Ryan Singer - Applying Shape Up in the Real World - Rails World 2023

[@ricardo.fontanelli]

08:18 to 09:38 there's so much value here

[@alabhyajindal]

Wow great talk. Thanks!!

[@hugobarauna]

Amazing talk! 🎉👏

[@tmnsun]

Great talk! Think i need to read the book.

[@evtimbitrakov7634]

The Paper shredder = Scrum joke was actually really good :D

[@andrefgallo]

Great talk

[@SteveHazel]

it's nice to give these crazy things that shouuuld happen when ya build an app nicely coined terms.

[@svalasek]

Amazing speech and explanation. Thank you! I have started to read the book but did not finish. Now I want :-) I am so excited again, that I want to work for a company which will give me a room to use ShapeUp to deliver business value delivery to the customers. I have a lot of experience with scrum but ShapeUp just resonates more with me. And I also realise how full-stack developers and small teams (can do it all) makes this delivery method way more efficient.

[@Sammi84]

Changing the naming of Pitch to Package is such a small thing, but it's such a great improvement. Pitch was misunderstood before. Package is much more direct.

[@iamfrankstallone]

24:17 - Brilliant - Agreed! Adding the term Framing and slightly modifying Shaping to creating a Package is subtle but a useful distinction.

[@olowoporoku1000]

work packages

[@kieranklaassen]

great reminder of why ShapeUp is so good! thanks Ryan!

[@korniszon68]

just another PM that tries to reinvent the wheel and make some money on that. Good luck, still not impressed at all.

[@sculderoy]

It's funny to watch someone talk about Scrum when they never really experienced it the way it was designed :) Your understanding/experience of Scrum is wrong at so many level 😅. And I can tell you, I am "using Shape Up" in my company, in a different way that you are describing, and this is bad. Because it's not used as it was designed. I am using agile frameworks since 2011, my first professional year, and everything that you describe as i can understand as "good solutions" I knew and did before discovering Shape Up. My point is that it's pointless to say that something is bad, just for the buzz. Simply offer an alternative, and don't use the competition as an argument. Mostly when the only new feature that Shape Up brings is the Appetite. And that is a great one ! The rest is already existing, just rebranded. 1. Shaping is called Product Backlog refinement. 2. Appetite, or "How much time I want to spend on this" is called Sprint. 3. Shapes and Scopes are called Product Backlog items (that the Scrum Guide explain that it is the accountability of the PO, but that they can delegate this - ie : within the team). 4. Cool-down is, in my opinion and experience, just a way to finish what was late. Which, I think, is not your intention. But if it is, I think it's a non-sense. PS : Writing is bad for detecting tone, so I want to insist in the fact that I'm saying this with the most friendly tone possible 🫶

[@Rayears]

As a SWE who embraces Agile but has never tried Shape Up, I think it's fair to say that many of Ryan's criticisms are valid. There's lots of wasted time in meetings, tickets often become too granular and lose sight of the bigger vision, etc. While there are many parallels between Shape Up and Agile, it definitely warrants a discussion. The common retort that "they never really experienced Agile the way it was designed" is a bit ironic, since many of the core concepts of The Agile Manifesto from 2001 have been lost in translation over the years as Agile methodology has turned into an entire industry where professional Agile coaches who have limited real-world experience preach the gospel of Agile with dogma. Much of Agile is great, and Shape Up appears to build on top of that. Agile with the capital A and pseudo-productivity is the problem. That being said, Shape Up is totally susceptible to the same pitfalls. I'm looking forward to borrowing a few pages out of this and applying it to my team's workflow. I'm fortunate to work on a small team where I have that luxury. Cheers!