What is a design document? When is it useful to have one? How to make it useful? These are the questions I’m going to address in this post. The goal is to provide some bite sized, easy to remember guidelines. My promise to you is that after this post, you’ll be faster and more effective in making and reviewing designs.

This is a written version of a talk I gave at my current employer. Since it was well received and helped a few folks, I decided to make it more available.

Why this?

I’m not a professional technical writer. I’m not even the best writer among my peers. Why am I even trying to address this complex topic? Well, I happen to have seen lots of design docs (and written a few) over the years. Some excellent, some awful, and everything in between. I collected patterns and made my own perspective.

The first goal of this is to help people struggling to write or get attention on their designs. My secondary goal is definitely selfish, as I’m hoping to reduce the percentage of design docs reviews I need to make that are physically painful.

To be fair, I’ve written my fair share of painful-to-read docs. You can even scroll back in time in this blog to see some great examples of bad writing. The third goal is then to pay back some of this debt.

What is the purpose of a design doc?

The answer is, as always, it depends. But among the various things a design doc could be, I’m not going to focus on:

  • Implementation manuals,
  • Detailed requirement documents,
  • Novels,
  • Brain dumps.

These may all be valid written documents in certain contexts. For example, a detailed specification document might be necessary when writing the actual code is offloaded to contractors, or when specifications are legally required (e.g. aerospace or safety critical domains). Brain dumps are useful while brainstorming. Novels are a pleasure to read, and so forth.

Nevertheless, the focus is here on organizations of software engineers that own software end-to-end. The goal of a design doc there is to solve a problem collaboratively, rather than fulfilling red tape or legal requirements. This is the attitude you commonly see in today’s tech companies (established and startups alike).

Design docs are also most definitely not perfect. We’re not trying to win the Pulitzer prize, but solve a concrete problem in a timely and effective manner.

In this context, the key purposes of a design doc are instead:

  1. Improve the understanding of a problem and its domain (of author and reviewers).
  2. Drive alignment, to get to a better solution faster (and more cheaply) than trial and error.

Although these are the main goals that we’ll use to build our guiding principles, good design docs come with side benefits:

  • Documentation: they serve as organizational memory, ease knowledge transfer and onboarding.
  • Easier stakeholder communication.
  • Lower the cost of failure (a discarded design is cheaper than a discarded implementation).
  • Serve as artifacts for engineers (in performance reviews).
  • Enable asynchronous discussion.

Does every decision need to be a design document? Absolutely not! Smaller scope or easily reversible decisions might need just a simple code review or an email.

How to make a good design doc?

The idea is simple: we take the two goals above and follow the implications logically to build the principles below. Since there’s no perfect structure, and we don’t have infinite time, we’ll also need to be pragmatic in applying them. Sometimes not all the principles are necessary or useful, but it’s still good to keep in mind when we deviate and why.

1. Know your audience

Who needs to read the document? What’s their background? What are they worried about? The target audience of the document informs its main focus.

For example, if the audience is internal to the team, there needs to be less background information and perhaps more implementation detail. For cross-team reviews? The focus should be on cross-team interfaces and responsibilities. For executives or product managers? Success metrics and business impact should be the main focus.

Getting the audience wrong will generate more questions during reviews and waste precious space on the doc with unwanted details. Using the same document for two vastly different audiences will make them both unhappy. Split it into two smaller documents instead.

Do your audience a favor and tailor your document to their needs. This will improve their understanding of the problem and solution.

2. Timing

The document should arrive in a timely manner. There’s a time for designing, a time for experimentation and one for implementing. Outside a window of opportunity, design documents are no longer useful.


It’s common advice that designs should be shared early, but there’s a limit to it. Sharing a design before doing any experimentation might be a waste of time. Too many options unexplored and unclear direction. Sharing something too rough with a wide audience attracts brutal reviews, where the document is ripped apart line by line.

At the same time, sharing after implementation started is too late! Changing direction based on feedback at this point in time is expensive and might be unfeasible. What’s the point of the design, then? Ticking a box in your next performance review?

3: Explain reasoning

Explaining how a solution works is not enough. It’s even more important to explain why:

  • Why do we even have a problem (worth solving)?
  • Why are we picking this solution?
  • What are the alternatives we didn’t pick and why?

Why is much more important than how. If you need to cut anything, cut implementation detail over reasoning and alternatives. This will improve understanding now, but also answer future questions of people digging and wondering “why didn’t we do that instead?”. Your future self and colleagues will thank you.

4: Clear scope and abstraction level

This tracks back to #1, but focuses on scoping. Given an audience, focus on one problem (or class of problems) to solve and one abstraction level. Don’t mix detailed requirements with implementation details. It will make the document too large and difficult to follow.

In addition, place the document in a context: what is related work? What is the area, project or overarching effort? How does this work fit into the greater context? Add pointers to these to help place the doc logically in people’s heads.

If a document is becoming too large, split it up! Keep a shorter high level overview and add pointers to separate documents focusing on sub-parts with additional details. This has the additional benefit of allowing multiple people to design sub-parts (delegation) and still keep efforts in harmony. It also keeps the abstraction levels and scoping clear, allowing reviews from the right set of people on each document, as they can be different.

5: Simple

Nobody’s got time to read your doc. Assume casual reading from busy people. Assume no in-depth knowledge of the topic (unless proven otherwise). Keep sentences short and simple. Keep the document short. Add pictures and diagrams whenever possible.

Be kind to your reviewers and their time. You’ll get quicker and better feedback.

6: Important information first

Reader’s attention will drop after just a couple of pages. Keep the objective and main idea in the first page. Details, alternatives and future work should be at the bottom. This maximizes return over readers’ attention.

For example, put meeting notes, alternatives considered and implementation details at the bottom of the document. Keep objective, TL;DR, metadata and diagrams at the top.

7: Clear status

Readers should have an easy time understanding whether to provide feedback and to whom. Document metadata serves this purpose. Who is the author? When did they write it? What’s the current state (under review, approved, abandoned or implemented)?

At a minimum, there should be:

  • Owners
  • Date of last update
  • Review / implementation status
  • Link to bugs (e.g. Jira issues)

When you come across an old doc you own, take the time to update its metadata when necessary.

8: Data and metrics

If the problem is not self-evident, quantify it. How much of a problem is it? Define success metrics and predict the impact of the solution (e.g. x% faster, $$ saved per year, etc.).

This is not always relevant or feasible, but very important for more expensive and broader scope efforts (e.g. when multiple teams are involved). Also keep in mind that executives love numbers on things they review.

9: Good title (bonus)

Having a memorable title is a nice plus. It will help people remember and refer to it more easily. It can also prime the reader towards the proposed solution. You can think of the title as prime real estate on the document, so it should be used wisely.

For example, consider a document aimed to solve observability issues in a service. The idea is to get SRE involved in a subset of the service. Compare these two titles:

  1. Addressing noisy alerts in ServiceX
  2. ServiceX monitoring responsibilities: TeamX and SRE

While the first version talks about a symptom, the second version already suggests what the proposal is. This will prime the reader to look into where the responsibilities are shifted, which is the most important part.

Efficient creation process

How do you go from a blank page to something good enough to guide an implementation? The mistake most people make here is to simply sit on the design and refine it for weeks or months before sharing. By that point, the idea and its implementation became too precious. Too much time was invested, and it’s too expensive and emotionally distressing for the author to part away from their child.

Documents designed for too long tend to result in charged reviews. On the one hand, authors are very invested in the idea, on the other, their isolation from reviewers will oftentimes lead to suboptimal proposals. This generates many questions and comments asking for changes, especially when the audience is broad. The discussion might become heated.

What is the mistake here? The problem is considering that a design is “done once”, perfected and then presented to the target audience (waterfall model). Reviewers are treated as gatekeepers. They should approve or object to the design during that latter phase.

Sharing a document with everyone before it’s ready is also problematic, because you will likely still get too much feedback from many people, and it might be distracting and useless. This is the more true, the broader the target audience.


The better way to design something is to iterate on both document and target audience:

  1. Discuss
  2. Dump knowledge, incorporate feedback
  3. Organize
  4. Share with a few (more)
  5. Iterate, incorporate comments (go to #2)
  6. Maintain until the implementation is finished, then archive

Ideally, authors should not spend more than a few hours on a document before sharing. Terrible ideas will be weeded out during early iterations, while the document is not polished.

Questions from early reviewers really show where the document is missing details or is making weak assumptions. Make sure those are addressed in the document directly, rather than just replying to the questions during the review.

In case formal review and approval is necessary, this can be done during later iterations, when most of the target audience has already seen and discussed the contents. This ensures a smoother review.


There’s no perfect structure. You’ll see that different formats are used or even imposed in different companies. I personally don’t think imposing a structure is useful, except for more inexperienced teams and authors, or in companies where reviews are very formalized and structured.

My personal go-to starter structure for a technical design is the following:

  • Title + metadata (author, date, status, issue link)
  • Objective
  • Requirements
  • Background
  • Proposal
  • Alternatives considered

From this structure, I will add or remove sections depending on the domain and audience. I might, for example, put more emphasis in security considerations and therefore add a specific section for that.

Note also that this structure will not work for retrospectives, nor project proposals, where the emphasis is on different points (the past in the former, the responsibilities and problem analysis in the latter).


Amazon’s 6-pager

The famous Amazon’s 6-pager comes with a prescribed structure and length. The prose is basically a wall of text without links, nor pictures (except for the appendix). The review is a formalized meeting where leads read print-outs of the document. The focus is really on an in-person, synchronous review, which requires lots of preparation and can be painful. The differences stop there. The rest of the approach is the same as the one I described: focus on the audience, clarity and simplicity, reasoning.

I personally prefer asynchronous and incremental reviews, as these tend to be cheaper and less emotionally charged. However, given how successful Amazon is, their approach is clearly working as well :)

Architecture Decision Records

An alternative is Architecture Decision Records (ADRs). Their focus is on the decisions being made and their consequences. The proposed structure is: context, decision, status and consequences. I really like the approach because of its simplicity. What are you changing, how, and what is the expected result? What is becoming easier, and what harder as a consequence? These are the questions answered by ADRs, which help to make decisions but also serve as documentation for the future.

The only thing I’m missing from ADRs is the discussion about alternative options and why they weren’t picked. They can nevertheless serve as a very good starting point for a design document.

Do nothing

The most important alternative, I would always like to see in a design, is the default “do nothing” option. I’m going to add it here as well: what about not using design docs at all? For example, doing decisions through very small, incremental changes that can be discussed within a team, or having a lead making those decisions. One prominent proponent of this idea is 37 Signals, which suggests not using designs at all and if really forced, “this process shouldn’t take more than one day”. The focus is on mocks and coding instead.

There are areas where this can work just fine, especially with two-way doors decisions, or UI changes for an app. I didn’t find this working well enough when decisions impact multiple teams or are not easily reversible. For example, security or data protection changes cannot be made without deliberate discussions. Large architectural changes or new technologies also require scrutiny and discussion. Failing that, organizations will rely on decisions being made by the quickest person implementing them, or leaders in an untransparent way. Both of which result in suboptimal and sometimes disastrous results. A common example of that is introducing a new technology just because someone wants to learn it, rather than solving a real problem. We all know how this ends: people introducing this new technology leave and the remaining are stuck with an inconsistent architecture. This can happen multiple times, until the result is so unnecessarily complex that every successive change requires a lot of discussion or is plain impossible. If design docs are not used here either, this means many repetitive meetings and slow progress.


Design documents should not be a pain to read and write. They should not slow people down, nor make them feel stupid. They should be used as a shift-left tool to iterate on ideas collaboratively, efficiently and transparently. Furthermore, they should serve as an accelerator for quality and knowledge sharing.

To facilitate moving from painful to useful, keep in mind the following key goals of a doc:

  • Facilitate understanding.
  • Drive alignment.

Translate that into practice by paying attention to the following principles:

  1. Know your audience
  2. Get the timing right
  3. Explain reasoning, discuss alternatives
  4. Keep scope and abstraction level consistent
  5. Keep it simple and short
  6. Put important information first
  7. Add metadata
  8. Use data and metrics to help quantify problems and solutions (when necessary)
  9. Come up with a memorable title

Obviously, this is coming from my own experience. Your mileage may vary and so forth. I would be definitely curious to hear different opinions on the matter!


In writing this, I also took inspiration from the following references: