If you have a business requirements document template in Word open in front of you and you are not sure how to fill it in properly, this article is written for that exact moment. The template gives you headings. What it does not give you is guidance on what level of detail to write at, how to handle a problem statement your sponsor will actually read, or what to do when technical stakeholders reject a section you thought was agreed. That is what I want to cover here, using a real project to show where things get difficult.
A Word-format BRD template is available through the Business Analyst Template Toolkit on this site. Download it, save a copy for your project, then work through the sections using the guidance below before you write a single requirement.
What Your BRD Template Should Contain
Before you start writing, check that your template includes all of the following sections. If any are missing, add them. Skipping a section is a decision that should be deliberate and noted, not accidental.
- Document purpose and scope: A short statement covering what this document is for, what it covers, and what it deliberately excludes.
- Organisational context and problem statement: The background to the project, the specific problem being solved, and the target future state.
- Stakeholder list: Who was consulted, who has review responsibility, and who is accountable for approving each section.
- Business requirements: The core of the document, written in terms of outcomes the organisation needs to achieve, not system behaviour.
- Assumptions and constraints: Everything you are taking for granted, and every limit that applies to the project.
- Out of scope: Explicit exclusions, written with the same level of specificity as the in-scope content.
- Glossary and definitions: Domain-specific terms so that there is no ambiguity between business users, the BA team, and any technical or vendor audience.
- Document control: Version history, approval status, and distribution list.
How to Complete Each Section
Document Purpose and Scope
Keep this section short. Two or three paragraphs at most. The purpose statement should be specific about what decision or implementation this BRD is meant to support. Is it going to a vendor as part of a procurement process? Is it being used to baseline requirements for an internal development team? Is it a sign-off document for an executive sponsor? Each of those contexts produces a different document, and you need to state which one you are writing.
The scope section must describe what is included and, critically, what is not. On a government legal services system replacement I worked on (Project X, Organisation A), the business specification included an explicit line stating that the document did not describe detailed functional and technical requirements. That single line saved weeks of confusion, because vendors reading the document knew exactly what level of response was expected and did not treat the BRD as a full system specification.
Organisational Context and Problem Statement
This is the section most analysts rush through, and it is the one that matters most to senior stakeholders. A vague problem statement produces vague requirements. On Project X, the problem statement described the existing case tracking system as end-of-life and listed specific operational failures: excessive manual processing of paper files, information held in multiple formats with no integration across them, and the inability to receive electronic evidence from external agencies in a usable format. That level of specificity anchored everything that followed.
Write the problem statement before you write any requirements. If you cannot articulate what is wrong in concrete, observable terms, you are not ready to document what needs to change. For structured approaches to eliciting this kind of information from stakeholders, the requirements elicitation questions resource covers the practical techniques I find most useful at this stage.
Business Requirements
Business requirements describe what the organisation needs to achieve, not how a system should work. This is where early-career analysts most often slip into functional specification territory. On Project X, requirements were written as user stories: “As the Allocated Solicitor I want to know when a BOE is received so that I can access the BOE and assess the evidence before the Decs Hearing.” That format keeps the focus on the user’s purpose, not on software behaviour.
If you are working in a more traditional environment, declarative statements work equally well: “The system shall allow authorised users to associate any document type with a case record.” Either format is acceptable as long as every requirement is testable and traceable. If you need to understand the distinction between what belongs in a BRD and what belongs in a functional specification, the Business Requirements Document vs Functional Requirements Document article sets this out clearly.
Assumptions and Constraints
Document every assumption. If you assume existing data will be migrated automatically, write it down. If you assume a particular integration is out of scope for phase one, write it down. Assumptions that exist only in someone’s head will surface later as disputes. On Project X, the implementation approach specified a six-month delivery window from contract execution. That was listed as a constraint in the operational goals table, and it shaped every prioritisation decision throughout the project.
Out of Scope
This section is not optional. Write your exclusions with the same level of specificity you use for inclusions. If something is borderline, either put it in scope with a qualifying note, or put it out of scope with an explanation of why and when it might be revisited. On Project X, the explicit exclusion of detailed functional and technical requirements was load-bearing: it defined the expectations of every audience reading the document and prevented the BRD from being mistaken for a full system specification.
Where Things Got Complicated: A Real Example
On Project X, the business specification went through twelve revision cycles between November and January before reaching version 1.0. The most persistent point of friction was the section on information sharing and integration requirements. The technical team responsible for the government’s enterprise service bus had specific standards for message exchange and authentication protocols that were not reflected in the initial draft.
When the BA team circulated the integration section, it came back from the ICT security team with significant amendments required. The integration requirements section had to be rewritten three times. The underlying issue was not poor writing. It was that the business requirements team and the ICT architecture team had different mental models of what “integration” meant in this context. The business team meant the ability to receive and send files. The ICT team meant a governed, authenticated, logged exchange via a middleware layer. Both definitions were valid. Neither had been made explicit in the first draft.
The resolution came from a face-to-face session where both groups worked through the requirements line by line. If you are working on a project with technical integration components, involve your technical stakeholders in reviewing those sections before the document goes out for approval. Business sign-off does not confirm technical feasibility.
BRD Template Format Comparison
| Format | Best suited for | Key limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Word (.docx) | Formal procurement, regulatory, and waterfall environments where document control and version history are required | Collaborative editing across large teams can cause version conflicts without clear document governance |
| Google Docs | Distributed teams needing real-time collaboration and comment threads visible to all reviewers | Formatting control and offline access are more limited than Word |
| Confluence | Agile teams already using Atlassian tools where requirements link directly to Jira stories | Not suitable for formal document delivery to clients or vendors outside the Atlassian ecosystem |
| Excel | Requirements lists and traceability matrices where tabular tracking is the primary need | Poor choice as a standalone BRD format; narrative context and structure are difficult to manage |
Common Mistakes When Using a BRD Template in Word
- Treating the template as a checklist: Every section exists for a reason. If a section does not apply to your project, say so explicitly rather than leaving it blank or deleting it without explanation.
- Writing requirements at the wrong level: Business requirements describe what the organisation needs. System requirements describe how a system will meet those needs. If your BRD starts referencing database fields or screen layouts, you have moved into functional specification territory.
- Skipping the glossary: On Project X, the document included a detailed glossary of domain terms, roles, and document types. That glossary was referenced throughout the rest of the specification and prevented misunderstandings between legal staff and the vendor team during the procurement evaluation.
- Not version-controlling the document: A Word document without a clear revision history is a liability. Every version should be dated, described, and attributed. Twelve revision cycles on Project X were only manageable because every change was tracked and attributed.
- Presenting a finished draft for sign-off: Approval is significantly easier when stakeholders have been involved in shaping the content. Build review checkpoints at the section level. Send the problem statement and scope sections out early. Get alignment on those before you write a single requirement.
Getting Your BRD Approved
The hardest part of any BRD is not writing it. On Project X, the document was approved by the project sponsor but had gone through twenty-eight review sessions with subject matter experts before reaching that point. That is a thorough process by any measure, but the principle holds regardless of project scale: approval is earned through involvement, not through producing a polished document and hoping for the best. Build consensus section by section. The sponsors and subject matter experts who recognise their own input in the content are the ones who sign it off without last-minute objections. For a broader view of the documents you will be expected to produce across a project, the Business Analyst Deliverables in Waterfall article is worth reading alongside this one.
The Word template gives you a structure worth following, but the quality of your BRD is determined by the rigour you bring to each section, the specificity of your problem statement, and the consistency of your stakeholder engagement throughout. A well-formatted document with shallow content will not survive its first review cycle. A document grounded in concrete detail and built collaboratively will.
Frequently asked questions
What should a business requirements document template in Word include?
A BRD template should include a document purpose, scope, problem statement, organisational context, stakeholder list, business requirements, assumptions and constraints, out of scope items, a glossary, and a version control section. Each section serves a distinct purpose and should not be skipped or left blank without explanation. If a section does not apply to your project, note that explicitly in the template.
What is the difference between a BRD and a functional requirements document?
A BRD describes what the organisation needs to achieve in business terms, focused on outcomes rather than system behaviour. A functional requirements document describes how a system will meet those needs, including screen-level detail and process logic. If your BRD contains system behaviour or interface descriptions, you have crossed into functional specification territory.
How long should a business requirements document be?
There is no fixed length. A BRD for a small internal process change might be five pages, while a BRD for a complex system replacement could exceed one hundred pages. Length should reflect the complexity of the project, not a desire to appear thorough.
Can I use a Word BRD template on an agile project?
Yes, though the format of the requirements section will differ from a traditional waterfall BRD. In agile contexts, business requirements are often written as user stories with acceptance criteria rather than formal declarative statements. A Word template still provides useful structure for the surrounding context, constraints, and stakeholder information.
How do I get stakeholders to approve a business requirements document?
Involve key stakeholders in drafting the document rather than presenting a finished version for sign-off. Review the problem statement and scope sections early and get alignment on those before writing requirements. Approval is significantly easier when stakeholders recognise their own input in the content.
Try Ash, Your Virtual BA
If you have downloaded the BRD template and you are staring at a blank document wondering how to frame the problem statement or what level of detail to write your requirements at, Ash can work through it with you section by section. Ash is trained on real BA practice and is specifically built to help you draft, structure, and pressure-test a business requirements document, including the sections where most BRDs run into trouble. Whether this is your first BRD or your fiftieth, having a knowledgeable thought partner available immediately makes a real difference. Try Ash Virtual BA and get your BRD moving today.
Further reading
- Successfully Documenting Requirements for a Project | IIBA® Business Analysis Blog
- Template instructions
Written by Sam Cordes, founder of the Business Analyst’s Toolkit.