FRIC Framework

Introduction

The FRIC Framework is a comprehensive model developed to help businesses evaluate and improve the flexibility of their Revenue Technology (RevTech) stack. Unlike the common misconception that it stands for "Foundation, Revenue, Intelligence, and Customer," FRIC actually represents four key dimensions of tech stack flexibility:

  • Focus
  • Redundancy
  • Interoperability
  • Coupling

This framework provides organizations with a structured approach to assessing how adaptable their technology stack is to changing business needs, helping them to build systems that can grow and evolve with their business.

The Four Dimensions of FRIC

Focus

Definition: Focus refers to ensuring each tool in your stack has a clear, intentional purpose with minimal overlapping functionalities.

What good focus looks like:

  • Minimal overlaps in core functions
  • Clear documentation and architecture diagrams
  • Regular pruning of unused or unnecessary tools
  • Strict data governance for tools with overlapping functions

Example: A company maintaining strict policies about tool usage, such as designating Salesforce exclusively as the CRM and HubSpot only for email marketing, with clear documentation so everyone knows what each tool is for.

What bad focus looks like:

  • Tools added randomly without defined purposes
  • Multiple systems duplicating core capabilities with no clear reason
  • No single source of truth for customer or performance data

Redundancy

Definition: Redundancy indicates overlapping capabilities or data flows in your tech stack. Good redundancy provides flexibility and resilience, while bad redundancy creates confusion and unnecessary complexity.

What good redundancy looks like:

  • Flexibility for discrete, decentralized actions
  • Two tools performing similar functions but each handling a unique segment
  • Clear understanding of why overlapping capabilities exist

Example: Using multiple tools that touch leads (like a lead scoring tool, CRM, and marketing automation platform) but each serving distinct purposes in the lead lifecycle.

What bad redundancy looks like:

  • Exact same capabilities causing confusion
  • Multiple tools for the same function without differentiation
  • Data silos and inconsistent messaging due to too many overlapping solutions

Interoperability

Definition: Interoperability measures how easily tools can connect, exchange data, and adapt to changing conditions, providing "optionality" in your stack configuration.

What good interoperability looks like:

  • Tools that could handle multiple capabilities if needed
  • Support for various integration types (push, pull, audience)
  • Ability to change flows or reroute data without major disruptions

Example: Having multiple systems capable of holding and transferring complete datasets, allowing pivot between tools without losing access to critical data.

What bad interoperability looks like:

  • Tools that can't communicate without brittle integrations or workarounds
  • No easy way to reroute data if a tool is replaced or fails

Coupling

Definition: Coupling refers to the degree of dependency between systems. Loose coupling makes it easier to replace or remove tools, while tight coupling creates risky, complicated changes.

What good (loose) coupling looks like:

  • Minimal dependencies between vendors
  • One-way data flows where possible
  • Some tools operating independently without disrupting the core stack

Example: A system where most tools flow data in one direction, with minimal bi-directional syncs, allowing for easy tool replacement.

What bad (tight) coupling looks like:

  • Vendor lock-in due to complex two-way syncs
  • Removing or changing one tool breaks multiple workflows

The FRIC Framework Across Growth Stages

The optimal approach to the FRIC framework varies by company growth stage:

1. Pre-Product Fit Stage

  • Focus: Medium to poor, as teams acquire tools without defined processes
  • Redundancy: Low, with limited tool acquisition
  • Interoperability: Poor, as speed takes priority over best practices
  • Coupling: Tight, with connections prioritizing short-term ease over flexibility

Priority: Generalized system understanding with minimal viable tooling

2. Post-Product Fit Stage

  • Focus: Medium to poor, with individual tooling not optimized for function
  • Redundancy: Medium, with some overlapping capabilities emerging
  • Interoperability: Medium, still lacking formalized vendor vetting processes
  • Coupling: Medium, as the stack grows with more team members bringing more tools

Priority: Tool management and capability assessment

3. Growth (Hyper Growth) Stage

  • Focus: Poor, requiring specific function definition for each tool
  • Redundancy: High, with overlapping competitive tools
  • Interoperability: Decent, as newer tools improve integration capabilities
  • Coupling: Poor, with connections based on ad hoc setup decisions

Priority: Tool procurement, architecture vision, and organizational management

4. Scale Stage

  • Focus: Poor, as departments add tools independently
  • Redundancy: High, requiring purpose selection for each tool
  • Interoperability: Decent, with better native integration in newer tools
  • Coupling: Poor, with connections running wild and knowledge silos

Priority: Centralization of key systems and comprehensive documentation

Conclusion

The FRIC Framework provides a valuable lens for evaluating and improving the flexibility of your RevTech stack across different growth stages. By understanding where your organization stands in terms of Focus, Redundancy, Interoperability, and Coupling, you can make more strategic decisions about tool selection, integration, and management.

Building an effective RevTech stack requires balancing immediate needs with long-term flexibility. The framework helps organizations create more adaptable, efficient, and enduring tech stacks that can support business growth and evolving go-to-market strategies.

Back to glossary