Shape Up: Should You Change Your Agile Methodology?

"Shape Up: Stop Running in Circles and Ship Work that Matters" is the full title of a popular project management book. This title alludes to the cyclical nature of traditional agile methodologies and expresses a clear intention to introduce a new, more effective approach.

Shape Up, In a Nutshell

The Shape Up methodology was developed by Basecamp (ex 37Signals) to address several problems and inefficiencies they encountered with traditional project management methodologies like Agile and Scrum.

Here are the 8 key problems Shape Up aims to solve, and how it addresses them:

1. Scope Creep and Unfinished Work: Traditional methodologies often suffer from scope creep, where the scope of a project continuously expands due to changing requirements and additional features. This leads to projects that are never truly finished.
Shape Up tackles this with:

• Six-Week Cycles: Work is planned and executed in fixed six-week cycles. This limited timeframe ensures that projects are scoped realistically and are achievable within the cycle.
• Upfront Shaping: Before a project enters a cycle, it undergoes a shaping process where the problem, solution, and scope are clearly defined. This reduces the likelihood of scope creep as the work is well-defined and constrained from the start.

2. Time-Wasting Rituals: Agile and Scrum methodologies involve numerous meetings and rituals, such as daily stand-ups, sprint planning, and retrospectives. These can consume a significant amount of time without always adding proportional value.
Shape Up reduces the overhead by:

• Reduced Meetings: Shape Up minimizes unnecessary rituals and meetings. Instead of daily stand-ups and frequent sprint planning sessions, the focus is on essential discussions that add value.
• Focus on Real Work: The methodology encourages spending more time on actual development work and less on ceremonies that do not directly contribute to project progress.

3. Interruptions and Lack of Focus: Teams often face constant interruptions with new priorities and changes, disrupting their workflow and reducing productivity.
Shape Up provides fixed timeframes by:

• Protected Time: Teams are given uninterrupted time to work on their projects during the six-week cycles. This deep work period allows for better concentration and productivity.
• No Mid-Cycle Changes: Once a cycle begins, the work is protected from changes and new priorities, reducing interruptions and maintaining focus.

4. Ambiguous Requirements and Misaligned Expectations: Projects can suffer from ambiguous requirements and misaligned expectations between stakeholders and developers.
Shape Up introduces this:

• Detailed Shaping Process: The shaping process involves defining the problem, sketching solutions, and setting boundaries. This results in clear and unambiguous requirements.
• Pitching: Work is pitched to the team with a clear explanation of what needs to be done, ensuring that everyone understands the project goals and expectations.

5. Ineffective Use of Team Autonomy: While Agile promotes team autonomy, it often lacks clear boundaries, leading to inefficiencies and misalignment with business goals.
Shape Up empowers teams with autonomy within:

• Autonomous Teams: Teams are given well-defined problems to solve and the freedom to determine the best approach. This autonomy within a structured framework leads to more effective and creative solutions.
• Boundary Setting: While teams have autonomy, the shaping process sets clear boundaries and constraints, ensuring alignment with overall project goals.

6. High Risk of Overly Ambitious Projects: Traditional methodologies sometimes lead to taking on overly ambitious projects that fail to deliver.
Shape Up mitigates this risk with:

• Bite-Sized Projects: By breaking work into six-week cycles, Shape Up encourages taking on projects that are achievable within the given timeframe. This reduces the risk of overly ambitious projects that cannot be completed.
• Kill Switch: If a project is not working out, there is an option to stop and reassess, preventing further investment in doomed initiatives.

7. Poor Handling of Uncertainty and Risk: Uncertainty and risk are inherent in software development, but traditional methods can struggle to manage them effectively.
Shape Up’s approach is:

• Concrete Shaping: Detailed upfront shaping reduces uncertainty by clearly defining what needs to be done. This concrete definition helps in better risk management.
• Adjustable Scope: During the shaping process, the scope is adjusted to ensure it is manageable and achievable within the cycle, reducing the risk of failure.

8. Lack of Strategic Decision-Making: Agile often lacks a strategic decision-making process for prioritizing work.
Shape Up incorporates this:

• Betting Table: Key stakeholders decide what to bet on for each cycle, aligning work with strategic business goals. This ensures that the most impactful projects are prioritized.
• Strategic Pitches: Projects are pitched and selected based on their strategic value, ensuring that resources are allocated to the most important initiatives.

My take: Not all Agile projects experience these issues. They could be a sign of a suboptimal implementation of the Agile principles, or of leadership and management issues that are not addressed by the methodology.

Also, applying the Shape Up methodology gives more control to the developers, and less to the product owner. Whether it's a good thing or not, it depends on the organization as well as the developers' ability to grasp and understand the business problem to be solved.

Main Differences with Agile Methodologies

The Shape Up methodology differs from traditional Agile methodologies such as Scrum and Kanban in several significant ways. Here are the main differences:

Fixed Cycles vs. Sprints

Shaping vs. Backlog Grooming

Autonomy and Team Structure

Meeting Cadence

Scope Flexibility

Deployment and Delivery

Handling of Bugs and Interruptions

Strategic Prioritization

Roles and Responsibilities

Documentation and Artifacts

Shape Up distinguishes itself by focusing on upfront shaping, fixed cycles with cooldown periods, minimizing meetings, and promoting team autonomy.

In contrast, traditional Agile methodologies like Scrum and Kanban emphasize continuous iteration, regular ceremonies, and dynamic backlog management.

Shape Up aims to provide clarity and focus by defining work upfront and reducing mid-cycle changes, which can help teams work more effectively without the constant churn of traditional Agile practices.

My take: Some differences outlined here revolve around terminology. For example, the "shaping process" is similar to the "backlog grooming" in Scrum. In reality, the core tasks remain the same across project management methodologies, such as planning, designing, executing and assessing. Also, many companies customize their Agile process (including sprint duration and meeting cadence, etc) to align with their needs. They may naturally end up with a process similar to Shape Up. So the differences are less important than the similarities: Shape Up is an Agile methodology.

Limits of the Shape Up Methodology

While the Shape Up methodology offers numerous benefits, it also has certain limitations and challenges that organizations need to be aware of. Here are some key limitations:

Not Suitable for All Team Sizes and Structures

Small Teams might struggle with the six-week cycle and two-week cooldown structure, as they may not have enough resources to manage the workload effectively. On the other hand, large Enterprises with complex hierarchies may find it challenging to implement Shape Up due to its emphasis on small, autonomous teams.

Bug Handling and Technical Debt

Shape Up recommends handling bugs and technical debt during the cooldown period, which might not be sufficient for projects with high bug volumes or complex technical issues. Waiting for 6 weeks to fix critical bugs or paying technical debt can be risky.

Cultural Fit

Teams and organizations accustomed to the traceability of SCRUM or Waterfall methodologies might fear the reduction in formal meetings and documentation. Also, Shape Up assumes a high level of team autonomy, which might not align with all company cultures, especially those with more top-down management styles.

Fixed Time Cycles

The rigid six-week cycle might not be flexible enough for projects requiring more iterative development or rapid pivots. Also, the two-week cooldown period might not be sufficient for handling unexpected changes or urgent issues.

Shaping Process

Effective shaping requires skilled product managers or leaders who can accurately define the problem space and potential solutions. Their skills and availability are more important than the actual process, and Shape Up might not work well without the right people in these roles.

Long-Term Loss

The lack of formal Agile ceremonies (like daily stand-ups and retrospectives) might lead to communication gaps if not managed well. The emphasis on lightweight documentation might result in knowledge loss over time, especially if team members change frequently.

Handling Interruptions and Unplanned Work

The fixed cycle structure can make it difficult to accommodate urgent, unplanned work or changes, or bugs, that arise mid-cycle. The rigid boundaries might lead to missed opportunities or delays in addressing critical issues.

Dependency Management

Managing dependencies between teams can be challenging without the regular synchronization points found in traditional Agile frameworks. And without frequent integrations, there is a risk of integration issues accumulating, which can be difficult to resolve later.

Scalability Concerns

Both SCRUM and Kanban are known to be insufficient for large teams, and that's why methodologies like SAFe or LeSS exist. Shape Up probably faces similar challenges when scaling to multiple teams or larger organizations, where coordination and alignment become more complex.

My take: Shape Up isn't the silver bullet for all project management challenges. It has its own limitations and challenges, just like any other methodology. Don't force it on your team if it doesn't fit your context.

Conclusion

The Shape Up methodology was created to address certain weaknesses in existing Agile methods, but that doesn't mean the two should be seen as opposing approaches. I believe it's valuable to have another project management option available, allowing you to choose the one best suited for a particular situation.

From my perspective, Shape Up is an excellent choice for managing a software development team that aims to maintain an application over the long term. Over time, some teams can experience "Scrum fatigue" due to the repetitive nature of meetings and an endless backlog. However, it will take some time to adapt to using Shape Up, especially when it comes to the "cooldown" phase, which is essential for handling bugs, redesign projects, and technical maintenance.

That said, I don't think Shape Up is well-suited for other situations, e.g. where you're creating a POC (Proof of Concept) or an MVP (Minimum Viable Product) with the goal of quickly assessing the viability of a service or application. In this context, using another Agile methodology seems more appropriate, as it allows for faster resolution of uncertainties and better management of changes in direction. Therefore, we can easily conclude that Shape Up remains an excellent option for managing projects that are already mature from both a business and technical standpoint.

Finally, I think the most important thing in Agile project management are the 12 principles of the Agile Manifesto. Agile methodologies like Scrum, Kanban, and Shape Up are just starting points. The key is to adapt and evolve your processes to best suit your team and project needs.

Here are some testimonials from teams that have tried the Shape Up methodology, some of which found success while others did not:

• How it has been implemented at Alan
• Trustpair - Why the ShapeUp method just wasn't for us
• Experience Reports: Before and After Shape Up