Product Requirements Document (PRD) Template & Example: Download Our Free Template Today
What is a Product Requirements Document? A PRD is a document that covers what a software product (or specific feature) needs to do, who it’s for, and why it matters. PRDs enable software engineers, testers, designers, and other stakeholders to align on the same target, enabling higher-quality software development. These documents are typically used across all development methodologies, from Waterfall to Agile, acting as a single source of truth for the product scope.
We’re not going to cover the basics of what requirements management is in this article — for more background on this topic, see our article: What is Requirements Management?
What is a PRD Template?
A Product Requirements Document template is a pre-built document that standardizes the important sections, headings, fields, and other components (more on the specifics of this in the next section). This means that teams don’t need to spend as much time setting up new PRDs for each new feature or product, saving resources and reducing blank page syndrome. However, note that templates are primarily a starting point — PRDs need to be kept up-to-date with new information and adapted to your team’s cadence and complexity.
What are the Key Components of a PRD?
The most important fields and elements you should include in a PRD are:
|
PRD Component |
What the Component Refers to |
|
Project Title |
Short, descriptive name for the project or feature |
|
Creation Date |
Date the PRD was first drafted (or versioned) |
|
Document Version |
Version identifier to track edits, revisions, reviews, and histories |
|
Overview |
High-level summary of what this PRD is about and how it fits into the broader product strategy |
|
Problem Statement |
Describes the user or business problem you intend to solve with this project |
|
Objective |
Goal or purpose of this effort — what you are trying to achieve? |
|
Success Metrics |
Quantitative measures to evaluate whether the objective has been met |
|
Explicit conditions that define when the feature is done and correct |
|
|
Scope/Boundaries |
What is included in this project (as well as what is not) |
|
Personas |
Descriptions of representative user types to ground decisions |
|
Narrative flows describing how personas will use the product in specific scenarios |
|
|
Features (User Stories) |
Breakdown of the functionality to build, usually expressed as user stories |
|
Requirements not tied to specific features but to system qualities (e.g. performance, security, etc.) |
|
|
High-level plan for how features and use cases will be tested |
|
|
Dependencies/Constraints |
External or internal dependencies (e.g. APIs, libraries) and constraints (e.g. budget, time, regulations) that affect delivery |
|
Launch Plan |
Strategy for releasing this product/feature (e.g. rollout phases, feature flags, communication plan, rollback strategy, etc.) |
|
Open Questions |
Outstanding unknowns or assumptions that need resolution |
|
Additional Considerations |
Any supplemental concerns or context not covered elsewhere |
PRD Format: Which Should You Use?
Product Requirement Documents usually fall into one of two formats that serve different purposes.
- One-Pager PRD: This lean format is ideal for small features and only includes some of the components mentioned above (e.g. problem, success metrics, a few user stories, and launch notes). This shorter PRD document is faster to write and easier to keep up-to-date.
- Full PRD: This is what most companies think of when they hear “Product Requirements Document,” covering risks and facilitating more comprehensive cross-team systems. These can include detailed APIs, migration plans, thorough success metrics, and test suites.
Regardless of format, PRDs should be stored in a way that can link to tickets. Keeping them current also helps reduce drift over time.
PRD vs. BRD
|
PRD: Product Requirements Document |
BRD: Business Requirements Document |
|
Tactical document that covers specific features, behavior, acceptance criteria, and more used by design and engineering teams to build software products. |
High-level document that covers business goals, ROI, stakeholders, business processes, and more so leadership can justify investment. |
We recommend starting with a BRD if you need executive approval, then creating a PRD for execution.
PRD Template for Software Development
Below, we’ve created a publicly available downloadable PRD template (Excel or PDF) to serve as your starting point:
Download our free pre-built PRD template here:
Benefits of Using a PRD Template
There are a number of valuable business benefits to using a template like the one above for your PRDs:
- Faster Onboarding: New project managers and cross-functional contributors have reduced ramp-up because the headings and prompts are always the same.
- Consistent Scoping: Using a template forces the team to list specific success metrics, constraints, and rollback criteria, cutting down on reworks during engineering sprints.
- Better Traceability: Templates often include links to tickets so you have a clear path from requirements to implementation to testing, reducing ambiguity in handoffs.
- Easier Review & Auditing: The standardized structure of a template means that reviewers always know where to find important information like security or performance, saving time.
- Efficient Re-Use: Consistent fields and archiving past PRDs help teams estimate effort and spot recurring issues quickly for future projects.
PRD Example: See a Filled Out Product Requirements Document
Using our template, we’ve filled out each field with example data for a healthcare product, so you can see what a real (hypothetical) PRD might look like:
|
PRD Component |
Example Details |
|
Project Title |
Remote Patient Monitoring Dashboard (RPM-Cardio) |
|
Creation Date |
October 1, 2025 |
|
Document Version |
v1.0 (Draft) |
|
Overview |
Secure, compliant Remote Patient Monitoring Dashboard so cardiologists and clinical teams can monitor implanted cardiac device data, view alerts, trends, and patient adherence metrics. It will integrate with device telemetry streams and EHR systems and must satisfy regulatory requirements and support clinical validation. |
|
Problem Statement |
Many patients with implantable cardiac devices generate telemetry data, but healthcare providers lack a unified, real-time view to monitor trends and intervene proactively. Current tools are fragmented, slowing down response to critical events. |
|
Objective |
Provide a real-time, regulatory-compliant dashboard to reduce time to detect and respond to critical cardiac device alerts by 50%, improve clinician satisfaction with device monitoring workflows, and enable audit-ready traceability of patient data and actions. |
|
Success Metrics |
Alert detection to clinician notification time (< 15 minutes in 95% of cases) Reduction in hospital readmissions for device-related issues (30% over 6 months in pilot group) Clinician satisfaction survey score (≥ 4.5/5 after first month of use) System uptime/availability (≥ 99.8% monthly uptime) Audit readiness (able to pass internal audit for Part 11/IEC 62304 traceability, with zero major non-conformances) |
|
Acceptance Criteria |
Given a patient has a device connected, when the telemetry stream reports a critical event (e.g. low battery), then the dashboard must show the alert prominently and send a push/Email/SMS notification within 15 minutes. Given any clinician action in the dashboard with impact (e.g. acknowledging alert), when that action occurs, then record: user identity, timestamp, stored data before & after, and signature in accordance with 21 CFR Part 11. Given 30+ days of telemetry, when clinician views the trends view, then the dashboard shows graphs for battery level, impedance, etc., with options to filter by date/time, patient cohort, with at least p90 latency under 2 seconds. |
|
Scope/Boundaries |
Includes: Real-time telemetry ingestion from connected cardiac devices (through secure API) Dashboard with alerts, trending metrics, patient adherence, notifications Clinician roles + user identity management + audit logging EHR integration for patient demographic synchronization (read-only) Secure cloud hosting (HIPAA, ISO 27001 compliant) Excludes: Device firmware updates via dashboard Full two-way control of device settings by clinician (e.g. programming parameters) Patient-facing mobile app functionality for patients (outside clinical user role) |
|
Personas |
Cardiologist who monitors multiple implanted device patients; wants alerting + trend-analysis; requires minimal false-positives; demands quick, reliable, compliant system. Clinical Nurse who regularly reviews incoming data, triages alerts, acts on notifications; needs good user interface, clear warning, ability to annotate or mark for follow-up. Regulatory Officer who needs traceability and auditability; must ensure system meets FDA 21 CFR Part 11, IEC 62304 standards; ensures electronic signatures, versioning, data integrity. |
|
Use Cases |
Alert Triage: Clinical Nurse receives notification of low battery for patient X; uses dashboard to see battery trend, contacts patient or schedules intervention. Trend Review: Cardiologist reviews pacing thresholds over prior month for cohort; sees upward drift; flags possible lead issue. Audit Preparation: Regulatory Officer reviews log of alerts acknowledged by clinicians over the past quarter; verifies that signature and version history are intact. |
|
Features (User Stories) |
User authentication and role-based access (clinician, nurse, QA, admin) Telemetry ingestion API connector (secure, encrypted) Real-time alert generation (battery low, device threshold crossed, etc.) Dashboard UI: patient list, alert feed, trend visualization (battery, impedance, etc.) Notification system (email/SMS/push) Audit logging & electronic signature infrastructure Data export for compliance/report generation |
|
Non-Functional Requirements |
Performance/Latency: Alerts must appear within 15 minutes of event in 95th percentile; trend graphs load <2-3 seconds with a dataset up to 30 days. Reliability/Availability: 99.8% uptime; redundancy in data ingestion pipelines; SLA support. Security/Privacy: HIPAA compliance; data at rest and in transit encrypted; role-based access; multi-factor authentication for clinician users; secure, compliant host infrastructure. Scalability: Support 10,000 patients in pilot; scale to 100,000 in first year. Compliance/Regulatory: Support 21 CFR Part 11 (electronic records, signatures), IEC 62304 (software lifecycle), ISO 13485 (quality management), FDA guidance for Software as a Medical Device. |
|
Test Plan |
Unit Tests: For API connectors, alert conditions, roles & permissions, signature module. Integration Tests: Device telemetry ingestion, EHR sync, notification pipeline. Performance Testing: Load test with many patients; simulate bursts of alerts; test trend graph performance. Security Testing: Penetration testing; verify encryption; ensure unauthorized roles cannot access PHI; validate compliance with HIPAA and data protection standards. Compliance/Validation Testing: Verification that audit logs meet 21 CFR Part 11; software lifecycle documentation per IEC 62304; traceability from requirements > code > tests. Usability Testing: Clinician workflows; clarity of alert UI; false alert rate handling; responsiveness. Pilot/Clinical Trial: Deploy to a couple of hospitals/devices; collect data; receive feedback on alert fatigue, data quality. |
|
Dependencies/Constraints |
Device manufacturer cooperation for the telemetry API specification. Secure cloud provider with data residency/region compliance (some hospitals require data to remain in a certain jurisdiction). Regulations: FDA approvals/filings if the system qualifies as a Software as a Medical Device (SaMD). Budget/time: must comply with validation documentation; time for internal and external audits. Clinical site access for pilot deployments. |
|
Launch Plan |
Phase 1: Internal Validation — Build MVP features; internal hospital partner for pilot with 50 patients over 2 months. Phase 2: Regulatory Review/Documentation Completion — Validation protocol; prepare necessary documentation for regulatory bodies; QA & compliance sign-off. Phase 3: Early Access Release — Limited release to partner clinicians; gather real-world feedback; monitor alert performance, latency, boundary cases. Phase 4: General Availability — Release to all clinical customers; provide training, documentation; marketing; support. Rollback Criteria: If alert latency > 30 min for >10% of critical events; security breach; mis-classification of alerts with high false-positives; regulatory non-conformances in audit. |
|
Open Questions |
Does the dashboard qualify as “medical device software” under FDA / EU MDR regulation in all jurisdictions? What classification? Which telemetry data elements are needed per patient device (battery, impedance, etc.), and are device manufacturers willing to provide them? What are acceptable thresholds for false positive/false negative alerts? What data residency or privacy restrictions exist in target countries (e.g. EU’s GDPR, HIPAA, local health authority laws)? How will the system integrate with existing EHRs (standards like HL7 / FHIR), and is that EHR access (read/write or read-only)? |
|
Additional Considerations |
Regulatory/Legal: May need to file as SaMD; ensure regulatory approvals; maintain documentation for audits; risk management, usability engineering per IEC 62366. Privacy/Data Governance: Patient consent, data de-identification where needed, consent for storage, ability to delete/archive. Interoperability: Use standard protocols (HL7, FHIR) for EHR; device telemetry standardization. Localization: Interface translations; regulations in other countries; units (metric/imperial, time zones). Accessibility: Clinician users with visual or other impairments; ensure compliance with ADA / equivalent rules. |
How to Write a PRD: Best Practices
Some of our recommendations for writing a PRD (even if you’re using a template) include:
- Start With The Problem: Instead of beginning with a solution, write a clear problem statement that is supported by data or qualitative research. Teams that start with a UI idea tend to bias engineering design.
- Define Measurable Success: If you can’t define how you’ll quantify success upfront, we recommend holding off on writing a PRD until this is figured out.
- Use Testable Criteria: Acceptance criteria needs to be measurable, preferably using “Given/When/Then” format, to reduce back-and-forth during the QA process.
- Separate Functional/Non-Functional Requirements: We recommend breaking out functional and non-functional requirements so that performance or security specifications aren’t buried inside a feature paragraph.
- Add Monitoring Pre-Launch: You should clearly identify and detail the exact events, dashboards, and alarms for launch — if you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.
- Emphasize the “Living” Doc: Keeping the PRD as a living doc involves updating it after implementation if decisions changed, as well as archiving the final state and linking to retrospective notes for future context.
- Peer Review Early: We suggest having quick 30-60 minute reviews with at least one engineer and one QA member to catch any ambiguity early in the process.
Move From Tedious PRDs & Limited Templates to Inflectra’s Industry-Leading Project & Requirements Management
Product Requirement Documents are crucial for modern software projects, keeping all teams and stakeholders on the same page and working together towards a common vision. Although templates like ours can make PRD writing and creation easier, they still rely on heavy manual effort and updates (not to mention manually organizing the archive of dozens, if not hundreds, of PRDs you’ll eventually have).
For teams looking to enhance their development and QA practices, while also boosting traceability and governance, it’s mission-critical to keep all of your requirements, user stories, test cases, planning boards, and bug tracking in a unified and accessible hub. SpiraTeam and SpiraPlan fill this role, providing a centralized command center for your projects and portfolios that enable automated, AI-driven, and intuitive ALM functionality. View project health and KPIs from a single pane of glass, or dive deeper into specific user stories or tests that are slowing development. The Spira suite integrates with tools you already use, so you don’t have to restart your workflows and ecosystems. From task management to AI-driven automation to release planning, SpiraTeam and SpiraPlan can improve productivity by 35% and reduce costs by up to 40%. Hear what our partners have to say about SpiraTeam, or try it for yourself with a free 30-day trial using the button below.
