This is great. But what I like about it isn’t the specifics of their process. It’s that they took a step back and defined a process that worked for them — pilfering ideas when beneficial and rejecting others that framed work in a way that didn’t fit their goals (saying no to hustle culture).
The one thing I’ll say about Basecamp: Their product doesn’t feel holistically thought out to me. It feels like a Swiss army product full of light features stitched together. I don’t mean that as an insult: for general project mgmt it may be perfect. What about when a dot calendar truly isn’t enough? Not all markets are served by reduced scope features (tho that is ideal). What about something like a billing project that has a real life customer card attached to it — that has effects on the very flow itself?
Could Stripe limit its appetite to 6 week projects end to end? Probably not. They work with 3 week QA cycles (and their work is very good) because a quality end-to-end thoughtful solution touching peoples money needs a bit more diligence. Anyway it’s a good read w great ideas. Just make sure it works for your team.
As a designer I can't help notice how much "design" is relegated to laying things out while an entire interaction model (in the to-do list headers) were detailed out by everyone but an interaction designer.
I loved the book. Wish there were more on this topic.
I implemented the hill charts in my team a couple of weeks ago and wrote an article about it - Project status reports inspired by ShapeUp