Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Mr. Jenkins has clearly struck a nerve. Its the kind of pandering that drives clicks and
sells ads, which makes that a job well done for the Guardian. But its also nonsense.
Theres no proof that organizations benefit from meetings? You can only say something
like that when youre speaking too generally for anyone to know what youre talking
about. Because otherwise - did you hear that, sales teams? Theres no proof those client
meetings help your company. Go ahead and cancel them! Hospital workers, stop wasting
your time in those shift-change meetings! You should know what to do without talking to
each other so much - go heal people already! Boards? Board meetings are for losers.
Just use chat and email to manage all your governance duties.
When you get specific about the kind of meeting youre talking about, the generic
meetings waste time or you must have 5 people or less statements become
ridiculous, and people who complain about meetings in general sound like childish
whingers.
This doesnt mean that meetings in general work great and that theres no problem to
solve here. It just means that there isnt a singular meeting problem that has a simple
meeting solution.
Mr. Jenkins correctly points out that when you invite 20 people to a meeting designed
for 5, it doesnt work anymore. Well, duh. His conclusion is that meetings dont work. A
more useful conclusion is that if youre going to invite 20 people, you should run a
meeting designed to work for 20 people. Thats entirely doable, but its also a very
different meeting.
Which raises the question: what are the different kinds of meetings out there? If it isnt
useful to provide guidelines for all meetings, is it at least possible to establish useful
guidelines for a certain type of meeting? Or do we really need to look at each and every
single meeting from first principles?
This question has driven much of our work over the past 10 years.
We found that there is a core structure underlying all successful meetings, acting
as a kind of skeleton. Every meeting needs bones, but after that, the kind of animal you
get on top of those bones can vary wildly. A fish is not a bird is not a kangaroo, despite
the fact that they all have a head and a tail.
We found that meetings work together, and that looking at individual meetings in
isolation leads to misunderstandings. Its like studying a single bee; the drones dance
doesnt make a lot of sense unless you know that there are other bees watching.
Meetings are designed to beget action that is evaluated and built upon in subsequent
meetings, and the sequence and cadence at which these meetings occur drives the
momentum of that action. Looking only at a single meeting means you miss the clues
that lead to the honey.
We work with facilitators and experts to design agendas and guidebooks for running
specific meetings. Weve seen where the structures look the same, and where they
differ. There are lots of specific ways to run a status meeting, but even though there's a
lot of variety between them, every status meeting still looks way more like every other
status meeting than it does like any strategic planning session. Mammals are more like
other mammals than any of them are like a fish.
And of course we work with clients and hear concerns about all those things that the
experts dont talk about, like how to lead a decent meeting when the group thinks
meetings arent cool, or how to prepare in advance when your goal is to wow everyone
during the meeting. We know people worry about how to walk those fine lines between
inclusiveness and efficiency, and between appropriate framing and facilitation on the one
hand, and manipulation on the other. We hear how they experience specific meetings in
the context of getting real work done, and can see how priorities shift between getting
the content right and getting people connected.
A Taxonomy for Meetings
From all of this, weve developed a taxonomy for meetings that we use to help answer
these questions:
To build our taxonomy, we started with a set of 6 types and a list of all the different kind
of meetings we could think of, then tried to match them up.
This was frustrating. No matter which list we started with, we always found an example
that didnt fit within a few minutes.
For example, Google highlights this list of the 6 Types of Meetings by MeetingSift as the
definitive list. Its very similar to many of the other lists out there.
Because we are focused on driving tangible business results, we found we needed to get
more specific. In the end, we found that there were three major factors that impact how
to approach a meeting.
Meeting Intention
The intention behind a meeting is most often expressed as the meetings purpose and
desired outcomes. In other words, why do people run this kind of meeting? What is it
meant to create?
There are two major outcomes for any meeting: a human connection and a work
product. We found that many attempts to categorize meetings dealt only with the work
product, which often led to bad advice.
Our taxonomy attempts to look at both kinds of outcomes when describing the meeting
intention.
The Format
When we first started looking at meeting format, we used a standard breakdown of
formal and informal to help distinguish between the board meetings and the team
meetings, but we abandoned that pretty quickly because it didnt hold up in practice.
In practice, we found that while boards have rules that they must follow by law, and
they do, that this didnt necessarily mean that the majority of the meeting followed any
very strict structure. Many board meetings actually include lots of free-form
conversation, which is then briefly formalized to address the legal requirements.
It turns out that formal and informal told us more about a participants perception of
social anxiety in a meeting than it did about the type or format of a meeting. I
experience stand-ups and interviews as informal, largely because Im in charge and am
confident of my role in these meetings. I doubt everyone I interview considers it an
informal chat, though, and imagine the stand-up may feel pretty uptight to someone
who wasnt used to it.
Instead of formal and informal, we found that the strength of the governing rituals
and rules had a clearer impact on the meetings success. By this measure, the daily
stand-up is highly ritualistic, board meetings and brainstorming sessions abide by
governing rules but not rigidly so, and initial sales calls and team meetings have very
few prescribed boundaries.
This still didnt quite explain all the variation we saw in meeting format, however. When
we looked at the project status update meeting, we realized it shared some
characteristics with the board meeting, but these project meetings arent governed by
rules and laws in the same way. And while the intention for project updates is always
the sameto share information about project work status and manage emerging
changetheres a ton of variation in how people run project status updates. Some
teams are very formal and rigid, while others are nearly structure free. This means our
governing rituals criteria didnt work here.
The format characteristic all project status update meetings do share, and that youll
also see with board meetings, is a dislike of surprises. No project manager wants to
show up to the weekly update and get surprised by how far off track the team is, or how
theyve decided to take the project in some new direction. Board members hate this too.
For these meetings, surprises are bad bad bad!
Surprises are bad for project updates, but other meetings are held expressly
for the purpose of finding something new. The innovation meeting, the get-to-know
you meeting, the problem solving meeting all hope for serendipity. Going into those
meetings, people dont know what theyll get, but they try to run the meeting to
maximize their chances of something great showing up by the time theyre done.
So, when categorizing meetings based on the meeting format, we looked at both:
The question behind these criteria is: what kind of reasonable assumptions can we make
about how well these people will work together to achieve the desired goal?
Remember: every meeting has both a human connection outcome and a work outcome.
This has many significant design impacts. For example, in meetings with group members
that know each other already, you can spend less meeting time on building connection.
We dont do introductions in the daily huddle; we assume the team handled that outside
the meeting.
In meetings where the work product is arguably far more important than the human
connection, its not always necessary for people to like one another or even remember
each others' names as long as the meeting gets them all to the desired goal efficiently.
A formal incident investigation meeting does not need the person under investigation to
know and like the people on the review board to achieve its goal.
By contrast, some meetings only go well after the team establishes mutual respect and
healthy working relationships. The design of these meetings must nurture and enhance
those relationships if they are to achieve the desired outcomes. Weekly team meetings
often fail because people run them like project status updates instead of team meetings,
focusing too heavily on content at the expense of connection, and their teams are
weaker for it.
After much slotting and wrangling, we found there were three ways our assumptions
about the people in the room influenced the meeting type.
CONTENT
A design workshop for creating a new logo will deal with different content than one for
developing a new country-sponsored health plan or one for creating a nuclear
submarine. At the human level, however, each of these design workshops needs to
accomplish the same thing by engaging the creative and collaborative genius of the
participants in generating innovative solutions. Similarly, project meetings in every field
look at time, progress, and budget. The content changes, but the core goals and format
do not.
GROUP SIZE
This one is like logistics. You absolutely have to change how you run a meeting with 20
people from how you led the same meeting with 5. But again, the goals, the sequence of
steps, the governing rituals - none of that changes. In general, smaller meetings are
easier to run and more successful on a day-to-day basis. But if you legitimately need 20
people involved in that decision, and sometimes you do, that is an issue of scale rather
than kind.
OPERATING CONTEXT
What comes before the meeting and whats happening in the larger ecosystem can have
a huge impact on how a team approaches a meeting. A decision-making meeting held in
times of abundance feels radically different than one you run to try and figure out how
to save a sinking ship. Even so, the underlying principles for sound decision making
remain the same. Some situations absolutely make it way harder to succeed, but they
dont, in our opinion, make it a fundamentally different kind of meeting.
As we do the work of our organizations, we learn. The plans we made on day one may
work out the way we expected, but maybe not. New stuff comes up and before too long
it becomes obvious that we need to adjust course.
All of these meetings involve an established group of people, with perhaps the
occasional guest. Most happen at regular and predictable intervals, making up the
strategic and operational cadence of the organization.
These meetings all follow a regularized pattern; each meeting works basically like the
last one and teams know what to expect. Because the participants and the format are all
known, these meetings often require less up-front planning and less specialized
facilitation expertise to succeed.
Meeting Format
Team cadence meetings follow a regular pattern or standard agenda, which can be very
ritualistic. Team meetings should surface new information and challenges, but big
surprises are not welcome here. (Unless theyre super awesome!) These meetings are
about keeping an established team personally connected and moving towards a common
goal, and not about inspiring major change.
PROGRESS CHECKS
Intention
Meeting Format
Project updates follow a regular pattern. Some are very strict, others less so; this varies
by the team and the kind of work they do. Surprises are entirely unwelcome. Any major
surprise will cause a meeting failure and derail the planned agenda.
ONE-ON-ONES
Intention
Meeting Format
One-on-ones are the loosey goosiest meetings in this set. Experienced and dedicated
leaders will develop an approach to one-on-ones that they use often, but the intimate
nature of these meetings defies rigid structure. People tend not to enjoy surprises in
one-on-ones, but they infinitely prefer to learn surprising news in these meetings rather
than in a team or governance cadence meeting. If youre going to quit or fly to the moon
or youve just invented the cure to aging, youre way better off telling your manager
privately before you share that with the board.
ACTION REVIEWS
Intention
Meeting Format
Action reviews are highly ritualistic; these are the kind of meetings that inspire the use
of the word ritual. The action review is a tool for continuous learning; the more
frequently these are run and the tighter the team gets, the faster they learn and
improve. Teams can and will change how they run these meetings over time based on
what theyve learned, and this avid pursuit of change for the better is itself part of the
ritual. Action reviews take surprise in stride. The whole point is to learn and then refine
future action, so while huge surprises may cause chagrin, they are embraced as lessons
and used accordingly.
Meeting Format
Governance cadence meetings are highly structured. When run professionally, there is
always an agenda, it is always shared in advance, and minutes get recorded.
Governance meetings are NOT the time for surprises. In fact, best practice for important
board meetings includes making sure everyone coming to that meeting gets a personal
briefing in advance (see Investigative or One-on-Ones below) to ensure no one is
surprised in the meeting. A surprise in a governance cadence meeting means someone
screwed up.
Because these meetings are scheduled as needed with whomever is needed, there is a
lot more variation in format between meetings. This is the realm of participatory
engagement, decision and sense-making activities, and when the group gets larger,
trained facilitation.
IDEA GENERATION
Intention
Meeting Format
These meetings start with the presentation of a central premise or challenge, then jump
into some form of idea generation. There are loads of idea generation techniques, all of
which involve a way for participants to respond to a central challenge with as many
individual ideas as possible. Unlike workshops or problem solving meetings, the group
may not attempt to coalesce or refine their ideas in the meeting. Here, idea volume
matters more than anything else. Organizations run these meetings when they arent
sure what to do yet; the whole meeting is an entreaty to serendipity. As such, there are
few governing principles beyond the rule to never interfere with anyone elses
enthusiasm.
PLANNING MEETINGS
Intention
Create plans
Secure commitment to implementing the plans
Examples
Strategic Planning
Campaign Planning (Marketing)
Product Roadmap Planning
and so on. Every group that makes things has a planning meeting.
Expected Participation Profile
Planning meetings often involve an existing team, but also involve other people as
needed. Depending on the size and scope of the plans under development, these
meetings are led by the project owner or by an outside facilitator. Participants are
expected to actively collaborate on the work product. They may or may not have
established relationships; if not, some time needs to be spent helping people get to
know each other and understand what each of them can contribute. That said, these
meetings are about getting a job done, so relationships dont get central focus.
Meeting Format
Planning meetings vary depending on the kind of plan theyre creating, but generally
start with an explanation of the overall goal, an analysis of the current situation, and
then work through planning details. Planning meetings end with a review and
confirmation of the plan created. Planning meetings are not governed by rules nor do
they follow specific rituals; the meeting format is dictated more by the planning format
than anything else. Because planning meetings happen very early in an endeavors life
cycle, successful meetings design for serendipity. Anything you can learn during this
meeting that makes the plan better is a good thing!
WORKSHOPS
Intention
Group formation
Commitment and clarity on execution
One or more tangible results; real work product comes out of workshops
Examples
Meeting Format
Smaller kickoffs may follow a simple pattern and be held in the teams regular meeting
space, but many workshops take place in a special location; somewhere off site, outside,
or otherwise distinct from the normal work environment. All these meetings start with
introductions and level-setting of some kind: a group exercise, a review of the project
goals, and perhaps a motivational speech from the sponsor. Then, the team engages in
a series of exercises or activities in pursuit of the work product. Since these meetings
are long, coffee and cookies may be expected. Workshops conclude with a review of the
work product, and often a reflective exercise. That said, while the basic pattern for a
workshop is fairly standard, these are bespoke meetings that do not adhere to any
particular rituals. The people who plan and facilitate the meeting work hard to create
opportunities for serendipity; they want the team to discover things about each other
and the work that inspire and engage them.
PROBLEM SOLVING
Intention
Incident Response
Strategic Issue Resolution
Major Project Change Resolution
Expected Participation Profile
These meetings involve anyone who may have information that helps the group find a
solution and anyone who will need to implement the solution. Depending on the urgency
of the situation, the meeting will be led by the person in charge (the responsible leader)
or a facilitator. Everyone present is expected to collaborate actively, answering all
questions and diligently offering assistance. Tight working relationships can help these
meetings go more easily, and participants that establish trust can put more energy into
finding solutions since they worry less about blame and personal repercussions. That
said, these meetings need the participation of the people with the best expertise, and
these people may not know each other well. When this happens, the meeting leader
should put extra effort into creating safety in the group if they want everyones best
effort.
Meeting Format
Problem solving meetings begin with a situation analysis (what happened, what
resources do we have), then a review of options. After the team discusses and selects
an option, they create an action plan. Weve all seen the shortest version of this meeting
in movies, when the police gather outside of the building full of hostages and collaborate
to create their plan. Problem solving meetings follow this basic structure, which can be
heavily ritualized in first responder and other teams devoted to quickly solving problems.
These strict governing procedures get looser when problems arent so urgent, but the
basic pattern remains. In a problem solving meeting, the ugly surprise already
happened. Now the team welcomes serendipity, hoping a brilliant solution will emerge.
DECISION MAKING
Intention
A documented decision
Commitment to act on that decision
Examples
Meeting Format
Decision making meetings involve the consideration of options and the selection of a
final option. Unlike problem solving meetings that include a search for good options, all
that work to figure out the possible options happens before the decision making
meeting. In many cases, these meetings are largely a formality intended to finalize and
secure commitment to a decision thats already been made. Ritual is high, and surprises
unwelcome. In other situations, the group is weighing multiple options and seeking to
make a selection in the meeting. There still shouldnt be any big surprises, but theres a
whole lot more flexibility. For example, corporate leadership teams run decision-making
meetings when faced with unexpected strategic challenges. Many of these teams revert
to a structure-free conversational meeting approach; just talking it out until they reach
a decision. Unfortunately for them, teams make the best decisions when their meetings
follow a formal decision-making methodology.
These meetings are all designed to transfer information and intention from one person
or group to another. They are scheduled by the person who wants something with the
people they want to influence or get something from.
At the surface, that sounds Machiavellian, but the intention here is rarely nefarious.
Instead, these meetings often indicate a genuine interest in learning, sharing, and
finding ways to come together for mutual benefit.
Because each of these meetings involves some form of social evaluation, the format and
rituals have more to do with etiquette than regulations or work product, although this is
not always the case.
Job Interviews
Project Discovery Meetings
Incident Investigations
Market Research Panels
Expected Participant Profile
These meetings are led by an interviewer. Participants include the people being
interviewed and sometimes a set of observers. Engagement in interviews may feel
conversational, but it always follows a clear question-response structure. Most
interviewers work to develop a rapport with the people theyre interviewing, since people
often share more freely with people they perceive as friendly and trustworthy. That said,
many information gathering meetings work fine without rapport, because the person
sharing information is expecting to benefit from it in the future. For example, if a doctor
asks a patient to describe their symptoms, the patient does so willingly because they
expect the doctor will use that information to make them feel better.
Meeting Format
Many interviews are governed by rules regarding privacy, non-disclosure, and discretion.
These formalities may be addressed at the beginning or end of the session. Otherwise,
there are no strong patterns for an information gathering session. Instead, people
regularly working in these meetings focus on asking better questions. Like idea
generation meetings, information gathering meetings delight in serendipity.
A new agreement
Commitment to further the relationship
Examples
Meeting Format
The format for these meetings is entirely dependent on the situation. Formal treaty
negotiations between countries follow a very structured and ritualistic format.
Negotiations between individual leaders, however, may be hashed out on the golf
course. These meetings are a dance, so while surprises may not be welcome, they are
expected.
INTRODUCTIONS
Intention
Meeting Format
There are no strict rules for meetings of this type as a whole, but that doesnt make
them ad-hoc informal events. On the contrary, sales teams, company founders, and
young professionals spend many long hours working to "hone their pitch. They hope
this careful preparation will reduce the influence of luck and the chances of an unhappy
surprise. The flow of the conversation will vary depending on the situation. These
meeting can go long, get cut short, and quickly veer into tangents. Its up to the person
who asked for the meeting to ensure the conversation ends with a clear next step.
Meeting Format
Most of these meetings begin with mingling and light conversation. Then, the organizers
will call for the groups attention and begin the prepared part of the meeting. This could
follow a traditional agenda, as they do in a Toastmasters meeting, or it may include a
group exercise or a presentation by an invited speaker. Theres time for questions, and
then more time at the end to resume the casual conversations begun at the meeting
start. People in attendance are there to learn about the topic, but also to make
connections with others that create opportunities. Many hope for serendipity.
TRAINING SESSIONS
Intention
Meeting Format
Training session formats vary widely. In the simplest form, the session involves the
trainer telling participants what they believe they need to learn, and then participants
ask questions. Instructional designers and training professionals can make training
sessions way more engaging than that.
BROADCAST MEETINGS
Intention
Meeting Format
Broadcast meetings start and end on time. They begin with brief introductions which are
followed by the presentation. Questions may be answered periodically, or held until the
last few minutes. Because these meetings include announcements or information
intended to inform later action, participants often receive follow-up communication: a
copy of the slides, a special offer or invitation, or in the case of an all-hands meeting, a
follow-up meeting with the manager to talk about how the big announcement impacts
their team. The people leading a broadcast meeting do not expect and do not welcome
surprises.
Frankly, I hesitated to include broadcast meetings and training as types, since both
encompasses such a broad range of experiences. Also, these meetings arent
collaborative nor generative in the way that other meetings are; they dont create new
outcomes for everyone involved. They stretch the definition of what Id consider a
meeting.
That said, I have heard people call broadcasts and training sessions meetings on
multiple occasions. The all-staff meeting is usually just announcements, but people call
it a meeting. Project folks will schedule a meeting to go over the new system with a
client, and thats basically a lightweight training session.
a Coaching Session
a Mentorship Meeting
Design Workshops
Idea Create a whole bunch of ideas Examples: Participants assembled to fit need
Generation
Led by a facilitator or group leader
Ad Campaign Brainstorming
Session Collaborative engagement
User Story Brainstorming Relationship quality less important
Fundraiser Brainstorming Loosely structured, abides by the governing rules for brainstorming
Neighbor Dispute
Information To learn things that you can use to inform Participants represent different interests
Gathering later action Examples:
Led by an interviewer
Job Interviews Conversational engagement
Project Discovery Meetings Relationship quality less import to success; rapport matters more
Incident Investigations Governing rules for privacy, information use
Market Research Panels Question-Answer format
Serendipity welcome
Broadcasts To share information that inspires (or Participants invited based on role or interest
prevents) action Examples:
Meeting Types Intention Participation and Format
Surprises unwelcome
Now that youve seen the details, download this table as a spreadsheet.
Why a spreadsheet?
Since all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a "correct" one by
excessive elaboration. On the contrary following William of Occam he
should seek an economical description of natural phenomena. Just as the
ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great
scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark
of mediocrity.
George Box in 1976 Journal of the American Statistical Association
Or, stated more economically, "All models are wrong, but some are useful." We've
tried to hit a mark that's useful in a way that simpler lists were not. We invite your
feedback to tell us how we did.
The 17th Type: BIG Meetings and Conferences
Just when you think youve really broadened your horizons and been very thoroughly
inclusive, you meet someone who sets you straight. I recently had the pleasure of
meeting Maarten Vanneste, who is also a dedicated advocate for meeting design and
the meeting design profession. It turns out that while we are using the same words,
Maarten works in a very different world where a meeting might be a multi-day
conference with dozens of sessions and a highly paid keynote speaker or 10. In that
world, meeting planners handle logistics, room reservations, lighting requirements,
branding, promotions a wealth of detail that far exceeds anything we might worry
about for even the most involved strategic planning meeting.
Because its another example of how using a generic word like meeting leads to
bad assumptions. In case it isnt clear, on Lucid when we talk about meetings and
meeting design, were talking about the 16 types of day-to-day business meetings listed
above. Professional meeting planning is a whole different kettle of fish.
This is the story of two companies: ACME, makers of awesome products, and ABC Corp,
a company that needs what ACME makes, and all the people working in these two
companies that make business flow.
Peter tells Jill and the sales team about the upcoming demo with Sam at ABC.
Peter, Jill and Henri prepare before the demo with Sam at ABC.
Peter and Henri give a demo to Sam and Ellen. Ellen is impressed and asks for a quote.
Jill tells the CEO and the rest of the leadership team about the big ABC deal her sales team is working so
everyone can prepare.
Meeting 7: The Contract Negotiation (Type: Issue Resolution)
Peter sent an estimate and draft contract to Ellen, and shes looking for changes.
First, she wants a better price. Second, she wants a change to the product. Third,
her legal team wants additional insurance on the deal and full release of liability.
Fourth, her security team wants to conduct a security audit of ACMEs operations.
Peter goes over all the requests in his meeting with Ellen to make sure he
understands them, but hes in no position to authorize those changes. After the
meeting, he takes the requests back to Jill.
Peter discusses the contract with Ellen. Ellen wants a better contract.
The leadership team meets to decide how to respond to Ellen's contract demands. And they do!
Several more negotiation meetings and a security review later, and the deal is
signed!
Peter introduces Sam and Ellen to the ACME team: Gary, Henri, and Esme.
Sam escorts Gary, Henri, and Esme through a day of discovery meetings at ABC Corp.
With the background set, everyone works together to draft the project plan.
People from the implementation team suggest ways they can easily handle some
requirements, and identify items that will require extra time and creativity. They
begin a list of issues to solve and one of risks to manage. Starting from the
desired end date and working backwards, they work together to build out a draft
timeline that shows the critical path, times when theyll need committed resources
from ABC, and places where they just arent sure yet what theyll find. When they
feel they understand how the project will go as best they can, they review their
draft plan and assign action items. Gary will work on the project timeline,
matching their draft plan with available resources and factoring in holidays. Henri
will contact Sam to go over questions from the implementation team, and Esme
will schedule the kickoff meeting with the client team.
Gary, Henri, and Esme meet with the implementation team members to draft a project plan.
Next, both teams dig into the details. They go over the project plan ACME created
and suggest changes. They establish performance goals for how they expect to
use the product, making it clear what a successful implementation will look like.
They talk about how theyll communicate during the project and schedule a series
of project update meetings. They take breaks and get to know each other, and
share cookies. Then they get serious and talk about what might go wrong, and
outline what they can do now to increase their odds of success.
At the end, Ellen rejoins them and the group shares their updated project plan
with her. They explain changes they made and concerns they still have, and ask a
few questions. Finally, they go over exactly who does what next, and set clear
expectations about how and when everyone will see progress. With the kickoff
complete, they all adjourn to the local pub to relax and continue getting
acquainted.
Esme and Ellen lead team members from both companies through the project kickoff
Meeting 14: The ACME All Projects Update (Type: Progress Check)
Work is underway, and once per week Gary and the other project managers meet
with the implementation team to review progress. Since the implementation team
works on several projects at once, a problem with one project can impact progress
across several others. To keep these meetings focused and efficient, and to help
everyone visualize how all the pieces interact, the group meets in a room with a
full wall devoted to charting project activity. People move tasks around on the wall
to show progress, and mark new risks or issues with red dots. In less than 30
minutes, the group creates an updated status dashboard that anyone in the
company can now review when they walk by.
Happily for Gary, the ABC project is right on schedule. For now.
Gary, the other ACME PMs, and the ACME implementation team discuss project progress every week.
Belinda cant answer those questions, but she helps Gary relax and promises to
get a team together who can give him the guidance he needs.
Gary meets one-on-one with his boss Belinda, and they make a plan.
Meeting 17: What do we do with the ABC project? (Type: Problem Solving)
Belinda, Gary, and several people from the leadership team meet to figure out
how to handle this upset to the ABC project. A representative of the finance team
talks about how a major delay will impact the company, and the implementation
lead offers several suggestions for how they might rearrange the schedule and
team members to handle a delay. While no one wants to be whipped around by
these problems that arent their fault, the CEO is very clear that maintaining a
positive relationship with the ABC people (whoever that turns out to be) is the
highest priority. ACME wants this to be a profitable long-term relationship, so they
cant let a hiccup in the launch derail that. By the meetings end, they decide to
continue work, completing everything they can do without ABCs help. Then, if the
ABC situation doesnt resolve within the next two weeks, theyll put a hold on the
project. Gary leaves with clear instructions, and everyone understands how theyll
handle the situation in their departments.
Belinda, Gary, and the leadership team meet find a solution to the problems with the ABC project.
When Gary, Esme, and Sam meet, they each share their constraints and goals,
then focus on those places where they seem to be at an impasse. 90 minutes of
back and forth, and they reach a deal. The project deadline will move out 2 weeks
because of the delay at ABC, but in recompense for the missed deadline, ACME will
provide 4 additional training sessions at no charge for all the people at ABC that
were just reassigned and need to be brought up to speed. Its not perfect, but it
works and the project gets back on track.
Esme and Gary meet with Sam to negotiate how they'll finish the project.
ACME trainers teach the ABC team how to use the product.
Gary, Esme and the ACME team, along with Sam and the ABC team, meet with the
ABC leadership group. They present their progress, sharing slides with graphs of
tasks complete and milestones met. The leadership team asks questions along the
way, making sure they understand the implications of the upcoming product
launch. When everyone is satisfied, they turn to the CEO who is the decision
maker in this meeting.
Gary, Esme, Sam and their teams ask the new ABC CEO to approve the project. She does!
Everyone agrees that, for the most part, this was a successful project. The client is
happy, the product works well, and they made money. Still, there are lessons to
learn. Peter and Henri realize that they saw signs that the situation at ABC wasnt
stable in those first few conversations, but they were so eager to win the client
that they dismissed them. In the future, theyll know to pay attention more
closely. Gary and the implementation team discovered ways they could keep the
project running even when the client isnt responding, and theyll build that into
their next project plan. At the end of the meeting, the group walks away with a
dozen key lessons and ideas for experiments they can try to make future projects
even better.
The ACME team meets to discuss what they learned from the ABC project.
The ACME CEO talks about the ABC project with the ACME Board, and gets approval to pursue a new
market.
Esme reviews how the product is working out for the ABC team with Sam in the Quarterly Business
Review.
The ACME marketing team interviews Sam about his experience with their products for a case study.
Sam tells Esme she'll need to renew the contract with the new head of procurement. Esme gets ready.