37signals-way

The 37signals Product Development Framework

A system for building profitable software without bloat, bureaucracy, or burnout, distilled from three books: Getting Real (build less), Rework (say no by default), and Shape Up (fix time, flex scope). Use it to shape work, bet on six-week cycles, run small autonomous teams, and ship on a predictable cadence.

Core Principle

Build less. The best products do fewer things exceptionally well — simplicity is the destination, not the starting point. Traditional development adds; the 37signals way subtracts: build half a product (not a half-assed product), say no by default, fix the time and flex the scope. Constraints are what make great work possible — six weeks, three people, and a shaped pitch force you to find the essential version.

Scoring

Goal: 10/10. Rate product plans, feature scopes, and team processes 0-10 against these principles. Report the current score and the specific changes needed to reach 10/10.

• 9-10: Fixed-time cycles, shaped pitches, small teams, no backlog, opinionated defaults, clear copy
• 7-8: Mostly shaped work and small teams, but some scope creep or process overhead
• 5-6: Some shaping happens, but backlogs persist, teams are too large, or preferences replace decisions
• 3-4: Heavy process (standups, sprints, story points) with occasional simplicity efforts
• 0-2: Feature factory: long-term roadmaps, large teams, estimation rituals, no shaping

1. Build Less, Underdo the Competition

Core concept: Win through deliberate omission — fewer features, fewer preferences, fewer moving parts, each done better than competitors do theirs. Build software you need yourself and solve problems you understand deeply.

Why it works: Every feature carries maintenance, cognitive, and opportunity costs forever, usually for a fraction of users. Building less keeps the product focused, the codebase manageable, and the team small.

Key insights:

• Half a product beats a half-assed product — do a few things well, not many things poorly
• Be a curator, not a hoarder: say no to good ideas so the great ones can breathe
• Make tiny decisions — big ones are hard to make and hard to reverse; small ones build momentum
• Underdo the competition: let them build the Swiss Army knife while you build the steak knife
• Focus on what won't change — speed, simplicity, reliability, ease of use

Product applications:

| Context | Application | Example |

|---------|-------------|---------|

| Feature prioritization | Default answer is no | Reporting dashboard requested → ship CSV export covering 90% of use cases |

| MVP scoping | Cut until it hurts, then cut more | Drop user accounts for v1; use email magic links |

| Competitive strategy | Underdo, don't outdo | Competitor has 50 integrations; ship 3 that work flawlessly |

See [references/build-less.md](references/build-less.md) when deciding what to cut — curation tactics, the constraints-as-feature argument, and worked scope-cut examples.

2. Shaping the Work

Core concept: Before work reaches a team, a senior person who bridges product and technical worlds makes it rough (room to maneuver), solved (main elements figured out), and bounded (scope limited by appetite).

Why it works: Raw ideas waste team time; detailed specs turn teams into ticket-takers. Shaping removes the biggest unknowns while leaving design freedom, and appetite ("how much time is this worth?") replaces estimation ("how long will this take?") — bounded investment instead of open-ended commitment.

Key insights:

• A shaped pitch has five elements: problem, appetite, solution, rabbit holes, no-gos
• Breadboard flows as places, affordances, and connections — structure without visual design
• Fat marker sketches keep abstraction high; wireframes invite pixel-level feedback before the concept is validated
• Rabbit holes (scope-blowing risks) get addressed in the pitch, not during the build
• No-gos make boundaries visible, preventing scope creep before it starts

Product applications:

| Context | Application | Example |

|---------|-------------|---------|

| Feature design | Breadboard before mockup | "Invite teammate": Settings → invite form → email sent → accept link → dashboard |

| Scope definition | Set appetite first | "A 2-week appetite problem, not a 6-week one" shapes which solution fits |

| Risk management | Call out rabbit holes upfront | "Permissions could get complex — limit to owner/member for v1" |

Ethical boundary: Set appetites that reflect the problem's genuine value — never artificially small to pressure teams.

See [references/shaping-work.md](references/shaping-work.md) when drafting a pitch — the five-element pitch format, a worked breadboard, fat-marker rules, the rabbit-hole pattern table, good/bad no-go examples, and a 6-step shaping procedure.

3. Betting and Cycles

Core concept: Replace backlogs and roadmaps with a betting table: senior stakeholders bet shaped pitches into six-week cycles, separated by two-week cool-downs. Unfinished work hits the circuit breaker — it does not automatically continue.

Why it works: Backlogs grow forever, create false progress, and dilute focus; limited cycle slots force real prioritization. The circuit breaker kills zombie projects, and cool-downs prevent the burnout of continuous sprinting.

Key insights:

• Abolish the backlog — if an idea is important, it will come back
• Six weeks is long enough for meaningful work, short enough to feel the deadline
• Variable scope: teams cut non-essential scope to hit the fixed deadline, never the reverse
• Plan one cycle at a time — long-term roadmaps are stale commitments
• Most pitches don't get bet on, and that's healthy

Product applications:

| Context | Application | Example |

|---------|-------------|---------|

| Roadmap replacement | Bet each cycle | 3-4 shaped pitches every 6 weeks instead of a 12-month roadmap |

| Risk management | Circuit breaker kills zombies | 70% done at week 6? It doesn't ship — re-shape and re-bet if it still matters |

| Capacity planning | Cool-down between cycles | Two weeks for bugs, tech debt, exploration, recovery |

Ethical boundary: Apply the circuit breaker honestly — to kill zombies, not politically inconvenient projects; the point is focus, not unsustainable pressure.

See [references/betting-cycles.md](references/betting-cycles.md) when running a betting table or planning a cycle — how the table decides, structuring the six-week/two-week rhythm, applying the circuit breaker, and the case against backlogs.

4. Small Teams and Execution

Core concept: Three-person teams (one designer, one or two programmers) work a shaped pitch autonomously — no standups, no PMs hovering. They discover their own tasks and track progress on hill charts.

Why it works: Three people can have a conversation; ten need a meeting. Teams that discover tasks from a shaped pitch develop real problem understanding, and hill charts tell the truth: uphill = still figuring out, downhill = executing known work.

Key insights:

• Scopes replace tasks — group related work into named slices that move independently on the hill
• Meetings are toxic: write it up instead
• Get real: working HTML with real data on day 2 beats a Figma mockup on day 5
• Launch now, iterate later — software in users' hands beats plans in a deck
• Design and programming integrate from day one — no handoff phases

Product applications:

| Context | Application | Example |

|---------|-------------|---------|

| Team structure | Three people max, no PM | One designer + two programmers per 6-week bet |

| Progress tracking | Hill charts, not burndowns | "Invitations" uphill (permissions unclear); "Email templates" downhill (executing) |

| Communication | Async-first, write it up | A written update or 5-minute video instead of a 30-minute meeting |

Ethical boundary: Autonomy requires genuinely manageable scope — if a team consistently works overtime to hit six weeks, fix the shaping, not the team.

See [references/small-teams-execution.md](references/small-teams-execution.md) when a team is mid-build — reading and updating hill charts, slicing scopes, async communication norms, and getting real with working HTML.

5. Opinionated Software and Clear Communication

Core concept: Great software makes choices instead of burying users in preferences — every preference is a decision the team could not or would not make. The same honesty applies to copy: say what you mean, skip buzzwords, teach what you know openly.

Why it works: Every added preference splits the product into more states to design, test, and support, and pushes a decision onto users who lack the context to make it well; sensible defaults reduce cognitive load and create cohesion. Clear copy builds trust where marketing-speak erodes it, and teaching openly attracts customers who share your values.

Key insights:

• Pick the best default and ship it — revisit only if data shows it fails most users
• Epicycles (features patching problems earlier features created) compound complexity
• "Not now" is a valid, healthy answer to good feature requests
• Out-teach the competition; sell your by-products (books, posts, tools)
• Interface copy is your best marketing — every label and error message builds or burns trust

Product applications:

| Context | Application | Example |

|---------|-------------|---------|

| Feature requests | Default no, no false promises | "Thanks for the suggestion. We're not planning this right now." |

| UI copy | Plain language | "Your file is saved" not "Your asset has been successfully persisted to the cloud" |

| Error messages | Honest and helpful | "We couldn't send that email. Check the address and try again." |

| Preferences | Eliminate; choose defaults | Detect timezone from the browser; ship one good theme |

| Marketing | Honest positioning | "Basecamp is not for everyone. Here's who it's for and who it's not for." |

See [references/opinionated-software.md](references/opinionated-software.md) when responding to feature requests or removing settings, and [references/ux-ui-copy.md](references/ux-ui-copy.md) when writing interface copy, empty states, or error messages.

Common Mistakes

| Mistake | Why It Fails | Fix |

|---------|-------------|-----|

| Maintaining a backlog | Grows forever; false progress; diluted focus | Abolish it; bet on shaped pitches each cycle |

| Estimating instead of setting appetite | Estimates grow to fill time and invite negotiation | Ask "how much time is this problem worth?" |

| Pixel-perfect mockups before shaping | Too concrete too early; invites bikeshedding | Breadboards and fat marker sketches first |

| Extending a six-week cycle | Zombie projects teach teams deadlines are fake | Circuit breaker: not done means not shipped |

| Adding preferences instead of deciding | Complexity for all users to serve a few | Pick the best default and ship it |

| Daily standups and status meetings | Interrupt maker flow; reporting overhead | Hill charts for visibility; async updates |

| Saying yes to good feature requests | Good features still add non-essential complexity | Default to no; bet only on what matters this cycle |

| Planning multiple cycles ahead | Stale commitments reduce responsiveness | Plan one cycle at a time |

Quick Diagnostic

| Question | If No | Action |

|----------|-------|--------|

| Is there a fixed time constraint on this work? | Scope expands indefinitely | Set a six-week (or smaller) appetite first |

| Is the work shaped (rough, solved, bounded)? | Scope problems surface mid-build | Define problem, appetite, solution, rabbit holes, no-gos |

| Can a team of 2-3 people do this? | Too big | Break into independent six-week bets |

| Said no to at least 5 things this cycle? | Building too much | Cut ruthlessly at the betting table |

| Is the team figuring out its own tasks? | Micromanagement; team not empowered | Hand off shaped pitches, not task lists |

| Tracking progress with hill charts? | False precision masks uncertainty | Switch to uphill (figuring out) vs. downhill (executing) |

| Is there a cool-down after this cycle? | Burnout; no cleanup time | Schedule two unstructured weeks between cycles |

| Does the software have a clear opinion here? | Decisions deferred to users via preferences | Pick the best default; remove the setting |

See [references/case-studies.md](references/case-studies.md) for end-to-end worked scenarios when you want a model to follow — adopting Shape Up, resisting feature creep, and replacing status meetings with hill charts.

Further Reading

• "Getting Real" by Jason Fried & David Heinemeier Hansson
• "Rework" by Jason Fried & David Heinemeier Hansson
• "Shape Up: Stop Running in Circles and Ship Work that Matters" by Ryan Singer
• "It Doesn't Have to Be Crazy at Work" by Jason Fried & David Heinemeier Hansson
• "Remote: Office Not Required" by Jason Fried & David Heinemeier Hansson

About the Authors

Jason Fried is co-founder and CEO of 37signals (Basecamp, HEY) and a leading advocate for calm companies and product simplicity. David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH) is 37signals co-founder and creator of Ruby on Rails, extracted from Basecamp's codebase; together they wrote Getting Real, Rework, Remote, and It Doesn't Have to Be Crazy at Work. Ryan Singer spent 15+ years shaping product at 37signals and codified the methodology in Shape Up.