A product brief is the single most important document a PM writes. Not because it is the longest or the most detailed, but because it is the decision point: the moment where an idea either gets resources or does not.
Many PMs skip the brief and go straight to a PRD or a Jira backlog. The result: engineering starts building before the team has agreed on what problem they are solving, who it is for, or how they will know it worked. Six weeks later, stakeholders ask "why are we building this?" and the project stalls.
A good product brief prevents that. Here is how to write one.
Table of Contents
- What a Product Brief Is (and Is Not)
- Brief vs PRD vs Spec
- The 8 Sections of a Product Brief
- A Real Example: Team Permissions Feature
- The Stakeholder Review Process
- How to Handle Pushback
- Common Mistakes
- Key Takeaways
What a Product Brief Is (and Is Not)
A product brief is a short document (1-3 pages) that makes the case for a product initiative. It answers the essential questions stakeholders need to approve the work:
- What problem are we solving?
- Who has this problem?
- Why should we solve it now?
- What is our approach?
- How will we measure success?
- What are the risks?
What It Is Not
- A PRD: A brief does not specify detailed requirements, wireframes, API schemas, or acceptance criteria. That comes later.
- A project plan: A brief does not list tasks, assign owners, or set sprint-level deadlines.
- A pitch deck: A brief is a working document, not a presentation. No bullet points on slides. Full sentences that capture the reasoning.
- A feature request: A brief starts with the problem, not the solution. "We need a dashboard" is a feature request. "Sales managers cannot see pipeline health without exporting to Excel" is a problem statement.
Brief vs PRD vs Spec
These three documents serve different purposes at different stages:
| Document | Purpose | Audience | When | Length |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product Brief | Get alignment on the problem and approach | Leadership, cross-functional stakeholders | Before committing resources | 1-3 pages |
| PRD | Detail what to build so engineering can start | Engineering, design, QA | After brief is approved | 3-10 pages |
| Technical Spec | Detail how to build it | Engineers on the implementing team | After PRD is reviewed | 2-5 pages |
The flow: Brief (approve) → PRD (specify) → Spec (architect) → Build
Many teams skip the brief and go straight to the PRD. This works for small features but fails for anything that requires cross-functional alignment or significant resources. If you have ever been mid-build and heard "Wait, why are we building this?". The brief was missing.
For PRD templates and best practices, see our PRD glossary entry and the PRD template.
The 8 Sections of a Product Brief
1. Problem Statement
The most important section. If the problem is not real, nothing else matters.
What to include:
- Who has this problem? (Specific user type or segment)
- What is the problem? (In concrete terms, not abstractions)
- How do you know? (Data, research, customer quotes)
- How big is the problem? (Number of affected users, revenue impact, support ticket volume)
Example:
Mid-market accounts (50-500 employees) are churning at 2.3x the rate of SMB accounts. Exit surveys show the top reason is "cannot manage team permissions effectively." 73% of churned mid-market accounts cited permissions issues. This represents $420K in lost ARR over the past 6 months.
Not this:
Users need better permissions management.
The difference: the good version is specific, quantified, and tied to business impact. The bad version is an assertion with no evidence.
2. Goals and Success Metrics
What does success look like? Be specific and measurable.
Format:
- Primary goal: The main outcome this initiative should achieve
- Success metric(s): How you will measure it, with baselines and targets
- Timeframe: When you expect to see results
Example:
Primary goal: Reduce mid-market churn driven by permissions gaps
>
Success metrics:
- Reduce mid-market monthly churn from 4.2% to 2.5% within 6 months of launch
- Increase mid-market NPS from 18 to 35 within 3 months
- Reduce "permissions-related" support tickets from 120/month to 30/month
>
Timeframe: Initial launch in Q2. Full impact expected by end of Q3.
See our guide on creating OKRs for how to connect brief goals to quarterly objectives.
3. Target Audience
Who is this for? And equally important. Who is it NOT for?
Example:
Primary audience: Team admins at mid-market accounts (50-500 employees) who manage 5+ team members.
>
Secondary audience: IT administrators at these accounts who need compliance-level access controls.
>
Not for this iteration: Individual users (they can use existing personal settings), enterprise accounts >500 employees (different requirements that will be addressed separately).
4. Proposed Solution (High-Level)
Describe the approach, not the implementation. This section should communicate what you plan to build, not how.
Example:
Role-based access control (RBAC) system with three default roles (Admin, Editor, Viewer) and the ability to create custom roles. Admins can assign roles at the workspace level and override at the project level.
>
Key capabilities:
- Pre-built roles that cover 80% of use cases out of the box
- Custom role creation for teams with specific compliance requirements
- Workspace-level and project-level permission inheritance
- Audit log showing who changed what permissions and when
Not this:
Build a React-based permissions management panel with a PostgreSQL RBAC schema using a role-permission junction table with cascading inheritance...
The brief describes capability; the tech spec describes implementation.
5. Risks and Dependencies
What could go wrong? What do you need from other teams?
Format: List each risk or dependency with its severity and mitigation.
Example:
| Risk/Dependency | Severity | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Data migration for existing accounts may break custom workflows | High | Run migration in shadow mode for 2 weeks before cutover. Provide rollback option. |
| Requires API changes from the Platform team (3 engineers, 2 weeks) | Medium | Platform team has agreed to prioritize this in Q2. Written confirmation from Platform PM. |
| Custom roles may create edge cases we have not anticipated | Medium | Start with a beta program for 10 mid-market accounts before GA. |
| Security review required for permission elevation flows | Low | Scheduled for Sprint 3. Security team is aware and has capacity. |
Being explicit about risks builds credibility. Stakeholders trust PMs who acknowledge what could go wrong more than PMs who promise everything will be fine.
6. What We Are NOT Building
This section prevents scope creep. List the things you explicitly will not do in this initiative.
Example:
- Not building SSO/SAML integration (separate initiative planned for Q3)
- Not building external sharing permissions (for sharing with people outside the organization. Future work)
- Not building permission templates (nice-to-have, will evaluate after launch based on adoption data)
- Not supporting custom role hierarchies (complex; default flat role model first)
This section is often the most valuable part of the brief. It surfaces disagreements early. If a stakeholder expected SSO to be included, better to discover that now than in week 4 of development.
7. Timeline and Resources
A rough estimate of what it will take. Not a project plan.
Example:
Estimated scope: 2 engineers + 1 designer for 6 weeks (medium-confidence estimate)
>
Key milestones:
- Week 1-2: Design exploration and technical spike
- Week 3-4: Core RBAC implementation
- Week 5: Beta launch with 10 accounts
- Week 6: Iterate on beta feedback, GA launch
>
Dependencies: Platform API changes (2 engineers, 2 weeks. See risks)
8. Alternatives Considered
What other approaches did you evaluate and why did you reject them?
This section shows that you did your homework. It preempts "Did you consider...?" questions from stakeholders.
Example:
Alternative 1: Simple toggle-based permissions (Admin/Member only)
- Pro: Simpler to build (3 weeks vs 6)
- Con: Does not address the core complaint. Mid-market accounts need at least 3 permission levels.
- Rejected because: Solves only 30% of the churn problem.
>
Alternative 2: Buy a third-party permissions service (e.g., WorkOS, Permit.io)
- Pro: Faster to market (2-3 weeks integration)
- Con: Recurring cost ($8K-15K/year), limited customization, dependency on vendor
- Rejected because: We will own permissions long-term; building gives us flexibility and avoids vendor lock-in.
>
Alternative 3: Full enterprise-grade RBAC with attribute-based access control
- Pro: Addresses enterprise requirements too
- Con: 12-16 weeks of work, high complexity, delays mid-market fix
- Rejected because: Over-scoped for the immediate problem. Can extend to ABAC later.
A Real Example: Team Permissions Feature
Here is a condensed version of a complete brief, applying all 8 sections. In practice, each section would be slightly more detailed.
### Product Brief: Team Permissions for Mid-Market Accounts
>
Author: [PM Name] | Date: February 2026 | Status: Draft. Seeking feedback by Feb 21
>
#### Problem
Mid-market accounts (50-500 employees) churn at 4.2% monthly. 2.3x higher than SMB (1.8%). Exit surveys (n=84) show 73% cite "cannot manage team access effectively." These accounts generate $18K average ARR. We lost $420K in mid-market ARR in the past 6 months. The current system offers only Admin/Member roles, with no project-level controls.
>
#### Goals
- Reduce mid-market monthly churn from 4.2% to 2.5% within 6 months of launch
- Reduce permission-related support tickets from 120/month to 30/month
- Increase mid-market NPS from 18 to 35 within 3 months
>
#### Target Audience
Team admins at mid-market accounts managing 5+ people. Not targeting: individual users, enterprise (>500 employees).
>
#### Proposed Solution
RBAC with three default roles (Admin, Editor, Viewer), custom roles, workspace-level and project-level inheritance, and an audit log.
>
#### Risks
- Data migration complexity (mitigated by shadow mode + rollback)
- Platform team dependency (confirmed capacity for Q2)
- Edge cases in custom roles (mitigated by 10-account beta)
>
#### Not Building
SSO/SAML (Q3), external sharing, permission templates, role hierarchies.
>
#### Timeline
6 weeks: 2 engineers + 1 designer. Beta in week 5, GA in week 6.
>
#### Alternatives Considered
Simple toggle (too limited), third-party service (vendor risk), full ABAC (over-scoped).
The Stakeholder Review Process
A brilliant brief that no one reads is worthless. Here is how to get stakeholders to engage with your brief and reach alignment.
Step 1: Pre-Socialize (Before the Draft)
Before writing the brief, have 1:1 conversations with key stakeholders. Share the problem, your early thinking, and ask for their input. This does two things:
- Surfaces objections early so you can address them in the brief
- Makes stakeholders feel involved, increasing buy-in on the final document
Step 2: Share a Draft with a Clear Ask
Send the brief as a draft, not a final version. Include:
- "Here is my current thinking on [initiative]. I would appreciate feedback by [date]."
- Specific questions: "Do you agree with the problem framing? Is the scope right? Am I missing any risks?"
- A clear deadline for feedback (5-7 business days)
Step 3: Address Feedback Explicitly
When you receive feedback, do one of three things for each piece:
- Incorporate it: Make the change and note it in the next version
- Acknowledge and explain why not: "Great point. I considered this and chose not to include it because..."
- Escalate: If two stakeholders disagree and you cannot resolve it, flag it for a decision-maker
Step 4: Final Review Meeting (Optional for Large Initiatives)
For initiatives that require significant resources or cross-team coordination, hold a 30-minute review:
- Summarize the brief (5 minutes. Assume people skimmed it)
- Walk through key decisions and trade-offs (10 minutes)
- Open for questions and concerns (10 minutes)
- Confirm next steps and approval (5 minutes)
Step 5: Document the Decision
After approval, update the brief status from "Draft" to "Approved" and note:
- Who approved it
- Any conditions ("approved with SSO added to scope")
- The date
This creates an audit trail. When someone asks "why are we building this?" six weeks later, you can point to the approved brief.
How to Handle Pushback
"We should just build it. Why do we need a document?"
Answer: "A brief takes 2-4 hours to write. It prevents 2-4 weeks of rework when we discover mid-build that we were solving the wrong problem or that a key stakeholder expected something different."
"Can we also include [unrelated feature]?"
Answer: "I added that to the 'Not Building' section with a note about when we might consider it. For this initiative, we are focusing on [scope] to keep delivery to 6 weeks."
"The timeline is too long / too short"
Answer: "This is a medium-confidence estimate based on [basis]. I will refine it after the technical spike in week 1. Would you like to be included in the estimate review?" For more on managing expectations, see our stakeholder management guide.
"I don't agree with the problem framing"
This is actually good feedback. If the problem is wrong, everything downstream is wrong. Ask: "What do you see as the core problem?" and listen. You may need to revise the brief or gather more data.
Common Mistakes
Mistake 1: Starting with the Solution
"We need to build a dashboard." Why? For whom? What problem does it solve? Always start with the problem. The solution section comes after you have established why the problem matters.
Mistake 2: No Data
A brief full of assertions and no evidence. "Users are frustrated with permissions". How do you know? How many users? What did they say specifically? The brief is your chance to show that you have done the research.
Mistake 3: Missing the "Not Building" Section
Without explicit scope boundaries, scope creep is guaranteed. Stakeholders will assume their feature is included unless you say otherwise. See the scope creep glossary entry.
Mistake 4: Writing It After the Decision Is Made
If leadership already decided to build the feature, writing a brief feels like bureaucratic theater. The brief should come before the decision, not after. If the decision is already made, write a PRD instead.
Mistake 5: Too Long
If your brief is 10 pages, it is a PRD. Keep it to 1-3 pages. Force yourself to be concise. If you cannot explain the problem and approach in 3 pages, you probably do not understand it well enough.
Mistake 6: No Alternatives Section
If you only present one option, stakeholders cannot evaluate whether it is the best option. Showing that you considered and rejected alternatives builds trust and demonstrates thoroughness.
Key Takeaways
- A brief is a decision document, not a spec. It exists to get alignment and approval for an initiative. The PRD comes after.
- Start with the problem. Quantified, evidence-backed, tied to business impact. If the problem is not compelling, nothing else matters.
- Include "Not Building." Explicit scope boundaries prevent scope creep and surface disagreements early.
- Pre-socialize before writing. Talk to key stakeholders 1:1 before the brief is drafted. Their input improves the brief, and their involvement increases buy-in.
- Keep it to 1-3 pages. Brevity is a feature. If you cannot explain the initiative in 3 pages, the thinking is not clear enough.
- Show your work. Data, customer quotes, alternatives considered. These build credibility and trust. Stakeholders back PMs who demonstrate rigor.
- Document the decision. When the brief is approved, note who approved it, any conditions, and the date. This protects you and your team when priorities shift.