5 min. reading
In the progressively shifting landscape of software development, methodologies dictate the rhythm and efficiency of project execution. Among these, Agile has long been a cornerstone, promoting flexibility and iterative progress. However, a newer rival, the Shaping method, challenges traditional norms of defined work cycles.
Imagine a bustling tech startup, “InnovateX,” striving to deliver cutting-edge solutions in a competitive market. The development team stands at a crossroads: continue with their established Agile practices or venture into the uncharted territory of the Shaping method.
Agile is at the core of InnovateX’s development process, using short sprints and continuous feedback. Teams work in 1-2 week cycles, quickly improving features and adjusting to changes. This flexible approach encourages teamwork and keeps the product aligned with user needs.
However, the team keeps facing challenges: the fast pace of sprints can cause burnout, and without a long-term vision, features sometimes feel disconnected. That’s where the Shaping method comes in. It follows a different rhythm — six-week cycles focused on clear projects, followed by a two-week cooldown for reflection and planning. This approach helps balance deep work with big-picture thinking, reducing the exhaustion of nonstop sprints.
Let’s start with the pros
If flexibility matters a lot for your project, going with Agile would be a wise decision. There is no doubt that the ability to pivot quickly in response to user feedback is invaluable. Moreover, regular sprints ensure a steady stream of updates, keeping users engaged. As well as frequent reviews foster strong collaboration with clients and stakeholders.
What about the cons?
Scope change is a big thing for most projects. Without clear boundaries, projects may expand beyond initial deadlines. One more thing can’t be underestimated – short sprints might encourage a focus on minor features at the expense of cohesive long-term vision.
Of course, advocates for the Shaping method will argue, and they might be right. If you ask why, let’s take a look at the following points.
Longer cycles allow for in-depth exploration of complex features. The team has more time for development itself and for the testing phase. Six weeks can’t be dedicated to development only, so during cooldown periods, the team has necessary downtime, reducing burnout. In some cases, higher autonomy can be considered as a plus as well – clear project definitions empower teams to take ownership without constant oversight.
Among the most common and pretty much honest concerns we have is the risk of misalignment and reduced flexibility. Without continuous stakeholder interaction, there’s a chance of deviating from user expectations and not meeting stakeholders’ needs. Market fit is extremely important nowadays. Also worth mentioning is that fixed cycles might delay the incorporation of urgent feedback.
Apple’s development culture is built on silent mastery. Traditionally, the company follows a long-term, waterfall-like approach to product releases. However, if Apple were to implement Agile or Shaping methodologies, its processes would differ significantly.
Users would see bugs fixed and new features much faster due to teams of designers, engineers, and product managers working on short sprints to improve features incrementally and as one more potential result, iOS and macOS updates might shift from annual major releases to smaller, bi-monthly updates incorporating minor enhancements.
Let’s not forget that Agile thrives on customer feedback, meaning Apple might open its beta programs further, allowing public feedback to directly influence upcoming releases. Downsides would come together with advantages; a shift to Agile might risk Apple’s ability to deliver highly polished, surprising, and industry-changing innovations, since constant iteration could reduce the focus on “big reveal” moments.
Unlike Agile’s constant iteration, Apple would benefit from cooldown periods where engineers and designers focus on polishing and integrating features seamlessly. General focus would be on a bigger picture that aligns with the current company’s approach – teams would be given specific problems to solve rather than working on small, incremental updates. This would allow deep work on features like AI-driven photography enhancements, Apple Silicon optimizations, or new privacy measures.
What Apple would definitely like is that Shaping would allow Apple to maintain its “big surprise” product launches.
IT-Dimension, a software development top player in the market, offers solutions for different projects that vary in complexity and client needs. The choice between Agile and Shaping isn’t just theoretical—it directly impacts delivery efficiency and product quality. Let’s explore how Agile and Shaping would play out in two IT-Dimension projects.
Tera Bot, an application for creating chatbots using line diagrams, requires frequent iteration, adaptation to different industries, and continuous integration of conversational capabilities.
AI chatbots must evolve based on user interaction data. Agile’s short sprints ensure constant learning and adjustments.
Team interaction is crucial – developers, data scientists, and UX designers collaborate in real time, allowing for quick pivots. And not only team winning – Agile allows quick adaptation to client needs, ensuring Tera Bot remains competitive in different business environments. Moreover, instead of delivering a monolithic chatbot, the team can release versions with incremental improvements, such as better NLP capabilities or integrations with new platforms.
Why Shaping Wouldn’t Work for Tera Bot
Unlike static software, chatbots interact dynamically with users, making the rigid six-week cycles of Shaping less effective.
Waiting until the end of a cycle to test chatbot features might result in misalignment with user needs.
Explore the full Tera Bot case study here.
Developing a pharmacy accounting system for Klosterfrau involves integrating multiple functionalities—financial tracking, regulatory compliance, and invoicing. This requires a structured, long-term approach rather than rapid iterations.
Instead of adjusting continuously like in Agile, the team works on well-scoped accounting modules for six weeks, ensuring stability and thorough testing. Later, after each development cycle, the team assesses regulatory compliance, user experience, and system security before moving to the next phase. Technical debt would be minimised as well – the structured nature of Shaping ensures high code quality and long-term maintainability.
Healthcare is often about compliance – Agile’s fast-paced iterations might not provide enough time for thorough compliance checks.
See how we built Klosterfrau — full case study here.
Choosing between Agile and Shaping isn’t a matter of one being superior – it depends on the company’s goals and project nature. Ultimately, successful software development isn’t about rigidly following one methodology – it’s about understanding when to iterate fast and when to shape carefully.
At IT-Dimension, we don’t just develop software – we craft solutions tailored to your business needs. Whether your project requires Agile’s rapid iteration and flexibility or Shaping’s structured execution and deep problem-solving, our team has the expertise to optimize your development process.
Looking for fast-paced innovation? We’ll help you implement Agile to quickly adapt and stay ahead of the competition.
Need careful planning and high-quality delivery? Our Shaping approach ensures your project is built for longevity and success.
Let’s create something exceptional together. Contact IT-Dimension today and let’s shape your next big idea!
