Is Shape Up Agile?

Jacob Duval

•

May 21, 2025

Man thinking about whether Shape Up is agile instead of writing his presentation

Introduction

This question crops up quite a bit. Agile has become a bit of a catch all term, but it's still easy to get to a Shape Up-like process by simply iterating what you're doing currently with Agile.

Understanding Agile

Before comparing Shape Up to Agile, let's establish what Agile actually is. Agile emphasizes flexibility, collaboration, and customer satisfaction. According to the Project Management Institute, "Agile is an iterative approach to work that helps teams deliver value faster and with fewer headaches. Instead of betting everything on a big launch, agile teams deliver work in small, consumable increments."

Core principles of Agile include:

- Iterative development with short cycles (sprints)
- Regular team collaboration and communication
- Continuous feedback and adaptation
- Customer involvement throughout the process

Shape Up: ELI5

Shape Up is Basecamp's approach to product development that focuses on delivering meaningful work in six-week cycles. In the Shape Up book, Ryan Singer explains: "We shape the work before giving it to a team... By shaping the work first, we make it easier to estimate and know what to build."

Shape Up has three main phases:

1. Shaping: Senior people define the key elements of a solution before committing to a project

2. Betting: Leadership decides which projects to pursue in the next cycle

3. Building: Teams work uninterrupted for six weeks to complete the project

Similarities with Agile

Shape Up shares several principles with Agile:

Iterative Development: Both approaches work in cycles rather than planning everything upfront. While Agile typically uses 1-4 week sprints, Shape Up uses six-week cycles.

Team Autonomy: In Shape Up, Singer writes: "They define their own tasks, make adjustments to the scope, and work together to build vertical slices of the product one at a time." This aligns with Agile's emphasis on self-organizing teams.

Continuous Improvement: Both methodologies value reflection and adaptation. Shape Up includes a two-week cool-down period after each cycle, which serves a similar purpose to Agile retrospectives.

Shaping

Basecamp - Shaping is designed to be private, with a few key people involved.

Rough - Shaping is designed to be public, with a focus on getting pitches shaped and reviewed by stakeholders.

Betting

Basecamp - Encourages a betting table with a few key stakeholders making product decisions in one meeting.

Rough - Encourages a running priority of pitches, with no expectation that decisions are made at one specific time.

Building

Basecamp - Provides to-do lists, hill charts, and communication tools to support the building process all within the same platform

Rough - Focuses on maintaining context between the pitch and execution, while actual development tasks typically happen in integrated tools like GitHub

Cooldown

Basecamp - Supports tracking small improvements and bug fixes during the cooldown period within the same environment

Rough - Helps capture insights during cooldown that can inform the next cycle's shaping work. Ticket tracking lives outside of Rough.

Key Differences

Despite these similarities, Shape Up differs from Agile in significant ways:

Fixed Time vs. Variable Scope: Shape Up fixes time (six weeks) and allows scope to be adjusted. As Singer explains: "Instead of adding time to reach a fixed scope, we fix the time and vary the scope." Traditional Agile often adjusts both time and scope.

Upfront Shaping: Shape Up involves significant upfront work to define projects before teams begin building. This contrasts with some Agile approaches that minimize upfront planning.

No Daily Meetings: Shape Up doesn't prescribe daily standups or regular check-ins. Teams work with more autonomy and less formal coordination than in many Agile implementations.

Betting Table: The concept of a "betting table" where leadership decides which projects to pursue is unique to Shape Up and differs from Agile's approach to prioritization.

Shaping

Basecamp - Shaping is designed to be private, with a few key people involved.

Rough - Shaping is designed to be public, with a focus on getting pitches shaped and reviewed by stakeholders.

Betting

Basecamp - Encourages a betting table with a few key stakeholders making product decisions in one meeting.

Rough - Encourages a running priority of pitches, with no expectation that decisions are made at one specific time.

Building

Basecamp - Provides to-do lists, hill charts, and communication tools to support the building process all within the same platform

Rough - Focuses on maintaining context between the pitch and execution, while actual development tasks typically happen in integrated tools like GitHub

Cooldown

Basecamp - Supports tracking small improvements and bug fixes during the cooldown period within the same environment

Rough - Helps capture insights during cooldown that can inform the next cycle's shaping work. Ticket tracking lives outside of Rough.

Is Shape Up Agile?

The question "Is Shape Up Agile?" doesn't have a simple yes or no answer. Shape Up incorporates some Agile principles while rejecting others. Ryan Singer doesn't position Shape Up as an Agile methodology, but rather as an alternative approach that addresses specific problems Basecamp encountered with traditional development methods.

If we consider Agile as a mindset rather than a specific set of practices, Shape Up could be seen as "Agile-adjacent" — it shares the values of delivering working software iteratively, responding to change, and empowering teams, but implements these values in its own unique way.

Shape Up focuses on strategic, uninterrupted work phases with designated times for review and planning, while Agile typically involves more frequent check-ins and potentially shorter iterations.

Rough doesn't actually subscribe to Shape Up by the book, so you could say that we've employed a more "agile" approach to Shape Up to begin with.

Shaping

Basecamp - Shaping is designed to be private, with a few key people involved.

Rough - Shaping is designed to be public, with a focus on getting pitches shaped and reviewed by stakeholders.

Betting

Basecamp - Encourages a betting table with a few key stakeholders making product decisions in one meeting.

Rough - Encourages a running priority of pitches, with no expectation that decisions are made at one specific time.

Building

Basecamp - Provides to-do lists, hill charts, and communication tools to support the building process all within the same platform

Rough - Focuses on maintaining context between the pitch and execution, while actual development tasks typically happen in integrated tools like GitHub

Cooldown

Basecamp - Supports tracking small improvements and bug fixes during the cooldown period within the same environment

Rough - Helps capture insights during cooldown that can inform the next cycle's shaping work. Ticket tracking lives outside of Rough.

When to Choose Shape Up vs. Agile

Shape Up might be more suitable when:

- Your team needs uninterrupted focus time
- You want to reduce meeting overhead
- You have experienced teams that can work autonomously
- Your product direction is relatively stable

Traditional Agile approaches might work better when:

- Requirements change frequently
- Teams need more guidance and coordination
- Continuous customer feedback is essential
- You need to deliver smaller increments more frequently

Shaping

Basecamp - Shaping is designed to be private, with a few key people involved.

Rough - Shaping is designed to be public, with a focus on getting pitches shaped and reviewed by stakeholders.

Betting

Basecamp - Encourages a betting table with a few key stakeholders making product decisions in one meeting.

Rough - Encourages a running priority of pitches, with no expectation that decisions are made at one specific time.

Building

Basecamp - Provides to-do lists, hill charts, and communication tools to support the building process all within the same platform

Rough - Focuses on maintaining context between the pitch and execution, while actual development tasks typically happen in integrated tools like GitHub

Cooldown

Basecamp - Supports tracking small improvements and bug fixes during the cooldown period within the same environment

Rough - Helps capture insights during cooldown that can inform the next cycle's shaping work. Ticket tracking lives outside of Rough.

Conclusion

Shape Up isn't strictly Agile, but it isn't anti-Agile either. It's a thoughtful methodology that borrows some elements from Agile while introducing new concepts to address specific challenges in product development.

As with any methodology, the key is understanding the principles behind it and adapting them to your team's specific needs. Many teams find success by blending elements of Shape Up with Agile practices to create a hybrid approach that gives them the best of both worlds.

Whether Shape Up is "Agile" may be less important than whether it helps your team build better products and work more effectively together.

Shaping

Basecamp - Shaping is designed to be private, with a few key people involved.

Rough - Shaping is designed to be public, with a focus on getting pitches shaped and reviewed by stakeholders.

Betting

Basecamp - Encourages a betting table with a few key stakeholders making product decisions in one meeting.

Rough - Encourages a running priority of pitches, with no expectation that decisions are made at one specific time.

Building

Basecamp - Provides to-do lists, hill charts, and communication tools to support the building process all within the same platform

Rough - Focuses on maintaining context between the pitch and execution, while actual development tasks typically happen in integrated tools like GitHub

Cooldown

Basecamp - Supports tracking small improvements and bug fixes during the cooldown period within the same environment

Rough - Helps capture insights during cooldown that can inform the next cycle's shaping work. Ticket tracking lives outside of Rough.