Panel · Use case · Innovation

Digital Feature Prioritisation.

LivePrioritisation Panel

Of these 15 candidate features for our digital companion, which should the team build first?

Items15 candidate features

SeatsDigital therapeutics, compliance, medical, quality

ReaderDigital product leads

Not askedA product roadmap

DepthStandard, four seats

Digital Feature Prioritisation is a ready-made use case for Innovation. It ships under the Prioritisation Panel template.

For innovation leads. You get each seat's ranking, the aggregated list with a cut line, where the seats disagree and how stable the line is. Claims are cited or marked as gaps.

Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.

The decision

Of these 15 candidate features for our digital companion, which should the team build first?

Who ranks

Features in software that may be a medical device are judged partly by what they claim to do. A feature that performs a medical function can change the regulatory status of the product.

Seat	What it ranks from	Why it is at the table
Head of Digital Therapeutics	Which features most improve engagement and outcomes.	Trial and usage evidence.
Global Commercial Compliance Officer	Which features raise claims or data-protection issues.	Promotion and privacy rules.
Global Medical Affairs Director	Which features matter most to clinicians and patients.	Clinical input.
Director Quality Assurance	Which features add regulatory or software risk and how much validation each needs.^{1U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Policy for Device Software Functions and Mobile Medical Applications: guidance for industry and FDA staff.,2International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14971:2019, Medical devices: Application of risk management to medical devices.}	FDA’s device software policy and ISO 14971.

What the run does

Some features change the status of the product. A feature that moves the software into a regulated function needs a different pathway. The report flags such features and does not rank them on value alone.^{1U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Policy for Device Software Functions and Mobile Medical Applications: guidance for industry and FDA staff.}

Value versus effort and risk. Features are placed by expected benefit, build effort and validation burden, with the proxies labeled.^{2International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14971:2019, Medical devices: Application of risk management to medical devices.}

Sensitivity. The top group is retested with risk weighted more and with engagement weighted more.

Recommended length

Standard

Four angles weigh the list differently. Standard depth gives each a seat, with disagreement, value versus effort and sensitivity, in about four pages.

You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.

Assumptions the run makes

The run states the assumptions behind its criteria and its cut line, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this list:

The 15 features are independent and can be built in any order.
Engagement benefit can be judged without trial data.
The product’s regulatory status will not change.

Standards, guidance and sources

Frame

FDA, Policy for Device Software Functions and Mobile Medical Applications.^{1U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Policy for Device Software Functions and Mobile Medical Applications: guidance for industry and FDA staff.}
ISO 14971, application of risk management to medical devices.^{2International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14971:2019, Medical devices: Application of risk management to medical devices.}

The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.

What gets flagged

Any feature that could change regulatory status, any benefit assumed without data, and any feature on which seats split widely.

What arrives

The question, criteria and items
The cut line and the top group
How each seat ranked
The aggregated ranking
Where the seats disagree
Value versus effort
Sensitivity of the cut line
Limits and what would change the ranking

What it will not do

The agreement is a simulation by AI specialists and not a panel of real experts. The criteria are fixed before ranking, and the cut line is a recommendation that the decider can move.

It does not decide regulatory status or schedule the build.

It is a simulation by AI specialists and not a panel of real experts. Seats that share a base model are not independent confirmations of each other.

It does not compute a value-of-information analysis. That needs a decision model. It ranks by proxies and says so.

It does not set the weights for you. If none are supplied, the criteria are weighted equally and the report says so.

References

[1] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Policy for Device Software Functions and Mobile Medical Applications: guidance for industry and FDA staff. Title known from FDA’s guidance listing; the current version was not checked.
[2] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14971:2019, Medical devices: Application of risk management to medical devices. Known from the ISO catalogue; the standard is paid and was not read.

Links checked 9 October 2026

These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.

About the Panel service

Each panelist answers in their own voice, then the discussion is drawn together. You get the question and who was in the room, every position in full, what they agreed on, where they split, and what follows. Disagreements are written down rather than smoothed into a consensus nobody actually holds, because the split is usually the part you needed.

To edit a saved template, open New → Panel → From template, or the library rail on the service form.