While debates rage as to the effectiveness of meetings in general, and books have been written on meeting organization and management, I’ve found that often meetings go wrong before they even begin because the invitation is missing (or vague in) four critical components, without which the likelihood of full participation and effectiveness is diminished.
What are leading reasons for unproductive review sessions of project deliverables? One comes quickly to mind for me – how about when 90% of your invitees show up without having even glanced at the materials in advance. For one thing, holding a meeting in this environment is not only incredibly inefficient, but it is also unfair to those who have done their homework. In my last post, I suggested that it is a good idea to provide meeting attendees with an agenda before the meeting so they know what to expect, and to provide structure and direction to the meeting. […]
Holding requirement specification reviews is an activity that is critical to ensuring the quality of your deliverables. Review meetings aren’t typically “fun”, but they can be run smoothly and efficiently. They can also be excruciating if the the organizer and/or the attendees are not sufficiently prepared ahead of time. I plan to post a few things over the next few days that I have found work well for me in terms of preparing for formal review of a deliverable. Some of them may seem obvious, but it is astounding how many people – even among the executive rung – that […]
A meeting can be very productive. A meeting can be a veritable nightmare. A lot depends on the professionalism of the participants.
I’ve devised a list that I think provides a broad but helpful guide that, if followed by meeting attendees, will result in a quality meeting where objectives can be met, and the tearing out of hair by its roots by participants can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated.