I had to schedule a meeting the other day. I knew it was only going to be about 10-15 minutes, but I had to fight the irresistible urge to schedule it for the default 30-minutes that Microsoft provides. This caused me to reflect on how much unnecessary time we spend in “meetings”. It’s not so much that we need to have “meetings” all the time, as it is that we need to get a couple of people together at the same time to make a quick decision that will take only a couple of minutes. It’s the type of thing where you could stop by someone’s office or desk and get the answer, except everyone is in different locations and/or has incredibly busy schedules.
So, going forward, if I think it’s only going to take 10-15 minutes…I’m going to schedule it for 10-15 minutes.
What do you think? Is there an incredible amount of time you feel is wasted on “default length” meetings? What are some of the things you do to keep your meetings brief and effective? Saving Changes...
Gail BertrandProject Manager| Air ProductsAlphen A/D Rijn, Netherlands
I also feel we are being programmed to 30 minute or 1 hour meetings, and being remote from my team members, those quick conversations are actually online chats (often interruptions to their online meetings). The regular meetings are quite often "back to back' and we end up jumping from one to the other, always seeming to be later joining. I totally agree to prepare the meeting well and keep it short and to the point - just talk about the bits you need and if necessary document anything else to be read later. Who knows? - we could start the "short and sweet" trend? Saving Changes...
Gail BertrandProject Manager| Air ProductsAlphen A/D Rijn, Netherlands
I also feel we are being programmed to 30 minute or 1 hour meetings, and being remote from my team members, those quick conversations are actually online chats (often interruptions to their online meetings). The regular meetings are quite often "back to back' and we end up jumping from one to the other, always seeming to be later joining. I totally agree to prepare the meeting well and keep it short and to the point - just talk about the bits you need and if necessary document anything else to be read later. Who knows? - we could start the "short and sweet" trend? Saving Changes...
Eric LamySenior Project Manager| Keurig Green MountainNewbury, Ma, United States
I say to hell with the Microsoft defaults. I frequently schedule meetings in 10, 15, 25 minute intervals depending on how long I want the meeting to run. Unless I feel that there's some ambiguity in what the meeting agenda is going to be, or that there are questions to be answered that could generate more discussion than a simple report would require, I'm always of a mind to keep meeting times as short as possible. In most cases, that time can almost always be better spent. Saving Changes...
John Cunningham PMPSenior Consultant| Lincoln Financial Group - Product and Implementation ManagementCentral, Ct, United States
IMO there are many variables with the meeting dilemma: scheduling tool, proximity of stakeholders, time zones, and competing priorities. I prefer to schedule shorter meetings that are as frequent as 15 minutes daily when a project is 'hot' and sometimes these run over when we discuss off topic project issues. These meetings usually don't have a formal agenda so often go undocumented. While brief is convenient, informal has its challenges with keeping focus on deliverables. More formal meetings with senior managers have agendas and typicically booked 30-60 minutes minimum. These are sometimes strategic or sometimes status meetings so time will be flexed depending on whats needed. Productivity in either type of meeting depends on engagement and stake in the project. What's often overlooked (or spellchecker says overcooked) is the effort of the PM/ PC and/ or person responsible for arranging, facilitating, documenting, and following up. Without people like us projects will stretch the triple-constraints time and again with no transparency to its owners. Saving Changes...
Steve KarakasidisUS : Senior Project Manager| AlgomiEast Elmhurst, Ny, United States
The concept of a to-the-point meetings need to be become mainstream vs. the exception or perceived as a new approach. Also, much like Mitch replied above, not all meetings need to be person. If there is a need to get a quick answer, we can leverage technologies available to limit time loss. I am a big proponent of using Lync, Skype, Sametime, etc. tools to gather people together and ask questions. Saving Changes...
Peter MorrisPM Consultant, Author| INDUS TechnologySan Antonio Texas, United States
Call it a 15-minute Scrum, then if challenged you just say you''re being agile. Then walk quickly away. Saving Changes...
Conrad KolisSenior Manager Project Management| ConvergysCincinnati, Oh, United States
Rather than 30 or 60 minutes, what about 20 and 45? Given the travel time for people to get from one meeting to another, especially if you're on multiple floors or different buildings, a meeting from 9:05-9:25 or 1:35-2:20 gives people a chance to get to your meeting, and an chance to get to their next appointment (if they have one) when your meeting has ended. And if you conclude the business of the meeting in less time, then, of course, the formal meeting is over, and people can head off to whatever is next.
Another advantage of the "off time" start & end is that you reduce the number of people "running late" from their previous meeting or "leaving early" to get to their next one.
Plus, if the meeting leader makes it a point to be there at the hour or half-hour mark to which everyone is accustomed, and stay to the hour or half-hour mark at the close, then the meeting leader can do some prep, answer questions without taking up meeting time, and simply take the extra few minutes at each end to build relationships with those who are "early" or don't need to rush off at the end. Saving Changes...
Wow. Your default for meetings is 30 minutes - that's great. Most companies that I have worked have the default set at 60 minutes. Yuck. When I work at those companies I always change *my* default to 30 minutes. But too many meetings are longer than they need to be because of that very reason. Shorter meetings force people to focus on the subject of the meeting, even if a formal agenda is not published. Saving Changes...
Interesting question.
I think a meeting can be less than 30min but if someone says, how about 5 min? Well then may a simple 'go to table talk' will do.
Meetings should be well planned with agenda circulated before hand. Participants aware of their roles. And lastly minutes should be circulated with clear action item. Saving Changes...
Carmen PullianDirector Projects and Programs NAM| adidasHerzogenaurach, Germany
from time to time I have also the situation where I know the meeting will not take longer than maybe 15 Minutes or less. I mostly still schedule 30 Minutes but mention it in the invitation that I don't think it will take so long.
of course you will ask why I schedule 30 minutes anyway... because we have mostly back to back meetings and most of us are glad to have some time "blocked" to be able to get a cup of coffee or have extra minutes to check emails or just start already preparing the next meeting or also walk from your desk/conference room to the next meeting place.
Occasionally I schedule 15 minutes if I see it fit just also to make a statement ... which also forces most of the people also to join in time and not waste the one or the other minute while coming too late. Saving Changes...
