Levvy, your AI collaborator

Levvy

Ready when you are.

You

Tell me about the three clients requesting this — what do they have in common?

Levvy

All three are 500+ seat deployments in regulated industries — fintech, healthcare, and legal. Two have explicitly cited compliance requirements as the driver. Combined ARR: $1.2M. Average contract age: 18 months, all currently in expansion discussions.

You

What's our current permissions model?

Levvy

Three roles: Admin, Editor, Viewer — workspace-level only. No project-level separation, no custom role creation.

You

Have there been other signals about this gap beyond the three clients?

Levvy

Yes — onboarding feedback from 14 accounts over the last 6 months. It surfaced under different labels: "access control," "sharing restrictions," "audit trail." Not always framed as permissions.

You

Okay. The compliance angle means the full 8-week custom roles build is probably the wrong scope. I want to write a PRD focused on scoped build — project-level R/W separation as the minimum viable fix. Can you start that?

Levvy

Got it. Do you want a recommendation section included, or leave that blank for you to write?

You

Leave it blank — I'll write it. Go ahead.

Levvy

PRD drafted in the artifact panel — problem statement, strategic context, and decision framework populated. Recommendation section is empty.

You

Good. Now create a stakeholder map. Key players: VP Eng, Head of Sales, CEO, the three enterprise clients, Customer Success, Finance. Engineering is skeptical, Sales is pushing hard. CS needs something concrete to tell clients.

Levvy

Stakeholder map created. Six stakeholders mapped with stance, influence level, and key concern. I've also added an engagement sequence and key tensions section based on the dynamics you described.

You

I want to give engineering something concrete to estimate against. Build a prototype UI for the permissions settings page — show the distinction between system roles and custom roles, and a permissions matrix. Use "Compliance Reviewer" as the example custom role with read + export access but no edit.

Levvy

Prototype added under the Prototype tab. Compliance Reviewer is marked as a custom role, highlighted in the role list, with export enabled and edit access off in the matrix. Code view is also available if you want to share the component spec with engineering.

Challenge Brief

PRD Draft

Stakeholder Map

Prototype

Whiteboard

Feature Prioritization for B2B SaaS —
Custom Role Permissions

PM Strategy ~45 min Intermediate

Scenario

You're the first product hire at a Series A B2B SaaS company. The engineering team (8 engineers) is at full capacity for the next quarter. Your top three enterprise clients are requesting custom role permissions — and sales has lost two deals this month citing this gap directly. You have one sprint planning window to make a recommendation. Where do you begin, and how do you frame your position?

Company Background

Series A B2B SaaS, 40 employees, product-led growth shifting toward enterprise sales motion
Engineering: 8 engineers, full capacity committed through next quarter
Three enterprise clients (fintech, healthcare, legal) requesting custom role permissions
Current permissions: Admin / Editor / Viewer — workspace-level only

Discovered Context

Client details

Current permissions model

Three roles: Admin, Editor, Viewer — workspace-level only. No project-level separation, no custom role creation.

Broader signal

Onboarding feedback from 14 accounts over the last 6 months. It surfaced under different labels: "access control," "sharing restrictions," "audit trail." Not always framed as permissions.

Custom Role Permissions
Build / Delay / Scope

Problem Statement

Three enterprise clients — accounting for $1.2M in combined ARR — have formally requested custom role permissions. Engineering's current estimate is 8 weeks at full capacity. Sales has directly attributed two lost deals this quarter to the absence of this feature.

The core tension: significant near-term ARR risk versus an engineering team already at capacity with committed roadmap items.

Strategic Context

Requesting clients are in regulated industries (fintech, healthcare, legal) — compliance-driven requirement, not preference
Two top competitors shipped similar features in Q3 last year; early signals suggest it enabled their first major enterprise contracts
Current role model (Admin / Editor / Viewer) is workspace-level only — no project-level or granular control
Gap surfaced in onboarding feedback from 14 accounts in last 6 months across different framings

Decision Framework

Dimension	Weight	Assessment	Score
ARR at risk	30%	$1.2M directly tied to requesting clients; two expansion contracts pending	4 / 5
ARR opportunity	20%	Sales blocked from closing regulated-industry segment without this	4 / 5
Strategic fit	25%	Aligns with enterprise motion; competitive parity is now table stakes	5 / 5
Build cost	25%	8 weeks at full capacity — significant opportunity cost on other roadmap items	2 / 5

Recommendation

Start writing here, or ask your AI collaborator to help structure your thinking

Stakeholder Map

Key Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Stance	Influence	Key Concern
VP Engineering	Skeptical	High	Team is at full capacity; 8-week estimate conflicts with committed roadmap items
Head of Sales	Strong advocate	High	Two deals lost this quarter directly attributed to this gap; pipeline at risk
CEO / Exec team	Needs framing	High	Weighing ARR retention against roadmap commitments; needs PM to own the tradeoff
Enterprise clients (×3)	Waiting — at risk	Medium (external)	Compliance-driven; fintech + healthcare + legal. Combined $1.2M ARR in expansion discussions
Customer Success	Cautiously aligned	Medium	Fielding churn signals; needs concrete hold offer to manage client expectations
Finance	Neutral	Low–medium	ARR retention and expansion matter; not involved in build/delay decision directly

Key Tensions

Engineering vs Sales: Capacity constraint is real, but Sales has the clearest near-term cost signal. The PM needs to bridge this — not let it become a binary argument.
Exec framing: If this is presented as "build vs. don't build," it becomes an engineering capacity debate. Reframe as "what's the minimum that retains ARR and unlocks the segment?" changes the conversation.
Client expectations: Customer Success needs a concrete commitment to share — a vague "we're exploring it" will not hold enterprise accounts in regulated industries.

Recommended Engagement Sequence

1 — Align with Engineering first: Bring a scoped proposal (not full custom roles) before exec conversation. Get a defensible estimate for the reduced scope.
2 — Frame for exec as ARR math: Present the build cost against the ARR at risk + blocked segment. Make the tradeoff explicit, not implicit.
3 — Equip CS with a hold offer: Signed roadmap commitment with a date. Without this, retention risk is not managed regardless of the decision.
4 — Keep Sales aligned: They need to know what they can and cannot promise in active deals before the next client conversation.

Roles & Permissions

Manage access levels for your workspace members

Workspace roles

4 roles · 1 custom

🛡️

Admin

Full access to all resources and settings

System

✏️

Editor

Can create, edit, and publish content

System

🔍

Compliance Reviewer

Read-only access with audit log export

Custom

👁️

Viewer

View-only, no editing or exports

System

Permission Admin Compliance Viewer

View projects

Edit content

Export data

Manage members

Create custom roles

Compliance Reviewer is highlighted — this is the custom role created for the fintech client's audit requirements.

Feature Prioritization for B2B SaaS —Custom Role Permissions

Custom Role PermissionsBuild / Delay / Scope

Stakeholder Map

Feature Prioritization for B2B SaaS —
Custom Role Permissions

Custom Role Permissions
Build / Delay / Scope