Category: Agile

Broken crown

The Dethroning of the PRD by Agile Feature Documents

As a Product Manager, you have most likely come across the term “Product Requirements Document” (PRD). You have probably also iterated with different ways of working to be more Agile. Maybe you then also experienced that the PRD is a bit of an awkward fit, even though you felt the need for some kind of document. At Delibr, we have interviewed over 300 PMs about how they work with detailing out new features, and so are starting to get a grasp of the zeitgeist of the PM community. Let’s have a closer look at what made PRDs so common, and how PMs are gradually adapting the concept to fit an Agile world.

Hail to the PRD!

If you are not entirely new as a Product Manager, the concept of PRDs will be familiar to you. PRDs have been around for a long time. They are widely spread and commonly used by PMs, and there are good reasons for that. Essentially, a PRD defines the product you are going to build, its purpose, features, and functionality. It focuses on things like why you’re building the product, what problem it solves and how to measure success (often through KPIs). PRDs provide clarity of expectations. 

Having a document that captures these details makes a lot of sense in most cases. It helps to collect and explain everything the development team needs to know in one place. It simplifies creating clarity around the development process, capturing input from stakeholders, and ensuring all relevant details are covered.

In the land of Waterfall, the PRD is king

So, it makes sense to write some kind of document, and the PRD is the most common kind. But is it common because it represents the best way of working, or is there another reason? Let’s look at how Wikipedia defines PRD:

“A product requirements document (PRD) is a document containing all the requirements to a certain product.”

If we look closely at what it says, we can see clear remnants of the origin of the PRD, namely the Waterfall methodology. It turns out that the concept of the PRD predates the Agile Manifesto, and so has had plenty of time to spread. Specifically, there are two aspects that can be problematic for teams that try to be Agile:

  1. The scope of the document – “…containing all the requirements to a certain product…”
  2. The format of the content – “…the requirements…”

One document to rule them all

As originally defined, the scope of a PRD is a product, meaning all of the features of that product. This runs counter to how many PMs work nowadays, as the team is usually only working with a single feature at a time, not across the whole product. A feature, sometimes referred to as an “epic”, is commonly expressed as several user stories. Having all the features with all their user stories laid out with details in a single document, one after another, risks creating a very long and complicated document. Such documents are hard to manage, and risk making the life of the PM unnecessarily messy and confusing. Not only that, but having a document with such a large scope, will also make it harder for the PM to work with smaller, clearly separated, and thus more manageable increments. There is a risk that a product-level document will pull the PM from Agile towards the Waterfall, so to speak.

Requirements, handed down from above

Another aspect of the PRD that is problematic and has remnants of the Waterfall methodology, is what is implied by the word “Requirements”. In Waterfall development, the role of the PM is to a large extent that of a requirements gatherer, who hands down a list of requirements to the development team and is less involved in the process after that.

The first issue with thinking about “requirements” handed over from the PM to the team, is that it gives the team both less opportunity and less inclination to give input. The development team often knows better than the PM how long time it would take to build certain functionality. Therefore, handing down a fixed set of user stories and acceptance criteria without any back-and-forth with the team before, risks going wrong in two ways. Either, the PM might “require” something that is valuable but very time-consuming to do. Or, the PM might hold back on something that would provide some value, and would be very simple to do. Both scenarios would bring down the pace of value-creation by the team.

The second issue is that, in reality, a clean handover almost never happens. The initial requirements may have made perfect sense to the development team at the time of the handover. But new issues come up all the time,  as reality often catches up with plans. Once it does, if the process implies a one-way handover, the team will be less likely to go back to the PM. As a result, there is a risk that the team spends its time building functionality that would not have been prioritized, had the PM known the actual amount of time required to build it. It’s hard to swim up a waterfall.

The PRD is dead, long live the Feature Document

Ok, so it is good practice to use a document for feature refinement, and most PMs work with a document they call a PRD. But arguably, the scope of that document should be a single feature, rather than a whole “product”, and it is important not to be too literal about the word “requirements”, but to think of it as a back-and-forth. 

Therefore, we suggest dropping both “product” and “requirements” from the term PRD, and as only “Document” would be too nondescript, we suggest using the term “Feature Document” (sometimes descriptive is better than imaginative). Many teams already de facto work along these lines, and so it may not seem that using the term “Feature Document” instead of the term “PRD” will make much of a difference. However, how we talk about things matter.

  • By clarifying that the document is about a “feature”, it becomes clear to everyone what the scope of the document is. This clarity will make it easier not only to keep the scope of the document small and manageable, but also to actually work with smaller and more manageable increments.
  • By moving away from the term “requirements”, the implication of a clean handover from product to tech is reduced, opening up for the necessary discussion between product and tech regarding value vs. feasibility. Many teams are missing out on this, and so often work on features whose benefits are not proportional to the time they take to implement.

Live like a king, using Feature Documents

As you have probably been able to tell by now, we believe “Feature Documents” is the right frame of mind to work with. But we did not only interview lots of PMs to figure out the best way of working. We also developed Delibr as a tool to make life easy for PMs writing and collaborating around this kind of documents.

By working in smarter ways, it is possible to spend less time creating a shared understanding of features to build. And that makes life as a PM a lot easier.

How the Storytel team uses Delibr

How Storytel gets a shared understanding of features they build

Good PMs write some kind of document to detail how to develop a feature. This gives the team a central place to know what has been said and decided regarding the feature. To be useful, this document needs to cover the most important details, and so commonly runs to a couple of pages. With several PMs writing quite a few such documents, this amounts to a lot of information.

Some teams go all-in on writing things down and get stuck and lost with all the resulting information. Some teams balk at the prospect and don’t write much down at all, with insights being lost and mistakes made. At Delibr, we believe that it is possible to get the best out of both worlds by working in a structured way, using a template as a starting point.

David Božjak, Tech Manager at Storytel, put it succinctly:

“My team at Storytel has been using Delibr’s feature refinement templates for several months now. There are too many benefits to enumerate all, but giving a consistent structure to our projects is key.

Now everyone in the organization, regardless of position, knows what to expect when they follow a project link and knows where the information relevant to them will be in the structure.

We no longer struggle with keeping our projects sufficiently documented, we always start with a template and then we insist we do all our work – even Jira – from the Delibr document, and the documentation is done automatically.”

Let’s break it down to (i) why a template helps, (ii) what template specifically to use, and (iii) what is required of a tool to make the most out of using a template.

The Magic of Using a Template

Every feature is different, and the details will vary. But over time, the documents often need to cover the same or similar topics. Therefore PMs will typically find their writing style over time, and converge on a format to use as a starting point.

This works well with 1 or 2 PMs in the organization. But, as the organization grows, so does the total number of people writing feature refinement documents. Without any effort or thought going into this, the result is likely that these documents will look quite different.

Generally, for any process that is repeated many times, variance can be problematic. Specifically, if every PM has their individual style of writing documents, this will lead to two problems:

  • It will be much harder for the person who will read these documents to find the information they want if they all look different.
  • If the PMs have not talked to each other to find a “best practice” for writing feature refinement documents, it is likely that variance between how they write these documents means that some PMs do it less well. This likely means that feature refinement quality is suffering as a result.

The solution to problems with variance is to standardize. A good way to do this is to agree on a template for all PMs to use as a starting point when writing feature refinement documents. To keep flexibility and avoid limiting the PMs in their work, it is important that the template is just that, a starting point.

Using a template as a starting point for writing feature refinement documents can yield three benefits:

  • It can reduce “writer’s block”. If you have ever dealt with it, you know that this can be quite a hurdle. Templates can help with this. Rather than starting from a blank page, you will have something to look at and start with, helping you place your thoughts into a structure. This will speed up the writing process.
  • It can make it easier for the team and stakeholders to navigate within the document and find what they are looking for. If a consistent structure is used across documents, the documents will be readable and easy to use for the whole product development team.
  • It can ensure that the most important aspects of your features are covered. This, in turn, can increase the quality not only of the documents but the entire feature refinement process. Of course, this requires that your template actually covers the most important aspects.

Principles for Good Template UX

At Delibr, we have interviewed over 300 PMs about how they work with feature refinement. We found some principles that the best PMs use to write documents that help facilitate the conversation. Based on those, we developed what we believe is the best feature refinement document template to start with.

Some of the principles we found:

At the epic level. With a too big scope, the document tends to grow and become unwieldy and risk becoming obsolete. With a too narrow scope, it risks not properly capturing the reasoning for developing the feature. Normally a single user story is a too narrow scope, as it is often a combination of several user stories, an epic, that solves a user need. It all depends, but if forced to generalize, we’d say that an epic should comprise of 3-12 user stories, and last for 1-3 sprints. If an epic risks lasting more than a quarter, it is probably better to restructure it.

Both discovery and delivery. As we have written about before, it makes sense to spend time in a phase of feature discovery. Separating out discovery ensures that only features that make sense to do, i.e. that are valuable, usable, and feasible, go into development. The big risk with this is that discovery and delivery get too separated. It is surprisingly common that the actual feedback or data that led up to the feature being developed is not known to the developers implementing the feature. A good way to mitigate this is by using the same document for discovery and delivery. That way those who develop it can always just scroll up to see the problem statement as well as any recorded customer feedback or underlying data. (I know what you’re thinking, these documents could get massive. Don’t worry, we got a solution for this).

Structured for stakeholder readability. People will read the document in different ways. Executive stakeholders will read from the top and want a concise description of the problem, the solution, the success criteria, and the roll-out plan. The stakeholders that requested or are affected by the feature will also be interested in what user stories will be implemented. Specific functional stakeholders find it helpful to have a section of the document that speaks directly to them (e.g. QA, design, analytics, copywriting). And the team will go all the way, into the details of each user story and down to further details.

Focused on user stories. Stating the obvious here, but user stories are really useful. We found the main benefit of user stories (relative to “pure tech tasks”) is that they make it easier for non-tech people to understand what is being developed, and so enable better slicing decisions (i.e. decisions on feature scope). Because of this, we have found that documents centered around user stories are more effective. The way to make a document truly centered on user stories is to let the document evolve with the user stories.

  • In the early stages of writing the document, the focus will be on clarifying the problem and sketching a rough picture of what the solution might look like. Then it will be enough to capture relevant user stories and write them down in the document.
  • In the middle stages, the focus will be agreeing on the scope of the feature. Then the most important thing will be to prioritize which user stories to include, sorting them and moving some of them into a “later” subheading. To do this, it can be a good idea to do a user story mapping session and then paste a photo from the whiteboard into the document.
  • In the later stages, the focus will be figuring out more about how to fulfill the user stories in the first iteration. Then it is time to add more details under each user story heading, e.g. acceptance criteria and use cases as well as designs, copy, flow, and technical micro-decisions. If done properly, this can save time, in the transition to Jira.

Based on the above principles, we developed the “Epic Refinement Template” for our app:

But of course, the template is just a starting point. It should only be used as a base and be open to changes. Depending on the feature, it can be adapted with judgment, with headings and sections added, changed, moved, or removed. And working dynamically with the structure of a document is much easier using an outliner.

A Powerful Duo: the Template and the Outliner

An outliner is a type of document editor where the document is represented as a tree structure with bullets.

The screenshot above is an example of what a document can look like in an outliner. It is possible to switch view and see the document like a “normal document” without indentation and with headings of a different font.

Working with a document in an outliner gives the editor more flexibility in engaging with the structure of the document, e.g. zooming into, collapsing, or moving around parts of it.

In combination with a template, an outliner brings three benefits

  • First, by collapsing the document down, a reader can navigate among the headings of the template faster. A reader that is new to a document does not have to be overwhelmed by all its content but can dive directly into the parts relevant to them.
  • Second, working from an overview of the headings in the document, it becomes simpler to add things to the right place. This makes it easier to adhere to the structure of the document.
  • Third, changing the hierarchy of headings or adding new sections is effortless and does not risk messing up the whole document. This gives flexibility and reduces the risk of becoming too rigid in following the initial structure of the template.

Delibr is an outlining tool designed to make all of this easy. In addition, since it is made for Product Managers, it has an integration with Jira. The integration makes it possible to create and link Jira issues to parts of the tree structure, as shown below.

Taken together, this helps Storytel to create a shared understanding of the features they build in the whole organization. Are you interested in trying Delibr and see what it can do for your organization?

Double Diamond: Designer’s Mindset for Improving Feature Development

Double Diamond: Designer’s Mindset for Improving Feature Development

Does the term “Double Diamond” sound familiar? Chances are, it does. The Double Diamond model describes a framework that designers use. Originally intended for developing physical products, this model has recently started gaining popularity in software development, and for good reason. Understanding how the Double Diamond fits into Dual-Track Scrum can help you work better with discovery sprints and understand the design process on a deeper level.

Read more

feature discovery and delivery

Feature Discovery and Delivery: To Split or Not to Split?

Being a PM is not a piece of cake. You probably know that by now. You have probably also encountered a long list of features hanging in the air, unsure why half of these features were on that list in the first place. This is exactly why brief discovery projects are important in figuring out whether it’s worth developing a feature before going into the details of how to develop it at all.

Read more

Feature Refinement Document for Product Managers

Not Writing a Feature Refinement Document Can Lead to Chaos

You probably know all about roadmaps and user story mapping in agile product management. Both are effective tools used to capture and communicate your product’s goals and the journey to achieve them. User story mapping, for instance, will help to prioritize among relevant features and user stories and give the development team a better understanding of what to focus on.

However, what neither roadmaps and user story maps have, are feature details. These are never detailed enough for the development team to understand what has to be done just by looking at either a product roadmap or its user story map. And they shouldn’t be too detailed. This is where the need for a separate feature refinement document comes into play. And for good reasons. 

The Three C’s in User Story Mapping

Before discussing the benefits of feature refinement documents, let’s have a look at some important aspects of user story mapping. According to Ron Jeffries, one of the creators of Extreme Programming (XP), and a signatory of the Agile Manifesto, user story maps have three critical aspects: Card, Conversation and Confirmation.


Card refers to the user story, as user stories are sometimes written on index cards The cards are not supposed to contain all the information about a feature, just enough text to identify it. It represents the feature and has notes on it that illustrate priority and cost. 


This refers to all communication among the stakeholders and the development team. Thoughts, opinions, and feelings are all part of the conversation. These are usually exchanged verbally, but could be recorded for future convenience. 


Confirmation refers to the set of acceptance tests that must be passed for the feature to be considered completed. An acceptance test is used to ensure the feature matches the customer requirements and has been implemented correctly.   

Feature Refinement Documents for Effective Conversation

The major chunk of the feature development journey falls between the Card (the starting point) and the Confirmation (the finish line). Feature refinement documents can make this journey run smoother, and here is why.

Coming back to Conversation, there are several communication channels that could capture it: whiteboards and presentations for live meetings, email, Slack, Jira (especially comments). However, it is usually not possible to have everyone updated on everything, as that would require everyone to be on the same communication channel at all times. People miss meetings, emails and messages. Sometimes missing the tiniest detail can lead to chaos.

The developers might not understand what is needed, the team communication might end up disrupted, and then the whole plan is delayed. Not the best situation, especially if the release date is getting closer. This is why a single document that contains all this information (in a well-organized, easy-to-navigate and readable format) is so useful.

When You Don’t Need a Document

There are two cases where there is no need for a feature refinement document in product management. One case is when everybody that will have an input in implementing the feature in question is present during the whole Conversation. In other words, they don’t need the updates and additional explanations, because they were present.

Another case is when there is a self-contained issue, such as clear-cut bugs or obvious design improvements. In all other cases a feature refinement document is useful to put the disconnected conversation back together.

Issues That Will Pop Out if You’re Not Using a Document

One of the possible issues to occur if you don’t use an agile feature refinement document are disconnected conversations. Going back to several communication channels mentioned above, it is often almost impossible to keep everyone updated and on track on different platforms at the same time. This is especially true when working with a large team. Disconnected conversations can lead to chaos, putting a halt to the development process.

Another issue that could do this is missed details. Neither backlogs nor user story maps or roadmaps can capture small details effectively. Backlogs often look overwhelming, while user story maps and roadmaps don’t cover all the small details about the features. In both cases the details can be difficult to navigate to, and to associate with the right feature. 

Pitfalls to Avoid

However, writing a feature refinement document is not a magic pill. There are pitfalls. The PM needs to capture lots of information. Yet that information is only useful if it is easy to access and navigate, which requires good structure. Sometimes, structuring the document properly requires more time than the PM has available. Then there is a risk that the document grows unwieldy and hard both to read and to work with.

When that happens, the agile document risks becoming obsolete, not used in practice. And having a document that nobody uses is as bad as not having a document at all. Sometimes it is worse even, as the time to create it has been wasted and people may not have realized that the document can not be relied upon.

Why Delibr?

Most teams already write some sort of feature refinement document. Writing it in Google Docs is the most common, which is better than not writing a document at all. But the teams that start writing these documents in Delibr find that they need to spend less time to get to a good structure. This is because Delibr is an outliner.

Delibr-product management software

Outliners were originally used for writing books and movie scripts. In an outliner, the whole document is represented by a bullets tree structure. This gives outliners two main benefits. First, choosing what to see by zooming into or collapsing parts of the document is much faster. It allows for both seeing the hierarchy of the whole document and focusing in on a small part. Second, all operations related to moving content around are much faster and require no formatting effort.

Maintaining the structure of feature refinement documents might seem unnecessary and time consuming for you as a PM. However, the results are worth it, especially if you use an outliner to be able to do it with much less time. As a PM, you can avoid chaos by being writing better feature refinement documents. We aim to make this less painful. Work smarter, not harder.