows) materialises.

When ROI Betrays You

ROI collapses in three scenarios.

First: When benefit estimates are fantasy. Pre-launch products, new markets, and unvalidated bets have zero data. Projecting 18-month benefits with confidence is delusion. Teams inflate estimates to game ROI rankings—“This will save £500k annually!"—based on wishful thinking. The cure is calibration: track actual benefits delivered versus projected, publish retrospectives, and penalise repeat offenders.

Second: When strategic value can’t be quantified in 24 months. Platform investments, brand plays, team capability building, and ecosystem effects often deliver value that compounds beyond any reasonable ROI window. Pure ROI ranking starves these catastrophically. Reserve 20-30% of capacity for strategic overrides, tag them explicitly, and accept negative or modest ROI knowing long-term value justifies it.

Third: When the timeframe choice becomes political. If teams selectively pick 12-month windows for quick wins and 24-month windows for pet projects to inflate rankings, ROI becomes theatre. The fix: mandate one timeframe per roadmap. Every objective gets measured consistently within the same window.

ROI vs NPV vs Payback Period

These three frameworks are siblings in the financial prioritisation family, each optimised for different questions.

ROI asks: “How many times our investment do we get back within a fixed timeframe?” Use when you want simple benefit multiples without discounting complexity. ROI is more credible than RICE but simpler than NPV.

NPV asks: “What’s the present value of all future cash flows minus investment?” Use for multi-year bets where time value of money matters and you have robust cash flow projections. NPV is rigorous but complex.

Payback Period asks: “When do we break even?” Use when cash flow and liquidity dominate—you care about speed to recovery, not total value magnitude.

Most teams use multiple frameworks: ROI for mid-range features (£50k-£300k investments), NPV for capital-intensive platform bets (£500k+), Payback Period for cash-constrained quick wins. The frameworks complement rather than compete.

For more on NPV and Payback, see NPV Prioritisation and Payback Period Prioritisation .

Practical Implementation

Define your timeframe first. Choose 12, 18, or 24 months based on planning cycles, cash constraints, and strategic horizon. Stick with it for the entire roadmap.

Estimate build costs honestly. Include engineering, design, PM, QA, infrastructure, documentation, sales enablement, support training, and first-year maintenance. Underestimating costs to inflate ROI destroys credibility.

Quantify benefits conservatively. New revenue, retained revenue, or cost savings—all count. Use historical data where possible. If past features delivered 70% of projected benefits, apply a 0.7× confidence multiplier to new estimates.

Calculate ROI, sort, and fund above the capacity line. If Feature A delivers 4.1x, Feature B delivers 3.2x, and Feature C delivers 1.9x, and you have capacity for two features, fund A and B.

Segment strategic overrides. Tag low-ROI strategic bets (“Platform,” “Transform,” “Ecosystem”) and fund them explicitly outside pure ROI ranking. Track whether their long-term value justifies the investment.

Track actual versus projected benefits. Six months post-launch, compare actual benefit delivered to ROI projections. Publish calibration data to improve future estimates and penalise chronic over-estimators.

The Honest Conversation About Timeframes

The most valuable thing ROI does isn’t the calculation—it’s forcing teams to ask: “How far out do we trust our projections, and what does that reveal about our strategy?”

Teams that only trust 12-month benefits are optimising for near-term certainty, often at the expense of compounding strategic bets. Teams that routinely use 24-month windows either have exceptional forecasting discipline or are engaging in long-range fiction. The timeframe choice is strategic self-awareness made explicit.

If you take only three ideas from this essay, let them be:

1. ROI Translates Product Value Into Financial Multiples Executives Trust. RICE scores mean nothing to CFOs. NPV requires spreadsheet mastery. ROI delivers benefit-to-cost ratios (3.5x, 2.1x) that finance teams and boards understand immediately. Use ROI when you need financial credibility without NPV complexity.

2. The Timeframe Choice (12/18/24 Months) Changes Everything. A platform bet might score 0.6x on 12-month ROI and 3.8x on 24-month ROI. Quick wins score high on short windows, strategic bets score high on long windows. Pick one timeframe per roadmap and measure consistently to prevent gaming.

3. ROI Ignores Value Beyond the Window—Override for Strategic Bets. ROI captures benefit within 12, 18, or 24 months—period. Ecosystem plays, platform investments, and compounding network effects that deliver value in years 3-5 get penalised. Reserve capacity for strategic overrides and tag them explicitly.

RoadmapOne supports ROI-based prioritisation for teams wanting financial rigour without NPV’s complexity. Choose your timeframe (12, 18, or 24 months), estimate benefits and costs, calculate ROI ratios, and rank by value multiple. Then tag the portfolio to ensure high-ROI features don’t starve strategic investments that compound beyond your measurement window.

ROI won’t capture every dimension of value. But when finance demands numbers and stakeholders want transparent trade-offs, ROI delivers clarity without spreadsheet theatre.

For more on Objective Prioritisation frameworks, see our comprehensive guide .