Our new PMM started Monday. I sent her the onboarding doc I'd spent three weeks creating: 47 pages covering everything from our messaging framework to launch processes to competitive intelligence workflows.
I was proud of that document. It was comprehensive. Detailed. Well-organized. It covered every process the team used.
Friday afternoon, I checked in: "How's the onboarding doc working for you?"
She smiled politely. "I skimmed it. It's really thorough. I've mostly been learning by asking people questions."
Translation: She'd read maybe 5 of the 47 pages and was figuring it out on her own.
I looked at the doc's edit history. Zero opens since I'd sent it to her.
That's when I realized: I'd spent three weeks creating documentation that no one would actually use.
The problem wasn't the new hire. The problem was that I'd created reference documentation instead of workflow documentation. I'd optimized for comprehensiveness instead of usefulness. I'd written the doc I thought people should read instead of the doc they'd actually need.
Over the next six months, I completely rebuilt our PMM process documentation. Instead of comprehensive guides that sat unopened, I created targeted workflows that people referenced constantly. Instead of 47-page documents, I built templates and checklists embedded in actual work.
Team usage went from ~5% (people barely opening the docs) to ~85% (people actively using them weekly). New hire ramp time dropped from 8 weeks to 4 weeks. Process consistency improved dramatically.
Here's what I learned about building process documentation that PMMs actually use instead of ignore.
Why Most Process Documentation Fails
I'd made the classic mistake of thinking documentation's purpose was to capture everything we knew. It's not.
Documentation's purpose: Enable people to do their jobs without having to ask someone else how.
That's it. If your documentation doesn't help people accomplish tasks independently, it's not useful—no matter how comprehensive it is.
Most PMM process docs fail for predictable reasons:
Failure mode 1: Too comprehensive
You document every possible scenario and edge case. The doc becomes 40+ pages. Nobody reads 40 pages. They skim, get overwhelmed, and just ask someone instead.
Failure mode 2: Too high-level
"Follow our launch framework" without specifying what that actually means. People finish reading and still don't know what to do next.
Failure mode 3: Wrong format
Walls of text explaining processes when people actually need templates, checklists, or examples they can copy.
Failure mode 4: No context on when to use it
You write great documentation but people don't know it exists or when they need it. It sits in a folder somewhere, undiscovered.
Failure mode 5: Outdated the moment it's written
You document the process as it exists today. The process changes next month. The doc becomes obsolete but no one updates it. People stop trusting documentation.
I'd committed all five failures with my 47-page onboarding doc.
The Shift: From Reference Guides to Workflow Enablement
The breakthrough came when I stopped asking "What should people know?" and started asking "What do people need to do, and what would help them do it faster?"
Instead of comprehensive process guides, I built workflow-specific documentation that helped people complete actual tasks:
Not: "Here's how our launch process works" (4 pages of explanation)
Instead: "Launch checklist: 8 weeks to launch day" (checklist template they copy and customize)
Not: "Competitive intelligence framework overview" (6 pages of methodology)
Instead: "How to create a battle card in 2 hours" (step-by-step workflow with templates)
Not: "Customer research best practices" (10 pages of theory)
Instead: "Customer interview script: Discovery calls" (actual questions to ask)
The difference: Reference documentation explains. Workflow documentation enables action.
People don't need to understand our entire launch philosophy. They need to know what to do by when. Give them that.
The Documentation Hierarchy That Actually Works
I rebuilt our PMM documentation with three levels:
Level 1: Quick Start Workflows (80% of usage)
These are single-page docs answering: "How do I accomplish X?"
Examples:
- "How to write a launch brief (30 minutes)"
- "How to create a battle card (2 hours)"
- "How to plan a product tier (framework + template)"
- "How to run a win/loss interview (script + questions)"
Format: Template or checklist with minimal explanation. People copy it and customize for their project.
Usage pattern: Referenced constantly. These docs get opened 10-20 times per week across the team.
Level 2: Process Playbooks (15% of usage)
These are 2-4 page docs providing more context on recurring workflows.
Examples:
- "Launch tiers: How to determine T1 vs T2 vs T3"
- "Competitive positioning: When to lead with differentiation vs. category"
- "Customer research: When to do interviews vs. surveys vs. usage analysis"
Format: Framework + decision tree + examples. Helps people make judgment calls.
Usage pattern: Referenced when someone needs to make a strategic decision or is doing something for the first time.
Level 3: Strategic Context (5% of usage)
These are longer docs providing deep background on why we do things certain ways.
Examples:
- "Our messaging hierarchy and positioning philosophy"
- "PMM team charter and stakeholder expectations"
- "How we measure PMM impact"
Format: Traditional documents with explanations, principles, and examples.
Usage pattern: Referenced during onboarding, strategic planning, or when someone wants deep context.
The mistake I'd made: Starting with Level 3 documentation when people actually needed Level 1.
How to Write Workflow Documentation People Actually Use
Here's the template I now use for every workflow doc:
Title: "How to [accomplish specific task] in [time estimate]"
Clear outcome. Clear time commitment. People know immediately if this is what they need.
When to use this:
2-3 sentences on the situations where this workflow applies.
Example: "Use this when planning a major product launch (T1/T2). For smaller feature releases, use the lightweight launch checklist instead."
This prevents people from using the wrong process or wondering if there's a better doc somewhere else.
Before you start:
List of prerequisites or inputs needed.
Example: "Before creating a battle card, you need: (1) competitive product analysis completed, (2) customer win/loss data, (3) sales feedback on top objections."
This prevents people from starting the workflow and getting stuck halfway through.
The workflow:
Step-by-step checklist of what to do. Not explanation—just actions.
Example: ☐ Copy the battle card template ☐ Fill in competitor positioning using competitive analysis doc ☐ Add top 3 differentiators with proof points ☐ Document common objections and responses (use win/loss data) ☐ Create one-page visual summary ☐ Review with sales team (iterate based on feedback) ☐ Publish to sales enablement library ☐ Announce in #sales-enablement Slack channel
People can literally check boxes as they work through it.
Templates and examples:
Link to templates they should copy and examples they can reference.
Don't make people hunt for these. Embed them directly.
Common questions:
3-5 frequently asked questions with brief answers.
This catches 80% of the "wait, how do I handle X?" scenarios without people having to ask.
Who to ask for help:
Name the person who owns this workflow and when to involve them.
Example: "For competitive positioning questions, ask @Sarah. For visual design, ask @Marketing. For sales objection validation, ask @TopRep."
That's it. One page. Scannable. Actionable.
People can open it, understand what to do, and execute without reading paragraphs of context.
The Template Library That Eliminated 80% of Questions
The single highest-impact documentation change I made: creating a template library.
Instead of explaining how to create a launch brief, I created a launch brief template pre-filled with instructions and examples. Instead of explaining messaging hierarchy, I created a messaging template showing the structure.
The template library included:
- Launch brief template (with example)
- Battle card template (with example)
- Customer interview guide (with questions)
- Win/loss analysis template (with scoring framework)
- Competitive positioning template (with framework)
- Launch checklist (tiered by launch size)
- Messaging hierarchy template (with example)
- Sales enablement one-pager template (with design)
The rule: Every recurring workflow gets a template. If someone asks "how do I create X?" more than twice, create a template.
The impact: New hire asks "How do I write a launch brief?"
Before templates: I'd send them to our 6-page launch process doc, they'd read it, get confused, and schedule a meeting with me to walk through it.
After templates: I'd send them the template with instructions embedded. They'd copy it, customize it, and have a draft ready in 30 minutes. No meeting needed.
Templates scaled our team's knowledge without scaling my time.
The Single Source of Truth (And Why Location Matters)
The second biggest documentation failure: Scattering docs across multiple locations.
We had process docs in:
- Notion (official documentation)
- Google Drive (legacy docs people still referenced)
- Confluence (what Product team used)
- Slack pinned messages (quick reference)
- Individual people's Google Docs (unofficial guides)
When someone asked "Where's the documentation for X?" the answer was "Uh... check Notion first, but it might be in Google Drive, or maybe Sarah has a doc about it."
The fix: Single source of truth in Notion. Everything else was either migrated or deleted.
The structure:
PMM Team Hub (Notion)
├── Quick Start Guides (workflows and templates)
├── Process Playbooks (frameworks and decision guides)
├── Strategic Docs (context and philosophy)
├── Project Archive (past launches and campaigns)
└── Team Resources (tools, training, onboarding)
The rules:
- If it's not in Notion, it doesn't exist (forced consolidation)
- Every doc has a clear owner responsible for keeping it current
- Every doc has a "last reviewed" date (signals freshness)
- Outdated docs get archived, not deleted (searchable but not active)
The discipline: When someone shares a new doc in Google Drive, first response is "Can you add this to Notion so it doesn't get lost?"
Location matters. If people don't know where to look, your documentation is useless.
Making Documentation Part of Workflow (Not Separate From It)
The third biggest change: Embedding documentation into tools people already use instead of keeping it separate.
Example: Launch planning
Old way: Launch process documented in Notion. Launch planning happened in Asana. People had to switch between tools to follow the process.
New way: Launch checklist template directly in Asana. People follow the process by completing the Asana tasks. Documentation is the workflow.
Example: Battle cards
Old way: Battle card process documented in Notion. Battle card creation happened in Google Docs. People had to reference the doc while creating.
New way: Battle card template with instructions embedded. People follow instructions built into the template itself.
The principle: Don't make people go somewhere else to learn how to do the thing. Build the learning into the tool where they do the thing.
For teams managing multiple PMM workflows, some platforms like Segment8 integrate documentation directly into competitive intelligence and launch management workflows, reducing the friction between learning a process and executing it.
The Maintenance System (Because Docs Go Stale Fast)
Documentation rots. Processes change. Docs become outdated. People stop trusting them.
The solution isn't writing perfect docs that never need updating. It's building maintenance into team rhythm.
Quarterly documentation review (1 hour):
Every quarter, the team reviews our most-used docs together:
- What's outdated?
- What's missing?
- What did new hires struggle with?
- What questions keep coming up?
We update, archive, or create docs based on that discussion.
Owner assignment:
Every doc has a clear owner. That person is responsible for keeping it current when the process changes.
Example: Sarah owns competitive intelligence workflows. When she changes how we create battle cards, she updates the template and quick-start guide.
Last reviewed date:
Every doc shows when it was last reviewed. If it's more than 6 months old, it gets flagged for review.
This creates trust. People know that if a doc was reviewed last month, it's probably still accurate.
Trigger-based updates:
Certain events trigger documentation updates:
- New PMM joins → Review onboarding docs
- Process changes → Update workflow docs
- Launch process changes → Update templates
- Tool changes → Update guides
Don't wait for quarterly review. Update docs when processes change.
What to Document vs. What to Skip
Not everything needs documentation. Over-documentation is as bad as under-documentation.
Document when:
- Process is repeated regularly (more than quarterly)
- Multiple people need to do it (not just one specialist)
- Consistency matters (can't have everyone doing it differently)
- Onboarding needs it (new hires must learn this)
Don't document when:
- One-time projects (not worth the overhead)
- Process is still evolving (document after it stabilizes)
- It's faster to just ask someone (don't over-index on self-service)
- Nobody will actually use it (documentation for documentation's sake)
I used to document everything. Now I ask: "Will this doc get referenced more than twice?" If no, I don't create it.
The Onboarding Test: Does a New Hire Actually Use It?
The ultimate test of documentation quality: Can a new PMM use it to ramp without constant hand-holding?
Our onboarding used to be:
- Week 1: Read 47-page process doc (they didn't)
- Week 2-8: Shadow team members and ask lots of questions
- Week 9+: Start doing real work
New onboarding:
- Day 1: Get access to Notion hub, skim quick-start guides
- Week 1: Complete first small project using templates and checklists
- Week 2-3: Lead first launch using launch checklist
- Week 4: Contributing fully with occasional questions
The difference: Workflow-embedded documentation that enables them to do real work immediately instead of comprehensive guides they're supposed to read first.
The measure: How many questions does a new hire ask in their first month?
Before: 50+ questions (documentation wasn't helping) After: 15-20 questions (documentation answered most questions)
If new hires aren't using your documentation to ramp, your documentation isn't useful.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Process Documentation
Most teams treat documentation as a one-time project. "Let's document our processes" becomes a quarter-long initiative that produces comprehensive docs everyone ignores.
Real documentation is a system, not a project.
It's templates embedded in workflows. It's checklists people copy for every launch. It's quick-start guides that answer "how do I do X?" in five minutes.
It's maintained continuously, not created once. It's updated when processes change, not allowed to rot. It's reviewed quarterly, not written and forgotten.
The teams that scale PMM successfully build documentation systems that:
- Enable people to work independently (templates and checklists)
- Embed into existing workflows (not separate reference guides)
- Get maintained regularly (ownership and review cadence)
- Prioritize usefulness over comprehensiveness (80/20 rule)
The teams that struggle create:
- Comprehensive guides nobody reads
- Documentation scattered across tools
- One-time documentation that goes stale
- Reference materials divorced from actual workflows
Your process documentation should feel like scaffolding that helps people build, not a manual they're supposed to memorize.
If your team isn't actively using your documentation weekly, you've built the wrong documentation.
Delete the 47-page guides. Build templates. Create checklists. Embed instructions into workflows. Make documentation so useful people can't work without it.
That's when documentation actually changes team behavior instead of gathering digital dust.