01 · Define
How to write a KOL mapping brief, with a practical template
The short answer
A KOL mapping brief should state the decision you need to make, the expert profile you are looking for and the evidence required to support selection. Separate essential conditions from useful preferences, define the geographic scope, and agree the shortlist format before research begins.
What you’ll take away
- Describe the work the expert needs to contribute to
- Make essential criteria explicit and reviewable
- Agree the evidence standard and deliverable before searching
Putting this into practice? Create your KOL Luminary account or compare plans.
Describe the project before describing the person
A brief that asks for leading experts in a therapeutic area leaves too much open to interpretation. Leading by which measure: publications, clinical practice, trial involvement, teaching or congress activity? Begin with the question the project is trying to answer and the audience it will serve.
For an educational programme, experience explaining a subject to the intended audience may be especially relevant. For an exploratory advisory discussion, you may need several different clinical perspectives. Naming that purpose helps researchers distinguish useful experience from an impressive but unrelated biography.
Use this KOL mapping brief template
Copy these fields into your project notes and complete them with the person who will approve the shortlist. If a field is unknown, identify an owner and a date for resolving it. Do not quietly substitute an assumption.
Swipe the table to see all columns.
| Field | What to specify |
|---|---|
| Decision | What will the shortlist help the team decide? |
| Clinical scope | Disease, patient population or clinical question |
| Geography | Countries, regions and relevant care settings |
| Activity and audience | Advisory discussion, education, congress or other purpose |
| Essential conditions | Requirements that must be confirmed separately |
| Useful experience | Preferred research, clinical or speaking background |
| Evidence window | How recent the activity needs to be, and why |
| Coverage | Perspectives the full group should include |
| Deliverable | Shortlist size, fields, format and review date |
| Review ownership | Who checks evidence and approves the next step? |
Separate essential conditions from preferences
An essential condition determines whether someone can proceed. A preference helps compare otherwise suitable people. Keeping them separate prevents a strong research record from masking an unmet geographic or professional requirement.
Use language that can be checked. Replace internationally renowned with the actual experience needed, such as recent invited presentations to specialist audiences. If broad recognition is relevant, identify the sources that would support it. Avoid adding several differently worded versions of the same disease interest; they do not represent independent requirements.
Decide how to handle missing evidence. Unknown is not the same as no. It may mean that the research team needs another source or that a later conversation is required. Include that follow-up in the workflow rather than forcing every field into a yes-or-no answer.
A worked example: a pulmonary education project
The following is a fictional research brief, not a recommendation about a real expert or a treatment. It shows how to turn a broad request into a usable instruction.
Calibrate the brief before scaling the search
Review two or three early profiles with the project owner. Ask whether the evidence is the right kind, whether the geography is too narrow and whether the proposed comparison captures the intended contribution. A small calibration step can reveal misunderstandings before they affect the entire longlist.
Keep changes explicit. If the project moves from scientific discussion to speaker selection, update the criteria and revisit existing candidates. Do not compare profiles researched under different expectations as if the brief had remained constant.
Check that the brief is ready for handoff
A researcher should be able to read the brief and explain what would make a candidate suitable, unsuitable or worth investigating further. A reviewer should be able to understand the expected output without asking for a second briefing.
Finish by recording the agreed scope and review date. Keep sensitive client strategy, patient information and unnecessary personal details out of external research inputs. The operational brief can describe the professional criteria needed for discovery without reproducing every internal project document.
- One clear project purpose and intended audience
- Distinct essential conditions and preferences
- A defined evidence period and geographic scope
- An agreed shortlist size and presentation format
- Named reviewers and a process for changing the brief
Common questions
How detailed should a KOL brief be?
Detailed enough to make inclusion decisions consistently. A focused page covering purpose, criteria, geography, evidence and deliverables is often more useful than a long narrative full of repeated preferences.
Can the brief change after research starts?
Yes. Record the change, explain its effect on selection and reassess existing profiles against the updated requirements. Keep the original search context available for reviewers.
For product, billing and security questions, visit the KOL Luminary FAQ.