Start with the decision, not the method
A research brief is a short working agreement about what a study needs to accomplish. It helps the people requesting, conducting and using the research stay aligned when new questions or appealing methods arise. The best place to begin is the decision the findings will inform. A team choosing between two service concepts needs a different study from a team trying to understand why customers struggle with an existing service.
Write the decision as a sentence: “We need to decide whether to simplify the sign-up process or explain its steps more clearly.” Then describe what the team already knows and what remains uncertain. This separates a genuine information gap from assumptions that have merely been repeated in meetings. If no decision is pending, state the intended use instead, such as improving a customer journey map or identifying issues for a later study.
Turn the decision into answerable questions
A broad aim such as “understand our customers” gives a study little direction. Replace it with a small set of questions whose answers could change an action. For the sign-up example, the team might ask where people hesitate, what they expect each step to require and which explanations help them continue. These questions give a researcher room to investigate without asking them to cover every possible aspect of the customer relationship.
Distinguish research questions from survey or interview questions. “Where do people hesitate?” is something the study should answer; “What did you expect to happen when you clicked Continue?” might be one way to explore it in an interview. Keeping that distinction in the brief prevents early wording choices from narrowing the study before its approach has been considered. If the question list grows, rank it: which answers are essential to the decision, and which would simply be interesting?
Define the people and the boundaries
The brief should identify whose experiences matter and why. “Customers” may be too broad if first-time visitors and long-standing users encounter different problems. Specify relevant characteristics, such as experience with the service, stage in the purchase journey or type of task attempted. Include people who did not complete the action when their experience is important to the decision. Avoid adding demographic requirements unless they serve a clear research purpose.
Also record what the study will not cover. A project about sign-up clarity may need to examine instructions and page flow, but not pricing or long-term satisfaction. Boundaries protect time for the central questions and make later requests easier to assess. They need not rule out unexpected observations; they clarify which findings the study is designed to investigate in depth.
Describe constraints without prescribing every step
A practical brief states the available time, resources and access to participants. It should note relevant materials, such as an existing questionnaire or prototype, and any limits on how customer information may be used. These details affect what can reasonably be learned. A small exploratory interview study, for example, can help reveal language and possible sources of confusion, but it cannot establish how common a problem is across an entire audience.
You can suggest a method while leaving room to challenge it. If the team has requested a survey, explain why: perhaps it needs comparable responses from defined groups. A researcher may then point out that interviews would be more useful first if the team does not yet know which response options make sense. The brief should make that conversation possible rather than treating the initial method as the goal.
Agree on what a useful outcome looks like
Name the expected outputs in terms of how they will be used. A team might need a concise summary of the main barriers, examples of confusing language and a list of changes worth testing. State who will review the findings and when the decision is expected. This encourages a deliverable that helps people act, rather than a long collection of observations with no clear next step.
Before work begins, ask a few reviewers to read the brief and explain the decision, priority questions and boundaries in their own words. Differences in their answers reveal ambiguity worth resolving. The brief can change as the team learns more, but revisions should be deliberate: record what changed and why. A focused brief is not a promise that research will produce a particular answer. It is a shared plan for learning enough to make a better-informed choice.
