Surprising Lessons from “Shape Up” — Agile Without Calling It Agile

I was a big fan of Rework and always felt the principles of that book were a great embodiment of the spirit of Agile (even though 37signals doesn't necessarily follow any of the frameworks that have been popularized alongside Agile). This made it particularly exciting when the book Shape Up was released which outlined their approach to product development.
When I started reading Shape Up, I knew there would be many great takeaways. I didn't, however, expect it to challenge so many assumptions I’ve internalized from years of working in Agile environments.
Below are a few of the ideas that really stood out to me:

1. A Different Flavor of Agile
Shape Up doesn’t reject Agile principles, it just expresses them differently. The process still embraces time-boxing, iteration, and adaptability, but without the formal structure / roles of Scrum or the open-ended flow of Kanban.
Cycles serve a similar purpose to sprints (they’re a clear timebox and deadline), but they’re longer (usually six weeks) and the rhythm of work inside them is different. There are no sprint ceremonies, daily standups, or mid-cycle planning adjustments. Teams focus solely on finishing what they committed to at the start.
Before work even begins, each project is defined not by estimated effort, but by its appetite (how much time the company is willing to spend on solving that particular problem). That simple shift reframes discussions away from “how long will this take?” to “how much is this worth?”
Even familiar Agile rituals take on new forms: shaping becomes a thoughtful alternative to backlog refinement — defining the problem, setting boundaries, and removing ambiguity before any team commits to work. And bets are a good re-frame on "sprint goals", which are intended to shifting the focus from predicting output to making intentional, time-bound commitments on high-impact ideas, but can often fall short because the payoff is unclear.
2. Async first, not face-to-face
The Agile Manifesto emphasizes face-to-face communication as the most effective way to collaborate, but Shape Up takes the opposite view. Asynchronous written communication is the default as it forces clarity, minimizes interruptions, and allows teammates to contribute when they’re most focused (live conversations only happen when necessary).
It’s also more inclusive since everyone processes information differently or and some struggle to form opinions in real time. Async communication gives people time to absorb ideas, reflect, and respond thoughtfully which can lead to better discussions and stronger decisions.
3. No backlogs
Most agile teams treat the backlog as a source of truth. Shape Up treats it as unnecessary overhead. If an idea isn’t valuable enough to shape and work on in the next cycle, it’s intentionally discarded. Their rationale is simple: truly important ideas will re-emerge.
That doesn’t mean ideas are lost, though. Team members are encouraged to keep their own personal, decentralized lists of things they think are worth exploring later. This approach preserves creativity and ownership without burdening the team with an ever-expanding central backlog.
4. Shaping is intentionally closed-door
Rather than large collaborative brainstorming sessions, the initial definition of the work is done by one or two people behind the scenes. Once the idea has been shaped into a clear problem and set of boundaries, the delivery team takes over. It’s a deliberate move away from “design by committee.”
The key, however, is that shaping doesn’t mean dictating every detail. The result is still a problem statement with boundaries, not a step-by-step blueprint. Teams are trusted to determine how to solve the problem within the shaped constraints. It strikes a compelling balance (providing more clarity than Agile stories often do, but leaving more flexibility than a traditional waterfall-style requirements document). It’s a middle ground that preserves creative autonomy while keeping everyone aligned on what “done” looks like.
5. Async communication instead of stand-ups and planning meetings
The emphasis on written communication eliminates the need for daily stand-ups and recurring planning sessions. Progress, blockers, and context are captured asynchronously and shared through clear updates, reducing meeting fatigue while increasing transparency.
However, this approach can introduce risk in organizations that aren’t culturally equipped for it. If people aren't consistent, don’t provide enough detail in their updates, or if there’s no accountability for surfacing delays and risks early, problems can stay hidden longer. Async-first only works when teams value visibility, ownership, and clear written communication as much as they would live discussion.
6. No product / project manager or scrum master roles
There are no traditional “management” roles responsible for tracking and coordinating the work. Teams are empowered to deliver within the shaped boundaries which means that process ownership is part of the work, not a separate role.
Coming from a Scrum Master and Product Manager background, to me it feels like this has always been the intent with other Agile frameworks and these type of roles are helpful in getting teams started and confident in working in a new way. Once teams reach a level confidence, these type of roles shift their focus to the organization and the obstacles that impact agility. It feels like at 37Signals due to the size of their teams and the culture of the organization there is less of a need for Agile change agents to help with many of the issues that larger companies might run into.
7. Visual progress through Hill Charts
Instead of burndown charts or velocity metrics, Shape Up uses “Hill Charts” which are a simple but powerful way to visualize progress. The first half of the hill represents figuring things out (the early phase where teams might spike and not yet have an idea of what the solution or approach might be); the second half represents execution (this is where things start to pick up momentum as the biggest questions are answered and the team can just focus on getting the work done).
I'm still not sure if I actually like hill charts in practice, but I like what they are attempting to accomplish by emphasizing discovery and uncertainty rather than pretending everything is linear (there has always been something that felt "off" about the "% Complete" approach used by many tools).
Final Thought
All in all Shape Up has been an excellent resource from a team that has vast experience building awesome products. If your team has been looking for ways to improve their ability to ship and other Agile frameworks don't feel like a good fit, I definitely recommend giving this a read.
If your team adopted even one of these practices tomorrow, which one would make the biggest impact?