Early in my product management journey, I crafted what I believed was the perfect PRD – a meticulously detailed 400-page manifesto that would surely guarantee flawless execution. I can still picture myself hunched over my desk, carefully documenting every conceivable edge case, user interaction, and system response.

Looking back now, I recognize the subtle undercurrent of anxiety that drove this exhaustive documentation. Each detailed specification was, in its own way, a carefully constructed shield against potential misunderstandings. But what I hadn’t realized was how this thoroughness was actually masking a deeper issue – a lack of trust in our engineering team’s creativity and expertise.

To this day, I defend my 400-page PRD for other reasons we might explore later, but the gentle ribbing from colleagues (who will never let me forget Kirk Roller) helped me see what I couldn’t at the time: no one was going to read this tome, let alone implement it. More importantly, buried within those hundreds of pages was an unintended message of micromanagement that undermined the very collaboration I was hoping to foster.

The lesson? Technical requirements should be clear and explicit, yes – but they should also create space for engineering innovation. Some of our best features have emerged from giving our technical teams the freedom to solve problems creatively while staying true to the validated user needs from our concept phase.

Now, my PRDs are lean, focused documents that outline the “what” and “why,” trusting our talented engineers with the “how.” The result? More engaged teams, better solutions, and significantly fewer paper cuts. 😉

Have you ever overcorrected in your early career? Share your story below!

#ProductManagement #Leadership #LessonsLearned #Engineering #Collaboration #PersonalGrowth