No one likes meetings and for good reason. In most meetings, most of the time, most people think most of what goes on is a waste of time.
So what if you took out all of the stupid, wasteful stuff and left only the useful parts?
Enter the 22 minute meeting. This is an idea from Nicole Steinbok, and she presented the idea at Seattle Ignite 9.� When I saw her present this concept at Microsoft a few months ago, she gave one of the best short talks I’ve ever seen.
Here’s the poster from her talk: 
I couldn’t find a write up of the core points, so here’s my take on her ideas from what I remember from her talk. All credit should go her way:
- Schedule a 22 minute meeting - Who decided meetings should be 30 or 60 minutes?� What data is this based on? None. 30 and 60 minute meetings leave no time to get between meetings, and assumes, on average, people need an hour to sort things out. Certainly not all meetings can be run in 22 minutes, but many can, so we’d all be better off if the default time were small, not large.
- Have a goal based agenda – Having an agenda at all would be a plus in most meetings. Writing it on the whiteboard, earns double pluses, since then everyone has a constant reminder of what the meeting is supposed to achieve.
- Send required readings 3 days beforehand – The burden is on the organizer to make this small enough that people actually do it. Never ever allow a meeting to be “lets all read the documents together and penalize anyone diligent enough to do their homework”. (note: I think 24 hours is plenty).
- Start on time – How often does this happen? Almost never. Part of the problem is Outlook and all schedule programs don’t have space between meetings. By 2pm there is a day’s worth of meeting time debt. 22 minutes ensures plenty of travel/buffer time between meetings.
- Stand up – Reminds everyone the goal isn’t to elaborate or be supplemental (See Scrum standing meetings). Make your point, make your requests, or keep quiet. If there is a disagreement, say so, but handle resolving it outside of the meeting.
- No laptops, but presenters and note takes. If you’re promised 22 minutes, and it’s all good stuff, you don’t need a secondary thing to be doing while you pretend to be listening. One person taking notes, and one person presenting if necessary.
- No phones, no exceptions – see above.
- Focus! Note off topic comments.� If you have an agenda, someone has to police it and this burden is on whoever called the meeting. Tangents are ok, provided they are short. The meeting organizer has to table tangents and arguments that go too far from the agenda.
- Send notes ASAP – With 22 minutes, there should be time, post meeting, for the organizer to send out notes and action items before the next meeting begins.
What do you think?
If you like the idea, help it spread. Nicole started a facebook group and a poster you can download (PDF).� Pass it on.
When/If they post her ignite talk online, I’ll post it here.
Over on my post Do constraints help problem solving, Aaron asked:
I’m currently completing a dissertation titled ‘Development in Product Design is driven by a response to changing constraints rather than innovation’ for my 3rd year BA Product Design course. You have stated that constraints can be ‘eliminated on purpose’, I can understand how they can be created but not eliminated? have you got any example of this in practice?
The best attitude to have when trying to solve problems is that everything is negotiable. Just because someone says the car they want you to design must be red and ten feet tall, or done by Friday doesn’t mean it actually needs to be those things. Most constraints people give us are soft and vague: they haven’t been rigorously tested, pushed or probed to find the real boundaries.
Maybe instead of being ten feet tall, what they really want is a car they can fit comfortably in, given that the client is Cleavland Cavalier’s Shaquille Oneal.
And perhaps it’s not a red car they want, but just a car that looks cooler than their neighbors car.
Or instead of it all being done Friday, only one important part needs to be done, but the rest can be done by Monday.
People confuse being specific with being accurate. Having details and numbers doesn’t mean you understand why those things are the right choices.
The trick in creative work, especially with clients, is how to explore their constraints in such a way that you do not annoy them, but that you understand the problem sufficiently well that you get at core of the problems they need to solve. And then get them to happily acknowledge these are the true problems, rather than assuming their description of their problems is sufficiently well formed to be the true target. The reason why so many projects fail is the lack of this skill on all sides: clients, executives, designers, engineers and customers all stink at this process, and dismiss it as irrelevant.
The fancy word for this is requirements elicitation. But it really just means thinking hard and carefully about requirements, understanding they are a kind of design unto themselves. Someone has to diligently sort through those that contradict, that are poorly formed as well as those that are unnecessary. Prototyping and sketching helps sort this out, but that’s just part of the process.
The best book I’ve ever seen on this is Exploring Requirements, By Weinberg. It should be required reading for anyone who solves problems for anyone else.
But the big problem is, of the few phrases more boring in this world than project management, requirements gathering is definitely one of them. It needs a slicker name. I hate jargon but I’d be all for something snazzy that gets them to care more about this kind of thinking. (Require-magic? Constraint-O-Rama? Hmmm).
Sometimes you can find a way to make two different constraints reduce down to one, making the problem simpler to solve. A constraint (e.g. requirement) might not be eliminated, but can be bent, shifted, twisted, rephrased, or entirely manipulated (See Kobyiash Maru) to serve your purposes.
A favorite example: for decades the problem with bringing the internet into developing countries was the expense of digging tunnels to put in power, phone and cable lines. The advent of cell phones, where towers are built above ground and no wires are needed, eliminated the constraints around digging and cabling. For many people in the world today their first phones, and first web browsers, are cell phones. A constraint was entirely eliminated by design.
Good ideas can sometimes eliminate seemingly immovable constraints.
I don’t watch much TV, but one of my favorite things to watch is Craig Ferguson’s Late Late show on CBS.
He’s been on after Letterman there for years and despite how funny he is, and how good the show is, very people seem to have ever heard of the guy.
The LA Times just did a great piece about him and the show that captures much of why I like it so much:
“We have no promotion, we’ve got no money — it’s the cheapest budget of any of the late-night shows — probably Carson Daly’s too. We get nothing. But we do have a huge advantage in that they let us do what we want. And I would take that trade.”
The lack of autonomy always explains mediocrity. In companies, in teams, in movies and on TV. It’s often the corners, where fewer people are looking, that the good stuff is happening.
Given the freedom he clearly has, there is something wonderfully unhinged and real about his behavior on the show, something unlike anything else on major television. His monologues in particular are more like live stand-up comedy with an A-list comic working a B-list town, free to take risks, than the top tier late night shows where the star and the staff can’t hide the weight of national Nielsen ratings on every syllable. He’s something of an opposite of Jay Leno, who has always seemed so stiff and formulaic to me. Conan I always liked, but Ferguson is a bit darker, with a sharper blade, and it’s never quite clear what’s going to happen.
Read the full article here, or jump right in and check out his show.
Found this nice observation on work culture, that could fit in the ever growing asshole driven development list:
HiPPO – Highest Paid Person’s Opinion Wins:
“HiPPO’s rule the world when it comes to creating customer experiences. And that’s a bad thing. No matter what you think the optimal customer experience should be on the website it is quite likely that you walk into a meeting room, or office, and regardless of your competence the HiPPO decides what goes on the site.”
This is part of a longer post on how to overcome this for marketers, called Experiment or Go Home.
It’s a common thing among high level managers to poke at visual design issues – it’s an easy way to give the pretense they’re involved, or to remind people they still have power, without doing much work.
(via Bhooshan, via Dan)
In a series of posts, called readers choice, I write onwhatever topics people submit and vote for. If you dig this idea, let me know if the comments, and submit your ideas and votes.
This week’s reader’s choice post: My biggest professional mistakes.
I’ve been thinking about this post for weeks, as I have many mistakes to pick from.
I do try very hard to learn from them, but the ones listed below have stuck with me more than others. In some cases they are mistakes I’m likely still making now.
Here are my top mistakes:
- Not staying with the same boss/group. When I was there (‘94 to ‘03), after a long stint on the IE team, I jumped around Microsoft every couple of years, putting my curiosity and passions ahead of climbing ladders. I wanted a diversity of experiences – I had four different job titles in nine years at Microsoft – but this made it harder to get promoted and, in some cases, to earn respect in the MSFT culture. The advice I give people all the time is pick your manager first. A great manager will negate most other work problems, whereas an awful manager will negate most other work pleasures. Good managers get promoted and often their best people rise with them. For what I do now, my diversity of experience is an asset, but my career at Microsoft suffered for it. From an industry/career perspective, continuing to work for Joe Belfiore, Chris Jones or Hadi Partovi would have been a wiser move.
- Abandoning my network. When I moved from job to job at Microsoft I basically abandoned most of the friends and contacts I’d made. I liked many of these people and built trust with them, but I was too much of a loner, and in my early 20s just didn’t understand the value of those connections and relationships until they were gone. I worked on the early days of the web, ‘94 to ‘99, and met tons and tons of people at other companies and web start-ups, but didn’t understand what that could have meant for my own learning, growth and connections. I still struggle with it now, as I’m very self-reliant and tend towards introversion, but there is a kind of respect granted to people by simply indicating you remember who they are. I try to reply to every email I get and acknowledge any nod of recognition, as in a way my fan base is my extended network.
- Doubts about self promotion. My greatest struggle as an independent is how to sell myself to others while still keeping my sense of integrity and dignity intact. I believe in work and that good work gets spread more easily than the rest. But being a writer is tough – there is a ridiculous amount of competition for people’s attention and book buying dollars. To succeed I have to help it along. I know Walt Whitman sold his books door to door, and even wrote anonymous reviews of his own books. But I’m no Walt Whitman. And I don’t like people who a) are better at sales than at making whatever it is they are selling, b) who promise the impossible to create sales, or c) shamelessly inflame and hype purely to generate attention. My mistake here, given how long I’ve been online, is seeing others who have had more success, with less talent and quality of work, because they have fewer doubts about self-promotion. But I don’t think I want more book sales or web traffic if I have to lose my self-respect to get it. I know these are not mutually exclusive (e.g. subscribing to this blog or finding me on twitter could be easier), but I struggle with finding the line every day.
- (Not) giving fans a way to be fans. Related to #3, I know some of you would call yourselves fans of my work. Or at least one of my books. But there’s no fan club, or fan list or any easy way for people to be rewarded for feeling this way. This is oh so dumb. I’d love to do more to reward people who are my supporters, and do more to help them spread the word, but I don’t know quite how to make this happen, in part because of #3. I am truly grateful and try to use this blog (and this reader’s choice thing) as a way to give back. But I suspect there’s more I can do. If you’re a fan, how can I help you to spread word of my work? I’m all ears.
- Not publishing my novel. My ambition is to write about everything. I don’t want to be just a management writer, or creativity author dude. I want to be, simply, a great writer.� I want to work to be smart, honest and expressive enough to write well about almost anything, and apply the way I think about the world to as many things as possible, The only way to develop into this is to keep writing about different things (which explains the diversity of topics here). I have a novel I’ve kicked around for years, and publishing it, even by myself, even if it sucks, demonstrates I can attack writing challenges wider than what I’ve done before. One of my goals for 2010 is to finish it up and get it out there.
- Not following in Tufte’s footsteps.My primary goal is to write, and I will speak, teach and consult to make that possible. I’ve toyed with the seminar business for years, and I’ve studied what Edward Tufte and others have done. In Tufte’s case, he does the same basic full day lecture in several cities, for ~$380 per person, and fills 800+ person halls. The numbers here speak for themselves. I’m sure he started small and grew this business, as I would have to do to even attempt anything like his level of success. But managing the logistics, promotion, etc. of this has very little appeal compared to the simplicity of being a for-hire speaker at other people’s events.Yet I know if I had an agent, given my resume, I’d bet they demand I start doing something like this already. Once a machine like this is running, the creative costs for me would be low, and the revenue stream would be useful in driving me to take bigger risks as a writer.
- Not learning to draw. I’m a visual thinker, at least some of the time.When I work with people on anything, I work at whiteboards and on big sheets of paper. But I can’t actually draw with sufficient aesthetics to warrant posting them here, or including them in books. This is a liability. But it’s one I plan to correct this year, as one of my goals for 2010 is to learn to draw. I’m working from Drawing on the Right side of the brain, and it’s going well so far.
- I’m a creative lone wolf. I love the idea of an Algonquin Round Table or the Inklings, a group of creatives who meet regularly and help each other with their work. I don’t have one and never have. There are people I get feedback from now and then, but I’ve failed to build a group, or join one, that I rely on or contribute to. Writers are just weirdos, I think, and I include myself in this. We’re an annoying, arrogant, needy bunch. Most of the groups I come across are people mostly in other professions who dabble in creative pursuits, and those conversations rarely put anyone on equal footing. I’ve rarely had mentors in my life, although I do see the value and wish I knew someone I respected who was interested in playing that role. Or had a group of talent folks with mutual respect, who help each other produce more and better work.
I have some very dramatic and entertaining failures in my professional life, but they were momentary things. It’s these mistakes above that stay with me and, in some cases, are ones I’m still making. I think about them often perhaps because it’s not too late, and if I could sort them out, everyone would win.
Stephen Fry: If an alien was looking down on us and inspecting our language they would see the worst things we do on this planet is we torture, we kill, we abuse, we harm people, we’re cruel, and those are the things of which we should be ashamed.
Among the best things we do is we breed children, we raise them, we make love to each other, we adore each other, we are affectionate and fond of each other.
How odd the language for the awful things is used casually all the time, ‘oh the traffic was agony’,'it was hell’, ‘it was cruel’, ‘it was torture waiting in line’ You use words like torture? That’s the worst word.
Yet if you use the F word, which is the word for generating the species, for showing physical affection to one another, then we’re taken off the air and accused of being wicked,and irresponsible and a bad influence to children.
Now we’re part of this culture so we often don’t question it, but if you think of someone from outside… it is very strange.
Craig Ferguson: We are very weird fuckers indeed.
From the most excellent late show with Craig Ferguson (youtube).