Skip to content

Problem Assessment Brief (PAB)

Stage: Stage 1 - Problem Management

Artifact Code: PAB

1. Purpose

The Problem Assessment Brief (PAB) exists to determine whether a validated problem is important enough to justify investment.

It translates factual evidence into business significance, without proposing solutions, requirements, or designs.

The PAB is the final gate of Stage 1.

2. Decision This Artifact Supports

Decision: Should this validated problem advance into Stage 2 as a potential initiative?

Possible outcomes:

  • Advance to Stage 2 (Project Planning)
  • Defer (important, but not now)
  • Stop (insufficient impact or priority)

If this decision cannot be stated clearly, the PAB is not complete.

3. Ownership and Roles

  • Owner: Business Analyst / Problem Owner
  • Contributors: Stakeholders, operations, finance, subject-matter experts
  • Reviewers / Approvers: Decision-maker(s) with authority to commit resources

There must be one accountable owner responsible for the assessment.

4. Blank Artifact Template

# Problem Assessment Brief (PAB)

## 1. Problem Summary
{Short restatement of the problem based on PPE + PEV. No solutions, no interpretation.}

---

## 2. Evidence Summary
Key validated facts:
- {Evidence 1 or "TBD"}
- {Evidence 2 or "TBD"}
- {Evidence 3 or "TBD"}

---

## 3. Business Impact
**Financial Impact:** {Description or "TBD"}
**Operational Impact:** {Description or "TBD"}
**Customer Impact:** {Description or "TBD"}

---

## 4. Cost of Inaction
{Consequences of not addressing the problem, or "TBD"}

---

## 5. Strategic Importance
{How the issue aligns with business goals, or "TBD"}

---

## 6. Urgency Assessment
- **Severity:** {High/Medium/Low or "TBD"}
- **Frequency:** {High/Medium/Low or "TBD"}
- **Time Sensitivity:** {Deadlines, dependencies, or "TBD"}

---

## 7. Recommendation
Overall assessment of priority (no solutions):
{Short factual statement or "TBD"}

5. Required Inputs

  • Pain Point Entry (PPE) - clear problem definition
  • Problem Evidence Validation (PEV) - validated factual evidence

If either input is weak, speculative, or biased, the PAB must not proceed.

6. Input Acceptance Criteria

Before creating the PAB, verify:

  • The PPE describes a single, clear problem
  • The PEV provides concrete, observable evidence
  • Evidence supports the stated problem
  • No solutions or causes appear in either artifact

If these criteria are not met, return to PPE or PEV.

7. Assumptions to Surface

Common assumptions at this stage include:

  • The problem must be solved now
  • The impact is obvious or universally agreed
  • Leadership alignment already exists
  • The problem will worsen if ignored

These must be stated explicitly or removed.

8. What Must NOT Appear in This Artifact

The PAB must not include:

  • Solution proposals
  • Requirements or feature ideas
  • Technical approaches
  • Effort or cost estimates

If solutions appear, the assessment is invalid.

9. Example - Completed Artifact

# Problem Assessment Brief (PAB)

## 1. Problem Summary
Customer support agents re-enter the same customer details across multiple systems during a single support case.

---

## 2. Evidence Summary
Key validated facts:
- Agents re-enter identical customer data in three systems per case
- Average case handling time increased by 18% over six months
- Issue observed across multiple support teams

---

## 3. Business Impact
**Financial Impact:** Increased support labor costs due to longer case handling times
**Operational Impact:** Reduced agent capacity and increased backlog
**Customer Impact:** Longer resolution times and lower satisfaction scores

---

## 4. Cost of Inaction
Continued increase in support costs and risk of further decline in customer satisfaction.

---

## 5. Strategic Importance
Directly impacts customer experience and operational efficiency, both stated business priorities.

---

## 6. Urgency Assessment
- **Severity:** High
- **Frequency:** High
- **Time Sensitivity:** Ongoing with quarterly performance impact

---

## 7. Recommendation
Based on impact and urgency, the problem warrants advancement to Stage 2 for planning.

10. Output Quality Checklist

  • [ ] Problem summary matches PPE and PEV
  • [ ] Impact is described in business terms
  • [ ] Cost of inaction is explicit
  • [ ] Urgency assessment is justified
  • [ ] Recommendation is non-solution-oriented

All items must pass to move forward.

11. Common Failure Modes

  • Treating the PAB as a justification document
  • Inflating impact without evidence
  • Smuggling solutions into the recommendation
  • Using vague or emotional language

These indicate loss of discipline.

12. Review Questions

Reviewers should ask:

  • Is the impact real and evidence-backed?
  • What happens if we do nothing?
  • Is urgency justified or assumed?
  • Could this reasonably be deferred?

If answers are unclear, revise the PAB.

13. What to Do If the Artifact Is Rejected

If the PAB is rejected:

  • Clarify or correct impact statements
  • Reduce scope to match evidence
  • Adjust urgency assessment
  • Return to PPE or PEV if needed

Rejection is a valid outcome.

14. Readiness Signal - Moving Forward

The PAB is ready when:

  • Decision-makers agree on impact and urgency
  • The recommendation is clear and non-prescriptive
  • The advance / defer / stop decision is explicit

Proceed to Stage 2 - Project Planning.

15. What Invalidates This Artifact

The PAB must be revisited if:

  • Business priorities change
  • New evidence alters impact assessment
  • The problem definition changes

16. Downstream Dependencies

  • Next Stage: Stage 2 - Project Planning

Weak assessment here leads to poor prioritization and misaligned initiatives.

Reminder: The PAB exists to judge importance - not to justify solutions.