I’m fascinated with the subject of meetings. It is a topic of discussion across the wide webbed world. There are nearly as many opinions on this subject as there are stars in the sky. So adding my own here cannot possibly disrupt our little corner of the multiverse, nor will it likely establish a new or even affect an existing trend. But before I bore you with my own opinion, let me share with you some links to some very cogent resources that have helped me, in addition to my own years of experience, to form my opinions here.
- Firemen, donuts and meetings – Seth Godin: “Don’t bother to have a meeting if you’re not prepared to change or make a decision right now.”
- Reduce Meeting Time by 30 Percent – Max Isaac: “Prior to the meeting, send an email with the proposed Purpose, Process and Preparation, and attach documents that should be reviewed.”
- Meetings frustrate task-oriented employees – American Psychological Association: “…people high in accomplishment striving, who tend to be highly task and goal oriented, were most negatively affected by meetings...
...people who participate most in meetings, such as those who identify themselves as upper-level management, tend to view them most favorably...solely because they get to talk a lot, they inevitably miss other key pieces of meeting effectiveness, including their ability to successfully lead the meeting.”
- Why Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering – Yu & Mylopoulos: “The identification of goals naturally lead to the repeated asking of "why", "how" and "how else" questions... Stakeholders also become more aware of potential alternatives for meeting their substantive goals, and are therefore less likely to over-specify by prematurely committing to certain technological solutions.” (This paper is not about meetings but contributes to the opinions expressed below.)
- Goal-Oriented Idea Generation – multiple authors, taken from summary of results: “The goals obtained from the ideas have high quality. During the activities for grouping ideas, it was frequently observed that the stakeholders could find their misunderstandings and tried to resolve them. As a result, the obtained goals were based on the consensus and the agreement of all of the stakeholders.” (Again, this is not about meetings but contributes to my ideas on the subject.)
It has been my experience that any form of software development, including my personal favorite: behavior driven design/development first introduced by Dan North, generally requires more than one person in the process. There is at least a user and a programmer, at least for any software that one might be paid to produce. And where there is more than one person in a process, there is the inevitability of a meeting.
The real question is what is the nature of the meeting. And by nature I mean how will it be planned and conducted, and what if any follow up will occur as a result of the meeting.
Bad Meetings: Vague, Purposeless, Meandering Time Wasters
The world of software developers could fill terabytes of hard disk space with examples of meetings that were a complete waste of time, ineffective, resulted in no change to the status quo nor the discovery of anything that was not already immediately discoverable in an issue or project tracking system.
Rather than go through any of these bad examples in detail, I will simply summarize that these meetings most typically include in the email invite only a vague subject line, a time and place, a dial-in number for remote attendees, and by virtue of the most commonly used tool to send the invite, a list of attendees, most often the entire team. Too many of these meetings and your organization has fallen hopelessly into the “Meaningless Meetings Machine.”
Goal Oriented Meetings: Purpose Driven, Limited, Action Packed
The very best meetings I have ever attended or conducted (yes, I’ve conducted my share of bad meetings too) have had the following qualities:
- Goal oriented – the agenda focuses on stated goals. (See Mark Schiller’s cogent treatment in Fixing IT Productivity Destroyers.)
- Limited scope – the time and agenda are limited to specific related goals.
- Parking lot – good but unrelated ideas go into a “parking lot” to be discussed at another time and often in a different forum.
- More listening (less talking) – participants listen carefully with their full attention and speak only when they have something relevant to contribute or need clarification in order to make a decision or understand an action item being assigned to them. And NEVER, NEVER, NEVER do participants rudely talk all at once.
- Previous action items related to goals on the agenda are reviewed in summary fashion – discussion is limited to reporting outcomes and/or impediments that require attention by the group. This does NOT mean that the group attempts to resolve these impediments during the meeting. They are noted and may generate an action item for a participant, but under NO CIRCUMSTANCES will the meeting get side tracked to solve the problem in the moment.
- Goals drive actions – starting with diverging opinions and working toward consensus in these steps:
- affirming the goals are properly stated
- identifying actions required to achieve the goals
- identifying (or getting volunteers) to take those actions
- Decisions are made – work toward a consensus but have a meeting leader who can make a final decision right there, right now, after having considered the input of meeting participants. Perfect consensus is not the goal. Decision and action from team input and reasonable discussion is sufficient. (And as Seth points out, don’t bother having a meeting unless you are prepared to change your mind. If you have already made your decision, just announce it, assign the tasks and follow through—don’t waste your team’s time with a meeting to maintain the illusion that you care about what others think—they know you don’t.)
- Minutes, including action items and commitments, are recorded and published post haste. They are also maintained in a team public place such as a wiki or project portal for reference and follow up.
Goal Oriented Meetings Foster Better Software Development
I included some links already that talk about goal oriented requirements engineering and behavior driven development (BDD). In Dan North’s treatment of BDD, he presents two single sentence templates for defining each of the requirements of any software system. With my own explanations, they are:
To define a feature or user story:
As a [X], I want [Y], so that [Z].
Where [X] is the role of a user, [Y] is the feature, and [Z] is the benefit or value (the goals) of the feature.
And to define the acceptance criteria for that story:
Given [some initial context—the givens], when [an event occurs], then [ensure some outcomes].
The outcomes to be assured also define the goals of the user specifically within a certain behavioral or system state context.
When the goals of stakeholders are clearly understood and can be codified in a manner such as the BDD form, the development team can move forward more quickly and with greater confidence. And when meetings are equally focused on goals and achieving them, meetings will be an asset rather than a liability. And your team will have a much greater opportunity to succeed.