<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT -->
<!-- SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2025-2026 Marcus Quinn -->

# Chapter 3: CRO Frameworks and Prioritization

With limited resources and countless potential optimizations, frameworks help systematically evaluate and prioritize testing opportunities.

## The PIE Framework

PIE (Potential, Importance, Ease) — developed by Chris Goward at WiderFunnel. Each component scored 0-10.

- **Potential**: How much improvement is possible? Already performing well = 1-2; significant room with multiple issues = 9-10.
- **Importance**: Traffic volume, revenue impact, strategic alignment. Minimal impact = 1-2; critical pages (checkout, key landing pages) = 9-10.
- **Ease**: Technical complexity, resources, stakeholder buy-in. Major rebuild = 1-2; simple copy/button change = 9-10.

**PIE Score = (Potential + Importance + Ease) / 3**

| Test Idea | Potential | Importance | Ease | PIE Score | Priority |
|-----------|-----------|------------|------|-----------|----------|
| Simplify checkout form | 9 | 10 | 8 | 9.0 | 1 |
| Add testimonials to product page | 7 | 9 | 9 | 8.3 | 2 |
| Improve product image quality | 6 | 8 | 7 | 7.0 | 3 |
| Redesign homepage | 8 | 8 | 3 | 6.3 | 4 |
| Create new landing page template | 7 | 6 | 4 | 5.7 | 5 |

**Advantages**: Simple, intuitive, balances multiple factors, encourages team discussion.
**Limitations**: Subjective scoring, equal weighting may not fit all situations, doesn't account for learning value or resource availability.

## The ICE Framework

ICE (Impact, Confidence, Ease) — popularized by Sean Ellis (GrowthHackers). Replaces PIE's Potential/Importance with Impact/Confidence.

- **Impact (1-10)**: Expected conversion lift and users affected
- **Confidence (1-10)**: Evidence quality — research, data, user feedback, precedent
- **Ease (1-10)**: Time, resources, technical complexity

**ICE Score = Impact + Confidence + Ease** (or multiplicative: Impact × Confidence × Ease / 100)

| Test Idea | Impact | Confidence | Ease | ICE Score | Priority |
|-----------|--------|------------|------|-----------|----------|
| Add security badges to checkout | 8 | 9 | 10 | 27 | 1 |
| Test new headline on landing page | 7 | 8 | 9 | 24 | 2 |
| Implement exit-intent popup | 6 | 7 | 8 | 21 | 3 |
| Rebuild product configurator | 9 | 8 | 2 | 19 | 4 |

**ICE vs PIE**: Use ICE when you have strong research (confidence matters) and want quick wins. Use PIE when page importance/traffic varies significantly.

## The RICE Framework

RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort) — adds quantitative nuance, particularly for product development.

- **Reach**: Users/sessions impacted per time period (actual numbers)
- **Impact**: Fixed scale — 3 (massive), 2 (high), 1 (medium), 0.5 (low), 0.25 (minimal)
- **Confidence**: Percentage — 100% (high), 80% (medium), 50% (low)
- **Effort**: Person-months/days total (design + dev + testing + deployment)

**RICE Score = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort**

| Test Idea | Reach (monthly) | Impact | Confidence | Effort (person-days) | RICE Score |
|-----------|-----------------|--------|------------|---------------------|------------|
| Optimize mobile checkout | 15,000 | 3 | 80% | 10 | 3,600 |
| Add live chat | 30,000 | 1 | 90% | 15 | 1,800 |
| Redesign product pages | 25,000 | 2 | 70% | 20 | 1,750 |
| Improve search functionality | 10,000 | 2 | 60% | 15 | 800 |

## The PXL Framework

PXL (Predict, Explore, Learn) — created by CXL, uses binary yes/no scoring to remove subjectivity.

**Evidence-Based** (must have at least 1 Yes): Based on qualitative research? Quantitative research? Industry best practices? Solves a problem from user testing/analytics/heuristic analysis?

**Value Potential**: High-traffic page? Major conversion funnel? Significant expected impact? Aligns with business goals?

**Implementation**: Buildable in <2 weeks? Technically feasible? Resources available?

Tests require at least one Evidence-Based "Yes" and a strong overall score (typically 7+).

## The TIR Framework

TIR (Traffic, Impact, Resources) — simpler alternative. Each scored 1-10 (Resources: 10 = very easy).

**TIR Score = Traffic × Impact × Resources**

## The Value vs Complexity Matrix

Plot ideas on two axes — Value/Impact (Y) vs Complexity/Effort (X):

| Quadrant | Value | Complexity | Action |
|----------|-------|------------|--------|
| Upper Left | High | Low | **Quick Wins — do first** |
| Upper Right | High | High | Major Projects — plan and resource |
| Lower Left | Low | Low | Maybe — if time permits |
| Lower Right | Low | High | Don't Do — avoid |

## Hybrid Approaches

Custom frameworks combine elements from multiple systems. Example with weighted scoring:

- Business Impact (0-10, **2× weight**): Revenue potential
- User Impact (0-10): UX improvement
- Confidence (0-10): Evidence quality
- Effort (0-10, inverted — 10 = easy): Resources required
- Strategic Fit (0-10): Company goal alignment

**Score = (Business Impact × 2) + User Impact + Confidence + Effort + Strategic Fit**

The multiplier reflects prioritization of revenue-generating tests.

## Practical Prioritization Considerations

1. **Traffic requirements**: Tests need adequate traffic for statistical significance. Prioritize high-traffic pages or plan longer durations.
2. **Learning value**: "Risky" tests with uncertain outcomes may open new optimization avenues.
3. **Seasonality**: Prioritize tests that run during peak periods.
4. **Technical dependencies**: Be realistic about platform constraints and implementation feasibility.
5. **Team bandwidth**: Don't commit to more tests than designers, developers, and copywriters can handle.
6. **Testing velocity**: Balance large slow tests with quick wins to maintain momentum.
7. **Risk tolerance**: Radical redesigns carry more risk but higher potential reward.

## Building Your CRO Roadmap

Example quarterly structure:

- **Weeks 1-2**: Quick wins (3 small tests) — trust badges, headline tests, mobile form optimization
- **Weeks 3-6**: Medium test (1) — product page template redesign
- **Weeks 7-12**: Major test (1, alongside smaller tests) — new checkout flow
- **Ongoing**: Research pipeline — user surveys, session recordings, competitor research, next-quarter ideation

## Prioritization Meeting Structure

**Monthly CRO Prioritization Meeting** (~90 min):

1. **Review previous month** (15 min) — completed test results, ongoing status, implemented winners impact
2. **Present new ideas** (30 min) — supporting research, hypotheses, expected outcomes, dependencies
3. **Score ideas** (20 min) — apply chosen framework, discuss scoring differences, reach consensus
4. **Prioritize and plan** (15 min) — rank by score, check resources, assign to test slots and owners
5. **Set research priorities** (10 min) — identify needs, assign tasks, set deadlines
6. **Review roadmap** (10 min) — confirm next month, preview quarter, adjust as needed

## Common Prioritization Mistakes

| Mistake | Remedy |
|---------|--------|
| **HiPPO** (Highest Paid Person's Opinion) | Involve leadership in framework creation, not test selection |
| **Shiny Object Syndrome** | Stick to your framework and roadmap |
| **Ignoring Quick Wins** | Quick wins build momentum and stakeholder support |
| **Analysis Paralysis** | Don't spend more time debating than testing |
| **Neglecting Research** | Frameworks are only as good as the research feeding them |
| **Forgetting Learning Value** | Learning what doesn't work is valuable too |
| **Resource Mismatches** | Don't prioritize tests you can't implement |

## Calculating ROI of CRO Tests

**Expected Value = (Probability of Success × Expected Lift × Revenue Impacted) - Cost of Implementation**

**Positive EV example**:
- Probability: 60% | Lift: 15% | CVR: 2% → 2.3% | Monthly revenue: $100,000 | Additional annual: $180,000 | Cost: $10,000
- **EV = (0.60 × $180,000) - $10,000 = $98,000** — strong ROI, prioritize

**Negative EV example**:
- Probability: 40% | Lift: 5% | Monthly revenue: $50,000 | Additional annual: $30,000 | Cost: $15,000
- **EV = (0.40 × $30,000) - $15,000 = -$3,000** — negative EV, deprioritize or redesign

## Documentation and Knowledge Management

Maintain a prioritization database tracking: test idea/hypothesis, supporting research, framework scores, priority ranking, status (backlog/planned/in-progress/completed), owner, expected completion, actual results, and learnings/next steps. This reveals what you've tested, what worked, why decisions were made, patterns in successful tests, and research supporting future tests.

---
