"Product Cycles are a crucial part of any company's operation - they help to keep teams focused and on track, while also providing a flexible framework that allows for changes and adaptation as needed.\nThe key to a good product lifecycle is finding the right balance between too much structure and not enough. Too much rigidness can lead to stagnation, while too little can result in scope creep and never-ending projects.\n\nhttps://twitter.com/gobeyondthedata/status/1347271054411132930\n\nBasecamp and Buffer have both found success with six-week product cycles - a timeframe that provides just the right amount of structure and flexibility.\nOn the other hand, Buffer takes the approach of trying to unpack as much as possible before the cycle starts. This means that their team is able to hit the ground running and doesn't waste any time getting organized during the cycle.\nThe main difference between the two approaches is that Basecamp gives their teams two weeks off between cycles, while Buffer's team members are expected to continue working (albeit on different projects) during this time.\nBoth methods have their advantages and disadvantages, but ultimately it comes down to what works best for your team. In this article, we will compare the two approaches and see how they stack up against each other.\nThe Basecamp 6-Week Product Cycle\nThe effectiveness of Basecamp's 6-week product cycle comes down to three main factors:\n1. The team is able to focus on one project at a time\n2. There is built-in flexibility that allows for changes and adaptation\n3. There is a clear end goal in mind\nThe first advantage of the Basecamp cycle is that it allows teams to focus on one project at a time. This single-minded focus ensures that everyone is working towards the same goal and prevents scope creep.\nThe second advantage is the built-in flexibility. Because the team knows that they have two weeks off between cycles, they are more likely to be open to making changes and adaptations as needed. This means that they can course-correct if necessary, without feeling like they are starting from scratch.\nFinally, the third advantage is that there is a clear end goal in mind. Having a finite timeline for each project prevents Basecamp from becoming bogged down in never-ending projects. It also ensures that teams are always thinking about how to get the most impactful results in the shortest amount of time.\n\nhttps://twitter.com/madewithlove/status/1123940210679648257\nThe Buffer 6-Week Product Cycle\nBuffer's 6-week product cycle shares many of the same advantages as Basecamp's cycle. However, there are some key differences that set it apart.\nThe biggest difference is in the way that Buffer approaches planning. While Basecamp gives their team two weeks off between cycles, Buffer's team members are expected to continue working (albeit on different projects) during this time. This means that Buffer's team is able to hit the ground running and doesn't waste any time getting organized during the cycle.\nThe second difference is in the way that Buffer tracks progress. Basecamp uses a system of story points, which can be difficult to accurately estimate. Buffer, on the other hand, uses a simple metric of \"done\" or \"not done\" for each task. This makes it easy to see how much progress has been made and where there are potential bottlenecks.\nThe third and final difference is in the way that Buffer handles feedback. Basecamp gives their team two weeks off between cycles, which means that feedback can sometimes get lost in the shuffle. Buffer, on the other hand, has a dedicated channel for feedback so that it can be addressed in a timely manner.\nhttps://twitter.com/hellomeets/status/1318921606018760704\n\nWeighing in On Pros and Cons For Both Methods\nWhile the needs of your project will ultimately dictate whether or not you decide to use a 6-week cycle, there are some clear advantages and disadvantages to both methods.\nChoosing Basecamp's method, for example, will only be advantageous in the following scenarios:\nYou Have a Team that is Willing and Able to Focus on One Project at a Time\nWhen a team is working on multiple projects at the same time, it can be difficult to maintain focus. This is especially true if the projects are not well-aligned with each other. If you have a team that is willing and able to focus on one project at a time, Basecamp's 6-week cycle may be a good fit.\nYou Need Built-in Flexibility\nIf your project is likely to experience changes or unforeseen obstacles, built-in flexibility can be extremely helpful. Basecamp's two weeks off between cycles provides this flexibility, which can be crucial for teams that need to course-correct along the way.\nYou Have a Clear End Goal in Mind\nIf you know exactly what you want to achieve and have a clear timeline for doing so, Basecamp's 6-week cycle can help you stay on track. Having a finite timeline for each project prevents Basecamp from becoming bogged down in never-ending projects.\nBuffer's 6-week cycle, on the other hand, will only be advantageous in the following scenarios:\nYou Need to Hit the Ground Running\nIf you don't have time to waste getting organized or setting up your project, Buffer's 6-week cycle may be a good fit. The team is expected to continue working (albeit on different projects) during the two weeks off between cycles, which means that they can hit the ground running when the cycle starts.\nYou Need Simple Tracking\nBasecamp's system of story points can be difficult to accurately estimate. Buffer's use of a \"done\" or \"not done\" metric for each task makes it easy to see how much progress has been made and where there are potential bottlenecks.\nYou Need Timely Feedback\nIf you need to be able to address feedback in a timely manner, Buffer's dedicated feedback channel can be extremely helpful. Feedback won't get lost in the shuffle when it's given its own space to live.\nTo sum it up, both Basecamp and Buffer have their pros and cons when it comes to six-week cycles. It ultimately depends on the needs of your project as to which one will be more advantageous for you.\nFinal Thoughts On Six Week Product Cycles\nImplementing a six-week product cycle can be a very daunting task. There are a lot of moving parts and it's important to make sure that everyone is on the same page.\nThat being said, there are a lot of benefits to using a six-week cycle. If you have a team that is willing and able to focus on one project at a time, if you need built-in flexibility, or if you have a clear end goal in mind, Basecamp's 6-week cycle may be a good fit for you."

Product Cycles are a crucial part of any company's operation - they help to keep teams focused and on track, while also providing a flexible framework that allows for changes and adaptation as needed.

The key to a good product lifecycle is finding the right balance between too much structure and not enough. Too much rigidness can lead to stagnation, while too little can result in scope creep and never-ending projects.

https://twitter.com/gobeyondthedata/status/1347271054411132930

Basecamp and Buffer have both found success with six-week product cycles - a timeframe that provides just the right amount of structure and flexibility.

On the other hand, Buffer takes the approach of trying to unpack as much as possible before the cycle starts. This means that their team is able to hit the ground running and doesn't waste any time getting organized during the cycle.

The main difference between the two approaches is that Basecamp gives their teams two weeks off between cycles, while Buffer's team members are expected to continue working (albeit on different projects) during this time.

Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages, but ultimately it comes down to what works best for your team. In this article, we will compare the two approaches and see how they stack up against each other.

The effectiveness of Basecamp's 6-week product cycle comes down to three main factors:

1. The team is able to focus on one project at a time

2. There is built-in flexibility that allows for changes and adaptation

The first advantage of the Basecamp cycle is that it allows teams to focus on one project at a time. This single-minded focus ensures that everyone is working towards the same goal and prevents scope creep.

The second advantage is the built-in flexibility. Because the team knows that they have two weeks off between cycles, they are more likely to be open to making changes and adaptations as needed. This means that they can course-correct if necessary, without feeling like they are starting from scratch.

Finally, the third advantage is that there is a clear end goal in mind. Having a finite timeline for each project prevents Basecamp from becoming bogged down in never-ending projects. It also ensures that teams are always thinking about how to get the most impactful results in the shortest amount of time.

https://twitter.com/madewithlove/status/1123940210679648257

Buffer's 6-week product cycle shares many of the same advantages as Basecamp's cycle. However, there are some key differences that set it apart.

The biggest difference is in the way that Buffer approaches planning. While Basecamp gives their team two weeks off between cycles, Buffer's team members are expected to continue working (albeit on different projects) during this time. This means that Buffer's team is able to hit the ground running and doesn't waste any time getting organized during the cycle.

The second difference is in the way that Buffer tracks progress. Basecamp uses a system of story points, which can be difficult to accurately estimate. Buffer, on the other hand, uses a simple metric of "done" or "not done" for each task. This makes it easy to see how much progress has been made and where there are potential bottlenecks.

The third and final difference is in the way that Buffer handles feedback. Basecamp gives their team two weeks off between cycles, which means that feedback can sometimes get lost in the shuffle. Buffer, on the other hand, has a dedicated channel for feedback so that it can be addressed in a timely manner.

https://twitter.com/hellomeets/status/1318921606018760704

Weighing in On Pros and Cons For Both Methods

While the needs of your project will ultimately dictate whether or not you decide to use a 6-week cycle, there are some clear advantages and disadvantages to both methods.

Choosing Basecamp's method, for example, will only be advantageous in the following scenarios:

You Have a Team that is Willing and Able to Focus on One Project at a Time

When a team is working on multiple projects at the same time, it can be difficult to maintain focus. This is especially true if the projects are not well-aligned with each other. If you have a team that is willing and able to focus on one project at a time, Basecamp's 6-week cycle may be a good fit.

If your project is likely to experience changes or unforeseen obstacles, built-in flexibility can be extremely helpful. Basecamp's two weeks off between cycles provides this flexibility, which can be crucial for teams that need to course-correct along the way.

If you know exactly what you want to achieve and have a clear timeline for doing so, Basecamp's 6-week cycle can help you stay on track. Having a finite timeline for each project prevents Basecamp from becoming bogged down in never-ending projects.

Buffer's 6-week cycle, on the other hand, will only be advantageous in the following scenarios:

If you don't have time to waste getting organized or setting up your project, Buffer's 6-week cycle may be a good fit. The team is expected to continue working (albeit on different projects) during the two weeks off between cycles, which means that they can hit the ground running when the cycle starts.

Basecamp's system of story points can be difficult to accurately estimate. Buffer's use of a "done" or "not done" metric for each task makes it easy to see how much progress has been made and where there are potential bottlenecks.

If you need to be able to address feedback in a timely manner, Buffer's dedicated feedback channel can be extremely helpful. Feedback won't get lost in the shuffle when it's given its own space to live.

To sum it up, both Basecamp and Buffer have their pros and cons when it comes to six-week cycles. It ultimately depends on the needs of your project as to which one will be more advantageous for you.

Final Thoughts On Six Week Product Cycles

Implementing a six-week product cycle can be a very daunting task. There are a lot of moving parts and it's important to make sure that everyone is on the same page.

That being said, there are a lot of benefits to using a six-week cycle. If you have a team that is willing and able to focus on one project at a time, if you need built-in flexibility, or if you have a clear end goal in mind, Basecamp's 6-week cycle may be a good fit for you.

Six Week Product Cycles At Basecamp And Buffer

<p><a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/product-life-cycle.asp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><u>Product Cycles</u></a> are a crucial part of any company's operation - they help to keep teams focused and on track, while also providing a flexible framework that allows for changes and adaptation as needed.</p>
<p>The key to a good product lifecycle is finding the right balance between too much structure and not enough. Too much rigidness can lead to stagnation, while too little can result in scope creep and never-ending projects.</p>
<p><br></p>

          <div style="display: flex; justify-content: center;">
            <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Every <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/product?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#product</a> has a lifecycle. Every <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/product?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#product</a> person should have this mind no matter what stage of the journey the product is in. It will help you make <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/strategic?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#strategic</a> decisions and be better positioned in understanding your customer. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/prodmgmt?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#prodmgmt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/strategy?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#strategy</a></p>&mdash; Beyond the Data (@gobeyondthedata) <a href="https://twitter.com/gobeyondthedata/status/1347271054411132930?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 7, 2021</a></blockquote>

          </div>
        
<p><br></p>
<p>Basecamp and Buffer have both found success with six-week product cycles - a timeframe that provides just the right amount of structure and flexibility.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Buffer takes the approach of trying to unpack as much as possible before the cycle starts. This means that their team is able to hit the ground running and doesn't waste any time getting organized during the cycle.</p>
<p>The main difference between the two approaches is that Basecamp gives their teams two weeks off between cycles, while Buffer's team members are expected to continue working (albeit on different projects) during this time.</p>
<p>Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages, but ultimately it comes down to what works best for your team. In this article, we will compare the two approaches and see how they stack up against each other.</p>
<h2><strong class="font-bold">The Basecamp 6-Week Product Cycle</strong></h2>
<p>The effectiveness of <a href="https://3.basecamp-help.com/article/35-the-six-week-cycle" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><u>Basecamp's 6-week </u></a>product cycle comes down to three main factors:</p>
<p>1. The team is able to focus on one project at a time</p>
<p>2. There is built-in flexibility that allows for changes and adaptation</p>
<p>3. There is a clear end goal in mind</p>
<p>The first advantage of the Basecamp cycle is that it allows teams to focus on one project at a time. This single-minded focus ensures that everyone is working towards the same goal and prevents scope creep.</p>
<p>The second advantage is the built-in flexibility. Because the team knows that they have two weeks off between cycles, they are more likely to be open to making changes and adaptations as needed. This means that they can course-correct if necessary, without feeling like they are starting from scratch.</p>
<p>Finally, the third advantage is that there is a clear end goal in mind. Having a finite timeline for each project prevents Basecamp from becoming bogged down in never-ending projects. It also ensures that teams are always thinking about how to get the most impactful results in the shortest amount of time.</p>
<p><br></p>

          <div style="display: flex; justify-content: center;">
            <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Old but gold. Here&#39;s <a href="https://twitter.com/basecamp?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@basecamp</a>&#39;s approach to product and their innovative 6 week cycle. <a href="https://t.co/AULxx4H0S3">https://t.co/AULxx4H0S3</a> <a href="https://t.co/Hd9ZXNg2TS">pic.twitter.com/Hd9ZXNg2TS</a></p>&mdash; madewithlove (@madewithlove) <a href="https://twitter.com/madewithlove/status/1123940210679648257?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 2, 2019</a></blockquote>

          </div>
        
<h2><strong class="font-bold">The Buffer 6-Week Product Cycle</strong></h2>
<p><a href="https://buffer.com/resources/6-week-cycles/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><u>Buffer's 6-week product cycle</u></a> shares many of the same advantages as Basecamp's cycle. However, there are some key differences that set it apart.</p>
<p>The biggest difference is in the way that Buffer approaches planning. While Basecamp gives their team two weeks off between cycles, Buffer's team members are expected to continue working (albeit on different projects) during this time. This means that Buffer's team is able to hit the ground running and doesn't waste any time getting organized during the cycle.</p>
<p>The second difference is in the way that Buffer tracks progress. Basecamp uses a system of story points, which can be difficult to accurately estimate. Buffer, on the other hand, uses a simple metric of <em class="italic">"done"</em> or <em class="italic">"not done"</em> for each task. This makes it easy to see how much progress has been made and where there are potential bottlenecks.</p>
<p>The third and final difference is in the way that Buffer handles feedback. Basecamp gives their team two weeks off between cycles, which means that feedback can sometimes get lost in the shuffle. Buffer, on the other hand, has a dedicated channel for feedback so that it can be addressed in a timely manner.</p>

          <div style="display: flex; justify-content: center;">
            <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Product Development Cycle from <a href="https://twitter.com/buffer?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Buffer</a> <br><br>This is what they followed to build their product-  Buffer Analyze<br><br>Read the full blog written by <a href="https://twitter.com/redman?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@redman</a> <a href="https://t.co/VL3sZ5StEF">https://t.co/VL3sZ5StEF</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ProductWednesday?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ProductWednesday</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/productmanagement?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#productmanagement</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/productdevelopment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#productdevelopment</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/socialmedia?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#socialmedia</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/analytics?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#analytics</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/tools?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#tools</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/technology?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#technology</a> <a href="https://t.co/1U8QLArdIn">pic.twitter.com/1U8QLArdIn</a></p>&mdash; HelloMeets (@hellomeets) <a href="https://twitter.com/hellomeets/status/1318921606018760704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 21, 2020</a></blockquote>

          </div>
        
<p><br></p>
<h2><strong class="font-bold">Weighing in On Pros and Cons For Both Methods</strong></h2>
<p>While the needs of your project will ultimately dictate whether or not you decide to use a 6-week cycle, there are some clear advantages and disadvantages to both methods.</p>
<p>Choosing Basecamp's method, for example, will only be advantageous in the following scenarios:</p>
<h3>You Have a Team that is Willing and Able to Focus on One Project at a Time</h3>
<p>When a team is working on multiple projects at the same time, it can be difficult to maintain focus. This is especially true if the projects are not well-aligned with each other. If you have a team that is willing and able to focus on one project at a time, Basecamp's 6-week cycle may be a good fit.</p>
<h3>You Need Built-in Flexibility</h3>
<p>If your project is likely to experience changes or unforeseen obstacles, built-in flexibility can be extremely helpful. Basecamp's two weeks off between cycles provides this flexibility, which can be crucial for teams that need to course-correct along the way.</p>
<h3>You Have a Clear End Goal in Mind</h3>
<p>If you know exactly what you want to achieve and have a clear timeline for doing so, Basecamp's 6-week cycle can help you stay on track. Having a finite timeline for each project prevents Basecamp from becoming bogged down in never-ending projects.</p>
<p>Buffer's 6-week cycle, on the other hand, will only be advantageous in the following scenarios:</p>
<h3>You Need to Hit the Ground Running</h3>
<p>If you don't have time to waste getting organized or setting up your project, Buffer's 6-week cycle may be a good fit. The team is expected to continue working (albeit on different projects) during the two weeks off between cycles, which means that they can hit the ground running when the cycle starts.</p>
<h3>You Need Simple Tracking</h3>
<p>Basecamp's system of story points can be difficult to accurately estimate. Buffer's use of a <em class="italic">"done"</em> or <em class="italic">"not done"</em> metric for each task makes it easy to see how much progress has been made and where there are potential bottlenecks.</p>
<h3>You Need Timely Feedback</h3>
<p>If you need to be able to address feedback in a timely manner, Buffer's dedicated feedback channel can be extremely helpful. Feedback won't get lost in the shuffle when it's given its own space to live.</p>
<p>To sum it up, both Basecamp and Buffer have their pros and cons when it comes to six-week cycles. It ultimately depends on the needs of your project as to which one will be more advantageous for you.</p>
<h2><strong class="font-bold">Final Thoughts On Six Week Product Cycles</strong></h2>
<p>Implementing a six-week product cycle can be a very daunting task. There are a lot of moving parts and it's important to make sure that everyone is on the same page.</p>
<p>That being said, there are a lot of benefits to using a six-week cycle. If you have a team that is willing and able to focus on one project at a time, if you need built-in flexibility, or if you have a clear end goal in mind, Basecamp's 6-week cycle may be a good fit for you.</p>

Insight & Analysis

Six Week Product Cycles At Basecamp And Buffer

Subscribe to Engineer.at and keep growing as an engineering manager.