The Problem with Traditional Scrum
If you’ve ever worked in a Scrum team and felt like you’re constantly sprinting but never really crossing a finish line, you’re not alone.
During my time at a major retail company, I was a senior engineer on a team tasked with building a key differentiating feature for their web app. We had a sharp team of engineers and capable PMs, but our launch kept getting pushed back. Why? At the end of every sprint, the roadmap would be re-evaluated, tasks reshuffled, and priorities reset. It felt like we were stuck in a loop—busy, but not moving forward in any meaningful way.
Many of us—engineers and product folks alike—felt that the process itself was slowing us down. We were checking boxes, but not delivering impact. That’s when I came across Shape Up, a methodology developed by the team at Basecamp, and it completely changed how I think about product development.
What Is Shape Up?
Shape Up is a product development methodology created by Basecamp as an alternative to traditional Agile processes like Scrum. It emphasises clear problem definition, tight time constraints, and autonomous teams. But what makes it stand out is how it balances structure with creative freedom.
Here are the three foundational concepts that Shape Up is built on:
1. Bets, Not Backlogs
Instead of maintaining a never-ending backlog, Shape Up encourages teams to place bets—clear commitments to work on well-defined problems for a set period. This forces prioritization and ensures that teams aren’t constantly shuffling priorities.
2. Time-boxing with Fixed Cycles
Work happens in six-week cycles. No extensions. No carry-overs. Teams focus on what can realistically be shipped within that timebox, encouraging scope trade-offs and pragmatic decision-making. It’s similar to a sprint but more outcome-focused and flexible.
3. Autonomy & Ownership
Once a pitch is accepted, the building team (typically engineers and designers) takes full ownership. They’re trusted to make implementation decisions, solve problems, and ship the work—without micromanagement from product or leadership.
Shape Up vs. Scrum
There are a few key differences between Shape Up and Scrum:
| Aspect | Scrum | Shape Up |
|---|---|---|
| Work planning | Backlogs and sprints | Six-week cycles with shaped projects |
| Requirements | Detailed stories and tickets | High-level pitches with core problem |
| Team structure | Cross-functional, but PM-led | Clear separation: shaping vs. building |
| Autonomy | Engineers follow detailed specs | Engineers solve and implement freely |
| Shipping philosophy | Ship at end of sprint | Ship early and often |
What I find especially compelling is how Shape Up brings clarity and purpose to the process. In Scrum, engineers often feel like “ticket takers,” just implementing what’s handed down. In Shape Up, they’re solving meaningful problems with autonomy. There’s just enough abstraction in the requirements to allow creativity, but enough clarity to avoid ambiguity.
It’s a nice balance between the structure of waterfall and the chaos that sometimes emerges in agile environments. You could think of it as a return to focused planning—minus the last-minute panic.
The Shaping vs. Building Divide
One of Shape Up’s most powerful ideas is the division between “shaping” and “building”:
- Shaping is done by senior leaders—PMs, engineers, and designers—before work begins. They define the problem, outline the boundaries, and sketch potential solutions.
- Building is done by autonomous teams who take the shaped idea and execute it, making detailed decisions along the way.
These two tracks run in parallel. While the current team is building, leadership is shaping what comes next. This reduces downtime, removes bottlenecks, and ensures that what gets built is worth building.
So, Is Shape Up Better Than Scrum?
That depends.
- Shape Up works well in environments that value autonomy, speed, and product ownership—particularly early-stage startups or product teams looking to escape process-heavy cultures.
- Scrum might still be a better fit for teams that need tighter structure, frequent check-ins, and granular task tracking—especially in larger organizations or regulated industries.
Personally, I believe Shape Up is ideal for product teams that want to ship meaningful work without burning out. It removes the constant churn of backlogs and sprint planning and replaces it with focused cycles, clear ownership, and creative problem-solving.
If your team is feeling stuck in an endless agile loop, it might be time to give Shape Up a serious look.
Final Thoughts
Adopting a new methodology always comes with challenges, but Shape Up offers a refreshing perspective on how teams can work smarter, not harder. It’s about trusting your team, defining the problem well, and getting out of the way so great work can happen.
If you’ve tried Shape Up or are considering it, I’d love to hear your experiences — feel free to connect!
