Brady SteeleProgram Manager| BlueCross BlueShield of TNOoltewah, Tn, United States
My team is finding difficult to schedule ongoing meetings with project stakeholders due to the number of projects we handle at any given time. I have considered combining all the project into one three to four hour status call. Most of the same people are present in all of the calls and those that are not on the agenda, or do not need any new information, can sit out. Has anyone had experience with something like this? Saving Changes...
What's the purpose of the meetings? Is it purely to share information or are these working sessions? If it is to share information why not consider alternative approaches such as the use of pull-based information radiators to provide key info?
Kiron
...
1 reply by Brady Steele
Nov 16, 2023 9:05 AM
Brady Steele
...
Thanks Kiron, my team manages around 15 different projects at any given time. These are bi-weekly status meetings to check in on progress and allow the team to ask for feedback on the progress or to bring issues to the group. The deal is, most of the same people are in the same meetings because of the responsibilities they have. For example: we handle all of the contracting projects for BCBST related to physicians and hospitals. On many of those projects, we require members from system configuration, legal, brand voice, etc. But while they all have a role in each project, the purpose of the project is different. This has us running meetings for each project, thus way too many meetings. Instead of having 15 45-minute meetings, I was thinking of moving to one day a week for three or four hours and bringing all of them together and reviewing each project there. But I don't know if that will make things easier or more difficult.
3-4 hour status meetings are absolutely brutal unless you do a good job of setting a time boxed agenda and rigorously sticking to it. I refer to those types of working arrangements as punitive.
It often means a significant amount of time spent sitting through discussions with no relevance to many on the team. When discussions run long, people may sit through the entire call with their topics never addressed due to lack of time.
I find it more effective to spend 3-4 hours of my own time carefully planning a series of shorter meetings than hold 20+ people hostage. They will often multi-task through most of it anyways and miss information that could be relevant to them.
I would suggest blocking off that much time for a series of shorter meetings, publish the agenda more than 24 hours in advance, and stick to the agenda. If sections go faster than plan, then you and the others who are involved in most of it can do email or have a bio-break until the time for the next scheduled discussion unless you can establish that all the required attendees are already present for the next section. Saving Changes...
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Brady, I did totally agree with Keith, a 3 to 4 hours meeting is not the way to go and I doubt you will be able to get commitment from all key stakeholders for a four hours meeting.
Since you are handling multiple projects at a time, why don't you set up a live Status Dashboard with real time data available to Stakeholders and then do a one to two hours monthly meeting to go over all projects briefly. I am not sure how many projects are you handling at a time, or what's the size and nature of your projects because all that matters.
...
1 reply by Kwiyuh Michael Wepngong
Nov 16, 2023 2:55 AM
Kwiyuh Michael Wepngong
...
Powerful and comprehensive response from Rami.
Thanks
Financial Management Specialist | US Peace CorpsYaounde, Centre, Cameroon
Nov 15, 2023 7:33 PM
Replying to Rami Kaibni
...
Brady, I did totally agree with Keith, a 3 to 4 hours meeting is not the way to go and I doubt you will be able to get commitment from all key stakeholders for a four hours meeting.
Since you are handling multiple projects at a time, why don't you set up a live Status Dashboard with real time data available to Stakeholders and then do a one to two hours monthly meeting to go over all projects briefly. I am not sure how many projects are you handling at a time, or what's the size and nature of your projects because all that matters.
Powerful and comprehensive response from Rami.
Thanks Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
The key point is: why to have lot of meetings? That is not needed at all. Just to comment I lead initiatives with more than 250 people working as virtual teams around the world. And that was before the pandemic and before things like zoom exists, just with phone bridge for example. At the end, is a matter of architecture (the way the teams are distributed and their taxonomy) and a matter of trust. Avoid the meetings and let the teams work. The key point is the project/program manager has to work on let the teams have everything clear about what/how/when/who will do things. Saving Changes...
Brady SteeleProgram Manager| BlueCross BlueShield of TNOoltewah, Tn, United States
Nov 15, 2023 4:45 PM
Replying to Kiron Bondale
...
Brady -
What's the purpose of the meetings? Is it purely to share information or are these working sessions? If it is to share information why not consider alternative approaches such as the use of pull-based information radiators to provide key info?
Kiron
Thanks Kiron, my team manages around 15 different projects at any given time. These are bi-weekly status meetings to check in on progress and allow the team to ask for feedback on the progress or to bring issues to the group. The deal is, most of the same people are in the same meetings because of the responsibilities they have. For example: we handle all of the contracting projects for BCBST related to physicians and hospitals. On many of those projects, we require members from system configuration, legal, brand voice, etc. But while they all have a role in each project, the purpose of the project is different. This has us running meetings for each project, thus way too many meetings. Instead of having 15 45-minute meetings, I was thinking of moving to one day a week for three or four hours and bringing all of them together and reviewing each project there. But I don't know if that will make things easier or more difficult.
...
1 reply by Kiron Bondale
Nov 16, 2023 11:20 AM
Kiron Bondale
...
It still feels like a push of information to your different stakeholders - the majority of what you've described might be addressed by giving stakeholders greater transparency (real-time) into the status of work items, blockers and so on.
This could be done with a single work board for your team, or multiple work boards (one per project).
Thanks Kiron, my team manages around 15 different projects at any given time. These are bi-weekly status meetings to check in on progress and allow the team to ask for feedback on the progress or to bring issues to the group. The deal is, most of the same people are in the same meetings because of the responsibilities they have. For example: we handle all of the contracting projects for BCBST related to physicians and hospitals. On many of those projects, we require members from system configuration, legal, brand voice, etc. But while they all have a role in each project, the purpose of the project is different. This has us running meetings for each project, thus way too many meetings. Instead of having 15 45-minute meetings, I was thinking of moving to one day a week for three or four hours and bringing all of them together and reviewing each project there. But I don't know if that will make things easier or more difficult.
It still feels like a push of information to your different stakeholders - the majority of what you've described might be addressed by giving stakeholders greater transparency (real-time) into the status of work items, blockers and so on.
This could be done with a single work board for your team, or multiple work boards (one per project).
Community Champion
