How to fail in applying the Shape Up methodology

Software development is tricky: it sounds like an exact science but, in practice, is much more related to a craft than other Engineering areas. To control this "artistic" aspect, Product specialists have developed several agile methods over the years (e.g., Kanban and Scrum).

Among them, Shape Up, from Basecamp is one of the latest we keep talking about. Using it, we migrate from seeing software development from a machinery perspectivewhere we aim to drag cards as fast as we canto this broader concept of enabling safe spaces for constant co-creation. We set up an environment connected deeply with the business goals and look after delivering the most value to users within a predictable time box. In other words, we evolve from the waterfall approach to a new one: an ongoing revision of product/software decisions through an obsession with business and product development optimization.

Here's a quick summary of Shape Up:

1. Find your best bets (that is how Shape Up refers to projects) for how your product should evolve. Describe them in every detail in the problem domain and at a high level in the solution domain - leaving room for iteration over it;
2. Gather stakeholders to invest up to 6 work weeks in each bet;
3. Delegate all in-project decisions to the team, and they will methodically do the best they can, strictly honoring the invested time.

If you are unsure of the outcomes of it, you got the idea! There is no guarantee of the final delivery results, except that the team has given its most to reach business goals, reviewing product specs at a very high frequency. Would that sound good enough if your money was on the table?

Seducing as it may seem to be to set this workflow for the team (why not take the members' empowerment to a sky-high level, right?), willingness to apply the framework may not be enough. What is implicit in Basecamp's framework is a strong sense of product direction and, afterward, the high confidence built through the stakeholders' management. To add complexity, the more innovative you are, the higher the stakes and the more effort you must put into developing a solid product strategy. How to combine these assurances to my managers and still leave a lot of room for taking the best of those brilliant minds within the team? I am still trying to find this balance.

In a broader context, a few years ago, nobody would see it coming to this new economic moment in the technology industry: lay-offs, down pacing on the investment rounds, and so on. Naturally, it unfolds in risk aversion. 6-week work was supposed to be a low investment in the framework proposal, but.. what if it is not?

From what I could apply the ideas in Shape Up, I felt astonished. I have seen the team come up with brilliant, innovative ideas. Strict to the point, fearless, focused. True empowerment right in front of me. Carving this creational space requires different efforts over time, depending on the company's moment. Expected.
To keep the good parts of the framework even in the hard times, we have evolved it into a "Waterfall-Shape-Up" framework, as illustrated below.

It considers the stakeholders' alignment for the overall plan but leaves some space for the team to "deviate" the water's course based on business knowledge. Iterations continue to be intensive, and the building plan is evolving daily.

I see this parallel with management styles: it suits us better to use a commanding voice in crisis and leverage collaboration in calmer times. Those are excellent strategies, varying on the best time to use them.

Having this sensitivity to the broader context so that one or another tool is more appropriate is a constant challenge to SWE Managers. I have absorbed Shape Up as a perfect one to keep in my toolbox.