Conference 7.286::digital

    At my peak, I was responsible for attending about fifteen hours of
    meetings a week.  Of that time, I guess two hours were wastage.

    I've had a long tradition that if a meeting hasn't started 10
    minutes after it was scheduled I just up and leave. I have
    other things to do than to wait for others. I heard a good
    saying once that went something like this.
    
    Tardiness is the disrespect for others time.
    
    Jim C.
    

    In my last job of four years duration, I spend 10-12 hours a week in
    meetings.  What made it truly bad, was it probably took me 8-10 hours
    a week to travel to the damned things.  These were mostly regularly
    scheduled management/review type things.  Wasted...?? 50% maybe.
    
    I think the driving, parking, walking is worse than the meetings, but
    you sure can become a Jerry Williams addict?

I'm sure that there are different rationales in other parts of the company,
but in Engineering, I believe that meetings have very little value.

I spend about 1-2 hours a week in meetings.  And I'll only go if they
promise to do real work.

I simply don't go to meetings that I think will be a waste of time.
The only meetings that I don't consider skipping out on are meetings
with Customers.  Customers count above all else.  But if there are
no Customers there, the meeting had better stand on its own merit.

I believe that it is everyone's responsibility to manage their time at work.
"Do the right thing" also applies to deciding whether to spend time in
a meeting or not.

This includes so-called "group" meetings, which often are the worst
time-wasters of all.  I'll go for an hour or two (once a month) but that's
about the limit of my patience.  I usually take along some work to do
while I'm sitting there.

Though I imagine it has happened, I have never heard of anyone being punished
for skipping a meeting because they thought it would be a waste of time.
You know the phrase "Just Say No"?  Well, "Just Don't Go" is the key here.
You will soon find that you are the envy of others who think that
they are "required" to attend some non-productive get-together.  It is just
a matter of attitude.  (Some would say that mine is "bad", but that's tough.)

I'm very skeptical about pre-planned meetings.  Usually by the time the
meeting rolls around, the issues have either already been resolved, or
it is too late to do any good.  Besides, nothing ever gets decided
in a meeting.  Except to have a "follow-up" meeting.  Especially if there
are more then 4 people attending.

Now if we had terminals in our meeting rooms, maybe we could get something
accomplished.  But that's another story.

-steve-

    	re .2

    	You were tardy in submitting that reply.

    	(  :^)  Just couldn't resist.)


    	I think it is the job of each meeting "invitee" to seriously
    	question the value of their presence at that meeting.  Will they
    	get anything out of it?  Will they contribute to it?  In my
    	illustrious career I have generally questioned each meeting
    	AS WELL AS EACH BUSINESS TRIP they have asked me to attend/take.
    	It has not hampered me yet.

    	I also take it upon myself to (at least) point out when meetings
    	I attend start to stray from the agenda.  But I also do not
    	pout or mope or get disruptive at meetings.  I try to make 
    	them useful to me and become a PARTICIPANT rather than an
    	observer.  This has been pointed out as a plus at my last
    	two reviews.  Leadership and all that...

    	Currently our group meets weekly (Wednesdays) for an hour.  We
    	rotate among the team members to collect agenda items for 
    	upcoming meetings.  If you do not collect anything valuable,
    	important, or substantial, you call off the meeting.  I'd
    	guess that we call off 1 in three meetings.  I'd have to say that
    	my current group wastes less time than any group for which I have 
    	previously worked.  

    	One past group used to meet three and four times per week -- 
    	just to go through the exercise.  (Team building you know...)  
    	God, I hated those.  I would have much rather been
    	doing something productive like participating in notes!  I 
    	tried to skip out, but was challenged by management to explain
    	what I had to do that was more important.  Since our group
    	wasn't doing ANYTHING important at the time, I had little
    	defense...  But my actions were a frank demonstration to 
    	management of the relatively small value we were contributing to
    	the company at the time, and we (management and I) had some
    	very enlightening discussions.  My candor has always been
    	a positive part of my reviews.

    	Just one last anecdote.  I know an engineer who fell asleep
    	at two different group meetings.  He was reprimanded for the
    	first time.  His was "put on probation" and his salary review 
    	was delayed 9 months for the second time.  Now it is possible
    	that there were other manager/employee frictions involved, but
    	I think it is a very weak reason for such action on the part of
    	the manager, and I think it was very weak of the employee not
    	to challenge such action.

    	Joe Oppelt

    re: the meeting at which someone asleep
    
    Surely the person running the meeting should have been
    reprimanded?  Clearly this meeting exceeded even the usual
    level of dullness... and that's the fault of whoever's in
    charge.
    
    :-)

    Meetings that have goals that I can contribute to are worth my
    attending.
    
    Meetings with no agenda aren't.
    
    I spend 0-30 hours a week in meetings, depeinding upon the projects I'm
    working on. I usually expect about 25% wastage. Such is life.
    
    	- andy

    As a manager, I spend over 60% of my in-office work week in meetings
    including 1-1's.  Meetings have many uses:
    
    - Making staff/employees feel supported
    - Building collaboration/trust with colleagues
    - Making decisions
    - Planning events/milestones
    - Gathering / Disseminating information --> Connectedness
    
    I haven't tracked it recently, but 25% wastage (as mentioned several
    times) doesn't seem too far off.
    
    Also, with regards to the anecdote, I've also fallen asleep on more
    than one occasion -- especially in technical seminars or informative
    presentations with no dialogue.  I try not to, but it occasionally
    happens.
    
    -Ken
    

    I coudn't resist putting this in... it's obviously copyrighted material
    (but has appeared in several other notesfiles) , so if the mods mind,
    feel free to delete this. Somehow I think Dave Barry must have worked
    for DEC...
    
    
    To really succeed in a business or organization, it is sometimes
    helpful to know what your job is, and whether it involves any duties.
    Ask around among your co-workers. "Hi," you should say. "I'm a new
    employee. What is the name of my job?" If they answer "long-range
    planner" or "lieutenant governor," you are pretty much free to lounge
    around and do crossword puzzles until retirement. Most other jobs,
    however, will involve some work. 

    There are two major kinds of work in modern organizations:

    1. Taking phone messages for people who are in meetings, and

    2. Going to meetings.

    Your ultimate career strategy will be to get to a job involving
    primarily No. 2, going to meetings, as soon as possible, because that's
    where the real prestige is. 

    It is all very well and good to be able to take phone messages, but you
    are never going to get to a position of power, a position where you can
    cost thousands of people their jobs with a single bonehead decision,
    unless you learn how to attend meetings. 

    The first meeting ever held was back in the Mezzanine Era. In those
    days Man's job was to slay his prey and bring it home to Woman, who had
    to figure out how to cook it. The problem was, Man was slow and
    basically naked, whereas the prey had warm fur and could run like an
    antelope. (In fact, it *was* an antelope, only back then nobody knew
    this.) 

    At last someone said, "Maybe if we just sat down and did some
    brainstorming we could come up with a *better way* to hunt our prey!"
    It went extremely well, plus it was much warmer sitting in a circle, so
    they agreed to meet again the next day, and the next. 

    But the women pointed out that, prey-wise, the men had not produced
    anything, and the human race was pretty much starving. The men agreed
    that was serious and said they would put it right near the top of their
    "agenda!" At that point the women, who were primitive but not stupid,
    started eating plants. And thus was modern agriculture born. It could
    never have happened without meetings. 

    The modern business meeting, however, might be better compared with a
    funeral, in the sense that you have a gathering of people who are
    wearing uncomfortable clothing and would rather be somewhere else. The
    major difference is that most funerals have a definite purpose. Also,
    nothing is ever really buried in a meeting. 

    An idea may *look* dead, but it will always reappear at another meeting
    later on. If you have ever seen the movie "Night of the Living Dead"
    you have a rough idea of how modern meetings operate, with projects and
    proposals that everybody thought were killed rising constantly from
    their graves to stagger back into meetings and eat the brains of the
    living. 

    There are two major kinds of meetings:

    1. Meetings that are held for basically the same reason that Arbor Day
    is observed - namely, tradition. For example, a lot of managerial
    people like to meet on Monday, because it is Monday. You'll get used to
    it. You'd better, because this kind accounts for 83 percent of all
    meetings held (based on a study in which I wrote down numbers until one
    of them looked about right). 

    This type of meeting operates the way "Show and Tell" does in nursery
    school, with everybody getting to say something, the difference being
    that in nursery school the kids actually have something new to say.
    When it's your turn, you should say you're still working on whatever it
    is you're supposed to be working on. This may seem pretty dumb, since
    *obviously* you'd be working on whatever you're supposed to be working
    on, and even if you weren't, you'd *claim* you were, but this is the
    traditional thing for everyone to say. It would be a lot faster if the
    persons running the meeting would just say, "Everybody who is still
    working on what he or she is supposed to be working on, raise your
    hand!" You'd all be out of there in five minutes, even allowing time
    for jokes. But this is not how we do it in America. My guess is, it's
    how they do it over in Japan. 

    2. Meetings where there is some alleged purpose. These are trickier,
    because what you do depends on what the purpose is. Sometimes the
    purpose is harmless, like somebody wants to show slides of pie charts
    and give everybody a copy of a big fat report. All you have to do in
    this kind of meeting is sit there and have elaborate fantasies, then
    take the report back to your office and throw it away, unless of course
    you're a vice president, in which case you write the name of a
    subordinate in the upper-right-hand corner, followed by a question
    mark, like this: "Norm?" Then you send it to Norm and forget all about
    it (although it will plague old Norm for the rest of his career). 

    But sometimes you go to meetings where the purpose is to get your
    "input" on something. This is very serious, because what it means is,
    they want to make sure that in case whatever it is turns out to be
    stupid or fatal, you'll get some of the blame. So you have to somehow
    escape from the meeting before they get around to asking you anything.
    One way is to set fire to your tie. 

    Another is to have an accomplice interrupt the meeting and announce
    that you have a phone call from somebody very important, such as the
    president of the company, or the pope. It should be either one or the
    other. It would sound fishy if the accomplice said, "You have a call
    from the president of the company. Or the pope." 

    You should know how to take notes at a meeting. Use a yellow legal pad.
    At the top, write the date and underline it twice. Now wait until an
    important person such as your boss starts talking. When he does, look
    at him with an expression of enraptured interest, as though he is
    revealing the secrets of life itself. Then write interlocking
    rectangles, like this: <Picture of doodled rectangles>. 

    If it is an especially lengthy meeting, you can try something like
    this: <Picture of more elaborate doodles and caricature of boss.> 

    If somebody falls asleep in a meeting, have everybody else leave the
    room. Then collect a group of total strangers, right off the street,
    and have them sit around the sleeping person until he wakes up. Then
    have one of them say to him, in a very somber voice, "Bob, your plan is
    very, very risky. However, you've given us no choice but to try it. I
    only hope, for your sake, that you know what you're getting yourself
    into." Then they should file quietly from the room. 

[Reproduced w/out permission from the September '86 issue of "Reader's
Digest". 
    
At the bottom of the first page of the article appeared the following
text: "Claw Your Way to the Top," copyright 1986 by Dave Barry, will be
published this month in paperback at $5.95 by Rodale Press Inc., 33 E.
Minor St., Emmaus, PA 18049.] 

I recently saw John Fuqua on NBR in an interview.  He said, 'Executives spend
entirely too much time in meetings.  They should spend less time in meetings,
and more time making decisions and running the company.  After all, that's what
they are getting paid to do.'

I thought it was sound advise.  I've been to meetings where the majority of the
meeting was spent in determining what the meeting was going to be about... 
Most of the rest of the meeting, was spent deciding when the next Con call was
going to be held to schedule the next meeting.  I view meetings largely, as a
waste of productive time.  With a few execeptions when I feel they are
absolutely necessary...
 
My thoughts,
 
JK
 

    
    Certainly there can be too many meetings, too long meetings, and
    ones which are unfocused and wander wasting the time of whomever
    is there.  We've all been to our share of those.
    
    But, I have another view of this and agree with .8 that meetings
    have many uses.  I need to push back on the view that the only 
    productive work happens in one's office in front of a terminal.
    Meetings can be very helpful in ensuring that the various members
    of a group or team communicate with each other.  Frankly, IMHO, one
    of the contributors to missed schedules, cues, etc. is the isolating
    in our cubicles and not knowing enough about the work being produced
    by the others we are supposed to be "working with."
    
    There is a popular belief that the "real" work is being done
    by our "technical heroes" peering at their terminal screens day in
    and day out.  Part of the "real" work involves communicating and
    ensuring that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing.
    In my experience, projects have more problems from lack of
    communication than for technical reasons.  The reply mentioning the
    weekly group/team meeting for one hour I think is a good idea.  One
    hour spent discussing what each team/group member is doing that week,
    ensuring that the rest of the group/team knows what that is, and
    arranging any support or assistance that each person needs that week
    to accomplish his/her work will do more to ensure success than
    countless hours spent individually clicking terminal keys and never
    talking to each other.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
     

    It is my opinion that one of the major causes of meetings is Digitals
    matrix style of management.  Most of us work in facilities where people
    from many different job functions reside.  To do meaningfull work we
    need the cooperation of many departments with no single point of
    authority for decisions.  I work in a branch sales office.  In
    addressing many customer issues I need to get "the team" together. 
    This may include sales, s/w support, contracts, customer support etc.
    In the customers eyes, Digital is a slow moving, non-responsive company
    to do business with.  
    
    Maybe we have outgrown the matrix style of organization and should have
    a more traditional top down facitity management over all functions.  
    
    As it is now we need too many meetings to get agreement to do anything.
    
    FWIW & my .02
    
    Chuck  

    
    If we make the assumption that meetings will always be with us, at
    least to some degree, then IMHO, I think we need to focus on the
    quality fo the meetings we attend or chair.  To this end, I would
    suggest that we look at a excellent way to determine a meetings quality
    rating.  
    
    In the notes conference on Six Sigma (SSVAX::SIX_SIGMA), note 69
    contains a quality measurement tool for meetings.  It looks GREAT and
    I've suggested that my group adopt it at all of our meetings.  It will
    be very interesting to see the results and communicate the final rating
    to everyone involved in a meeting.
    
    Bob Barber

    Working in a systems development group, meetings -- working meetings,
    status meetings and reviews - are a necessary way of life.  There's too
    much inter-dependency on different aspects of systems development (hardware,
    software, applications, support, etc) to manage this type of activity
    in any other way.
    
    Mark.

I conducted an in-depth study in 1988 that investigated meetings
at Digital and specifically looked at computer conferencing as an
alternative.  I believe my paper relates to the discussion at hand.
I have attached the abstract and discussion.

The entire work is in the Digital library at MLO under my name 
(HF5718.B72, CID#61244).  Let me know if you have trouble getting at it.  
I also have a copy in my MRO4 office.  

				- Anne Marie


Conference Communication: In the Boardroom or on the Computer?
--------------------------------------------------------------
				
				- Anne Marie Brako
			          Boston University
				  School of Communications
			          July, 1988

ABSTRACT

This project examines whether an electronic medium, known
as computer conferencing, may be considered as an alternative to the
common business meeting.  The literature search affirms the potential 
economic value of such a tool to corporations, and confirms that no 
previous study has examined computer conferencing as directly compared
to meetings.  The theoretical summary compares the two forms of group 
communication, and outlines my hypotheses.  A survey of 
393 computer-conference users conducted at Digital Equipment Corporation 
provides research data to support or refute these hypotheses. 
For a summary of the findings, consult the ``Discussion'' part 
of the Results section.

{Discussion}

As substantiated by the findings of a survey at Digital Equipment Corporation,
the computer-conferencing application can reduce and complement business 
meetings.  The questionnaire was designed to identify what types of 
conventional meetings computer conferences are replacing, and if 
computer conferences had the potential to replace other types.

The 393 respondents to the questionnaire were volunteers at
Digital Equipment Corporation.  Data collection went on for three
months on the company's computer network:  from February 1 through 
April 30, 1987.  As the computer network has sites in 26 countries
and on six continents, respondents came from all over the globe.

Respondents had the option of taking the survey anonymously,
but 385 subjects provided their name.  This may be related to the 
incentives offered to increase the response level.  A public 
drawing was held in which the winning survey respondent received
a \$50.00 gift certificate.  For those respondents who preferred anonymity,
and therefore could not enter the drawing, \$1.00 was donated to the 
United Way.  Respondents could also elect to take the survey interactively
on the computer or to fill out a hardcopy version.  The hardcopy 
questionnaires were keyed in to facilitate statistical analysis.

Only people that followed three computer conferences once a week
were invited to respond to the survey.  This was done to ensure the 
sample included people that were experienced users of the medium, and
who were familiar with its benefits and weaknesses.  As 85 percent
of the respondents attended one or more business meetings the week
they took the questionnaire, this adds credibility to the comparisons
made between computer conferences and business meetings
based on the data provided by the sample.  

An interesting subset of respondents emerged:  20.6 percent of the sample
spent at least five hours following computer conferences and five more hours
attending meetings the week of filling out the questionnaire.  Of those 
respondents that spent five hours or more in meetings, 70 percent also 
reported spending most time with work-related computer conferences.  
Computer conferences round out the day for those employees who are always
looking for more work.

Over half of the sample reported using the computer-conferencing
application for two years or less.  This is indicative of the growth
of the Digital computer network (doubling in size since 1980) and the
number of new users employing the medium.  The 16 percent of respondents
who had used computer conferences for less than a year formed a new user
category.  There was no novelty effect in relation to the number of
computer conferences accessed weekly.  In fact, old users---respondents 
who had employed the application for a year or longer---were more likely 
to report that they followed more computer conferences a week.
About 60 percent of all the respondents spent the most time accessing
work-related computer conferences rather than personal-interest ones.

About 44 percent of both user groups accessed between four and ten
conferences a day, and only 7 percent did not access any computer conferences
daily.  This indicates both groups realize the ease with which one can
fall behind following a computer conference.  The tendency indicates that
computer conferences have become a part of the daily work routine.

Technical knowledge did not preclude the use of computer-conferencing. The
13 percent of the respondents that had non-technical job 
classifications did not differ significantly in usage from the rest
of the sample.  However, the data did indicate that technical knowledge 
affected efficiency. Users---in both technical and non-technical 
job classifications---that did not employ time-saving methods that 
were inherent in the software also ended up spending more time accessing
the application.

The demographic variables, although helpful to establish the reliability
of the data provided by the sample (older respondents made more money
than younger respondents; repondents in management jobs came from diverse
job classifications), did not significantly affect computer-conferencing 
and business meeting variables in many ways.  All job categories had
the same number of new users indicating that no single division 
at Digital recently began using computer-conferencing software.  
Respondents in software engineering and software services positions used
the application the most.  Only the lowest salary range of respondents,
less that \$32,000, read personal-interest computer conferences more
than work-related ones.  Curiously, salary did increase significantly
when compared with the number of computer conferencences accessed a week.

The Methodology portion of this paper hypothesized that computer conferences
could replace three meeting types, replace some aspects of two other
types, and could not replace three types.  

The first hypothesis was that the computer conference could somewhat
replace The Ritual.  The findings supported this claim.  This meeting type 
occurs at regular intervals, has the same attendees and an established agenda, 
allows for informational exchange, and allows for group socialization 
which was not investigated. This paper proposes that the computer conference 
could fill all these needs, except for group socialization.  The results 
of the study indicate that computer conferences have indeed alleviated 
problems identified at the conventional meeting:  boredom, ineffectiveness,
absence of a key individual, and the burdensome task of taking minutes.
More than half of the respondents are using computer conferences as
The Ritual in ``unannounced conferences.''  As 90 percent of the unannounced
conferences were reported to be work-related, and 85 percent are followed
daily, people are meeting more frequently than they would in The Ritual which
usually does not occur more often than once a week. 

The second hypothesis proposed that computer conferences could replace
The Problem Solver.  This hypothesis also held up.  The meeting type
involves the need to solve a problem, information exchange, and group
input into the final decision.  The results of the study indicated
that computer conferences removed the problems of too few alternatives and
a close-minded meeting leader at The Problem Solver.  In fact, only 11
percent of the sample had never solved a problem in a computer conference.

The third and fourth hypotheses were that computer conferences could
not replace The Decision Reinforcer or The Negotiator.  The Decision 
Reinforcer masks preconceived decisions as if the issues are still
under discussion and, therefore, obstructs the discussion of new ideas.
Discussions with computer-conference moderators added support to the
presumption that this type of meeting could not take place in a 
computer-conferencing environement which promotes suggestions.  The
Negotiator requires two or more viewpoints, bargaining, and the
arrival at a compromise decision.  Once again, the moderators agreed
that the computer-conference rate of interaction is not fast enough
to simulate bargaining, a critical feature of this meeting type.  Due
to the strong opposition to the computer conference as a replacement
for The Decision Reinforcer and The Negotiator, the questionnaire
did not include variables to examine these types of meetings in
a computer-conferencing environment.

The fifth hypothesis asserted that the computer conference could
replace The Town Crier.  The results provided support.
This meeting type involves the dissemination of information, occurs 
irregularly, and has no prescribed agenda.  The results held out 
that a computer conference could remove the problems of this 
meeting:  slow feedback, incorrect data may spread widely prior 
to correction, and limitations of time, size, and location.  
 
Although the sixth hypothesis proposed that the computer conference
could replace The Air Conditioner, the results were inconclusive.
At this meeting type, attendees ventilate feelings to expose
problems.  There was no strong indication that a computer-conference
environment would alleviate the inhibitions of participants.

The seventh hypothesis stated that a computer conference could not
replace The Trainer.  This meeting provides an instructional
environement where the communication is mostly one-sided.  This
hypothsis contained the assumption that a computer conference would
be unstuitable for this type of communication flow.  The respondents,
however, disagreed.  Over 77 percent reported the willingness
to use a computer conference involving communication by a single source.
Further research should be devoted to this area.

The final hypothesis also requires further study.  The study
proposed that computer conferences could replace some aspects
of The Social Gathering.  This meeting involves the discussion of
norms, values, and interest.  As shown by the high-rate of
informational exchange shown to be present in computer conferences 
by the other hypotheses in this study, it appears that the 
computer conference could meet this need. However, physical characteristics 
also influence interaction at The Social Gathering.  A questionnaire was not
deemed as a proper research instrument to look at this aspect.
Therefore, the potentional seems to be there, but further research
must be done.

Perhaps the strongest indication that the application is a good
business tool is that 91 percent of respondents would recommend purchase
of computer-conferencing software if they went to work for a company
without it.  If in a position to buy the software, 87 percent would make
the purchase.

Computer conferences have the potential to replace or complement
many conventional meeting forms.  Managers in the business community
should take note.

    Thought-provoking paper.  Thanks for posting it.  I wonder a bit
    about the assertion that computer conferences alleviate the problem of
    absence of key individuals at conventional meetings.  I accept that
    they CAN alleviate the problem, but it would be difficult to measure
    since you can't tell, as the poster of a note, who all has read the
    note and not responded.  In fact, I have often read it lamented that
    though a conclusion may be reached in a note conference, the people who
    most needed to participate did not and no actions would be taken.
    
    This might not be critical as I suppose this concern could be already
    implied in the discussion about The Decision Reinforcer and The
    Negotiator.   
    
    
    Steve
         

    re. 16                      
    
    Yes, I can relate to your frustration that often "the people who
    most needed to participate did not and no actions would be taken."
    In fact, I do not commonly read this notesfile, and it took a friend
    to tell me that I should post the results of my thesis here!
    
    It's difficult to force people to participate in computer conferences,
    but that same limitation exists at meetings.  I was trying to
    point out that contributors that might have been absent from a meeting
    due to time and location restrictions would not have experience those
    limitations in a computer conference.   You caught me on semantics.
    
    To take this discussion on a bit further, I have noticed through my own 
    personal experience that managers use the discussions at a meeting 
    to form their own decisions, however, they do not simply adopt whatever 
    was the majority feeling.  It seems to me that notes are used in the 
    same way.  Meetings are not intended to be a democracy; nor are computer
    conferences.  But if computer conferences provide the OPPORTUNITY for
    more viewpoints to be made, then I think they are the preferred 
    alternative.  
    
					- Anne Marie                   			

    I had to opportunity to participate in weekly staff meetings that never
    overran the time scheduled. The leader was excellent. He appreciated
    the time of the engineers, and others.
    
    I had the opportunity to participate in many weekly meetings in another
    group that constantly went down a rathole for stupid little issues,
    the leader never managed once to get out on time. It was frustrating,
    and I decided not to participate. 
    
    It is great, to get the information you need in a very short and to the
    point meeting once a week.
    
    Ruth

    I don't remember where I read this, but I still remember it.
    
    "There are only 2 jobs at DEC, you either attend meetings, or
    answer the phone for those who are at meetings"
    

    Re -1 .....that's only for Personnel, excuse me...Human Resources.
    
    Anyhow, while acknowledging the need for some meetings, what really
    torques me is the casual acceptance by far too many DECies that almost
    everyone is going to be late!  I say lock the door and go without 'em.
    
    But an interesting thing happened to me recently.  As mentioned in an
    earlier entry, I used to spend a lot of time in meetings.  But, then
    I transferred to Colorado to take over a new product set.  But, I also
    retained responsibility for all the stuff I used to support at ZK0.
    Well, I haven't attend one meeting since last June on my older
    products, and would anyone care to guess what the overall impact has
    been???  I'll tell you...zero, zilch, nada, nuthin'.  Kinda speaks to
    the importance of all those meetings.

    < Note 1394.20 by COOKIE::LENNARD >


>    Well, I haven't attend one meeting since last June on my older
>    products, and would anyone care to guess what the overall impact has
>    been???  I'll tell you...zero, zilch, nada, nuthin'.  Kinda speaks to
>    the importance of all those meetings.

    Actually, it speaks volumes on the value of your contribution to
    the project.
    
    ;^)  Sorry, couldn't resist...
    
    Mark.
    
    Mark.

> "There are only 2 jobs at DEC, you either attend meetings, or
> answer the phone for those who are at meetings"
    
  It's a corruption of a Dave Barry newspaper column describing life
  at any major corporation.  In fact, wasn't the original column just
  posted here a few days ago?

                                   Atlant

DEC's culture supports meeting norms that are among the worst I have 
seen in the industry.  We have come to expect late arrival, lack of an 
agenda (never mind KEEPING to one), lack of minutes, tacit acceptance
of action items (even assignment in absentia), and lack of doneness
criteria as the description of a DEC meeting.
Our individualistic tendencies (a major aspect of the Corporate culture)
aggravate this, and lead us to denigrate imposition of more discipline
as "hard-assed" or "dictatorial."

Good meetings, like good design, take work up front, but save rework 
down the line.

I encourage EVERYBODY to view the John Cleese video "Meetings, Bloody 
Meetings," from which the title of this topic is taken.
Hey, have a meeting to show it (but know why).

I won't recap all the pointers of the video, but I believe it can be 
summed up by:
  1) Know why you need a meeting (and don't have one if you don't).
  2) Know what you are going to do.
  3) Keep to the point (but diverge if warranted).  
        [This is the hardest point of all.  Ratholes are often fun
         and, somewhat unfortunately, occasionally productive.]
  4) WRITE IT DOWN.  (As a co-worker of mine has said, "If it's not
         written down, it never happened.")

Invitees are responsible for seeing that organizers communicate the intents
of points 1 and 2, and also for being prepared themselves.  They must 
ask "What shall I bring, what should I read first, how should I be prepared?"
Organizers must follow up by enforcing points 3 and 4, making sure that
consensus is active.  Contributors to a consensus must actively buy into
it or explicitly object to it - no "DEC nods."

Enough for now - watch the video.  It's funny but oh so true.

- tom powers]

Re .23:

From notes taken during my most recent viewing of the video (18-May-90):

1.  Set meeting goals.  (Why is the meeting necessary?)
2.  Distribute an agenda covering the goals, and time limits for each agenda
    item.
3.  Put the agenda items in a logical order.
4.  Structure the discussion during the meeting.  (E.g., don't try and diagnose
    a problem before its symptoms are defined, and don't try to cure a
    problem before you've arrived at a diagnosis).
5.  Summarize and record the results of the meeting.

	-or-

PLAN, INFORM, PREPARE, STRUCTURE & CONTROL, SUMMARIZE & RECORD


From notes taken during a viewing of the sequel, "More Bloody Meetings":

	Laws of Meetings
	[for meeting leaders]

1.  Unite the Group
	Allow people to express themselves / Don't take sides
	Bring others into the discussion
	Stick to facts

2.  Focus the Group
	Stay alert
	Keep a hand on the wheel
	Test comprehension
	Paraphrase or check back

3.  Mobilize the Group
	Protect the weak
	Check around the room
	Record suggestions
	Build up ideas
				/AHM

There's a tool which will help, if you have the right hardware available: you
need any old VDU plus a couple of monitors, mimicking the terminal. 

*One* person is responsible for taking meeting notes, using the terminal.
Nobody else is allowed to. (This has the side effect of making sure that almost
everybody is fully attentive...) At all times everyone can see what has been
discussed, what is to be discussed and what has been agreed. At the end of the
meeting, the notes are mailed to the attendees who have a common record of what
happened. 

The tool? OUTLINE. 

Gavin

    re: .23
    
    I have a problem with meetings that start late.  I hate to waste my
    time waiting for someone to show up, and I don't much like wasting
    other people's time either.
    
    When the latecomers are your peers or management you can't be
    dictatorial, so I use a different technique: shame.  When I'm running a
    meeting I arrive 5 minutes early and start the meeting on time, no
    matter who's missing.  When people come in late they've missed
    something, but I don't go back and repeat what they've missed.
    
    I imagine there are people who don't appreciate what I do, but I think
    its fun and it does prevent regular meetings from getting later and
    later as people learn when the meeting "really" starts.
        John Sauter

Re: .26

>>    When people come in late they've missed
>>    something, but I don't go back and repeat what they've missed.

I'm with you, John.

Nothing annoys me more than people who re-start the meeting every time
someone new wanders in.

-steve-

    re .25   Speaking on behalf of the thousands who still try to survive
    with only an "old VDU", a big HARUMPH and Pardon Me to you too {:^).

>                           -< Whats a VDU Daddy??? >-
>
>    re .25   Speaking on behalf of the thousands who still try to survive
>    with only an "old VDU", a big HARUMPH and Pardon Me to you too {:^).

The point being that you don't have to use someone's nice new VT3xx, you can 
give useful new life to an old... (I see my foot rising to the area where my
lips meet...)   :-)

It's heartening to see that your group isn't dumping stuff just 'cos it's "old".

Gavin

    Back to the meetings topic.
    
    One of my former managers (this only works with static groups)
    had us all agree to a system that anyone later than 5 minutes
    (his watch regardless of anyone's else's - so you can't adjust
    yours as you come in late), had to put $ 1.00 in a late kitty
    that we used for common affairs like Xmas food, drinks at a 
    local watering hole etc. It worked very well and I adopted the
    same strategy when I was a manager. The kitty never did get
    very large but that was the idea !
    
    Try it - you'll like it !
    
    Lloyd

Re: <<< Note 1394.30 by AKOCOA::OSTIGUY "The Computer is your DATA Wallet" >>>

>    One of my former managers (this only works with static groups)
>    had us all agree to a system that anyone later than 5 minutes
>    (his watch regardless of anyone's else's - so you can't adjust
>    yours as you come in late), had to put $ 1.00 in a late kitty

To me this condones being 5 minutes late.  We do the same $1 thing if anyone's 
*at all* late which is the only way to get meetings started *on time*. 

-  David

    Can't agrue with that.....5 minutes was the choice 4 or 5
    years ago. Maybe today we too would have picked 0 seconds.
    
    Good show - Lloyd

    IN a course I took that included meeting effectiveness, John Whiteside
    told us that "perhaps the best way to have your meetings start on time
    is to simply start on time.  Whether there is anybody else there or
    not."

    IMO Digital has to many meetings. I've been with this Co. not even
    three years and every time I turn around someone I need to get in
    touch with is in a "MEETING" it's no wonder DEC is doing so poorly,
    Customers can't find anyone to speak with unless they're invited
    to the "MEETING. I think that many Managers believe that in order
    to be judge a good manager they must have meetings. Lets have a
    
    meeting to set up a meeting!!!!!  I do not attend many meetings
    anymore, BUT my wife also works for DEC and her work is backed up
    into last year (maybe I exaggerate a bit). Why is she so busy because
    she like most of us have a manager that feels that everyone in his/her
    group (though 2 people isn't much of a group) should be in this
    meeting. Why not examine the work load of the individuals, if they
    are back up with a special project have 1 person from that group
    go. I was once in a meeting just because they wanted a good head
    count. Like I had nothing else to to for 4 hours......well enough
    of this for now....I must go maybe I can find a meeting to attend.
    
                                                Bob

    How about a fine for people that leave before the full hour is up
    because they have to get to the next meeting to avoid paying the fine?

Re: .36:

   Maybe we should schedule meetings for 50 minutes, starting 10 minutes
past the hour, giving time for everyone to shuffle from one meeting to the
next.  This is how classes worked in college...

   (Or: maybe we should stop having so many bloody meetings where people
shuffle work around and instead just do things?  nahhh... that's a Nike
commercial, not Digital.)

					-mjg

    How about requiring everyone to use a corporate wide master meeting
    scheduler that would not allow any meeting to be scheduled if it would
    result in a conflict for anyone who was invited to the meeting.  It
    could even allow for standard travel times.
    
    I belive this would have a great benefit to the company, as it would
    probably prevent most, if not all, meetings from EVER being scheduled!
    
    Steve

Re: last few

Why do people schedule meetings for a certain length of time and assume they 
have to fill that whole time slot?  I like to accomplish *tasks* in meetings
I chair and as soon as we're done with those tasks we end the meeting. 

Then on to other tasks...  or meetings  :-(

-  David

    Re: Corporate wide master meeting scheduler
    
    I believe that Data General's CEO package (their office
    automation/integration s/w) has that exact facility.  It apparently
    searched all the invitees calendars, finds openings for *ALL*, searches
    conference rooms, reserves the rooms and updates personal appointment
    books.  Plus, I think it also sends a comfirming mail message to all
    attendees.
    
    Wow!
    
    Kev
    

    The installation manual also tells you that if the network comm link
    freezes to pull out the wire to reset the controller.
    
    The overhead involved in keeping EVERYTHING on-line, up-to-date
    and consistent is the number one demotivator to doing this.  Its
    like every automation problem that assumes, if all the users will
    change every phase of their daily lives to fit within the programmers
    assumptions, everything is great.