Agile: Six Week Cycles, Betting Tables and Dual Tracks?

I recently discovered that there is a large group of IT professionals who are unaware that Agile and Scrum are two completely different things. And that many of these applications, particularly "Agile @ Scale" frameworks, cannot be referred to as Agile (anymore). As a result, today's article is about a completely different Agile methodology that you can use when developing?digital products: Shape Up.

Before we begin with Shape Up, I'd like to outline the perspective from which I approach product development. To accomplish this, we start at the opposite end of the spectrum: product development by prioritizing processes.

Many of the organizations I visit today are currently undergoing or have recently completed an Agile Transformation. The operating model has been decided upon, roles have been assigned, some people have left, and new faces have joined the organization. Most of these organizations have a strong commitment to the process. Because the process is what makes your way of working?Agile, is?the assumption that stays. So they?faithfully follow all of the ceremonies prescribed in Scrum or SAFe, discuss actions using User Stories or Product Backlog Items, and celebrate success when we complete the work we agreed on at the front end of the cycle, which is typically referred to as a sprint. So we work through sprint after sprint, with a PI Event in between to establish goals and milestones for the next three months. Fine for anyone who wants to spend their time being reliable and getting busy. There is nothing wrong with that mindset.

Then there is the opposite end of the spectrum. The location where processes are also used, but only as a guideline to ensure that at least the same language is spoken. Where people are also engaged in product delivery, but only a small portion of the time. Reliability is rarely discussed during retrospectives. However, impact, outcomes, and (financial) results dominate. It's usually a pain in the ass for managers, and it's an environment where work generally looks messy. And with professionals who are very comfortable in that messy environment. An environment of product developers who want to feel, taste and see progress, impact and outcomes.

If you are a reader of my newsletter, you will not be surprised to learn that I am most comfortable in the second environment. But while I say that, there are methodologies and processes that I do enjoy using. One of the most underrated processes (and best suited for Product Development) I personally think is Shape Up. And in this article, I explain why.

Companies usually start exploring the Shape Up methodology when they find out the limitations of traditional sprint-based frameworks, especially as they scale. This transition is frequently motivated by the realization that, despite the delivery of work at a consistent pace, deeper issues such as scalability, financial impact,?strategic alignment, and customer engagement remain unmet. The pursuit of a more effective development process leads to the investigation of alternative methodologies, among which Shape Up stands out as an appealing option for teams looking to increase productivity and impact.

Shape Up: Core Concept

Shape Up advocates for a significant shift in product development methodology, away from the constant churn of sprints and toward a more structured and strategic framework. This methodology, defined by its six-week cycles, promotes a completely different approach to product management.

The foundation: six-week cycles

The use of six-week cycles strikes a balance between the need for adequate time to develop significant features and the urgency to maintain momentum. This timeframe is specifically designed to avoid the pitfalls of micromanagement by fostering an environment in which teams can devote their full attention to achieving well-defined goals.

Dual-Tracks: validated solutions and focus on building

Shape Up stands out by separating the planning (shaping) and execution (building) phases. This separation enables teams to devote undivided attention to each phase, ensuring that strategic planning and development receive the attention they require. During shaping, the emphasis is on thoroughly understanding the problems and developing detailed proposals for future cycles. In contrast, the building phase focuses on making these well-defined plans a reality, with the team fully focused on?development.

Shaping Pitches

The concept of shaping in Shape Up entails creating pitches, which serve as detailed plans for potential projects. These pitches are critical for aligning development efforts with larger business objectives and customer needs, ensuring that each cycle's work serves a clear purpose and achieves the desired result.

Betting Table for Strategic Project Selection

One of Shape Up's most distinctive characteristics is the replacement of the traditional backlog with a betting table. This approach to project selection emphasizes strategic decision-making, with a focus on allocating resources to projects with the greatest potential impact. The betting table encourages a dynamic and focused discussion about which initiatives to prioritize, aligning team efforts with the most important business objectives.

Meet organizational needs

The process of fully integrating Shape Up into an organization's workflow is iterative, requiring continuous adaptation and refinement. Companies frequently customize the methodology's principles to fit their unique context, resulting in a more strategic, efficient, and customer-focused development process. Shape Up's adaptive approach not only improves product strategy and team autonomy, but it also promotes a culture of collaboration and continuous improvement.

As organizations navigate the complexities of product development, Shape Up's flexibility and strategic focus prove invaluable. By committing to regular retrospectives and remaining open to process changes, teams can ensure that their development practices remain aligned with their goals, responsive to customer needs, and adaptable to the changing industry landscape.